Environmentally friendly food consumption: What does this mean?

Transcription

1 Environmentally friendly food consumption: What does this mean? Dr. Niels Jungbluth ESU-services Ltd., Uster, Switzerland ESU 17th SETAC Europe LCA Symposium Budapest, 28. February 2011

2 Page 2 Food and Environmental Impacts 37 MJ of Energy for 1 kg of Tomatoes? 7695 km for a Strawberry Yoghurt 3500 Litre of Water for 1 kg of Chicken

3 Contents Environmental impacts of food consumption Conclusions concerning food purchases from the consumers point of view Public interest Open research questions Page 3

4 Which questions to be answered? Levels of Consumer Decision Making (DML) All need fields (mobility, nourishing) Need field nourishing: meat or vegetables? Product group: tomatoes or carrots? Variants of one product: organic or greenhouse tomatoes? One product: How is it packed? Processing: salad or cooked? Page It 4is possible to address different types of questions, but not with one analysis

5 Which Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) emissions resources Page 5 environmental impacts carbon footprint (kg CO2-eq) ecological footprint (m2a) ecological scarcity 2006 (UBP) abiotic resources, incl. water nuclear energy fossil energy land occupation land transformation climate change ozone depletion toxicity summer smog acidification nutrification endocrine disruptors noise, odour, litter ionising radiation waste (incl. radioactive waste) It is necessary to apply LCIA methods that cover a range of environmental impacts Ecological Carbon Ecological Footprint: scarcity: footprint: Comprehensive, Easy to understand, easy to reflects understand, Internationally Swiss low policy workload, accepted, targets, used Lower for assessment globally of products, known, workload, only companies Not two comprehensive issues: and CO2 for the and whole land economy use For this presentation we use the eco-points

6 Page 6 Overall importance of nutrition in total 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% consumption of households energy demand climate change ecological scarcity services mobility health care housing, non-energy energy use in house clothing nutrition Nutrition causes about 30% of environmental impacts of consumption Carbon footprint and energy underestimates agricultural impacts

7 Share of product groups Animal products (meat, milk, eggs) are most important Luxury beverages like wine, coffee, alcoholics cannot be neglected Page 7

8 Environmental impacts of meat purchases Agricultural production dominates total impacts of meat products Page 8

9 Impacts of vegetable purchases All characteristics are important for plant products Air transports and heated greenhouse cause highest burdens for vegetables/fruits Page 9

10 Meals at canteen kitchens: ecological scarcity 2006 comparison of vegetarian and meat based recipes 9000 Canteen Meals: ø 6622 Pts. starch side dish vegetable side dish main dish Ecopoints/Meal /3 for vegetarian ø 2085 Pts braised meat beef, french fries chicken drumstick, courgette, french fries chop of pork, carrots, roesti lambstew and vegetables, carrots, french fries veal sliced in cream, carrots, roesti mean meat meals curry with vegetables and rice risotto lasagne wit vegetables spaetzle with vegetables tofu in cream, carrots, roesti mean vegetarian meals Vegetarian meals have considerable lower impacts Page 10

11 Conclusions for Consumers Eat vegetarian. Consumption of fish, meat and animal products should be reduced to 2 portions a 180 g a week Air transported products should be avoided Buy seasonal. Less products from heated greenhouse should be bought Reduce luxury products like wine, coffee and chocolate Consider energy in private transportation and the household Reduce wastage and overconsumption Page 11

12 Influencing consumers behaviour with LCA Knowledge is available for consumers LCA studies sometimes confusing if no clear result Lower options for reducing environmental impacts compared to other fields like mobility and housing People tend to follow the easy things and not the important things, e.g. recycling of packages instead reducing meat consumption Stress the points that are really important and not what is scientifically surprising Page 12

13 Public interest on LCA studies of food High public interest allows to teach life cycle thinking Many people mix health aspects and environmental aspects when looking at food Sensations, even if wrong, are more interesting than confirmation of former research Detailed comparisons should be more interesting for producers and distributors than for consumers Page 13

14 What we know LCA covering a range of environmental impacts is necessary, Carbon footprinting might be misleading Reduction of animal products is the main issue There is always an exception from the general rule Page 14

15 Outlook and open research questions Good models to address regional variation and specific types of emissions in agriculture More research on processed food and outdoor consumption is necessary (eating home is a phase out model) Level of sustainable meat consumption More LCA research on food ingredients like flavours More data on wastage in all stages and its inclusion in LCA are needed Page 15

16 Granted, my car consumes a lot... But, Your Californian asparagus needs also 5 liters per kg (in Switzerland)! Today I can enjoy the local asparagus, But it took me 950 liters of oil to travel 18'777 km to California! Information about our studies /publications/food/ Page Calculate 16 the impacts of Your food consumption

17 Annexe

18 Ecological Scarcity 2006 Result Weighting Characterisation Inventory eco points Swiss environmental legal targets Primary energy Biodiversity Climate change Ozone depletion Acidification Cancer and hereditary e. Estrogene potential Effectiveness Assessment of emissions to air, water and soil as well as resource uses Crude oil Uranium Wood Land occupation Fresh water Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) HCFC SO 2 NMVOC I-129 N total Endocrine disruptors Heavy metals Pesticides Hazardous waste Nuclear waste Page Aggregation 18 of exchanges according to the environmental scarcity defined in Swiss politics

19 eco-points per kg purchased 4'000 3'500 3'000 2'500 2'000 1'500 1' Combination of Product Characteristics Origin for Vegetables Consumption Packaging Conservation Agriculture 9'700 IP - Integrated Production GH - Greenhouse CH - Switzerland EU - Europe DF - Deep Frozen Org. - Organic past. - pasteurized - GH, Berne, fresh, plastic IP, Berne, fresh, paper IP, EU, DF, cardboard IP, world, fresh, cardboard Org., Berne, fresh, no packaging Easy evaluation of consumption patterns Page 19

20 Distribution of mineral water Deposited waste Production Natural resources Energy resources Emission into top soil Emission into ground water Emission into surface water Emission into air Use phase Distribution Delivery environmental scarcity 2006 points per litre of water Swiss bottling European bottling glass bottle, refill system glass bottle, one-way PET-bottle, 1.5 l, one-way water bottle, 18.9 l, refill system Transport, lorry, 100km Transport, lorry >16t, 1000km Transport, rail, 500km super market Home transport, passenger car Home transport, van cooling, in refrigerator cooling, in cold only bottled unit average mineral in CH Impacts of distribution vary considerably by point of sale Not feasible to assist comparisons without considering difference Page 20

21 Region Schweiz LKW Transport EU Schiffstransport Verkauf PET Glas, Einweg Glas, Mehrweg Pflanzenöle Umweltbelastungspunkte 2006 pro Liter Öl Sojaöl, US Sojaöl, RER Rapsöl, RER Produktion Rapsöl, CH Palmöl, MY Palmkernöl, MY Herkunft Verkauf Verpackung Sojaöl, BR 0 2'000 4'000 6'000 8'000 10'000 12'000 14'000 16'000 18'000 Unterschiede je nach Herkunft und Produkt Ähnlich hohe Belastungen wie Fleisch Page Seite 21 21

22 4.5 Plant oil production: Carbon Footprint kg CO2-eq per kg oil at plant rape oil CH rape oil RER palm oil MY palm kernel oil MY soybean oil BR soybean oil US Soya oil RER Page 22 fossil, fossil, non-co2 non-co2 CH4, biogenicch4, biogenic CO2 CO2, land CO2trans

23 Importance of consumer decisions Coffee consumption % 90% Milk kg CO2-Equivalents % 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Hot Water (Brewing) Transports (roastery to household) Retail Packaging Coffee Production % % 0.00 Espresso Black Coffee White Coffee Black Instant Coffee White Instant Coffee Espresso Black Coffee White Coffee Black Instant Coffee White Instant Coffee 0% Packages are often less relevant than other consumer decisions Page 23

24 Page 24 Indicators of food purchases City of Zurich 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% weight value ecological scarcity GWP non-renewable energy cumulative energy demand snacks tea ice cream beverages coffee colonials frozen convenience poultry fish eggs dairy products bakery bread vegetables, prepared fresh vegetables meat Meat, milk and coffee are a hot spots for environmental impacts

25 Lasagne production and user behaviour 35'000 30'000 25'000 warm-up storage in the Household transport (supermarket to household) Eco-points 2006 per kg lasagne 20'000 15'000 10'000 5'000 distribution packaging lasagne production 0 beef, frozen, 400g beef, chilled, 400g vegetarian, frozen, 400g beef, chilled, 400g beef, frozen, 400g standard microwave long storage Differences in production less obvious if full life cycle is evaluated Important differences in the use phase need to be addressed Page 25

26 Use of LCA for determining the embodied emissions of Switzerland Trade statistics combined with Indicator results for single products based on LCA studies Calculation of embodied emissions for all imports and exports to Switzerland Page 26

27 Balance of Swiss embodied emissions for food products 7 11, beverages Mio. tonnes of CO2-eq in , miscellaneous edible products 08, feeding stuff for animals 07, coffee, tea, cocoa, spices 06, sugars, sugar preparations and honey 05, vegetables and fruit 04, cereals and cereal preparations 03, fish, crustaceans, molluscs, etc. 02, dairy products and birds' eggs - Import Export 01, meat and meat preparations 00, live animals Page 27

28 Results for the nourishing sector Imports of embodied greenhouse gas emissions are much higher than exports and add 9% to total direct Swiss emissions Animal products and transports with the air plane are important Page 28