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
ios for land use that did not match the desired land use in Sweden from a biodiversity perspective. Using
species richness as a proxy for land use also has several limitations, e.g. it does not consider red-listed or
desirable species. Many of the endangered and red-listed species in Sweden are found in the traditional mosaic
agricultural landscape that is disappearing due to agricultural intensification. Agriculture only represents
8% of the area in Sweden, planted forest being the dominant land use covering 53% of the area (SS, 2008).
Hence, keeping traditional semi-natural pastures grazed and conserving the traditional mosaic landscape has
been identified as one of the most important measures for preserving biodiversity in Sweden and in many
other parts of Europe (Henle et al., 2008).
Therefore, the criteria for biodiversity in the meat guide were developed based on a qualitative assessment
of the impact of different production systems on biodiversity. This assessment employed a combination
of the concept developed by Geyer et al., (2010), which coupled species to habitat preferences, and the notion
that the most important driver of biodiversity loss is land conversion from a natural state to human use
(MEA, 2005). A green light was thus given to meat from production systems that help to conserve seminatural
pastures through grazing, thereby helping to preserve many red-listed species. Products requiring less
than 5 m 2 of land use per kg (vegetal protein sources), were also given a green light, based on the concept of
‘land saving’ (avoiding the need for new agricultural land) (Green et al., 2005). A yellow light was given to
organic production systems, based on literature showing higher biodiversity on organic farms (Bengtsson et
al., 2005; Rahmann, 2011). A yellow light was also given to production systems that do not use imported soy
as protein feed, owing to the risk of land use change in areas very rich in biodiversity due to expansion of
soy cultivation. All other production systems were given a red light, since intensive agricultural production
generally affects biodiversity negatively (Henle et al., 2008).
In future versions of the meat guide, the criteria for biodiversity impacts can be improved by developing
characterisation factors for Sweden using the national biodiversity monitoring data. Taking into account redlisted
species would be necessary in such an initiative to accurately reflect the value of grazing semi-natural
pastures in comparison with grazing temporary leys. The development of such characterisation factors would
enable biodiversity assessment on a per kg of product basis, hence including the aspect that different products
require very different amounts of land (5-9 m 2 for chicken, 11-37 m 2 for pork and 24-244 m 2 for beef;
Röös et al., 2012), which is omitted in this version of the meat guide.
2.5. Use of pesticides and antibiotics
Use of pesticides and antibiotics varies greatly between production systems, and in comparison with CF is
not governed by inherent geophysical differences between animal species. Ruminants require more feed than
monogastric animals per kg of meat produced, which could require more pesticides during feed production.
However, the majority of the feed for ruminants is roughage, production of which usually uses very low
amounts of pesticides. Hence, for this indicator it was not possible to base the criteria on general literature
data from LCA studies on pesticide use in livestock production. Thus, the use of pesticides and antibiotics
needed to be investigated in greater detail for the different production systems in order to find relevant
boundaries. Pesticide use at farm level must be recorded by law in Sweden, as must the use of antibiotics in
many certification schemes or control programs. However, such data are not related to the functional unit of
1 kg of meat, are located on individual farms and are not collected in a manner proving that 1 kg of product
from a specific certification program included in the guide has given rise to a specific amount of pesticide or
antibiotic use. In addition, for imported feed, meat and other food products in the guide this information is
lacking. Hence, the criteria for this indicator needed to be based on national statistics on pesticide use (Eurostat,
2007) and use of antibiotics (EMA, 2011), and a rough approximation of typical feeding strategies for
different production systems. As a starting point, a green light regarding use of pesticides was given to products
originating from production systems that did not use pesticides at all, with organic farming representing
the best in class. A red light was given to those using more than twice the amount of pesticides compared
with the country with the lowest level (2 g active substance per kg of bone-free meat). The best in class level
for use of antibiotics was set at a maximum of twice the lowest use found in the literature (2x14 mg/kg live
weight), since was judged to be impossible and undesirable to have a zero level (sick animals need to be
treated for animal welfare reasons). The worst in class level for the use of antibiotics was set to more than 10
times the lowest reported level (10x14 mg/kg live weight). To obtain a green light for this indicator as a
whole, a green light was required for the use of both antibiotics and pesticides, while to obtain a yellow light
one green and one yellow light in either the use of antibiotics and pesticides was required. All other combinations
gave a red light.
583