Towards better representation of organic agriculture in life cycle assessment

Werf, Hayo M.G. van der; Knudsen, Marie Trydeman; Cederberg, Christel

doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0489-6

Cited by 227 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of these topics are well-covered in the literature comparing OA to conventional production (Schramski et al, 2013;Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017;Smith O. M et al, 2019). However, animal welfare has received less attention, despite promise as a key topic to represent OA in comparison to other systems (van der Werf et al, 2020). Our results demonstrate the usefulness of simple indicators that are quick to assess on-farm.…”

Section: Selected Indicators and Farm Management Topicsmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…The organic agriculture (OA) label, and its associated principals, standards, and country-specific laws, represents one of the most widespread voluntary environmental sustainability standard in the agricultural sector. Whilst primarily restricting the use of chemical inputs and fertilizers at a practice level, the standards are rooted in a precautionary ideological perspective on agriculture not simply as biomass production but rather the management of a multifunctional agroecological system (van der Werf et al, 2020). As interest has grown in broader sustainability, organic standards have also evolved to include wider ambitions across dimensions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within agricultural research, the benefits and disadvantages of OA in comparison to conventional production has received extensive attention. When compared to conventional production, the performance of OA hinges on a set of assumptions, such as the functional unit chosen for comparison, yield differences, the theme and dimension assessed, local contextual factors and the development of consumption patterns and demand (Meier et al, 2015;Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017;van der Werf et al, 2020). Less common are studies that focus purely on the OA sector (i.e., outside of a comparative focus with conventional farming).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Representative Farm-Based Sustainability Assessment of the Organic Sector in Switzerland Using the SMART-Farm Tool

Curran

Lazzarini

Baumgart

et al. 2020

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Selected Indicators and Farm Management Topicsmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Representative Farm-Based Sustainability Assessment of the Organic Sector in Switzerland Using the SMART-Farm Tool

Curran

Lazzarini

Baumgart

et al. 2020

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus, the ADEME advocates agroecology to reduce GHGEs. However, the LCA index is limited, favouring "high-input intensive agricultural systems and misrepresenting less intensive agro-ecological systems such as organic agriculture", notably due to a narrow perspective on the holistic functions of global agricultural systems, e.g., operational indicators for environmental issues are lacking [37].…”

Section: Food Processing and Carbon/water Footprintmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversely, it is also important to note that extensively managed grassland-based systems can provide crucial biodiversity habitats extended to wildlife species [71] but with higher GHGEs per unit of product compared to intensively managed systems [71]. The reason lies in the fact that "these 'units of product' usually focus on food or proteins and do not take into account other social and ecosystem services" (page 19) [71], i.e., lacking a holistic perspective, as also discussed by van der Werf [37].…”

Section: Intensive Livestockmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultra-Processed Foods and Food System Sustainability: What Are the Links?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global food systems are no longer sustainable for health, the environment, animal biodiversity and wellbeing, culinary traditions, socioeconomics, or small farmers. The increasing massive consumption of animal foods has been identified as a major determinant of unsustainability. However, today, the consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is also questioned. The main objective of this review is therefore to check the validity of this new hypothesis. We first identified the main ingredients/additives present in UPFs and the agricultural practices involved in their provision to agro-industrials. Overall, UPF production is analysed regarding its impacts on the environment, biodiversity, animal wellbeing, and cultural and socio-economic dimensions. Our main conclusion is that UPFs are associated with intensive agriculture/livestock and threaten all dimensions of food system sustainability due to the combination of low-cost ingredients at purchase and increased consumption worldwide. However, low-animal-calorie UPFs do not produce the highest greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs) compared to conventional meat and dairy products. In addition, only reducing energy dense UPF intake, without substitution, might substantially reduce GHGEs. Therefore, significant improvement in food system sustainability requires urgently encouraging limiting UPF consumption to the benefit of mildly processed foods, preferably seasonal, organic, and local products.

show abstract

Introducing ground cover management in pesticide emission modeling

Gentil-Sergent

Basset-Mens

Renaud-Gentié

et al. 2021

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ground cover management (GCM) is an important agricultural practice used to reduce weed growth, erosion and runoff, and improve soil fertility. In the present study, an approach to account for GCM is proposed in the modeling of pesticide emissions to evaluate the environmental sustainability of agricultural practices. As starting point, we include a cover crop compartment into the mass balance of calculating initial (within minutes after application) and secondary (including additional processes) pesticide emission fractions. The following parameters were considered: (i) cover crop occupation between the rows of main field crops, (ii) cover crop canopy density, and (iii) cover crop family. Two modalities of cover crop occupation and cover crop canopy density were tested for two crop growth stages, using scenarios without cover crops as control. From that, emission fractions and related ecotoxicity impacts were estimated for pesticides applied to tomato in Martinique and to grapevine in the Loire Valley (France). Our results show that the presence of a cover crop decreased on average the pesticide emission fraction reaching field soil by a factor of 3 compared to bare soil, independently of field crop and its growth stage, and cover crop occupation and density.When considering cover exported from the field, ecotoxicity impacts were reduced by around 65% and 90% compared to bare soil, respectively for grapevine and tomato, regardless of the emission distribution used. Since additional processes may influence emission distributions under GCM, such as run-off, leaching or preferential flow, further research is required to incorporate these processes consistently in our proposed GCM approach.

show abstract

Towards better representation of organic agriculture in life cycle assessment

Cited by 227 publications

References 50 publications

Representative Farm-Based Sustainability Assessment of the Organic Sector in Switzerland Using the SMART-Farm Tool

Representative Farm-Based Sustainability Assessment of the Organic Sector in Switzerland Using the SMART-Farm Tool

Ultra-Processed Foods and Food System Sustainability: What Are the Links?

Introducing ground cover management in pesticide emission modeling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About