Abstract
The objective of this study was to use life cycle assessment to estimate the environmental impacts (from farm to factory gate) of the 198 hard-coded line-items included in the food frequency questionnaire of the Adventist Health Study-2 survey and to assess differences among food groups. Life cycle inventories were created using existing data sources and primary data, and their global warming potential (GWP), land use, and water consumption impacts were assessed using the ReCiPe 2016 methodology. In addition to presenting the impacts according to weight and protein content across food groups, we include the novel addition of presenting impacts according to the NOVA classification indicating various levels of processing. Food categories were compared based on one kilogram of edible food, protein food sources were compared based on one kilogram of protein, and NOVA comparisons were based on one serving. In general, meats had the highest environmental impacts per both weight and protein content, while the lowest overall impacts per kilogram came from fruits. Meat analogs had the lowest overall impacts per kilogram of protein, contrary to expectations that additional processing would result in higher environmental impacts when compared to whole plant-based foods. Per serving, ultra-processed foods had the highest GWP, processed foods the highest land use, and minimally processed foods the highest water consumption. Results from this analysis were consistent with other studies. Results from this study suggest that meat and ultra-processed foods have the overall worst environmental impacts, but high water consumption in some minimally processed foods means that those should be carefully considered as well.
Highlights
This was accomplished through the assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGEs), land use, and water consumption of the foods included in the Adventist Health Study-2 (AHS-2) food frequency questionnaire (FFQ)
Results for global warming potential (GWP), land use, and water consumption per kilogram were entered into Excel for subsequent analysis
Group 4 consists of ultra-processed foods that are mostly formulations based on combinations of foods and additives, including soft drinks, packaged snacks, and pre-made frozen meals, that make use of substances extracted from foods through chemical and/or mechanical processing
Summary
The consequences of food systems are a key aspect to consider for the advancement of sustainable development goals [1]. Despite the potential for food systems to improve human health and protect the environment, they are threatening both [2]. The myriad environmental consequences of food production include deforestation, global warming, and eutrophication [7,8,9,10]. These and other impacts threaten to exceed the carrying capacity of Earth’s natural systems that create a safe operating space for humanity [11]. It is imperative that we understand the consequences of food choices
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
