Lifetime climate impacts of diet transitions: a novel climate change accounting perspective

Are single global warming potential impact assessments adequate for carbon footprints of agri-food systems?

The vast majority of agri-food climate-based sustainability analyses use global warming potential (GWP100) as an impact assessment, usually in isolation; however, in recent years, discussions have criticised the 'across-the-board' application of GWP100 in Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs), particularly of food systems which generate large amounts of methane (CH4) and considered whether reporting additional and/or alternative metrics may be more applicable to certain circumstances or research questions (e.g. Global Temperature Change Potential (GTP)). This paper reports a largescale sensitivity analysis using a pasture-based beef production system (a high producer of CH4 emissions) as an exemplar to compare various climatatic impact assessments: CO2-equivalents using GWP100 and GTP100, and 'CO2-warming-equivalents' using 'GWP Star', or GWP*. The inventory for this system was compiled using data from the UK Research and Innovation National Capability, the North Wyke Farm Platform, in Devon, SW England. LCAs can have an important bearing on: (i) policymakers' decisions; (ii) farmer management decisions; (iii) consumers' purchasing habits; and (iv) wider perceptions of whether certain activities can be considered 'sustainable' or not; it is, therefore, the responsibility of LCA practitioners and scientists to ensure that subjective decisions are tested as robustly as possible through appropriate sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. We demonstrate herein that the choice of climate impact assessment has dramatic effects on interpretation, with GWP100 and GTP100 producing substantially different results due to their different treatments of CH4 in the context of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents. Given its dynamic nature and previously proven strong correspondence with climate models, out of the three assessments covered, GWP* provides the most complete coverage of the temporal evolution of temperature change for different greenhouse gas emissions. We extend previous discussions on the limitations of static emission metrics and encourage LCA practitioners to consider due care and attention where additional information or dynamic approaches may prove superior, scientifically speaking, particularly in cases of decision support.

Nutritional assessment of plant-based beverages in comparison to bovine milk

Plant-based beverages (PBB) are often marketed and used by consumers as alternatives to ruminant milks, particularly bovine milk (hereafter referred to as milk). However, much research has established that there is variation in nutritional composition among these products, as well as demonstrating that they are largely not nutritional replacements for milk. A survey of the prices and nutrition labels of PBB available in New Zealand supermarkets was undertaken. Selected almond, coconut, oat, rice, and soy PBB products were then analyzed for nutritional content, including energy, fat, protein, amino acid, bioavailable amino acid, and trace element contents. Finally, the protein and calcium contents of well-mixed and unshaken products were analyzed to ascertain the impact of colloidal stability on nutrient content. All PBB groups were more expensive than milk on average, while their declared nutrient contents on package labels was highly variable within and between groups. Analyses of selected PBB revealed that soy products had the most similar proximate composition to milk, while all other PBB groups contained less than 1.1 g protein per 100 mL on average. Many PBB were fortified with calcium to a similar concentration as that in milk. Shaken and unshaken samples showed divergent protein and calcium content for several PBB products but had no effect on the composition of milk, indicating that the nutrient content of PBB at the point of consumption will be dependent on whether the product has been shaken. Only the soy PBB had comparable amino acid content and bioavailability to milk. Overall, our results demonstrate the diversity in composition and nutritional properties of PBB available in New Zealand. While the existent environmental footprint data on PBB shows that they generally have lower carbon emissions than milk, milk currently accounts for approximately 1% of the average New Zealand resident’s consumption-based emissions. Except for calcium-fortified soy PBB, none of the commercially available PBB had nutritional compositions that were broadly comparable to milk.

Correction: Barnsley et al. Lifetime Climate Impacts of Diet Transitions: A Novel Climate Change Accounting Perspective. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5568

The authors would like to make the following corrections about the published paper [...]

Perspective: Soy-based Meat and Dairy Alternatives, Despite Classification as Ultra-processed Foods, Deliver High-quality Nutrition on Par with Unprocessed or Minimally Processed Animal-based Counterparts

In many non-Asian countries, soy is consumed via soy-based meat and dairy alternatives, in addition to the traditional Asian soyfoods, such as tofu and miso. Meat alternatives are typically made using concentrated sources of soy protein, such as soy protein isolate (SPI) and soy protein concentrate (SPC). Therefore, these products are classified as ultra-processed foods (UPFs; group 4) according to NOVA, an increasingly widely used food-classification system that classifies all foods into 1 of 4 groups according to the processing they undergo. Furthermore, most soymilks, even those made from whole soybeans, are also classified as UPFs because of the addition of sugars and emulsifiers. Increasingly, recommendations are being made to restrict the consumption of UPFs because their intake is associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. Critics of UPFs argue these foods are unhealthful for a wide assortment of reasons. Explanations for the proposed adverse effects of UPFs include their high energy density, high glycemic index (GI), hyper-palatability, and low satiety potential. Claims have also been made that UPFs are not sustainably produced. However, this perspective argues that none of the criticisms of UPFs apply to soy-based meat and dairy alternatives when compared with their animal-based counterparts, beef and cow milk, which are classified as unprocessed or minimally processed foods (group 1). Classifying soy-based meat and dairy alternatives as UPFs may hinder their public acceptance, which could detrimentally affect personal and planetary health. In conclusion, the NOVA classification system is simplistic and does not adequately evaluate the nutritional attributes of meat and dairy alternatives based on soy.

Perspective: Soybeans Can Help Address the Caloric and Protein Needs of a Growing Global Population

Feeding a growing global population with projected rising socioeconomic status will require additional sources of calories and especially protein. These sources need to align with the Sustainable Development Goals established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The soybean is uniquely positioned to meet this challenge based on the following criteria: (1) Global soybean production exceeds by ~4 times the production of all pulses combined (2) Soybeans are higher in protein than other legumes and soy protein quality is similar to animal protein quality (3) Soybeans are an excellent source of healthy fat, including both essential fatty acids (4) Soybeans, like other legumes, symbiotically fix atmospheric nitrogen thereby reducing the need for fertilizer inputs (5) Greenhouse gas emissions per unit protein are lower than for nearly all other foods (6) Soybeans, like other legumes, are also recognized as an affordable food that can be incorporated into diverse diets regardless of economic standing and (7) The range of foods produced from soybeans constitutes an important position in historic and contemporary cuisines, cultures and emerging consumer trends for plant-based protein. Although most soybeans are currently used for animal feed, soybean use is dictated by consumer demand. Therefore, soybeans are well positioned to meet future global needs for energy and protein. Armed with this knowledge, health professionals can feel justified in encouraging greater consumption of soyfoods for both personal and planetary reasons.

Animal board invited review: Animal source foods in healthy, sustainable, and ethical diets - An argument against drastic limitation of livestock in the food system

Animal source foods are evolutionarily appropriate foods for humans. It is therefore remarkable that they are now presented by some as unhealthy, unsustainable, and unethical, particularly in the urban West. The benefits of consuming them are nonetheless substantial, as they offer a wide spectrum of nutrients that are needed for cell and tissue development, function, and survival. They play a role in proper physical and cognitive development of infants, children, and adolescents, and help promote maintenance of physical function with ageing. While high-red meat consumption in the West is associated with several forms of chronic disease, these associations remain uncertain in other cultural contexts or when consumption is part of wholesome diets. Besides health concerns, there is also widespread anxiety about the environmental impacts of animal source foods. Although several production methods are detrimental (intensive cropping for feed, overgrazing, deforestation, water pollution, etc.) and require substantial mitigation, damaging impacts are not intrinsic to animal husbandry. When well-managed, livestock farming contributes to ecosystem management and soil health, while delivering high-quality foodstuffs through the upcycling of resources that are otherwise non-suitable for food production, making use of marginal land and inedible materials (forage, by-products, etc.), integrating livestock and crop farming where possible has the potential to benefit plant food production through enhanced nutrient recycling, while minimising external input needs such as fertilisers and pesticides. Moreover, the impacts on land use, water wastage, and greenhouse gas emissions are highly contextual, and their estimation is often erroneous due to a reductionist use of metrics. Similarly, whether animal husbandry is ethical or not depends on practical specificities, not on the fact that animals are involved. Such discussions also need to factor in that animal husbandry plays an important role in culture, societal well-being, food security, and the provision of livelihoods. We seize this opportunity to argue for less preconceived assumptions about alleged effects of animal source foods on the health of the planet and the humans and animals involved, for less top-down planning based on isolated metrics or (Western) technocratic perspectives, and for more holistic and circumstantial approaches to the food system.

The role of holistic nutritional properties of diets in the assessment of food system and dietary sustainability

Advancing sustainable diets for nutrition security and sustainable development necessitates clear nutrition metrics for measuring nutritional quality of diets. Food composition, nutrient requirements, and dietary intake are among the most common nutrition metrics used in the current assessment of sustainable diets. Broadly, most studies in the area classify animal-source foods (ASF) as having a substantially higher environmental footprint in comparison to plant-source foods (PSF). As a result, much of the current dietary advice promulgates diets containing higher proportions of PSF. However, this generalization is misleading since most of these studies do not distinguish between the gross and bioavailable nutrient fractions in mixed human diets. The bioavailability of essential nutrients including β-carotene, vitamin B-12, iron, zinc, calcium, and indispensable amino acids varies greatly across different diets. The failure to consider bioavailability in sustainability measurements undermines the complementary role that ASF play in achieving nutrition security in vulnerable populations. This article critically reviews the scientific evidence on the holistic nutritional quality of diets and identifies methodological problems that exist in the way the nutritional quality of diets is measured. Finally, we discuss the importance of developing nutrient bioavailability as a requisite nutrition metric to contextualize the environmental impacts of different diets.