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

PARALLEL SESSION 7A: CONSUMERS 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
Communicating LCA results to the interested consumer -
development of a criteria-based meat guide
Elin Röös
Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden, E-mail:
elin.roos@slu.se
ABSTRACT
A low carbon footprint of meat is generally associated with low impacts across animal species in many environmental impact categories,
but there is a risk of conflicts with categories such as biodiversity loss and pesticide use. Therefore, this project sought to develop
a consumer guide that could assist Swedish consumers in making less environmentally harmful meat choices and that could
also act as a communication tool, raising awareness of the different environmental aspects of meat production and potential conflicts
with animal welfare. Four indicators (carbon footprint, biodiversity, use of pesticides and antibiotics and animal welfare) were chosen
to represent the impact on the environment and animal welfare from different choices of meat and other protein sources. For each
indicator, criteria were developed that placed the products included in the meat guide in one of three different groups, represented by
the well-known traffic light system of red/yellow/green.
Keywords: animal welfare, biodiversity, carbon footprint, consumer guide, meat
1. Introduction
The carbon footprint (CF) of meat has received increasing attention in the quest for more sustainable eating
habits. While a low CF of meat is generally associated with low impacts across animal species in many
environmental impact categories, such as eutrophication, acidification and land use, there is a risk of conflicts
with categories such as biodiversity loss and pesticide use (Röös et al., 2012). In addition, the focus on
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) risks decreasing animal welfare and increasing the use of
antibiotics. This project sought to develop a consumer guide that could assist Swedish consumers in making
less environmentally harmful meat choices and that could also act as a communication tool, raising awareness
of the different environmental aspects of meat production and potential conflicts with animal welfare.
The purpose of this paper was to describe how the guide was designed and discuss methodological difficulties
and data limitations in conveying environmental information on generic meat production across many
different production systems. The target groups for the guide were ‘the interested consumer’, i.e. those interested
in accurately comparing the environmental impacts of different meat production systems, and employees
working with food as their profession, e.g. buyers and personnel in the retail, restaurant and public procurement
sectors. The products included in the guide were meat products based on certification schemes or
other control programs with a high level of participation, in order to ensure that the criteria could be verified.
Alternative sources of protein (game meat, eggs, cheese and vegetarian alternatives) that could replace livestock
meat on the dinner plate were also included in the guide. However, fish was not included since its
characteristics are quite different from those of arable and livestock production, and since several fish guides
are already in use in Sweden.
2. Methods
2.1. Choice of indicators
One of the challenges was to find suitable indicators that accurately communicated the environmental impacts
of meat production, while still being easy to understand. One option would have been to use an endpoint
indicator that aggregated the results from many impact categories. This has been done in a meat guide
for Swiss consumers, which uses the ‘potential species loss per year’ indicator from the ReCiPe-method
(Blonk et al., 2010). However, such aggregation did not satisfy our requirements for a guide that also acted
as a communication tool, raising awareness of the origins and causes of environmental impacts of meat production,
the potential conflicts between different environmental goals and the implications for animal welfare.
Therefore, CF was chosen as the first indicator, due to its familiarity and its ability to act as a proxy for
eutrophication, acidification and land and energy use in most cases of meat production relevant for the guide,
which was concluded in a study by Röös et al., (2012). The same study identified toxicity impacts (through
the use of pesticides) and biodiversity as areas that risked coming into conflict with CF. In a previous study
the possible conflict between CF and animal welfare had been highlighted (Röös, 2011). Thus, use of pesticides,
biodiversity and animal welfare were chosen as the other indicators. In the review process, in which
the guide was distributed to a large number of companies, NGOs and researchers, there was a general accep-
581