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
Figure 12 Categorised scores for impact on climate change. The bars indicate, from top to bottom, the lowest,
the average and the highest score in each category The number of products represented in each category
is given beside the scores.
4. Discussion
The results from the Superwijzer show substantial differences between the lowest and the highest scoring
products, particularly in terms of the effects on biodiversity. At the extreme, the highest scoring product
(Brazilian beef) has a biodiversity score of over 3,000 times that of the lowest product (Dutch hare). Also
within the product group ‘Beef and Veal’ there is still a difference of factor 10 between the lowest and highest
score. In terms of the effects on climate change, Brazilian beef has a score that is about 36 times higher
than Quorn, a meat alternative. Although these scores only illustrate the upper and lower scores, there is a
distinct clustering of product types. In terms of an approximate product ranking, beef and veal rank worst,
followed by other meat types (the order depends on the impact category used), followed by eggs and cheese,
and finally, the meat substitutes (vegetarian), milk and yoghurt and dairy alternatives rank best.
There are also distinct variations in certain product categories. Beef and veal have by far the largest range
in scores both for biodiversity and climate change. The lowest scoring products are minced and cut beef
originating from spent dairy cows, while the highest scoring product is Brazilian beef. Another product category
with a large variation is ‘rabbit and hare’, which has a relatively low scores for Dutch hare and relatively
high score for rabbit. Some product groups, such as pork have very little variation in the environmental
impact within the group.
As shown in the results section, the differences are large between product groups, but also within product
groups, especially the beef and veal group. There are several important factors resulting in the range in this
group: e.g. the feed used, allocation assumptions and slaughter-age. Higher consumption of (soy) concentrate
by livestock result in higher score, specifically for biodiversity. The lower-scoring beef products are mince
beef products from spent dairy cows; the environmental impact is allocated on an economic basis, thus only
5.5% of the environmental impacts are allocated to the beef. Veal scores high because of relatively short live
times and relatively high impact of feed due to their special feed mix.
Based on these results we can state that consumers have much more choices in greening their diets then
becoming a vegetarian or restricting their diet to less meat. Even a choice between product groups is not
necessary, as long as the products with the lowest impact within each product group is selected.
5. Conclusion
This study provides an interesting example of how LCA results can be made available to consumers, by
providing easy to understand information in a simple way to help them to make environmentally conscious
choices in their diet. The large variations in environmental impact within product groups can have an effect
on the ranking of a particular product group, such that general statements regarding the scores of specific
groups are difficult to make, as is illustrated by the wide range of scores of beef products. Because of the
large variation which exists both within product groups and between product groups, choosing products with
a low environmental impact will lead to significant reductions in the environmental impact of an individual’s
diet. Therefore, it is important to assess a range of food products, as is done in the Superwijzer App in which
15,000 different products are rated, to provide the best available information to the consumer at the location
where choices are made; in the supermarket.
6. References
Blonk, H., Kool, A. and Luske, B. (2008). Milieueffecten van Nederlandse consumptie van eiwitrijke producten: Gevolgen van vervanging
van dierlijke eiwitten anno 2008, Blonk Milieuadvies, 2008
Broekema, R., Blonk H., with Alverado, C. and Hegger, S. (2009). Milieukundige vergelijkingen van vleesvervangers, Blonk Milieuadvies,
2009
Cederberg, C., Persson, U.M., Neovius, K., Molander, S. and Clift, R. (2011). Including Carbon Emissions from Deforestation in
the Carbon Footprint of Brazilian Beef. Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 45, no.5 (2011); p. 1773-1779.
Head, M., Sevenster, M. and Croezen, H. (2011). Life Cycle Impacts of Protein- rich Foods for Superwijzer. Report 11.2329.57, CE
Delft.
IDF (2010), A common carbon footprint approach for dairy: the IDF guide to standard lifecycle assessment methodology for the
dairy sector, In: Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation no.445, 2010
591