28.12.2012 Views

LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

PLENARY SESSION 1: FOOD 8 th Int. Conference on <strong>LCA</strong> <strong>in</strong> the<br />

Agri-<strong>Food</strong> Sector, 1-4 Oct <strong>2012</strong><br />

In a second step the consumption sector of nutrition was split up <strong>in</strong>to different categories of consumed<br />

products. This calculation is based on food consumption statistics (Schweizerischer Bauernverband 2007)<br />

and life cycle assessment (<strong>LCA</strong>) data (Jungbluth <strong>et</strong> al., <strong>2012</strong>b).<br />

The contributions to the total impact of the different food items for the second step (bottom-up approach)<br />

are shown <strong>in</strong> Figure 2. Meat and fish account for about one quarter of the environmental impacts due to food<br />

consumption. Tog<strong>et</strong>her with milk and eggs, animal products account for nearly half of the environmental<br />

impacts. Coffee and alcohol are the most important s<strong>in</strong>gle products with<strong>in</strong> the category of beverages. This is<br />

due to the pesticides and copper applied dur<strong>in</strong>g the grow<strong>in</strong>g of the basic agricultural products. Transports,<br />

packages and process<strong>in</strong>g are of m<strong>in</strong>or importance for the overall environmental impacts.<br />

Figure 2. Importance of different product groups <strong>in</strong> total environmental impacts of nutrition evaluated with<br />

the ecological scarcity m<strong>et</strong>hod 2006 (Jungbluth <strong>et</strong> al., <strong>2012</strong>a; Jungbluth & Itten <strong>2012</strong>)<br />

The results for the top-down (share of nutrition <strong>in</strong> Figure 1) and bottom-up approaches (Figure 2) are<br />

compared <strong>in</strong> Figure 3. The overall differences are small. For some impact categories results differ because of<br />

the more general allocation schemes used <strong>in</strong> the EE-IOA.<br />

Figure 3. Comparison of top-down and bottom-up approaches accord<strong>in</strong>g to s<strong>in</strong>gle impact categories <strong>in</strong> the<br />

ecological scarcity m<strong>et</strong>hodology. Total eco-po<strong>in</strong>ts due to nutrition accord<strong>in</strong>g to the ecological scarcity<br />

m<strong>et</strong>hod 2006 per person and year.<br />

Based on the d<strong>et</strong>ailed analysis of this consumption doma<strong>in</strong>, it was <strong>in</strong>vestigated, by which percentage environmental<br />

impacts can be reduced due to a certa<strong>in</strong> change <strong>in</strong> consumer behaviour. In this paper we highlight<br />

and compare the reduction of total environmental impacts, if all consumers would:<br />

1. Buy locally<br />

2. Buy seasonally<br />

105

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!