position paper double pyramid: healty food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Post on 11-Nov-2014
1.268 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Double Pyramid:healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
people, environment, science, economy
Contact Details
Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition
Via Mantova, 166
43122 Parma ITALY
info@barillacfn.com
www.barillacfn.com
Photo by
Do
ub
le P
yra
mid
: he
alth
y fo
od
for p
eo
ple
, susta
ina
ble
foo
d fo
r the
pla
net
www.barillacfn.com
info@barillacfn.com
Advisory Board:
Barbara Buchner, Claude Fischler, Jean-Paul Fitoussi, Mario Monti,
Gabriele Riccardi, Camillo Ricordi, Joseph Sassoon, Umberto Veronesi.
In collaboration with:
Life Cycle Engineering
Carlo Alberto Pratesi - Professore Facoltà di Economia, Università Roma Tre
The European House-Ambrosetti
Graphics, paging, editing:
Burson-Marsteller
Photo by:
National Geographic Image Collection
people, environment, science, economy
Index - 1
The Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition 2
Executive summary 4
1. EATING BETTER FOR A BETTER WORLD 10 1.1 TheFoodPyramidasaneducationaltool 14 1.2 ComponentsoftheFoodPyramid 19 1.3 FromtheFoodPyramidtotheEnvironmentalPyramid 22
2. SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF THE FOOD PYRAMID 26 2.1 StudiesinvolvingtheMediterraneanDiet 30
3. INDICATORS USED TO MEASURE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 34 3.1 CarbonFootprint 41 3.2 WaterFootprint 43 3.3 EcologicalFootprint 45
4. MEASURING THE IMPACT OF FOODS: THE THREE ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMIDS 48 4.1 Summaryofenvironmentaldata 52 4.2 ThreepossibleEnvironmentalPyramids 56 4.3 TheEnvironmentalpyramidbasedontheEcologicalFootprint 57
5. DETAILS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA GATHERED 60 5.1 Maindatasources 64 5.2 Assumptionsutilizedforthecookingoffoods 99 5.3 Whentheimpactoftransportisrelevant 103
6. AREAS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THE SUBSEQUENT EDITION 106 6.1 BroadenthestatisticalcoverageofdataandrenderLCAboundarieshomogeneous 110 6.2 Takeintoconsiderationgeographicalorigininevaluatingimpact 110 6.3 Evaluatingtheinfluenceoffoodrefrigerationandcompletinganalysisofcookingmethods 112 6.4 Studyingthequestionoftheseasonalnatureofagriculturalproductsasavariableinfluencingimpact 113
BIBLIOGRAPHY BY FOOD PRODUCT 114 Foodsderivedfromagriculture 118 Foodsderivedfromprocessingofagriculturalproducts 122 Foodsderivedfromanimalhusbandry 126 Foodsfromfishing 131 Beverages 133
APPENDIX 134 A.1 Calculationoftheenvironmentalimpactassociatedwiththeproductionofbakedgoods 138
BIBLIOGRAPHY 142
Index
The Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition is a think tank with a multi-disciplinary approachwhosegoalistogatherthemostauthoritativethinkingonaninternationallevelregardingissueslinkedtotheworldoffoodandnutrition. Itsareasofstudyandanalysisincludeculture,theenvironment,healthandtheeconomy,and-withintheseareas-itintendsproposingsolutionstotakeonthefoodchallengestobefacedoverthecomingyears.
Specifically,theBarilla Center for Food & Nutrition intends to provide a forum for the current and future needs of our society in terms of major themes tied to foodandnutrition,identify key issues, bring together and examine the most advanced, cutting-edge experiences, knowledge and competencies available today on a world level.Itsend-purposeistodevelop and make available considerations, proposals and recommendations aimed at promoting better living and general, sustainable health and well-being for everyone.
The Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition
2 - Doppia Piramide: alimentazione sana per le persone, sostenibile per il pianeta
The Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition - 3
Interpreting such complex phenomena requires a methodology which goes beyondthe confines of individual disciplines and this was the approach adopted for the fourthematicareas–Food for Sustainable Growth, Food for Health, Food for All, Food for Culture–inwhich,ititsfirstyear,theBarillaCenterforFood&NutritionpreparedandcirculatedfivePositionPapers,providingareasonedoverviewoftheavailablescientificfindings and an original analytical perspective on the phenomena covered. Throughthese documents, the BCFN not only expressed its own position, but also proposed aseriesofrecommendationsforindividuals,thebusinessworldandthepublicsector.
Ineacharea,atleastonespecificadvisorwasnamed,selectedforhisorherexpertiseand professional experience in the field: Barbara Buchner (expert in energy issues,climatechangeandtheenvironment)fortheFood for Sustainable Growtharea;Mario MontiandJean-Paul Fitoussi(economists)forthe Food For Allarea;Umberto Veronesi (oncologist),Gabriele Riccardi(nutritionist)andCamillo Ricordi(immunologist)fortheFood for Healtharea;Joseph SassoonandClaude Fischler(sociologists)fortheFood for Culture area.
Thethemeofenvironmentalsustainability(Food for Sustainable Growth)andrelatedrecommendation on eco-sustainable life and eating styles was the first issue takenonbytheBCFN,but,giventherelevanceofthisissue,itisalsotheonewhichattractedparticularinterestfromthemediaandopinionleaders.
The principal point to emerge from the Position Paper “Climate Change, Agriculture& Food” is that modern lifestyles tend to have a growing impact on the ecological equilibrium of our Planet. Particularly in the area of diet, models of consumptioninconsistentwiththegoalsofenvironmentalconservationhaveassertedthemselves.Themake-upandqualityoffoodproducedandconsumedhaveasignificantimpactonbothgreenhousegasemissionsandnaturalresources.
With the aim of proposing more environmentally sustainable and healthy foodchoices,theBarillaCenterforFood&Nutritionsuggeststhe“Double Pyramid”whichflankedthe“FoodPyramid”withthe“EnvironmentalPyramid”,inordertoofferanewtoolforsolvingwhatMichaelPollandefinedthe“omnivore’sdilemma”, i.e., thetypicaldifficultyfacedbymanindecidingonadailybasiswhatshouldbeincludedinhisdiet.
Vo
lkm
ark
K. W
en
tze
l / N
atio
na
l Ge
og
rap
hic
Ima
ge
Co
lle
ctio
n
Executive summary
Development and modernization have made available to an increasing number of people a varied and abundant supply of foods. Without a proper cultural foundation or clear nutritional guidelines that can be applied and easily followed on a daily basis, individuals risk following unbalanced – if not actually incorrect – eating habits.
To
dd
Gip
ste
in /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
Foods with higher recommended consumption levels, are also those with lower environmental impact. Contrarily, those foods with lower recommended consumption levels are also those with higher environmental impact.
8 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Man has long been aware that correct nutrition is essential to health. Development
and modernization have made available to an increasing number of people a varied
andabundantsupplyoffoods.Withoutaproperculturalfoundationorclearnutritional
guidelinesthatcanbeappliedandeasilyfollowedonadailybasis,individualsriskfollowing
unbalanced–ifnotactuallyincorrect–eatinghabits.Proofofthisistherecent,prolific
spread of pathologies caused by overeating and accompanying reduction in physical
activity(includingobesity,diabetesandcardiovasculardisease)inallagebracketsofthe
population,includingchildrenandyoungpeople.
In the 1970s, American physiologist Ancel Keys explained to the world the diet he
dubbed “Mediterranean” based on balanced consumption of natural foods (olive oil,
fruit,grains,legumes,etc.),thankstowhichdeathratesfromheartdiseasewereshown
to be lower than with saturated fat-rich diets typical of Northern Europe. In 1992, the
US Department of Agriculture developed and released the first Food Pyramid which
conciselyandefficaciouslyexplainedhowtoadoptanutritionally-balanceddiet.
Today,theBarillaCenterforFood&NutritionisofferingtheFoodPyramidinadouble
version, positioning foods not only following the criteria nutritional science has long
recommendedonthebasisoftheirpositive impactonhealth,butalso intermsoftheir
impactontheenvironment.Theresultisa“Double Pyramid”:thefamiliar Food Pyramid
andanEnvironmental-Food Pyramid.Thelatter,placedalongsidetheFoodPyramid,is
shown upside-down: foods with higher environmental impact are at the top and those
withreducedimpactareonthebottom.
Fromthis“DoublePyramid”itcanbeseenthatthosefoods with higher recommended
consumption levels, are also those with lower environmental impact. Contrarily,
those foods with lower recommended consumption levels are also those with higher
environmentalimpact.Inotherwords,thisnewly-elaboratedversionoftheFoodPyramid
illustrates,inaunifiedmodel,theconnectionbetweentwodifferentbuthighly-relevant
goals:health and environmental protection.
TheFood Pyramidpresentsthevariousfoodgroupsinagraduatedorder.Atthebase
ofthePyramidarefoodsofvegetalorigin(characteristicoftheMediterraneandiet),rich
in nutrients (vitamins, minerals and water) and protective compounds (fiber and bioac-
tivecompoundsofvegetalorigin),andwithlowerenergydensity.Graduallymovingup,
arethosefoodswithhigherenergydensity(highlypresentintheNorthAmericandiet)
whichshouldbeconsumedlessfrequently.
TheEnvironmental Pyramidwasconstructedonthebasisoftheenvironmentalim-
pactassociatedwitheachfoodestimatedonthebasisoftheLifeCycleAssessment(LCA),
anobjectivemethodforevaluatingenergyandenvironmentalimpactforagivenprocess
(whetheranactivityorproduct).Morespecifically,processassessmentunderscoresthe
extent to which the main environmental impacts are seen in the generation of green-
house gas (Carbon Footprint), consumption of water resources (Water Footprint) and
EcologicalFootprint“land use”.
Executive summary - 9
In order to provide a more complete and effective communications tool, only the
Ecological Footprint was used as a reference index in creating the Environmental
Pyramid.Theresultisanupside-downPyramidgraduatedintermsofenvironmental
impact: on the top are foods with higher impact, while on the bottom are those with
minorimpact.
From “Double Pyramid” can be observed that the food which is recommended morefrequent consumption, are also those with minor environmental impacts. Conversely,foods for which consumption is recommended less frequent, are also those that havemostimpact.Inotherwords,thisdevelopingnewfoodpyramidshowsthecoincidence,in one model, two different but equally important goals: health and environmentalprotection.
This work, far from being conclusive, aims to encourage the publication of further
studiesonthemeasurementofenvironmentalimpactsoffood,whichwillbeconsideredin future editions of this document. The objective is to increase the coverage ofstatistical data and examine the influence that may have some factors, such as, forexample,geographicaloriginorfoodpreservation.
O. L
ouis
Maz
zate
nta
/ N
atio
nal
Geo
grap
hic
Imag
e Co
llect
ion
Sa
m A
be
ll /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
1. Eating better for a better world
The mortality rate due to heart disease in the Countries of Southern Europe and Northern Africa is lower than that found in Anglo-Saxon and Northern European countries.
Luis
Ma
rde
n /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
In recent years, confirmation regarding the importance of proper diet in preventing illness has increased enormously thanks to further laboratory studies and empirical evidence. However, the same cannot be said of public awareness of this, which has grown more slowly.
14 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Manhasalwaysbeenawarethatcorrectnutritionisessentialtohealth.Nonetheless,formillennia,thedrivingneedtofindenoughfoodtosurvivehasrelegatedthisnaturallawtoabackseat:untilrecently,veryfewhadthepossibilityofchoosingbetweendif-ferenttypesofabundantly-availablefoods.
Ithasbeenindustrialdevelopment,modernizationofagricultureandtheopeningofmarketsthathavemadeanincreasingvarietyandquantityoffoodavailabletoagrow-ingnumberofpeople.
Buttheproblemofhungeriscertainlynotsolved,quitethecontrary.Weknowthataboutonebillionpeoplecircathroughouttheworldliveinastateofundernutrition(ormalnutrition)1.Butontheotherhand,thenumberofpeoplewhocanchoosewhatandhowmuchtoeathasincreasedsignificantly.However,withoutaproperculturalfoun-dationorclearnutritionalguidelines–illustratedandmadeapplicable–theseindividu-alsriskfollowingunbalanced–ifnotactuallyincorrect–eatinghabits.
Proofofthisistherecent,prolificspreadofpathologiescausedbyovereatingandtheconcomitant reduction of physical activity (including obesity, diabetes and cardiovas-culardisease)inallagebracketsofthepopulation,includingchildrenandyoungpeople.
ItwasAmericanphysiologistAncelKeyswho,inthe1970s,publishedabookentitled“Eat Well and Stay Well” which explained to the world why in some regions of Italy –forexampleinCilento(theareaintheCampaniaregionthatliesbetweenthegulfsofSalernoandPolicastro)–thepopulationenjoyedgreaterlongevity:theirsecretwasthebalancedconsumptionofnaturalfoods(oliveoil,fruit,grains,legumes,etc.).Inparticu-lar,Keysdiscoveredthatthankstothisdiet,whichhedubbeda“Mediterranean Diet”,themortalityrateduetoheartdiseaseintheCountriesofSouthernEuropeandNorth-ernAfricawaslowerthanthatfoundinAnglo-SaxonandNorthernEuropeancountrieswherethedietisrichinsaturatedfats.
It is a shame that since then, including in Italy, the Mediterranean diet has enteredinto increasing competition with globaldietarymodels(theforemostofthesebe-ing “fast food”, normally concentrated onNorth American-type foods). More gener-ally,thegrowingstandardizationoffoodsorientedtowardsmakingfoodproduction,distribution and preparation more effi-
cientandfunctional,hasplayedasignificantroleinprovidinganeasieraccesstofoodalthough,ithasoftenalsoworkedagainstcorrectnutritionalbalance2.
InordertoinitiateaprocessofnutritionaleducationcenteredontheMediterraneandiet, in1992,theUSDepartmentofAgriculturedevelopedandreleasedthefirstFoodPyramid(Figure1.1)whichconciselyandefficaciouslyexplainedhowtoadaptanutri-tionally-balanceddiet.
1 Regarding this, please see the BCFN Position Paper, “The challenges of food security”, November 2009, (http://www.barillacfn.com/uploads/file/72/1261504283_BarillaCFN_FOODforALL_ENG.pdf)
2 For a more detailed discussion, please refer to the BCFN Position Paper, “The cultural dimension of Food”, December 2009, (http://www.barillacfn.com/uploads/file/72/1261504283_BarillaCFN_FOODforCULTURE_ENG.pdf)
1. Eating betterfor a better world
1.1The Food Pyramid as an educational tool
The mortality rate due to heart disease in the Countries of Southern Europe and Northern Africa is lower than that found in Anglo-Saxon and Northern European countries.
1. Eating better for a better world - 15
Figure1.1-FoodPyramidproposedbytheUSGovernment–Source:http://www.health.gov/DIETARYGUIDELINES/
dga2000/document/images/pyramidbig.jpg
Thesuccessofthischartcanbeseenbythefactthatinsubsequentyearsnumerousvariationshavebeendevelopedbyinstitutionsonaninternational(FAO,WorldHealthOrganization),national (ItalianMinistryofHealth)and local (e.g.,theTuscanyRegion)level,aswellasuniversities,associationsandprivatecompanies(seefiguresbelow).
Figure1.2–FoodPyramidproposedbytheFAO–Source:http://www.fao.org/docrep/W0073E/p389.jpg
TheFoodPyramidmodelproposedbyFAOisidenticaltothatproposedbytheUSGov-ernment,therebyemphasizingthesignificanceoftheinformationcontainedtherein.
16 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Figure1.3.FoodPyramidproposedbytheWHO–Source:http://www.euro.who.int/IMAGES/Nut/FoodPyra-
mid2.jpg
TheWorldHealthOgranizationFoodPyramidshownabovewasproposedundertheCountrywide Integrated Noncommunicable Disease Intervention-CINDIProgramme,fo-cusedonthereductionoflevelsofmajornoncommunicablediseases(e.g.cardiovascu-lardiseases,diabetes,etc.)throughcoordinated,comprehensivehealthpromotionanddiseasepreventionmeasures.ThisProgramme–whichwaslaunchedin1982aspartofaninternationalstrategytosupport“Health for All by the Year 2000”–haspromoted,overtheyears,anintegratedsetofinitiativesaimedtopromotehealthierlifestylesincommunitiesandtopreventandcontrolcommonriskfactors(suchasunhealthydiet,sedentarylifestyle,smoking,alcoholabuseandstress).
Figure1.4.FoodPyramidproposedbytheItalianMinistryofHealth–Source:http://www.euro.piramideita-
liana.it
AfteracarefulanalysisandobservationoftrendstakingplaceintheCountry,in2003(D.M.,1.09.2003)theMinistry of HealthhiredagroupofexpertstodevelopareferencemodelofdietconsistentwiththelifestyleandthefoodtraditionsofourCountry.
1. Eating better for a better world - 17
Then,theFoodSciencesandNutritionInstituteoftheUniversityofRome“LaSapien-za”drawnupthe Italian Food Pyramidindicatingwhichportionsofeachgroupoffoodsshouldbeconsumedtomaintainavariedandbalanceddiet.Itshouldbenotedthatthis“daily” Pyramid is part of the weekly Italian Lifestyle Pyramid that, being based onthedefinitionof“QuantityofWellness”(QB),considersbothfoodandphysicalactivity.Thus,italsoprovidesa“recommendeddailydoseofphysicalactivity”accordingtotheindicationsgiveninthe“PyramidofPhysicalActivity”.
Figure1.5.TheItalianFoodPyramid–Source:ItalianMinistryofHealth,http://piramideitaliana.it
18 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Figure1.6.FoodPyramidproposedbyOldways-Source:http://oldwaystable.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/395o
ldwaysmdp_1000copyright.jpg
Oldways, an internationally-respectedno-profit organization promoting healthylifestylesthrough ad hocprojectsandini-tiatives, in 1993 introduced (in collabora-tion with the Harvard School of PublicHealth and the European Office of theWorld Health Organization) the classicalMediterranean Diet along with the Medi-terranean Diet Pyramid graphic, to rep-resentitvisually.
The Pyramid was created using themost current nutrition research to repre-sentahealthy,traditionalMediterraneandiet.Itwasbasedonthedietarytraditionsof Crete, Greece and southern Italy circa1960 at a time when the rates of chronicdisease among populations there wereamongthelowestintheWorld3.
Figure1.7.FoodPyramidproposedbyCiiSCAM,UniversityofRome“LaSapienza”–Source:http://www.ciiscam.
org/files/immagini/immagini/piramide3_520.jpg
InNovember2009,theInternationalUniversityCentreforStudiesonMediterraneanFood Cultures. CiiSCAM presented one of the first version of the Modern Mediterra-nean Diet Pyramid. This new model of the Pyramid, developed in collaboration withtheNationalResearchInstituteonFoodandNutrition–INRANandotherrenownedex-perts,highlightstheimportanceofphysicalactivity,conviviality,thecustomofdrink-ingwaterandsuggeststheconsumptionoflocalandseasonalfoods4.
3 Oldways, “What is the Mediterranean Diet Pyramid?”, http://www.oldwayspt.org/mediterranean-diet-pyramid4 Ciiscam, Novembre 2009
Modern Mediterranean Diet Pyramid
Physical activity Conviviality Seasonality Local products
Adult population18-65 years old
Each country hasits own serving sizebased on frugality
Wine in moderation,& respecting religious& social beliefs
Weekly
Every day
Every MainMeal
Drinking Water
Bread, Pasta, Rice, Couscousand other cereals, 1-2,preferably whole grain
Fruits 1-2 Vegs ≥2
Variety of colors
Olive oil 3-4Dairies 2-3(preferably low fat)
Herbs, spices,garlic, onions,
(less added salt)
Nuts,Seeds, Olives,
1-2
Eggs 2-4Legumes ≥2
Poultry 1-2Fish/Seafood ≥2
Meat ≤2 &Processed meat ≤1
Sweets ≤2
Mediterranean Diet PyramidA contemporary approach to delicious, healthy eating
Meats and SweetsLess often
Poultry and EggsModerate portions,
every two days or weekly
Cheese and YoghurtModerate portions,
every two days or weekly
Fish and SeafoodOften,
at least two times per week
Fruits, Vegetables, Grains (mostly whole),
Olive oil, Beans, Nuts, Legumes and Seeds, Herbs and
SpicesBase every meal on these foods
Be Physically Active,Enjoy Meals with Others
Wine In moderation
Drink Water
1. Eating better for a better world - 19
Althoughtheyallstartfromacommonscientificbase,eachPyramidadaptstheorigi-nalmodeltothespecificcharacteristicsofitstargetaudience,differentiatingbetweenvarious age brackets (children, adults, the elderly), prevalent lifestyle (sedentary, ac-tive,etc.),specifictimesoflife(pregnancy,nursing)ordietarypractices(vegan,vegetar-ian,etc.).Inaddition,inalmostallthemostrecentversionsofthePyramid(suchas,forexample,theModernMediterraneanDietPyramidshownabove),appendedtothedia-gramarefurtherrecommendationsforacorrectlifestyle(forexample,howmuchwatershouldbedrunk,howmuchtimetodedicatetophysicalactivity,etc.).
ThisdenseandcontinuouscommunicationactivitiesisservedintimetoacquainttheaudienceourMediterraneandiet,positioningitinthecommonperceptionasstylefoodhealthier.
Itsadoptionisespeciallypronouncedinthemoreeducatedsegmentsofthepopula-tion (not Europe only) which, moreover, it perceived consistency with the current so-cio-culturaltrends,suchasattentiontothewelfare,thefightagainstobesity,thepro-motionoftypicalproducts,thesearchfornaturalproductsandnaturalel‘attentiontoenvironmentalprotection.
ThevalueoftheFoodGuidePyramidistwofold:firstisanexcellentsummaryofthe
main knowledge gained from studies on medicine and nutrition, essential for anyonewhopaysattentiontotheirhealth,theotherisapowerfultoolforconsumereducation,thanksalsoinitseffectivegraphicformanditsundoubtedsimplicity,playsanimportantpromotionalroleforthebenefitofallthosefoods(fruitsandvegetables inparticular)thatitisalmostalways“unbranded”arenotadvertisedbymanufacturers.
Asmentionedinthepreviousparagraph,the“Food Pyramid”–avisualtooltocom-municatetheprinciplesofcorrectdiet inaconciseandeffectivemanner–wasdevel-opedinordertoeducatethepublictomorebalanceddietaryhabits(based,therefore,ontheMediterraneandietmodel).Fromtheversionsdevelopedovertheyears,thecom-monpositionsofthevariousfoodgroupscaneasilybeidentified.
TheconceptofthePyramidimpliesthat,gradually moving up, the consumption fre-quency of the various food groups diminishes,althoughnospecificgroupisexcluded,thusguaranteeingavarietyoffoodsconsumption,oneofthebasicprinciplesofcorrectnutrition.
Generallyspeaking,atthebaseofthePyramidarefoodsofvegetalorigincharacter-isticoftheMediterraneanDiet,richinnutrients(vitamins,minerals,water)andprotec-tivecompounds(fiberandbioactivecompoundsofvegetalorigin).MovinguptowardsthepeakofthePyramidarethosefoodswithhigherenergydensity(highlypresentintheNorthAmericandiet)whichshouldbeconsumedinlesseramounts.
Takingacloserlook,startingfromthebasetowardsthetop,arefruits and vegeta-bleswhichhavealowercaloriccontentandsupplythebodywithwater,carbohydrates,vitamins,mineralsandfiber.Theproteincontentisverylow,asisthefatcontent.Thecarbohydratecontentinfruitandvegetablesconsistsprimarilyofsimplesugarswhichareeasilyprocessedbythebody,aswellasasmallamountofstarch.Foodsofvegetableoriginaretheprimarysourceoffiberwhichnotonlykeepsintestinalactivityregular,but also contributes to creating a sense of satiety and therefore helps to control con-sumptionoffoodswithahigh-energycomponent.
Moving up, we find pasta, rice, potatoes, bread and legumes. Pasta is a foodstuffrichinstarchwithamoderateamountofproteinandinsignificantlipidcontent.Likeallgrains,ricehasahighstarchcontent,lowproteincontentandevenlowerfatcontent.Inaddition,italsocontainssmallamountsofBgroupvitaminsandminerals.
1.2 Components of the Food Pyramid
20 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Potatoeshaveaverylowfatandproteincontent, but are rich in starch and carbo-hydrates.Theyareoneofthemostimpor-tant sources of potassium, phosphorusandcalcium.
Bread is a basic foodstuff since it pro-vides the body with the amount of car-bohydrates required to assure the body
receivesthefuelnecessarytoproduceenergy.Legumes are plant foods with higher protein and high fiber content. They provide
highqualityproteins,andseingrichinessentialaminoacidsareeasilydigestible.Leg-umesareagoodsourceofGroupBvitamins,especiallyB1andB12,niacin,andmineralssuchasironandzinc,andcanbeanalternativetomeatconsumption.
OnthenextlevelonthePyramid,wefindextra virgin olive oilwhichiscomprisedoftriglycerides(richinmonounsaturatedfattyacids),essentialfattyacidsandvitaminE,andalsoincludessubstancessuchaspolyphenolsandphytosterolswhichhaveapro-tectiveeffectonthehumanbody.
Continuingup,wefinda largegroupwithmanydifferentproteinsources, includingmilk,yoghurt,cheese,white meat,fish,eggs andbiscuits.
Milk is almost 90% water which contains traces of high-quality proteins, predomi-nantly easily-digestible short-chain saturated fats (many of them, however, are alsorichinanimalfatsthatpromoteincreasedlevelsofplasmacholesteroland,therefore,should consumed in moderation) and sugars (primarily lactose, made up of galactoseandglucose).ThepredominantvitaminsfoundinmilkareA,B1,B2,B12andpantothenicacid.Milkisalsothemainsourceofcalciuminthehumandiet.
Likemilk,yoghurthashighnutritionalvalue,butcanbeeasiertodigestforlactose-intolerantindividualsbecauseofthepresenceofbacteriallactase.
Cheese contains protein and fats, but its carbohydrate content is virtually nil. Par-ticularlysignificantisitscalciumcontentwhichispresentinahighlybioavailableformandmakesasignificantcontributiontotheneedsofthehumanbody.ItcontainssmallamountsofBgroupvitamins,whileitsvitaminAcontentissignificant.
Thentherearefishandeggs:fishhasahigh-qualityproteincontentandvariablefatcontent that can even reach levels of 10% of its weight. Fats in fish contain polyun-saturatedfattyacidsthatbelongtothecategoryofessentialfattyacids.Thefamilyofomega-3fattyacids, inparticular, isconsideredbeneficial inthepreventionofcardio-vasculardisease.
Eggshavesuchahighproteincontentthatforyearstheproteincompositionofeggswasthereferencestandardforevaluatingthequalityofproteininotherfoods.
Thebiscuitsaremadeupofseveralingredientsandtheircompositionintermsofnu-trients and energy value highly variable, in general, is important content into simplesugars,butishighlyvariablefatcontent,usuallybetweenabout9%to25%.
Meatconsumption,especiallyleanmeat,isimportantbecauseitprovideshigh-qualityproteinrequiredforgrowthinchildrenandmuscleformation.Approximatelyhalfoftheproteinsinmeatarecomprisedofaminoacidsessentialtothehumanbody;alsopresentareBgroupvitamins(especiallyB12),selenium,copperandzinc.Fatcontentcanvaryfromalmostnothingtocloseto30%,dependingonthetypeofmeat,andareprimarilysaturatedandmonounsaturated,whileonlyasmallnumberarepolyunsaturated:itisthereforetobepreferredtheconsumptionofwhitemeatratherthanredmeat,ashigh-lightedinseveralversionsoftheFoodPyramidelaboratedbynationalandinternationalInstitutions,thatrankthematthetop,aswellassweets,thatbeinghighinfatandsim-plesugarsshouldbeeateninmoderation.
The value of the Food Pyramid is two-fold: on one hand it represents an excellent synthesis of the main concepts developed by medical and nutritional science; on the other it is a powerful educational tool regarding consumption.
1. Eating better for a better world - 21
Figure1.8.-TheBCFNFoodPyramid
22 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Inrecentyears,confirmationregardingtheimportanceofproperdietinpreventingill-nesshasincreasedenormouslythankstofurtherlaboratorystudiesandempiricalevi-dence.However,thesamecannotbesaidofpublicawarenessofthiswhichhasgrownmoreslowly.
Thisisthereasonwhy,25yearslater,theBarillaCenterforFood&Nutritionhasde-cidedtoofferonceagaintheFoodPyramid,afamiliarandwell-establishedtoolinthescientificandnutritionalcircles.
Thesecondreasonislessobviousandisconnectedtotheproblemofclimatechangeand,moregenerally,theimpactofhumanactivityontheenvironment.
Not everyone knows that farming and animal husbandry activities are among themainsourcesofgreenhousegasemissions.Forthisreason,aswasexplicitlysuggest-ed in the document entitled “Climate Smart Food” – published in November 2009 bySIK(SwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnology)andcommissionedbytheSwedishPresidency–environmentalvariablesmustalsobetakenintoconsiderationinfoodanddietarychoices.
Fromthisstandpoint,thevariousfoodgroupscanbeevaluatedintermsoftheirenvi-ronmentalimpact,i.e.,intermsofgreenhousegasemissions(CarbonFootprint),waterresources use (Water Footprint) and society’s use of natural’s assets (Ecological Foot-print).
Reclassifyingfoodsnolongerintermsoftheirpositiveimpactonhealth,butonthebasisoftheirnegativeeffectontheenvironment,producesanup-side-downPyramidwhichshowsthefoodswithgreaterenvironmentalimpactonthetopandthosewithlowerimpactonthebottom.
WhenthisnewEnvironmentalPyramidisbroughtalongsidetheFoodPyramid,itcre-atesaFood-Environmental Pyramid whichwehavecalledthe“Double Pyramid”.
Itshowsthatthosefoods with higher recommended consumption levels are also those with lower environmental impact. Contrarily, those foods with lower recom-mendedconsumptionlevelsarealsothosewithhigherenvironmentalimpact.
This newly-elaborated version illus-trates,inaunifiedmodel,the connection between two different but highly-rel-evant goals: health and environmental protection.Inotherwords,itshowsthatifthedietsuggestedinthetraditionalFoodPyramid is followed, not only do people
livebetter(longerandhealthier),butthereisadecidedlylesserimpact–orbetter,foot-print–leftontheenvironment.
Allofus,througheatingresponsibly,candefinitelyreconcileourpersonalwell-being(personalecology)withtheenvironment(ecologicalcontext).
In the following chapters it is described how the combination of the nutritional as-pectsofthevariousfoodsandtheirenvironmentalimpactshavecreatedthe“Double Pyramid”.
TheherewithpresentedEnvironmentalPyramidwasdesignedwithouttheinclusionofdetailedvalues.However,atthebaseofthis imagethere isapreciseevaluationoftheimpactofthevariousfoodsperformedutilizingtheLife Cycle Assessmentmethod(i.e., calculating the effects produced on the environment from the cultivation of therawmaterialsthroughthedistributionchainand,whennecessary,cookingofthefoodsanalyzed).
1.3From the Food Pyramid to the Environmental Pyramid
This illustrates, in a unified model, the connection between two different but highly-relevant goals: health and environmental protection.
Qu
i app
oggi
a il
sest
ino
chiu
so
Sk
ip B
row
n /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
Red meat
Fruit
Cheese, Fish
White meat,Sweets
Vegetables, Bread, Potato
Legumes, Pasta, Biscuits Olive oil, Milk,Yoghurt, Rice, Egg
Sweets,Red meat
Fruit, Vegetables
Cheese, EggWhite meat,
Fish, Biscuits
Milk, Yoghurt
Bread, Pasta, Rice,Potato, Legumes
Olive oil
ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMID
FOOD PYRAMID
HIGH
LOW
LOW
HIGH
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L IM
PAC
T
SUG
GES
TED
AM
OU
NTS
Piega
Taglio
Red meat
Fruit
Cheese, Fish
White meat,Sweets
Vegetables, Bread, Potato
Legumes, Pasta, Biscuits Olive oil, Milk,Yoghurt, Rice, Egg
Sweets,Red meat
Fruit, Vegetables
Cheese, EggWhite meat,
Fish, Biscuits
Milk, Yoghurt
Bread, Pasta, Rice,Potato, Legumes
Olive oil
ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMID
FOOD PYRAMID
HIGH
LOW
LOW
HIGH
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L IM
PAC
T
SUG
GES
TED
AM
OU
NTS
Wil
lia
m A
lbe
rt A
lla
rd /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
2. Scientific basis of the Food Pyramid
The diet traditionally followed in the Countries of the Mediterranean Region (in particular, in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Southern France) is a dietary model characterized by its marked nutritional balance and is recognized by many nutritionists and dieticians as one of the best diets in terms of physical well-being and the prevention of chronic diseases, especially cardiovascular ones.
To
ma
sz T
om
asz
ewsk
i / N
atio
na
l Ge
og
rap
hic
Ima
ge
Co
lle
ctio
n
It is desirable that the publication of this document – as it happened with recent studies published by the European Commission – will be an incentive for the publication of further studies and publications related to the environmental impacts of foods.
30 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
ThediettraditionallyfollowedintheCountriesoftheMediterraneanRegion(inpar-ticular,inItaly,Spain,Portugal,GreeceandSouthernFrance)isadietarymodelcharac-terizedby itsmarkednutritionalbalanceand isrecognizedbymanynutritionistsanddieticiansasoneofthebestdietsintermsofphysicalwell-beingandthepreventionofchronicdiseases,especiallycardiovascularones.
TheideaandtheconceptofaMediterraneandiethadalreadybeenhypothesizedin1939bythemedicalnutritionistLorenzoPiroddi,whowasthefirsttosuggestthecon-nection between food and diabetes, overeating and obesity1. Subsequently, in the fif-ties,AncelKeys2-amedical-scientistfromtheUniversityofMinnesotaSchoolofNutri-tion–cametoItalywiththeoccupationtroopsandbecameawareofsomethingthat,atthetime,seemedverystrange.Thelessaffluent(theso-calledpoor)inthesmalltownsofSouthern Italywhosurvivedprevalentlyonbread,onionsandtomatoes,showedalowerincidenceofcardiovasculardiseases,notonlythanthecitizensofNewYork,butalsothantheirownrelativeswhohademigratedpreviouslytotheUnitedStates.
ThenutritionalvalueoftheMediterraneandietwasscientificallyshownbythewell-known“Seven Countries Study”directedbyKeys(Keys et al.,1955) inwhichthedietsfollowedbythepopulationsofdifferentCountrieswerecomparedtoidentifytheben-eficialandcriticalaspectsofeachdiet.Thisledtoanunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweendietandriskofonsetofchronicdiseases(Keyset al.,1967),anditwasdiscov-eredthatthehighlevelofsaturatedfatsandcholesterolinthebloodrepresentsafactorcapablenotonlyofexplainingthedifferencesinmortalityrates,butalsoofpredictingthefutureratesofcoronarydiseaseinthepopulationsanalyzed(Keys,1970;Kromhoutet al.,1994).Thestudyalsodemonstratedthatthebestdietwasthe“Mediterranean”one, the proof being that the populations of Montegiorgio (Marches) and the inhabit-antsofCrevalcore(aruraltownintheEmilia-RomagnaRegion)hadaverylowlevelofcholesterolinthebloodandaminimumpercentageofcoronarydiseases,thankstotheirconsumptionofoliveoil,breadandpasta,garlic,redonions,aromaticherbs,vegetablesandverylittlemeat.
1 “Cucina Mediterranea. Ingredienti, principi dietetici e ricette al sapore di sole”, Mondadori, Milan, 19932 Ancel Benjamin Keys (1904-2004), American physician and physiologist, is famous for having been one of the main
advocates of the benefits of the Mediterranean diet for combating a large number of widespread diseases in the West, particularly cardiovascular diseases
2. Scientific basis of the Food Pyramid
2.1 Studies involving the Mediterranean Diet
Jam
es L
. Sta
nfi
eld
/ N
atio
nal
Geo
grap
hic
Imag
e Co
llect
ion
2. Scientific basis of the Food Pyramid - 31
Fromthefirst“Seven Countries Study”tothecurrentdays,manyotherstudieshaveanalyzedthecharacteristicsandtherelationshipsbetweendietaryhabitsadoptedandtheonsetofchronicdisease3.Starting inthenineties,therehasalsodevelopeda lineof study into the relationship between diet and longevity4. In general, what emergesis that the adoption of a Mediterranean, or similar, diet, provides a protective factoragainst the most widespread chronic diseases. In other words, high consumption ofvegetables,legumes,fruitsandnuts,oliveoilandgrains(whichinthepastwerepreva-lentlywholemeal);moderateconsumptionoffishanddairyproducts(especiallycheeseandyoghurt)andwine;lowconsumptionofredmeat,whitemeatandsaturatedfattyacids(Willett&Sacks,1995).
TheinterestofthescientificandmedicalcommunityintheMediterraneanDietisstillextremelyactive,and,infact,thecurrentspecialistliteratureoftenpublishesinforma-tionabouttherelationshipbetweenMediterranean-styledietaryhabitsandtheimpacton human health. The beneficial aspects of the Mediterranean Diet are backed by in-
creasingevidenceintermsofbothpreven-tion and clinical improvement regardingspecific pathology areas. It is interestingto note that a study conducted utilizingthe PubMed scientific database, over a3-month period, indicates approximately70 scientific publications whose primarythemeistheMediterraneanDiet5.
These publications present the resultsof clinical or epidemiological research inwhich adherence to the MediterraneanDiettranslatesintomeasurablebenefitsinnumerous areas of human health6, which
include,forexample,cardiovasculardisease,metabolicconditions,neurologicalorpsy-chiatricpathologies(e.g.,Alzheimer’s),respiratorydiseaseorallergies,femaleandmalesexualdisorders(e.g.,erectiledysfunction)andcertainoncologicalpathologies.Intermsof this last point, of particular interest are the recent conclusions of a broad-rangingEPIC European study which examined 485,044 adults over the course of nine years;EPICshowedthatincreased adherence to the Mediterranean Diet is connected to a significant reduction(-33%)in the risk of developinggastriccancer7.
Finally, it is interestingtonotethatthescientificliteraturedemonstratesapositiveimpact of the Mediterranean Diet across all age brackets, starting from pre-natal tochildhood,adulthoodandoldage.
3 World Cancer Research Fund, 1997; Willett, 19984 Nube et al., 1993; Farchi et al., 1995; Trichopoulou et al., 1995; Huijbregts et al., 1997; Kouris-Blazos et al., 1999;
Kumagai et al., 1999; Osler & Schroll, 1997; Kant et al., 2000; Lasheras et al., 2000; Osler et al., 2001; Michels & Wolk, 2002
5 PubMed, Search Mediterranean Diet in Title/Abstract, from January 25 to April 25, 20106 Middleton L, Yaffe K., “Targets For The Prevention Of Dementia”, J. Alzheimers Dis. 2010 Apr 22; Camargo A et al.
“Gene expression changes in mononuclear cells from patients with metabolic syndrome after acute intake of phenol-rich virgin olive oil”, BMC Genomics. 2010 Apr 20; Camargo A et al., “A low carbohydrate Mediterranean diet improves cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes control among overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 1-year prospective randomized intervention study”, Diabetes Obes Metab. 2010 Mar;12(3):204-9.; Vlismas K et al. Quality, but not cost, of diet is associated with 5-year incidence of CVD: the Zutphen study. Public Health Nutr. 2010 Apr 1:1-8; Castro-Rodriguez JA et al., “Olive oil during pregnancy is associated with reduced wheezing during the first year of life of the offspring”, Pediatr Pulmonol. 2010 Apr;45(4):395-402; Llaneza P et al., “Soy isoflavones, Mediterranean diet, and physical exercise in postmenopausal women with insulin resistance. Menopause”, 2010 Mar;17(2):372-8; Giugliano F et al. Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Erectile Dysfunction in Men with Type 2 Diabetes. J Sex Med. 2010 Feb 25; Giugliano F et al. “Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Erectile Dysfunction in Men with Type 2 Diabe-tes”, J Sex Med. 2010 Feb 25
7 Vessby et al., “Adherence to a Mediterranean diet and risk of gastric adenocarcinoma within the European Prospecti-ve Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort study”, Am J Clin Nutr 73: 2010 Feb;91(2):381-90
The Mediterranean diet has been adopted to a greater extent among the higher-educated segments of the population above all which perceives it as cohering more closely to cur-rent social/cultural trends, such as attention to well-being, fight against overweight, pro-motion of traditional foods, search for natural, healthy products and awareness of environ-mental issues.
32 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
The eating habits which constitute the Mediterranean Diet would seem to cohere with the nutritional recommendations expressed by the guidelines issued by the most authoritative scientific bodies and international institutions involved withthemajorpathologiesafflictingourera(inparticular,cardiovasculardisease,canceranddiabetes). In fact, one of the many tasks of medical bodies is that of preparing guide-linesrelatingtoprevention,diagnosisandtreatmentintheirrespectivefields.Intermsof diet, each scientific body dealing with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer,whetheronanationalorinternationallevel,hasdrawnuprecommendationsaimedatpreventingtheappearanceoftheirrespectivepathologies.TheBarillaCenterforFood& Nutrition has gathered, analyzed and summarized the guidelines published by themostauthoritativeItalianandinternationalscientificbodiesandinstitutionsonthisis-sue8,andhasfoundthattherearemanyaspectsonwhichtheyconverge9.Thisanalysishasmadeitpossibletooutlinewhichbehaviorsandlifestylesshouldbeadoptedforahealthy diet to provide generalized prevention against the risk of cardiovascular dis-ease,diabetesandcancer(Figure2.1).
Theresultsoftheanalysisunderscorethat,thankstoitsstrictsimilaritywiththerec-ommendationsmadeonascientificlevel,the Mediterranean model is one of the most effective in terms of promoting and preserving well-being and preventing chronic disease.
Withthegoalofquantifyingtheextenttowhichanygivendietcoincidesordiffersfrom the Mediterranean diet, a number of “Mediterranean adequacy” indices havebeendeveloped.Inparticular,afterhavingcreatedanindexthatquantifiesadherenceto the Mediterranean diet on a scale from 0 to 9 (where the maximum value meansmaximumadherenceandviceversa),Trichopoulou(Trichopoulouet al.,1995)foundaninverserelationshipbetweenthescoreobtainedbyapopulationandthemortalityratesofmoreelderlyindividuals.
AlsofromthestudiesofPanagiotakos(Panagiotakoset al.,2007)itemergedthattheincreaseinthelevelofadherencetotheMediterraneandietwassignificantforthepre-dictionofcasesofhypertension,hypercholesterolemia,diabetesandobesityinadults.Anincreaseofapprox.20%ofadherencetotheMediterraneandiet10reducestheonsetofcardiovasculardiseaseby4%overaten-yearperiod.OtherstudiesconductedbyTri-chopoulou(Trichopoulouet al.,2007)showedhowadherencetotheMediterraneandietproduces significant reductions in the overall mortality rates of the population, espe-ciallyindeathsduetocardiovasculardiseaseandtumors.ThesameresultsemergealsofromtherecentstudiesofMitrou(Mitrouet al.,2007)conductedfortenyearsonasam-pleofover380,000Americans.Inthespecificcaseofcoronarydisease,DeLongeril(DeLorgerilet al.,1999)demonstratedhowtheMediterraneandietreducestheriskofheartattack by 72%. The results of the studies of Fung (Fung et al., 2005) have confirmed,once more, the cardio protective effects of the Mediterranean diet. In a recent meta-analysisstudybySofi(Sofiet al.,2008),itemergedthattheMediterraneandietprovidesaprotectivefactoragainstallcausesofmortalityand,inthespecificinstance,towardsthoseconnectedwithcardiovasculardiseaseandtumors,butalsotowardsParkinson’sandAlzheimer’sdisease.
8 Among the sources used for the analyses it can be cited: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, American Cancer Association, American Institute for Cancer Prevention, Federation of European Cancer Society, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, Italian Society of Cardiology (SIC), Na-tional Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), British Heart Foundation, International Diabetes Federation, American Diabetes Association, Italian Society of Diabetology
9 For more detailed information about this question, please refer to Chapter 3 of the “Food and Health” Position Paper published by the Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition in September 2009
10 The scale used in the study runs from 0 to 55, so an increase of 10 points on the Mediterranean adequacy index is equivalent to an increase of approx. 20%.
Un aumento del 20% circa di aderenza alla Dieta Mediterranea riduce l’insorgenza di malattie cardiovascolari del 4% nell’arco di dieci anni.
To conclude, the majority of the most authoritative scientific studies on the rela-tionship between diet and chronic diseases indicates, without any reasonable doubt,that the Mediterranean diet is the model to be used as the point of reference for correct dietary habits.
Figura2.1.Convergencebetweenguidelinesforthepreventionofcardiovasculardisease,diabetesandcancer:sum-
marydiagram.Source:“FoodandHealth”,BarillaCenterforFood&Nutrition,September2009
2. Scientific basis of the Food Pyramid - 33
Jod
i Co
bb
/ N
atio
na
l Ge
og
rap
hic
Ima
ge
Co
lle
ctio
n
3. Indicators used to measure environmental impact
Focusing directly on the food production chain, process assessment underscores the extent to which the main environmental impacts are seen in the generation of greenhouse gas, consumption of water resources and land use.
Me
dfo
rd T
aylo
r /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
The environmental impact associated with each food includes analysesof the entire supply chain, including cultivation and raw materials processing, manufacturing, packaging, transport, distribution, use, re-use, re-cycling and final disposal.
38 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
The environmental impact associated with each food was estimated on thebasis of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), an objective method for evaluatingenergy and environmental impact for a given process (whether an activity or aproduct). This evaluation includes analyses of the entire supply chain, including,cultivation and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, packaging, transport,distribution,use,re-use,re-cyclingandfinaldisposal.
TheLCAmethodisgovernedbyinternationalstandardsISO14040and14044,whichdefineitsspecificcharacteristics.
LCAstudiesarepreciseanalysistoolswhich,ontheonehand,offertheadvantageofhavingasobjectiveandcompleteassessmentofthesystemaspossible,and,ontheoth-er,thedisadvantagethatsometimestheresultsaredifficulttocommunicate. Inordertorendertheresultsofastudyeasytounderstand,normallysummaryindicatorsareusedthathavebeendefinedtopreservethescientificnatureoftheanalysisasmuchaspossible.
Generally,theseindicatorsareselectedonthebasisofthetypeofsystembeingana-lyzedandmustbeselectedinordertorepresentasfullyandsimplyaspossibletheinter-actionwiththemainenvironmentalsectors.
3. Indicators used to measure environmental impact
Field Production
Packaging
Transport
Cooking
3. Indicators used to measure environmental impact - 39
Morespecificallyandfocusingdirectlyonthefoodproductionchain,processassess-mentunderscorestheextenttowhichthemainenvironmentalimpactsareseeninthegenerationofgreenhouse gas,consumptionofwater resourcesand land use.
Startingfromtheseassumptions,andbearinginmindthatthisdocumentintendstogiveresultsatafirstlevelofinvestigation,theenvironmentalindicatorsthathavebeenselectedare:n the Carbon Footprint, which represents greenhouse gas emissions responsible for
climatechangeandismeasuredintermsofamountofCO2equivalent;n theWater Footprint(orvirtualwatercontent),whichquantifiestheamountofwa-
terresourcesconsumedandhowtheyareconsumed;itmeasureswateruseintermsofvolume.
n the Ecological Footprint, which measures the biologically productive land and seaareahumanactivityrequirestoproducetheresourcesitconsumesandtoabsorbthewasteitgenerates;itismeasuredinsquaremetersor“globalhectares”.
AlthoughitwaschosentousetheEcologicalFootprintfortheconstructionoftheEn-vironmentalPyramid,thedocumentshowstheenvironmentalimpactsofthevariousfoodsconsideredalsointermsofCarbonFootprintandWaterFootprintbecauseusingthesethreeindicatorsinacomparedmanneroffersamorecompleteviewoftheimpactsinvolved,avoidingapartialoneand,insomecases,onethatcouldbemisleadin.
Conceptual differences between the indicators analyzed
It was decided to use these three environmental indicators because they comple-ment each other in the way they are designed and allow a comprehensive view of the environmental impacts involved.
The Carbon Footprint is an indicator representing greenhouse gas emissions generated by processes which, in the specific case of the agri-food chain, are comprised primarily of CO2 generated through the use of fossil fuels, from methane (CH4) derived from livestock enteric fermentation, and emissions of nitrogen protoxide (N2O) caused by the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers in farming. This indicator is also designed, to a certain extent, to represent energy consumption, especially fossil fuels.
The Ecological Footprint is a method for calculating society’s use of natural’s as-sets. Is a method for calculating society’s use of natural’s assets.
The water component is handled by the Ecological Footprint solely as the occupied surface used for fishing, but not in terms of consumption of this resource. Thus, al-though the Ecological Footprint is the most complete of all the indicators, the Water Footprint is also required to complete the set of indicators.
40 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Given in the box below is a brief description of these indicators (with references towheretoobtainmoredetailedinformation),alsoprovidingisgeneralinformationaboutthecalculationassumptionsutilized.Thesecondpartofthisdocumentpresentsmorespecificaspectsofindividualfoods.
Currently-existing environmental indicators
The Carbon Footprint, Water Footprint and Ecological Footprint were chosen as indi-cators of environmental sustainability after having taken into consideration the wide range of indicators available. The decision was based on how complete an assessment is expressed by the individual indicator.
At the same time, however, the scientific world and institutions have made available myriad indicators capable of measuring sustainability in an effective and detailed manner. For example, the European Environmental Agency (EEA)1 has identified a group of indicators which assess environmental impact in the various areas:n Agriculture (Area under organic farming; Gross nutrient balance);n Atmospheric pollution (Emissions of acidifying substances; Emissions of ozone
precursors; Emissions of primary particles and secondary particulate matter pre-cursors; Exceedance of air quality limit values in urban areas; Exposure of ecosys-tems to acidification, eutrophication and ozone);
n Biodiversity (Designated areas; Species diversity; Threatened and protected spe-cies);
n Climate change (Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations; Global and Euro-pean temperature; Greenhouse gas emission projections; Greenhouse gas emission trends; Production and consumption of ozone depleting substances);
n Energy (Final energy consumption by sector; Primary energy consumption by fuel; Renewable electricity consumption; Renewable primary energy consumption; To-tal primary energy intensity);
n Fishing industry (Aquaculture production; Fishing fleet capacity; Status of marine fish stocks);
n Land (Land take; Progress in management of contaminated site);n Transport (Freight transport demand; Passenger transport demand; Use of clean-
er and alternative fuels);n Waste (Generation and recycling of packaging waste; Municipal waste generation);n Water (Bathing water quality; Chlorophyll in transitional, coastal and marine wa-
ters; Nutrients in freshwater; Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters; Oxygen consuming substances in rivers; Urban waste water treatment; Use of freshwater resources).
Similarly, the Sustainable Development Strategy2 defined by the European Union identifies a set of indicators that can monitor and assess the quality and efficacy of the policies implemented by individual Member States. These indicators involve ten areas (Socio-economic development; Sustainable consumption and production; Social inclusion; Demographic Changes; Public Health; Climate Change and Energy; Sustainable Transport; Natural Resources; Global Partnership; Good Governance), which are divided, in turn, into sub-categories. The large number and completeness of the group of indicators made available by the European Union makes it possible to assess whether basic and priority goals of the policies have been met and to establish if the actions developed have actually been implemented.
1 Source: EEA Core Set of Indicators (http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/CSI)2 Source: Indicators for monitoring the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/
page/portal/sdi/introduction)
3. Indicators used to measure environmental impact - 41
By “Carbon Footprint” is meant the impact associated with a product (or service) intermsofemissionofcarbondioxideequivalent(CO2-equiv),calculatedthroughouttheen-tirelifecycleofthesystemunderexamination.ItisanewtermutilizedtoindicatethesocalledGlobalWarmingPotential(GWP)and,therefore,thepotentialgreenhouseef-fectofasystemcalculatedusingtheLCA–LifeCycleAssessmentmethod.
IncalculatingtheCarbonFootprintarealwaystakenintoconsiderationtheemissionsofallgreenhousegases,whicharethenconvertedintoCO2equivalentusingtheinter-national parameters set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), abodyoperatingundertheaegisoftheUnitedNations.
CorrectlycalculatingtheCarbonFootprintofagoodorservicemustnecessarilytakeintoaccountallthephasesofthesupplychainstartingwiththeextractionoftherawmaterials up through disposal of the waste generated by the system on the basis ofLCAmethodology.Clearly,thisrequiresthecreationofa“workingmodel”thatcanfullyrepresentthesupplychaininordertotakeintoaccountallaspectswhichactuallycon-tributetotheformationoftheGWP.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
In 1988 the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Envi-ronment Program (UNEP) created the IPCC with the purpose of providing policymak-ers with an objective analysis of the technical-scientific and social-economic litera-ture available regarding climate change.
The IPCC is an intergovernmental body (and not a direct research body) open to all member Countries of the WMO and UNEP. Each Government has an IPCC Focal Point that coordinates IPCC-related activity within that Country. Currently, the IPCC Focal Point for Italy is the Euro-Mediterranean Center for Climate Change – CMCC.
The primary activity of the IPCC consists of producing regular scientific assessment reports (every 6 years) on findings related to the field of climate and climate change (Assessment Reports). The Assessment Reports, which reflect analysis and evalua-tion of international scientific consensus of opinion, are reviewed by experts. In recent years, the work of the IPCC has been approved by leading scientific organizations and academies throughout the world.
In particular, the most recent report of the IPCC, published in 2007, stressed even more forcefully “that the majority of the increase in average global temperature ob-served starting from the mid-20th century, is due to the observed increase in concen-trations of anthropogenic greenhouse gas” and that future climate change does not involve solely the rise in temperature, but will also modify the entire climate system, with serious repercussions on ecosystems and human activity.
The IPCC has recently initiated preparation of a new Assessment Report (AR5) to take into consideration recent technical-scientific developments and it will outline a new set of climate, social-economic and environmental scenarios. The final document should be ready in 2014. The information produced by the IPCC is important for the negotiation process currently underway under the United Nations Framework Con-ference on Climate Change – UNFCCC.
On October 12, 2007, the IPCC, together with former US Vice President Al Gore, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The award dedication read: “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”.
3.1Carbon Footprint
42 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Thanks above all to the ease with which it can be communicated and understoodevenbylaymen,theconceptoftheCarbonFootprinthasspreadtothepointthattherearemanystandardsrecognizedonaninternationallevelwhichdefine,tovaryingde-gree,therequisitestobefollowedforthecalculations.
Themostimportantones,oratleastthosemostwidelyused,are:n ISO standards 14040 and 14044: in reality, they are the standards relative to life
cycleassessment,buttheycanalsobeconsideredthemethodologicalbasisforcalcu-latingthecarbonfootprint;
n ISO 14064isorientedtowardsdefiningthemodalityforcalculatinggreenhousegasemissionsandverificationbyanindependententity;
n GHG protocol: document prepared bythe Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative,a supra-governmental organization thatprepared the calculation protocol mostwidelyusedonaninternationallevel,thisprotocol combines technical aspects withmore economically-oriented ones of or-ganizationalmanagement;
n PAS 2050 (Assessing the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and serv-ices): document prepared by the British Standards Institute to provide a technicaldocumentthatismoredetailedthantheISOstandardsandwhosegoalistoprovidemorespecificrulestoadoptinCarbonFootprintcalculation.Itisoneofthemostre-centandoperationally-orienteddocumentsand,asaresult,amongthoseofgreaterinteresttothescientificcommunity;
n EPD™ system:preparedbytheInternationalEPDConsortium(IEC),itsetstherulesforpreparing,verifyingandpublishingtheso-calledproductenvironmentaldeclara-tionswhich,inessence,aretheverified“ID”ofaproduct’senvironmentalcharacter-istics.AlthoughthesystemisnotaimedspecificallyattheCarbonFootprint,inthiscontextitisextremelyrelevantbecausegreenhousegasemissionsareoneoftheen-vironmentalparameterswhich,typically,arepartofanenvironmentaldeclaration.
Itmustbenotedthatthevariouscalculationprotocolsdonotconflictonatechnicalleveland,forthisreason,arenormallyalltakenintoconsiderationcontemporaneouslyduringtheCarbonFootprintassessmentofaproduct.
By “Carbon Footprint” is meant the impact associated with a product (or service) in terms of emission of carbon dioxide equivalent, calculated throughout the entire life cycle of the system under examination.
3. Indicators used to measure environmental impact - 43
The Water Footprint (or virtual water content) is a specific indicator for the use offreshwaterandhasbeendesignedtoexpressboththeamountofwaterresourcesactu-allyconsumed,aswellasthewayinwhichthewaterisutilized.
ThecalculationmethodwasdevelopedbytheWaterFootprintNetwork3andwasde-signedsothattheindicatorcalculatedwouldtakeintoconsiderationthreebasiccom-ponents:n thevolumeofrainwaterevapotranspiredfromthegroundandcultivatedplants;this
componentisdefinedgreen water;n thevolumeofwatercomingfromsurfaceorundergroundwatersourcesutilizeddur-
ingthecourseofthesupplychainbeinganalyzed,includingbothirrigationandproc-esswater;thiscomponentisalsoknownas blue water;
n grey waterwhichrepresentsthevolumeofpollutedwaterderivingfromtheproduc-tionofgoodsandservicesmeasuredasthevolumeofwater(theoretically)requiredtodilutepollutantssufficientlytoguaranteethequalitystandardofthewateritself.
Water Footprint
The Water Footprint was conceived in 2002 by Prof. Arien Y. Hoekstra of the University of Twente (The Netherlands) within the context of UNESCO-promoted activities, as an alternative to traditional indicators utilized for water resources.
This indicator measures water use in terms of volume (expressed in m3) of evaporated and/or polluted water for the entire supply chain, from production to direct consumption, and may be calculated not only for each product or activity, but also for each well-defined group of consumers (an individual, family, inhabitants of a town or an entire nation) or producers (private companies, public entities, economic sectors). Specifically:- the Water Footprint of a product (tangible good or service) consists of the total
volume of freshwater consumed to produce it, taking into consideration the various phases in the production chain;
- the Water Footprint of an individual, community or nation consists of the total volume of freshwater consumed either directly or indirectly by the individual, community or nation (water consumed to produce goods and services utilized);
- the Water Footprint of a company consists of the volume of freshwater consumed during the course of its activity, added to that consumed in its supply chain.
The Water Footprint is tied to the concept of virtual water, hypothesized in 1993 by Professor John Anthony Allan of King’s College London School of Oriental and African Studies, which indicates the volume of freshwater consumed to produce a product (a commodity, good or service), totaling all the phases of the production chain. The term “virtual” refers to the fact that the vast majority of water utilized to create the product is not physically contained in the product itself, but was consumed during the phases of its production.
The Water Footprint Network is a non-profit organization created in 2008 through the combined efforts of major organizations involved in the question of “water resources” (including the University of Twente, WWF, UNESCO, Water Neutral Foundation, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and others) to coordinate the activities undertaken in this area, spread knowledge of concepts involving the Water Footprint, the various calculation methods and tools utilized, as well as promote sustainable equitable and efficient use of global freshwater resources.
The Scientific Director of the Water Footprint Network is Professor Arjen Y. Hoekstra, the creator of the concept of the Water Footprint.
3 Source: Arjen Y. Hoekstra, et al., “Water Footprint Manual. State of the art 2009”, November 2009; www.waterfoot-print.org
3.2Water Footprint
44 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Ascanbeintuitedfromthisbriefdefinition,thecalculationmethodrequiredtoquan-tifythethreecomponentsoftheindicatorvariesonthebasisofthecategoryanalyzed.
Specifically, blue water is just a simpleaccount of water consumption. For theproductionchainoffoods,boththewaterutilized during manufacturing as well aswater used for irrigation during cultiva-tionaretakenintoconsideration.
Estimate of the grey water componentcanbemadebyimaginingatheoreticalbal-anceofmassbetweentheflowofpolluted
waterandcleanwater.Theresultisanoutflowwhichmustmeetacceptablestandardssetbylocallaw.Practically,however,itcanbehypothesizedthattheoutflowsofapro-ductionsystemmustalwaysbewithinlocallegislatedlimitsofacceptabilityand,there-fore,asafirstapproximation,thegreywatercomponentmaybeconsiderednegligible.
Themostsignificantcomponent,andthereforetheonemostcomplextoevaluate,isunquestionablythatofgreen watersinceitdependsonlocalclimaticconditionsandspe-ciescultivated.
Calculating Green WaterGreen Water is calculated utilizing the following equation:
where:n ET0 is dependent upon local climate characteristics; n Kc is dependent upon cultivated plant species;n yield is dependent on the plant species under consideration and the climate charac-
teristics of where it is cultivated.
The Water Footprint is a specific indicator for the use of freshwater and has been designed to express both the amount of water resources actually consumed, as well as the way in which the water is utilized.
Green waterET 0 [mm] * Kc * 10l
kgyield
t
ha
3. Indicators used to measure environmental impact - 45
TheEcologicalFootprint isanindicatorusedtoestimatetheimpactontheenviron-mentofagivenpopulationduetoitsconsumption;itquantifiesthetotalareaofterres-trialandaquaticecosystemsrequiredtoprovideinasustainablemanneralltheresourc-esutilizedandtoabsorb(onceagaininasustainableway)alltheemissionsproduced.
The Ecological Footprint measures the quantity of biologically productive land andwaterrequiredtobothprovidetheresourcesconsumedandabsorbthewasteproduced.
The calculation methodology is identified by the Global Footprint Network4 and in-cludesthefollowingcomponentsinthecalculation.n Energy Land,representsthelandrequiredtoabsorbtheCO2emissionsgeneratedby
theproductionofagoodorservice;n Cropland,representsthelandrequiredtocultivatefarmproductsandfeedforlive-
stock;n Grazing Land, represents the land required to support the grazing of the livestock
underexamination;n Forest Land, represents the land uti-
lized for the production of wood re-quiredtocreaterawmaterials;
n Built-up Land,representsthelandoc-cupied by structures assigned to pro-ductiveactivity;
n Fishing Ground, represents the landrequired for the natural developmentorfarmingoffishproducts.
TheEcologicalFootprintisthusacompositeindicatorwhich,throughconversionandspecific equivalences, measures the various ways in which environmental resourcesareutilizedthroughasingleunitofmeasure,theglobalhectare(gha).
Global Footprint Network
In 2004 Mathis Wackernagel and his associates founded the Global Footprint Network, a network of research institutes, scientists and users of this indicator which aims to further improve its calculation method and bring it to higher standards, while at the same time guarantee enhanced scientific “robustness” for the indicator as well as promoting its spread.
Together with the Living Planet Index it represents one of the two indicators through which, on a two-yearly basis, the WWF in collaboration with the Global Footprint Network and the Zoological Society of London, assesses the conservation status of the planet: the results are presented in the Living Plant Report.
4 Source: Global Footprint Network, www.globalfootprint.org
3.3Ecological Footprint
The Ecological Footprint quantifies the total area of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems required to provide in a sustainable manner all the resources utilized and to absorb (once again in a sustainable way) all the emissions produced.
46 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
The approach used in calculating the Ecological Footprint is completely analogoustoaLifeCycleAssessmentstudy. Itcallsforconvertingtheenvironmentalaspectsofthe productive process – specifically CO2 emissions and land use – into surface (globalhectare)“equivalents”.AsinthecaseoftheCarbonFootprint,thismeansthatthefinalvalue does not indicate the actual amount of land occupied, but rather a theoreticalrepresentationwhichtakesintoconsiderationtheweighteddifferencesofthevariouscategories.
Specifically,thecalculationismadeinarelativelysimplewaybymultiplyingthevalueof the environmental aspect under examination (for example, agricultural land use)by the correct conversion factor defined by the calculation protocol. The table belowprovidesacompletelistoftheconversionfactors.
Table3.3.1-EquivalenceFactorsutilizedtocalculatetheEcologicalFootprint5
Category Unit of measure Equivalence factor
Energy land gha/tCO2 0.2775
Cropland gha/ha 2.64
Grazing Land gha/ha 0.50
Forest gha/ha 1.33
Built-up Land gha/ha 2.64
Fishing Ground gha/ha 0.40
Althoughtheindicatortakesintoconsiderationthesixlandcategories,inactuality,inthefoodchainstudy,ForestandBuilt-upLandarenegligible,theformerbecausewoodisnotpartoffoodchains,andthelatterbecausefactoriesoccupyverylittlespacecom-paredwiththeothercategories,especiallyif“dividedup”betweentheamountoffoodproduced.
5 Calculated taking into consideration: 0.208 tha/CO2 and 1.33 gha/ha. Note that in calculating energy land, only CO2 and not CO2-equivalent emissions are considered
3. Indicators used to measure environmental impact - 47
Ecological Footprint:some points of criticism
The Ecological Footprint is an indicator with solid scientific basis. This is shown by the widespread use made of it by the scientific community, as well as the recent decision of the European Union to invest in the development and improvement of the methodology on which it is based.
Despite this, the Ecological Footprint is not exempt from criticism6. In particular, some observers note that the basic assumptions behind the methodology for calculating the indicator result in a measure of sustainability that is not fully correct. For example, in high- and medium-income Countries, energy consumption has a significant impact on the calculation method (it is estimated that the influence is at least 50%), resulting in a fairly substantial impact on the final result.
Along the same lines, some experts also believe that there are serious problems of comparison between indicator results and the actual physical dimension of the geographical area under examination, thus leading to problems of comparison between different Countries and cities. Often the boundaries of the cities examined do not correspond to their actual ones because the indicator does not take into consideration the mobility of inhabitants in surrounding areas.
A further potential problem area would seem to involve the technological level considered in the indicator to estimate the impact of production of goods and services. According to some experts, the myriad production and trade connections between different Countries and areas render the current method less than fully-effective since measurement is not made at the source of production, but rather utilizing the characteristics of the area of consumption. Generally stated, it is felt that sudden technological changes in production and consumption could reduce the utility and reliability of this indicator.
In conclusion, the calculation methodology utilized for the Ecological Footprint does not take into consideration such phenomena as destruction and impossibility to utilize certain land areas (so-called land degradation). According to some experts, this is an important aspect that absolutely must be considered in assessing environmental sustainability.
6 For a more detailed discussion of this point, please refer to: Fiala N., “Measuring Sustainability: Why the Ecological Footprint is Bad Economics and Bad Environmental Science”, University of California, 2008; Van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., Harmen Verbruggen, “Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘Ecological Footprint”, 1999.
48 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Jon
ath
an
Bla
ir /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
4. Measuring the impact of foods:the three Environmental Pyramids
1.Titolo capitolo - 49
Foods with the lowest environmental impact are also those for which, in accordance with the international nutritional guidelines, the most frequent consumption is recommended.
50 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Tin
o S
ori
an
o /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
The beneficial aspects of the Mediterranean Diet are backed by increasing evidence in terms of both prevention and clinical improvement.
1.Titolo capitolo - 51
52 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
This section will present the conceptual process leading from the mass of informa-tionavailabletotheconstructionoftheEnvironmentalPyramid,thefoundationofthisstudy.
Putsuccinctly,thebasicstepswereasfollows:n analysisoftheinformationledtothecreationofasufficiently-largedatabaseand,
foreachfood,itsimpactwascalculatedfromtheaverageofthedataavailable;n thedataobtainedwereusedtoconstructthespecificpyramidsoftheindividualen-
vironmentalindicatorsusedasareference;n from the three Environmental Pyramids constructed, one was selected (Ecological
Footprint)andusedtoconstructtheDoublePyramidmodel.
Eachofthesestepsisexaminedinmoredetailinthefollowingparagraphs.The choice to use only scientific documents and public information derived from
themostauthoritativeandknowndatabases,permittedtoreachanadequatelevelofknowledge of the food chains under investigation. Nevertheless, not always the as-sumptionsbehindtheconstructionofthegivendataarehomogeneousorthedatasta-tisticalcoverageiscomplete,suchasformeat.Sometimes,forvegetablesforexample,itcanbeimproved.
Itisbelievedthatthepublicationofthisdocument–asithappenedwithrecentstud-iespublishedbytheEuropeanCommission–willbeanincentiveforthepublication,inthe near future, of further studies and publications related to the environmental im-pactsoffoods,thatwillbeusedandcitedinthenextrevisionofthisdocument.
Details of the data analyzed are given below, subdividing the foods into categoriesbasedonsimilarityofproductionprocesses.Beforeenteringintothespecifics(present-edinsubsequentchapters),theseinitialtablesprovidethevaluesanddatarangesforeachfoodexamined.
Includedinthetablesisalsotheaveragevalueutilizedtoconstructthedifferentenvi-ronmentalimpactPyramids.Thisvaluewascalculatedasthearithmeticaverageofthedatafoundinliterature,excludingclearlyanomalousdata.
Thefirst categoryisfoods from agriculture.Thespecialnatureofvegetablesshouldbenotedandthedataforthemaredividedbetweengreenhouseandnon-greenhouse(seasonal)production;forlegumes,acookingprocessbasedonboilingwhichincreasesimpactby420gofCO2equivalentand5globalm2,onthebasisoftheassumptionsde-scribedbelow.
Table4.1.1-Foodsfromagriculture
Foods from agriculture Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Data per kg [gCO2 equivalent/kg] [Liters of water] [global m2/kg]
FruitDatarange 40-100 500-700 2.3-3.8
Average value 70 600 3
Greenhouse vegetables
Datarange 3,000-5,000 106 9
Averagevalue 4,000 106 9
Cooking(boiling) 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 4,420 106 14
4. Measuring the impact foods: the three Environmental Pyramids
4.1Summary of environmental data
4. Measuring the impact of foods: the three Environmental Pyramids - 53
Foods from agriculture Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Data per kg [gCO2 equivalent/kg] [Liters of water] [global m2/kg]
Seasonal vegetables
Datarange 100-500 106 2.6-5.3
Averagevalue 302 106 4
Cooking(boiling) 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 722 106 9
Potatoes
Datarange 98-220 900 1.7-2.1
Averagevalue 164 900 2
Cooking 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 584 900 7
Legumes
Datarange 890÷1,500 1,800 13÷18
Averagevalue 1,130 1,800 16
Cooking 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 1,550 1,800 21
Withinthecategoryoffoods derived from processing of agricultural productswereincludedproductsfollowingindustrialprocessingoftherawmaterials.Onceagainhere,somefoodswereconsideredtohavebeenboiled.
Table4.1.2-Foodsfromprocessingofagriculturalproducts
Foods from processing of agricultural products
Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Data per kg [gCO2 equivalent/kg] [Liters of water] [global m2/kg]
Pasta
Rawpasta 1,564 1,390 12
Cooking(boiling) 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 1,984 1,390 17
Rice
Rawrice 1,800-3,000 3,400 7÷11
Averagevalue 2,750 3,400 9
Cooking(boiling) 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 3,170 3,400 14
BreadDatarange 630-1,000 1,300 6.7
Average value 983 1,300 6.7
SugarDatarange 200-1,000 1,500 3÷6
Average value 470 1,500 4
OilDatarange 2,500-3,900 4,900 14.6
Average value 3,897 4,900 14.6
Sweets Average value 3,700 3,140 30
Biscuits Average value 2,300 1,800 16
54 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Thecategoryoffoods derived from animal husbandryincludesmeat,milkanddairyproductsandeggs.Formeatandeggs,thecookingprocessesassumedweregrillingformeat (increasing impact to 1,000 g of CO2 equivalent and 13 global m2) and boiling foreggs.
Table4.1.3-Foodsderivedfromanimalhusbandry
Foods from animal husbandry Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Data per kg [gCO2 equivalent/kg] [Liters of water] [global m2/kg]
Beef
Datarange 6,000-44,800 15,500 85-94
Averagevalue 30,400 15,500 92
Cooking(grilling) 1,000 Negligible 13
Average value with cooking 31,400 15,500 105
Pork
Datarange 2,300-8,000 4,800 36
Averagevalue 4,359 4,800 36
Cooking(grilling) 1,000 Negligible 13
Average value with cooking 5,360 4,800 49
Poultry
Datarange 1,500-7,300 3,900 33
Averagevalue 3,830 3,900 33
Cooking(grilling) 1,000 Negligible 13
Average value with cooking 4,830 3,900 46
Cheese Average value 8,784 5,000 75
Butter Average value 8,800 5,000 75
MilkDatarange 1,050-1,303 1,000 11-19
Average value 1,138 1,000 15
Yoghurt Average value 1,138 1,000 15
Eggs
Datarange 4,038-5,800 3,300 9
Averagevalue 4,813 3,300 9
Cooking(boiling) 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 5,233 3,300 14
4. Measuring the impact of foods: the three Environmental Pyramids - 55
Thecategoryoffoods from fishing includesbothfishandshellfish.Theoretically,theenvironmentalimpactrangewouldbeverywide,butitshouldbenotedthatthemini-mumvalue(40gofCO2equivalentperkg)andmaximumvalue(20,000gofCO2equiva-lentperkg)referrespectivelytomusselsandlobster.Forthisreason,theaveragevaluewasbasedontheimpactoffishmostcommonlyusedinrecipes(e.g.,soleandcod).
Furtherdetailsaboutthisinformation,aswellasthecookingmethod(grillinginthiscase),aregiveninsubsequentchapters.
Table4.1.4-Foodsfromfishing
Foods from fishing Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Data per kg [gCO2 equivalent/kg] [Liters of water] [global m2/kg]
Fish
Datarange 220-10,500 N.A. 45-66
Averagevalue 3,273 N.A. 56
Cooking 1,000 Negligible 13
Average value with cooking 4,273 N.A. 69
Thefinalcategorypresentedisthatofbeverages,inwhichmineralwaterandwinehavebeenincluded.
Table4.1.5-Foodsfrombeverages
Beverages Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Data per kg [gCO2 equivalent/kg] [Liters of water] [global m2/kg]
Mineral water Averagevalue 200 - <1
Wine Averagevalue 2,300 1,000 20
56 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Cattle meat
Cheese
Fish
Pork meat
Chicken meat
Sweets
Legumes
Pasta
Biscuits
Milk
Yogurt
Oil
Rice
Egg
Vegetables
Potato
Bread
Fruit
100
50
25
10
5
15
15
7
105
75
69
49
46
30
21
17
16
15
14
14
3
7
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Legend:
cooking min max
average value + cooking
Ecological Footprintglobal m2 - kg or litre of food
Graphic representation of the numeric values for the environmental impact of indi-vidualfoodsresultsinconstructionofbandswhosedimensionareindirectrelationshipwiththesizeoftherangeof informationavailable.ThesebandsareshownbelowforeachindicatorandtheiranalysisprovidesthevaluethatisthentransformedintothecorrespondingEnvironmentalPyramid.
Despitethefactthatdataacquiredforsomefoodsvaryquitesignificantly,“theclas-sification” of the impact of individual foods is nonetheless sufficiently clear: red meatis the food with greatest impact, while fruit and vegetables have a decidedly limitedimpacts.
Table4.2.1-Ecological Footprint
Table4.2.2- Carbon Footprint
4.2Three possible Environmental Pyramids
20,000
8,000
4,000
1,000
2,000
8,784
5,359
5,233
4,830
4,273
3,897
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 / 45,000
Cattle meat
Cheese
Pork meat
Egg
Chicken meat
Fish
Oil
Sweets
Rice
Biscuits
Pasta
Legumes
Milk
Yogurt
Bread
Vegetable
Potato
Fruit
31,415
3,700
3,170
1,984
1,550
2,300
1,138
1,138
70
722
983
584
Legend:
cooking min max
average value + cooking
Carbon FootprintgCO2-eq - kg or litre of food
4. Measuring the impact of foods: the three Environmental Pyramids - 57
Table4.2.3-Water Footprint
By using the Life Cycle Assessment methodology, all environmental indicators con-sidered for the entire analysis period were maintained on the same level. However,when making these results public, the need for conciseness and clarity dictates thatastraightforwardmethodforcommunicatingtheinformationobtainedshouldbeuti-lized.
Twodifferentapproachesarepossibleinthesephase:thefirstbasedontheconstruc-tionofanaggregateindicatortotalingallthevariousenvironmentalinformationintoasinglevalue;thesecondbasedonselectinganimpactindicatorrepresentativeofalltheresults.
In constructing the Double Pyramid,wehavechosenthesecondapproach,takingasthesolereference indicatorthatofthe Ecological Footprint.
Thischoicewasbasedonthefollowing:n ofthethreeindicatorsexaminedinthisstudy,theEcologicalFootprintis the most
complete,becauseittakesintoconsiderationbothlanduseandCO2emissions;n theEcologicalFootprintisthe simplest indicator to communicatebecausetheunit
ofmeasure(globalhectare)iseasyto“visualize”;n theEcologicalFootprintis the environmental indicatorthat,inarecentstudiedcon-
ductedfor the European Commission1,hasbeenidentifiedasoneoftheonesthatshould be promoted.
1 Best, Aaron, et al; 2008
Cattle meat
Cheese
Oil
Pork meat
Chicken meat
Rice
Egg
Sweets
Biscuits
Legumes
Pasta
Bread
Milk
Yogurt
Potato
Fruit
Vegetables
1,800
1,390
900
15,500
5,000
4,900
4,800
3,900
3,400
3,300
1,300
3,140
1,800
1,000
100
600
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 / 15,000
Legend: average value
Water Footprintlitre - kg or litre of food1,000
5.000
4.000
1.500
2.000
1.000
0
cooking value not presented because not considered
4.3The Environmental Pyramids based on the Ecological Footprint
58 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMID
HIGH
LOW
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L IM
PAC
T
ECO
LOG
ICA
L FO
OTP
RIN
T gl
obal
m2 p
er k
g/l
> 100
50
25
10
5
FOOD PYRAMID
LOW
HIGH
SUG
GES
TED
AM
OU
NTS
SWEETS, RED MEAT
MILK, YOGHURT
OLIVE OIL
BREAD, PASTA, RICE, POTATO, LEGUMES
CHEESE, EGG, WHITE MEAT, FISH, BISCUITS
FRUIT, VEGETABLES
RED MEAT
WHITE MEAT, SWEETS
LEGUMES, PASTA, BISCUITS, OLIVE OIL, MILK, YOGHURT, RICE, EGG
VEGETABLES, BREAD, POTATO
FRUIT
CHEESE, FISH
4. Measuring the impact of foods: the three Environmental Pyramids - 59
ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMID
HIGH
LOW
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L IM
PAC
T
ECO
LOG
ICA
L FO
OTP
RIN
T gl
obal
m2 p
er k
g/l
> 100
50
25
10
5
FOOD PYRAMID
LOW
HIGH
SUG
GES
TED
AM
OU
NTS
SWEETS, RED MEAT
MILK, YOGHURT
OLIVE OIL
BREAD, PASTA, RICE, POTATO, LEGUMES
CHEESE, EGG, WHITE MEAT, FISH, BISCUITS
FRUIT, VEGETABLES
RED MEAT
WHITE MEAT, SWEETS
LEGUMES, PASTA, BISCUITS, OLIVE OIL, MILK, YOGHURT, RICE, EGG
VEGETABLES, BREAD, POTATO
FRUIT
CHEESE, FISH
60 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Me
liss
a F
arl
ow /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
5. Details of environmental data gathered
1.Titolo capitolo - 61
Process assessment underscores the extent to which the main environmental impacts are seen in the generation of greenhouse gas, consumption of water resources and land use.
62 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
To
dd
Gip
ste
in /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
Another aspect which can certainly be considered relevant in calculating the environmental impacts in some foods is the influence of the geographical area in which they are produced.
1.Titolo capitolo - 63
64 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
The information is presented grouping foods according to the following categoriesthatreflectthedetailedprocessdescription:n Foodsderivedfromagriculture(fruit,vegetables,grains,etc.);n Foodsderivedfromcultivationagriculturalproducts(sugar,oil,pasta,etc.);n Foodsderivedfromanimalhusbandry(dairyproducts,meat,etc.);n Foodsfromfishing;n Beverages.
Foreverycategoryexamined,thevaluesconnectedwitheachenvironmentalindica-tor are given, taken from data banks and scientific studies and, when possible, thesehavebeencomparedwithdataprocessedwithintheworkinggroup.
The results for each of the environmental indicators examined (for both scientificstudies and processed data) are expressed as a range of values since a specific valuewould not be representative of the category as a whole. For example, fruit includes anumberofvarietieswithdifferentcultivationprocessesand,asaresult,asinglevalueforthecategory“fruit”cannotbegivenforeachindicator.
Forthemajorityoffoodsexamined,theresultsgivendonotincludethecookingphaseand, therefore, it was decided to make certain assumptions about this, the details ofwhichcanbefoundinasectiondedicatedtothisaspect(5.2).
Thedecisiontouseonly“publiclyavailable”dataandinformationisduetothefactthatinthisfirsteditionofthestudyitwasdecidedtoorganizethepresentationofresultsinsuchawayinordertoallowapotentialreaderdesirousofexaminingtheanalysisinamorein-depthandanalyticalmannertoreconstructthedatainarelativelysimpleway.
Inactuality,theworkinggroupwhichpreparedthisdocumenthasfurtherinformationcompletingthedatabankconstructedwithdatatakendirectlyfromproducersinvolvedinthevarioussupplychainsandprocessingofthisdata.Atthistime,thisinformationhavebeenutilizedforcomparativepurposesaswellasguidingresearchandselectionofthebibliographicalsourcesutilizedinconstructingthePyramid.Forsubsequentver-sionsofthisdocument,thepossibilityofformally involvingproducers, inordertoex-pandthedatabaseutilizedasmuchaspossible,couldbetakenintoconsideration.
Returning to the bibliographical sources, the information utilized to complete thisworkwastakenfrompublishedliteratureorfromthosedatabanksnormallyconsultedinlifecycleanalysisstudies.Thebibliographyappendedtothisdocumentcitesalltheindividual sources drawn on from scientific literature, but it should be noted that, ingeneral,themainsourcesofinformationwere:n theEcoinventdatabase;n EnvironmentalProductDeclarations(EPD)1;n LCAfooddatabase(www.LCAfood.dk);n WaterFootprintNetworkdatabase;n EcologicalFootprintNetworkdatabase.
1 Source : Environmental Product Declarations, www.environdec.com
5. Details of environmental data gathered
5.1Main data sources
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 65
Source type Source list Description
LCAdatabanks
Ecoinvent
Informationispublicandutilizedbysectorprofessionals.Itsqualityvariesand,generally,theinformationisnot
specifictoagivenproducerandthereforegenerallyapplicabletotheproduct.
LCAfood
WaterFootprintNetwork
EcologicalFootprintNetwork
Certifiedpublications EPD™ Informationvalidatedbythirdparties.
Canbehighly-specifictoasingleproducer.
Scientificpublications
Completelistisgiveninthebibliography
Informationpertainingtoascientificstudyandvalidatedbyaqualifiedcommittee.Product-specific,butgenerally
qualitativelyreliable.
Generatedin-house -
Dataprocessedspecificallyforthisstudy.Becauseitwasdecidedtokeepthisdatatoaminimumanduseonly
publicly-availabledata,thisinformationareless-reliablethanothersourcescited.
Main data sources utilized
The LCA approach, born over the 1970s and 1980s, spread significantly during the 1990s, especially following the 1997 publication of ISO standard 14040. Since then, this approach has gradually spread, starting from the manufacturing sector, to cover many production supply chains and resulting in the creation of a number of public data banks.
One of the data banks most utilized by those in this sector is that of ECOINVENT. Created by the Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, ECOINVENT is a data base available on line2 that supplies much information and data about virtually all production supply chains. Another data base specific to the food sector is that created as part of a project financed by the Danish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fishing. This information is also available on line, free of charge3.
Recent applications of the LCA methodological approach increasingly involve the desire of producers to communicate in a clear, accurate manner the environmental performance of the goods and services they place on the market. Starting in 2000, this has led to the development of the international EPD™ (environmental product declaration) system, the goal of which is to promote the spread of product environmental declarations assessed on the basis of ISO standards. These declarations (also public), are gradually creating a data bank of validated information useful in assessing environmental impact: some of these relate to food products and have been taken into consideration in this study.
In evaluating the sources utilized, it should be noted that the validated product environmental declarations refer to the creation of a good by a specific producer and, therefore, do not necessarily reflect the average environmental performance associated with the processes under examination.
2 Source: ECOINVEN database, www.ecoinvent.ch3 Source : LCA database, http://www.LCAfood.dk/
66 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Foods derived from agriculture
This category includes those foods produced directly from agricultural activity or,moreprecisely,thoseinwhichindustrialprocessesareeitherinexistentorlimited.Forthepresentationofenvironmentalimpacts,thecategoryhasbeenfurthersubdividedinto:n fruit;n legumes;n vegetables;n potatoes.
Thesystemboundariesforthedataprovidedinthissectionincludethemainprocessphases,whichare:n theactualagriculturalproductionphaseincluding,specifically,fuelconsumptionand
fertilizeruse;n anypost-harvestcleaningandtreatmentphases;n transportoftheproductsfromthefieldtothedistributioncenter.
FruitThethreeindicatorscalculatedforthe“fruit”category,whichit isassumediseaten
raw,aresummarizedinTable5.1.1,givingboththedatarangeandthevalueutilizedinconstructingtheEnvironmentalPyramid(averagedata).
Table5.1.1–Indicatorsfor1kgoffruit
FRUIT
Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 40-100 500-700 2.3–6
Average value 704 600 3
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint - 1 - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint 1 1 - -
ThefirstinformationprovidedinvolvestheCarbonFootprintwhich,asshowninTable5.1.2,hasvaluesrangingfrom40to100gramsofCO2equivalentperkgoffruit.
4 Average of the published data range
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 67
Table5.1.2–CarbonFootprintofanumberoffruitsfromtheliterature
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Apples 40÷100 MilàiCanalset al.(2006)
Fordatainvolvingwaterconsumption,theinformationfoundintheWaterFootprintNetworkdatabase(creatorsofthemethodandrelativecalculationprotocol)wasutilized(Table5.1.3).
Table5.1.3–WaterFootprintofanumberoffruitsfromthedatabase–Source:datafromwww.waterfootprint.org
ProductWater Footprint
liters/kg
Oranges 500
Apples 700
TheEcologicalFootprintvaluesforsomefruitsaresummarizedinTable5.1.4. Inthecalculation,contributionsfromCropland(orchardlanduse)andEnergy Landweretakenintoconsideration.
Table5.1.4–EcologicalFootprintofanumberoffruits
ProductEcological Footprint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Oranges and tangerines 2.4
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItalian
situationin2001(GFN–Italy2001)
Lemons and limes 2.3
Bananas 2.9
Apples 3.6
Grapes 3.8
Fruit 5÷6 Chamberset al. (2007)
68 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
LegumesThethree indicatorscalculatedforthe“legumes”categoryaresummarized inTable
5.1.5.
Table5.1.5–Indicatorsfor1kgoflegumes
LEGUMES
Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 890-1,500 1,800 13-18
Average value 1,130 1,800 16
Cooking (boiling) 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 1,550 1,800 21
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint 1 - - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint 2 - - -
Thelegumesanalyzedincludefavabeans,haricotbeans,peasandsoybeans.Thedatafound inthe literaturedonottake intoaccountthecookingphasefor legumeswhichhasbeenaddedaccordingtotheassumptionsgiveninthesectiononcookingmethod.
CarbonFootprintdataweretakenfromtheEcoinventdatabaseandaregiveninTable5.1.6.
Table5.1.6–CarbonFootprintfor1kgoflegumesSource:www.ecoinvent.ch
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Fava beans 1,000 Ecoinvent2004(FavabeanIP,atfarm,CH,[kg])
Peas 890 Ecoinvent2004(Proteinpea,organic,atfarm,CH,[kg])
Soybeans 1,500 Ecoinvent2004(soybeans,atfarm,BR,[kg])
In terms of water consumption, the only available data was for soybeans from thedatabankoftheWaterFootprintNetworkdatabase.
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 69
Table5.1.7–WaterFootprintfor1kgoflegumes.Source:www.waterfooptrint.org
ProductWater Footprint
liters/kg
Soybeans 1,800
Finally,Table5.1.8providesthedatafortheEcologicalFootprint,takeninpartfromtheEcoinventdatabase,andinpartfrominformationgleanedfromthedatabankoftheGlobalFootprintNetwork.
Table5.1.8– EcologicalFootprintfor1kgoflegumes
ProductEcological Footprint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Fava beans 13.6 Ecoinvent2004(FavabeanIP,atfarm,CH,[kg])
Peas18.2 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank
17 Ecoinvent2004(Proteinpea,organic,atfarm,CH,[kg])
Soybeans 15 Ecoinvent2004(soybeans,atfarm,BR,[kg])
VegetablesThethreeindicatorscalculatedforthe“vegetables”categoryaregiveninTable5.1.9.
Table5.1.9–Indicatorsfor1kgofvegetables
Foods from agriculture
per kg
Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Greenhouse vegetables
Datarange 3,000–5,000 106 9
Averagevalue 4,000 106 9
Cookingpotatoes(boiling) 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 4,420 106 14
Seasonal vegetables
Datarange 100-500 106 1.7–5.3
Averagevalue 250 106 3
Cooking 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 670 106 8
70 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint 1 2 - -
Water Footprint - - - 1
Ecological Footprint 1 - - 1
Thevegetablesanalyzedincludelettuceandtomatoes.InconstructingthePyramid,itwasassumedthatvegetablesareeatencooked.Formoredetailedinformationonthispoint,pleaserefertothesectiondedicatedtocookingmethods.
Thevaluesforthethreeindicatorsaregiveninthetablesbelow.TheCarbonFootprinttable(Tab.5.1.10)distinguishesbetweenseasonalvegetables
and greenhouse vegetables (lettuce and tomatoes) because greenhouse gasemissionsregardingthelatterarehigherduetosignificantenergyuseforheatingthegreenhouses.
Table5.1.10–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofvegetables
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Lettuce400–500
Hospidoet al. (2009)4,000(greenhouse)
Tomatoes154 Andersson(2000)
3,000-5,000(greenhouse) LCAfooddk
Mic
hae
l Mel
ford
/ N
atio
nal
Geo
grap
hic
Imag
e Co
llect
ion
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 71
Given that Water Footprint data are not available for seasonal vegetables, ad hocelaboration were made, calculating green water and blue water for the cultivation oftomatoesinItaly(datausedfortheelaborationaresynthesizedinTab.5.1.11).
Regardinggreenhousevegetables,itisassumedthattheamountofvirtualwaterisequaltotheseasonalvegetablesone.
Table5.1.11–WaterFootprintfor1kgoftomatoes
Parameter Data Source
Green water
Et0[mm/growingperiod] 601 UCEAObservatory5
Growingperiod:May-September
Kc[-] 0.86ElaboratedbytheworkinggrouptakingintoaccountthemethodologydescribedinAllen
et al.,1998
Yield[t/ha] 60 Dataabouttobepublished
Ete[l/kg] 86 Takingintoaccountthemethodologydescribedinparagraph3.2
Blue water [litri/kg] 20 Dataabouttobepublished
Water Footprint [litri/kg] 106Takingintoaccountthemethodology
describedinparagraph3.2Value utilized for the pyramid [litri/kg] 106
Given that out-of-season vegetables require a high level of energy for greenhouseheating and cooling, an assessment of the Energy Land associated solely with green-houseconditioningwasmade,andthiswasaddedtotheaveragevalueoftheEcologicalFootprintofseasonalvegetables.
The Energy Land assessment was made using the data reported by Hospido as thebase (greenhouse gas emissions tied to conditioning: 2.3 kg CO2 equivalent per kg ofgreenhouselettuce).
MultiplyingtheemissionsbytheequivalencefactorproducesanEnergy Landvalueof6globalm2/kg.Thisvaluereferstoallgreenhousegasemissionsand,consequently,couldbeanoverestimate.
AddingtheEnergy Land(6globalm2/kg)valuetotheEcologicalFootprintaverageval-ueforseasonalvegetables(3gm2/kg)producesanestimateoftheEcologicalFootprintforgreenhousevegetables(9globalm2/kg),asshowninTable5.1.12.
Table5.1.12–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofvegetables
ProductEcological Footprint
Sourcegm2/kg
Onions 2.6 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank
Tomatoes 5.3 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank
Greenhouse vegetables 9 Elaboratedbyworkinggroup
5 Source: http://www.politicheagricole.it/ucea/Osservatorio/miekfyi01_index_zon.htm
72 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
PotatoesThethreeindicatorscalculatedforpotatoesaregiveninthefollowingtables.
Table5.1.13–Indicatorsfor1kgofpotatoes
POTATOES
Carbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 98÷220 900 1,7÷2,1
Average value 164 900 2
Cooking (boiling) 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 584 900 7
Jim
Ric
har
dso
n /
Nat
ion
al G
eogr
aph
ic Im
age
Colle
ctio
n
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 73
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint 2 - - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint 2 - - -
Datagiveninliteraturedonotincludequantificationofcoking-relatedimpactsofpo-tatoesthat,itisaddedbasedontheassumptionsdiscussedinthededicatedsection.
CarbonFootprintdataarereportedinTable5.1.14.
Table5.1.14– CarbonFootprintfor1kgofpotatoes
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Potatoes
160(atfield)LCAfooddk
220(atretail)
98-116 Ecoinvent2004(PotatoIP,atfarm,CH,[kg])
DataforvirtualwaterconsumptionsaretakenfromtheWaterFooptrintNetworkda-tabaseandpresentedinTable5.1.15.
Table5.1.15–WaterFootprintfor1kgofpotatoes
ProductWater Footprint
Sourceliters/kg
Potatoes 900 www.waterfootprint.org
Finally, Tables 5.1.16 shows the Ecological Footprint data which were taken in partfromtheEcoinventdatabase,andinpartfromtheGlobalFooptrintNetworkdatabase.
Table5.1.16– EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofpotatoes
ProductEcological Footprint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Potatoes2.1 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank
1.7 Ecoinvent2004(PotatoIP,atfarm,CH,[kg])
74 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Foods derived from processing of agricultural products
This category includes those foods produced following industrial processing (ofvariedcomplexity)ofagriculturalrawmaterials.Forthepresentationofenvironmentalcharacteristics,thefoodshavebeendividedinto:n Pasta;n Rice;n Bread;n Sugar;n Condiments(oils);n Sweets(cakes);n Biscuits.
Thesystemboundariesforthedatapresentedinthissectionincludethemainprocessphases,whichare:n theagriculturalproductionphase;n theindustrialprocessingphase;n productionofanypackingmaterials;n transportfromthefieldtothedistributioncenter.
PastaTheindicatorsforhardwheatpastaarederivedfromtheenvironmentaldeclaration
ofthepastacertifiedonthebasisoftheEPD™internationalsystem6andsummarizedinTable5.1.17.Intermsofcooking,althoughtheenvironmentaldeclarationincludesanestimateoftheimpacts, itwasdecidedtofollowthesameapproachutilizedforotherfoods as referenced in the information presented in the section dedicated to cookingmethod.
IntermsoftheWaterFootprint,adocumentprepareddirectlybytheWaterFootprintNetwork, shows values in line with those presented in the pasta EPD declaration(Haldaya,2009).
Because pasta is a food that is never consumed on its own, in constructing theEnvironmental Pyramid it was assumed that it would be cooked, but without theadditionofanytypeofcondiment.Giventheseassumptions,theenvironmentalimpactstakenintoconsiderationareshowninthetablebelow.
6 http://www.environdec.com/pageID.asp?id=130&menu=4,14,0&epdId=195
Kee
np
ress
/ N
atio
nal
Geo
grap
hic
Imag
e Co
llect
ion
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 75
Table5.1.17–Indicatorsfor1kgofpasta
PASTA
Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Source
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Raw pasta 1,564 1,390 12 BarillapastaEPD
Cooking (boiling) 420 Negligible 5 Seespecificsection
Cooked pasta 1,984 1,390 17 -
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint - - 1 -
Water Footprint - - 1 -
Ecological Footprint - - 1 -
RiceAswithpasta,itwasalsoassumedthatricewouldbecookedwithouttheadditionof
anytypeofcondiment.Thethreeindicatorscalculatedforricearegiveninthetablesbelow.
InfindingtheaverageofthedatafortheCarbonFootprint,itwasdecidedtoleaveoutthedatafromtheEcoinventdatabasesinceitisreferredtotheproductionofpaddyriceandnottotherefinedone.
Table5.1.18–Indicatorsfor1kgofvegetablerice
RICE
Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Raw rice 1,800–3,000 3,400 7–11
Average value 2,750 3,400 9
Cooking (boiling) 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 3,170 3,400 14
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint 1 1 - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint 2 - - -
76 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
ThevaluesforthethreeindicatorsaresummarizedinTables5.1.19.,5.1.20and5.1.21.Thesefiguresdonotincludethecookingphase;forthisaspect,pleaserefertothespe-cificsectiondedicatedtocookingmethod.
Table5.1.19–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofrice
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Rice2,500–3,000 Blengini,Busto(2008)
1,8007 Ecoinvent2004(Rice,atfarm,1kg,US)
Table5.1.20–WaterFootprintfor1kgofrice
ProductWater Footprint
Sourceliters/kg
Rice 3,400 www.waterfootprint.org
Table5.1.21–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofrice
ProductEcological Footprint
Sourcegm2/kg
Rice7,8 ElaboratedfromGFNdatabase–Italy2001
11 Ecoinvent2004(Rice,atfarm,1kg,US)
BreadTheenvironmentalindicatorsforbreadproductionaresummarizedinTable5.1.22.TheaveragevaluefortheCarbonFootprintwascalculatedbyfindingtheaverageof
allavailabledata,takingintoconsideration:n theaveragedataoftherangeasperAndersson&Ohlsson(1999);n dataforretailsaleaspertheDanishdatabase.
Table5.1.22–Indicatorsfor1kgofbread
BREADCarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 630–1,000 1,300 6.7
Average value 983 1,300 6.7
7 Value not included in the calculation of average values since the data base does not take into consideration methane emission during rice cultivation
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 77
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint 1 1 - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint - - - 1
Theenvironmentalvaluesfortheindicatorsforbreadproductionaregivenintheta-blesbelow.
Table5.1.23–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofbread
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Fresh loaf880(atplant)
LCAfooddk930(atretail)
Frozen loaf890(atplant)
LCAfooddk1,260(atretail)
Wheat bread (fresh)
780(atplant)LCAfooddk
840(atretail)
Wheat bread (frozen)
890(atplant)LCAfooddk
1,260(atretail)
Rye bread720(atplant)
LCAfooddk790(atretail)
Bread 630-1,000 Andersson&Ohlsson(1999)
Mic
hae
l Mel
ford
/ N
atio
nal
Geo
grap
hic
Imag
e Co
llect
ion
78 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Table5.1.24– WaterFootprintfor1kgofbread
ProductWater Footprint
Sourceliters/kg
Bread 1,333 www.waterfootprint.org
Table5.1.25– EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofbread
ProductEcological Footprint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Bread 6.7 Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup
CalculationsfortheEcologicalFootprintweremadeonthebasisofdatatakenfromthescientificstudybyAndersson&Ohlsson,calculatingonlythecontributionsofCroplandandEnergy Land,asshowninthetablebelow:
Cropland Energy land Ecological Footprint
Landuse[m2/kg]
Equivalencefactor
[globalm2/m2]
Cropland[gm2/kg]
CO2emissions[gCO2/kg]
Equivalencefactor
[gha/tCO2]
Energyland[globalm2/
kg]global m2/kg
2 2.64 5.3 500 0.277 1.4 6.7
SugarTheindicatorsaresummarizedinTable5.1.26.
Table5.1.26–Indicatorsfor1kgofsugar
SUGAR
Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 200–1,000 1,500 3-6
Average value 470 1,500 4
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint 2 1 - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint 2 - - -
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 79
Forthe“sugar”category,beetsugarandcanesugarwereconsideredandtheirenvi-ronmentalimpactvaluesareshowninthetablesbelow.
Table5.1.27–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofsugar
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Beet sugar
840(atplant)LCAfooddk
960(atretail)
500 Ecoinvent2004(sugar,fromsugarbeet,atsugarrefinery,CH,[kg])
Cane sugar233 Ramjeawon(2004)
190 Ecoinvent2004(sugar,fromsugarcane,atsugarrefinery,BR,[kg])
Table5.1.28–WaterFootprintfor1kgofcanesugar
ProductWater Footprint
Sourceliters/kg
Cane sugar 1,500 www.waterfootprint.org
IncalculatingtheEcologicalFootprint,thecontributionsfromCrop LandandEnergy LandweretakenintoconsiderationandtheinformationwastakenfromtheEcoinventandGlobalFootprintNetworkdatabase.
Table5.1.29– EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofsugar
ProductEcological Footprint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Beet sugar3.5 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank
6 Ecoinvent2004(sugar,fromsugarbeet,atsugarrefinery,CH,[kg])
Cane sugar3.2 ElaborazionebancadatiGFN–Italy2001
4.9 Ecoinvent2004(sugar,fromsugarcane,atsugarrefinery,BR,[kg])
80 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
OilThethreeindicatorscalculatedforthe“oil”categoryaregiveninTable5.1.30.
Table5.1.30–Indicatorsfor1literofoil
OIL
Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 2,500-3,900 4,900 14.6
Average value 3,897 4,900 14.6
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint 1 2 - -
Water Footprint - - - 1
Ecological Footprint - - - 1
Forcondiments,fourdifferenttypesofvegetableoilswereconsidered:oliveoil,palmoil,soybeanoilandrapeseedoil.Thevaluesforthethree indicatorsareshowninthetablesbelow.TorealizethethreePyramidswasconsideredonlyoliveoil.
Siss
e B
rim
berg
/ N
atio
nal
Geo
grap
hic
Imag
e Co
llect
ion
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 81
Table5.1.31–CarbonFootprintfor1literofoil
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Olive oil 3,897 Avraamides,Fatta(2008)
Palm oil 2,5148 Yusoff,Hansen(2007)
Soybean and rapeseed oil
3,510(atplant)LCAfooddk9
3,630(atretail)
Figures for the Water Footprint were developed by calculating the contribution ofgreen waterandblue water.CalculationdataaresummarizedinTable5.1.32.
Table5.1.32– WaterFootprintfor1literofoil
Parameter Value Source
Green water
Et0[mm/month] 908 UCEAObservatory10
Kc[-] 0,65Dataelaboratedbytheworkinggrouptakingintoaccountthemethodology
describedinAllenet al.,1998
Yield[t/ha] 7 HoepliManualofAgriculture
Ete[l/kg] 843Dataelaboratedbytheworkinggrouptakingintoaccountthemethodology
describedinparagraph3.2
Blue water [liters/kg] 4,000 Avraamides,Fatta(2008)
Water Footprint [liters/kg] 4,843 Dataelaboratedbytheworkinggrouptakingintoaccountthemethodology
describedinparagraph3.2Value utilized for the pyramid [liters/kg] 4,900
Calculations for the Ecological Footprint were made exclusively on the basis ofCroplandandEnergy Landcontributions,asshowninthetablebelow:
Table5.1.33–EcologicalFootprintassessmentfor1literofoil
Crop land Energy land Ecological Footprint
Landuse[m2/kg]
Equivalencefactor
[globalm2/m2]
Cropland[globalm2/
kg]
CO2emissions[gCO2/kg]
Equivalencefactor
[gha/tCO2]
Energyland[globalm2/
kg]global m2/kg
1.4311 2.64 3.8 3,90012 0.277 10.8 14.6
8 The final refining phase for palm oil was not included within the boundaries of the study9 Soybean and rapeseed oil10 http://www.politicheagricole.it/ucea/Osservatorio/miekfyi01_index_zon.htm11 Hoepli, Manual of Agriculture12 Avreemides, Fata (2008)
82 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Table5.1.34–EcologicalFootprintfor1literofoil
ProductEcological Footprint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Oil 14,6 Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup
SweetsForthiscategory,nopublicly-availableinformationwasfound,andforthisreasonthe
resultsofalifecycleassessmentforTortadelParadiso-atraditionalItalian-stylecake(Veronelli,“IlCarnacina”,Garzanti)-areprovided.Thedatawaspreparedbytheworkinggroupinordertohaveageneralideaoftheimpactassociatedwith1kgofsweet.
Thiscakewasusedasaproxyofthe“sweets”category.TherecipeanddatailsaboutthelifecycleassessmentevaluationaregiveninAppendixA1.
Theindicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofsweetsaregiveninTable5.1.35.
Table5.1.35–Indicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofsweets
SWEETS
Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 3,700 3,140 30
Average value 3,700 3,140 30
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint - - - 1
Water Footprint - - - 1
Ecological Footprint - - - 1Jo
el S
arto
re /
Nat
ion
al G
eogr
aph
ic Im
age
Colle
ctio
n
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 83
BiscuitsForthiscategory,nopublicly-availableinformationwasfound,andforthisreasonthe
results of a life cycle assessment for biscuits are provided. The data was prepared bytheworkinggroupinordertohaveageneralideaoftheimpactassociatedwith1kgofcookies.
Asrepresentativeofthiscategory,“healthycookies”(Artusi,recipeno.573)wereana-lyzed,thedetailedrecipeforwhichisgiveninAppendixA1.
Theindicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofcookiesaregiveninTable5.1.36.
Table5.1.36–Indicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofcookies
COOKIES
Carbon Footprint
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 2,300 1,800 16
Average value 2,300 1,800 16
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint - - - 1
Water Footprint - - - 1
Ecological Footprint - - - -
Foods derived from animal husbandry
This category includes those foods involving livestock husbandry, both for animal-basedproducts(milk,eggs)andmeatitself.Thesubcategoriesutilizedare:n beef(redmeat);n pork(whitemeat);n poultry(whitemeat);n cheese;n butter;n milk;n yoghurt;n eggs.
Thesystemboundariesfortheseproductsinclude:n thelivestockhusbandryphaseincludinggrowingoffeed;n butcheringphase(formeatproduction);n processingofproducts(formilkandeggs).
Aswiththeotherfoodsalreadypresented,theindicatorsgivendonotincludeimpactsassociatedwithcooking.Forthisreason,theimpactsconnectedwiththisphasewerecalculated on the basis of the assumptions given in the section dedicated to cookingmethod,assumingthatonlycheeseisconsumeduncooked.
84 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
White meat and red meatThe decision was made to construct the Double Pyramid dividing meat into white
and red. While continuing to maintain basic information and data in a clear, straight-forward manner, the two categories have been designed in order to facilitate commu-nication: red meat is represented by beef while white meat by pork and poultry.
Beef (red meat)Theindicatorscalculatedforthe“beef”categoryaregiveninTable5.1.37.
Table5.1.37–Indicatorsfor1kgofmeat
BEEF
Carbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 6,000–44,800 15,500 89–94
Average value 30,400 15,500 92
Cooking 1,000 Negligible 13
Average value with cooking 31,400 15,500 105
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint 1 9 - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint - 1 - -
Dataforenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithbeefproductionaretakenfrompub-licsourcesandareshowninthetableswhichfollow.
In particular, Tables 5.1.38 and 5.1.39 provide Carbon Footprint values from, respec-tively,theDanishLCAfooddatabaseandthe“Food Production and Emission of Green-house Gases”report issuedbySIK–theSwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnologyandtheInternationalJournalofLCA.
TheaveragevaluefortheCarbonFootprintwascalculatedbyfindingtheaverageofallavailabledata:n takingintoconsiderationdataforretailsaleaspertheDanishdatabase;n takingintoconsiderationtheaveragedata,thenmediatedwithotherdata;n excludingoverboardcategory(68,000andvaluesbetween2,220and4,370).
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 85
Table5.1.38– CarbonFootprintfor1kgofbeef–Source:LCAfoodDK
ProductCarbon Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg
Tenderloin67,900(atslaughterhouse)
68,000(atretail)
Fillet 44,800
Top round 42,300
Steak 42,400
Fore-end 24,600
Outside 2,230
Flank steak 2,240
Round2,210(atslaughterhouse)
2,220(atretail)
Minced meat4,320(atslaughterhouse)
4,370(atretail)
Knuckle shank4,040(atslaughterhouse)
4,080(atretail)
Table5.1.39– CarbonFootprintfor1kgofbeef
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Beef
32,000 Oginoetal.(2007),Japan(SIKreport)
28,000–32,000 Casey&Holden(2006a,b),Suckler,Ireland(SIKreport)
16,000 Williamsetal.(2006),”AverageUKbeef”(SIKreport)
25,000 Williamsetal.(2006),”100%suckler”,UK(SIKreport)
30,000 Verge,etal.(2008),”AverageCanadianbeef”(SIKreport)
40,000 Cederbergetal.(2009a),”AverageBrazilianbeef”(SIKreport)
28,000 Cederbergetal.(2009b),”AverageSwedishbeef2005”(SIKreport)
17,000–19,000 Cederberg&Darelius(2000),”Swedishbeeffromcombinedsystemsdairy-beef”(SIKreport)
22,300 Cederberg&Stadig(2003)
86 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Intermsofwaterconsumption,theWaterFootprintdatawastakenfromthedatabaseavailableontheNet(Tables5.1.40),whilefortheEcologicalFootprint,astudyrecentlypresented by the Piedmont Region that specifically examines beef production wasutilized(Tables5.1.41).
Table5.1.40–WaterFootprintfor1kgofmeat
ProductWater Footprint
Sourceliters/kg
Beef 15,500 www.waterfootprint.org
Table5.1.41–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofmeat
ProductEcological Footptint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Beef 89–94RegionePiemonte(AssessoratoAmbiente),la
contabilitàambientaleapplicataallaproduzionezootecnica.Collanaambiente29
Pork (white meat)Dataforenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithporkproductionaretakenfrompublic
sourcesandareshowninTable5.1.42.
Table5.1.42–Indicatorsfor1kgofporkmeat
PORK
Carbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 2,300–8,000 4,800 36
Average value 4,359 4,800 36
Cooking (broiling) 1 Negligible 13
Average value with cooking 5,360 4,800 49
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint 1 5 - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint 1 - - -
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 87
Tables5.1.43and5.1.44provideCarbonFootprintvaluestakenfrom,respectively,theDanishLCAfooddatabaseandthe“Food Production and Emission of Greenhouse Gases”reportissuedbySIK–theSwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnology.
Table5.1.43–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofpork–Source:LCAfoodDK
ProductCarbon Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg
Tenderloin4,520(atslaughterhouse)
4,560(atretail)
Ham, pork neck, streaky bacon2,900(atslaughterhouse)
2,950(atretail)
Minced meat2,660(atslaughterhouse)
2,310(atretail)
Table5.1.44–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofpork
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Pork
5,600–6,400 Williamsetal.,2006
5,300–8,000 BassetMens&vanderWerf(2003)
4,100–3,600 Cederberg&Flysjö(2004)
3,200–3,500 StridErikssonet al.(2005)
5,200 Cederbergm.fl.(2009)
Intermsofwaterconsumption,theWaterFootprintdatawastakenfromthedatabaseavailableontheNet(Tables5.1.45),whilefortheEcologicalFootprint,thedataavailableontheNetworkdatabasewereelaborated(Tables5.1.46).
Table5.1.45–WaterFootprintfor1kgofpork
ProductWater Footprint
Sourceliters/kg
Pork 4,800 www.waterfootprint.org
Table5.1.46–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofpork
ProductEcological Footptint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Pork 36 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank
88 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Poultry (white meat)Theindicatorscalculatedforthe“poultry”categoryaregiveninTable5.1.47.
Table5.1.47–Indicatorsfor1kgofpoultrymeat
POULTRY
Carbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 1,500–7,300 3,900 33
Average value 3,830 3,900 33
Cooking (broiling) 1 Negligible 13
Average value with cooking 4,830 3,900 46
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint 1 5 - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint 1 - - -
Data for environmental impacts associated with poultry production are taken frompublicsourcesandareshowninthetableswhichfollow.
In particular, Tables 5.1.48 and 5.1.49 provide Carbon Footprint values from, respec-tively,theDanishLCAfooddatabankandthe“Food Production and Emission of Green-house Gases”reportissuedbySIK–theSwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnology.
Jam
es L
. Am
os /
Nat
ion
al G
eogr
aph
ic Im
age
Colle
ctio
n
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 89
Table5.1.48–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofpoultry–Sourcewww.LCAfood.dk
ProductCarbon Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg
Fresh chicken3,110(atslaughterhouse)
3,160(atretail)
Frozen chicken3,280(atslaughterhouse)
3,650(atretail)
Table5.1.49–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofpoultry
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Chicken
1,500 Thynelius(2008)
2,600 Pelletier(2008)
2,500 Cederberget al. (2009b)
6,100 Williamsetal.(2006),conventional
7,300 Williamsetal.(2006),free-range
Data for virtual water consumption come from official data banks of the respectivenetwork.
Table5.1.50– WaterFootprintfor1kgofpoultry
ProductWater Footprint
Sourceliters/kg
Chicken 3,900 www.waterfootprint.org
Table5.1.51–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofpoultry
ProductEcological Footptint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Chicken 33 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank
90 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
CheeseThe indicators utilized in creating the Environmental Pyramid are summarized in
Table5.1.52.
Table5.1.52–Indicatorsfor1kgofcheese
CHEESECarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 8,784 5,000 75
Average value 8,784 5,000 75
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint - 1 - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint - - - 1
Theenvironmentalindicatorvaluesforcheesearetakenfrompublishedsourcesandaregiveninthetablesbelow.
Cott
on C
ouls
on /
Nat
ion
al G
eogr
aph
ic Im
age
Colle
ctio
n
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 91
Table5.1.53–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofcheese
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Cheese 8,784 Berlin(2002)
Table5.1.54–WaterFootprintfor1kgofcheese
ProductWater Footprint
Sourceliters/kg
Cheese 5,000 www.waterfootprint.org
Table5.1.55–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofcheese
ProductEcological Footptint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Cheese 75 Elaborationconsidering5litersofmilk(15globalm2/liter)consumedperkgofcheese
ButterNopublicly-available informationwasfoundforthiscategory,andforthisreasonit
wasconservativelydecidedtoassimilatetheimpactsofbutterwiththecheeseones.Inthenexteditionofthisdocumentthisassumptionwillhavetobefurtheranalyzed.
Theenvironmentalimpactsofbutterwereconsideredforthecalculationofthesweetsones.
Table5.1.56–Indicatorsfor1kgofbutter
ButterCarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 8,800 5,000 75
MilkFormilk,productionoffreshpasteurizedmilkwasexamined.Theenvironmentalindi-
catorvaluesformilkaretakenfrompublishedsourcesandaregiveninthetablesbelow.
Table5.1.57–Indicatorsfor1literofmilk
MILKCarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/liter liters/liter global m2/liter
Data range 1,050-1,303 1,000 11-19
Average value 1,138 1,000 15
92 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint - 2 1 -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint - 1 - -
Table5.1.58–CarbonFootprintfor1literofmilk
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/liter
Milk
1,303 EPDforhigh-qualityGranarolomilk13
1,050 Cederberg&Stadig(2003)
1,060 Williametal.(2006)
Table5.1.59–WaterFootprintfor1literofmilk
ProductWater Footprint
Sourceliters/liter
Milk 1,000 www.waterfootprint.org
Tabella5.1.60–EcologicalFootprintfor1literofmilk
ProductEcological Footptint
Sourceglobal m2/liter
Milk 11-19 Chambersetal(2007)
YoghurtNopublicly-availableinformationwasfoundforthiscategory,andforthisreasonthe
datawaselaboratedbytheworkinggroupitself.The indicators pertaining to the production of 1 liter of yoghurt are given in Table
5.1.61.Theyhavebeencalculatedonthebasisoftheratioofmilktoyoghurtwhich,onaverage, is 1:1 (Temine & Robertson, 1999; Fetiz et al., 2005). In essence, the averageindicatorscalculatedforaliterofmilkwereutilizedforyoghurt.
13 Environmental Product Declaration for pasteurized fresh milk packed in PET bottle, EPD, Granarolo, http://www.environdec.com/reg/epd118it.pdf
Table5.1.61–Indicatorsfortheproductionof1literofyoghurt
YOGHURT
Carbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/liter liters/liter global m2/liter
Data range 1,138 1,000 15
Average value 1,138 1,000 15
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint - - - 1
Water Footprint - - - 1
Ecological Footprint - - - 1
Reb
ecca
Hal
e /
Nat
ion
al G
eogr
aph
ic Im
age
Colle
ctio
n
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 93
94 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
EggsTheenvironmentalindicatorvaluesforeggsaretakenfrompublishedsourcesandare
giveninthetablesbelow.
Table5.1.62–Indicatorsfor1kgofeggs
EGGCarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 4,038–5,800 3,300 9
Average value 4,813 3,300 9
Cooking (boiling) 420 Negligible 5
Average value with cooking 5,233 3,300 14
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint - 2 - -
Water Footprint 1 - - -
Ecological Footprint - - - 1
Table5.1.63–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofeggs
ProductCarbon Footprint
SourcegCO2-eq/kg
Organic eggs 4,038 Dekkeret al.
Organic eggs 5,80014 Williamset al.
Non-organic eggs 4,60015 Williamset al.
Table5.1.64–WaterFootprintfor1kgofeggs
ProductWater Footprint
Sourceliters/kg
Eggs 3,333 www.waterfootprint.org
Calculations for the Ecological Footprint were made exclusively on the basis ofCroplandandEnergy Landcontributions,asshowninthetablesbelow.
14 This value was elaborated per kg of eggs produced; the study by Williams provides an emission value of CO2 equivalent for 20,000 eggs equal to 7,000 kg. The weight of each egg was assumed to be 60 grams (http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=eggs)
15 This value was elaborated per kg of eggs produced; the study by Williams provides an emission value of CO2 equivalent for 20,000 eggs equal to 5,530 kg. The weight of each egg was assumed to be 60 grams (http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=eggs)
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 95
Table5.1.65–EcologicalFootprintassessmentfor1kgofeggs
Cropland Energy land Ecological Footprint
Landuse[m2/kg]
Equivalencefactor
[globalm2/m2]
Cropland[globalm2/
kg]
CO2emissions[gCO2/kg]
Equivalencefactor
[gha/tCO2]
Energyland[globalm2/
kg]global m2/kg
2.516 2.64 6.6 80017 0.277 2.22 8.88
Table5.1.66– EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofeggs
ProductEcological Footptint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Eggs 9 Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup
Food from fishing
TheindicatorscalculatedforthiscategoryaregiveninTable5.1.67.Theaverageofthevaluesfoundintheliterature(fortheCarbonFootprint)wascalcu-
latedtakingintoconsiderationtheretailsalesdataandexcluding,respectively,dataformusselsandlobsterbecauseoftheirextremevariation.
Table5.1.67–Indicatorsfor1kgoffish
FISH
Carbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg
Data range 220–10,500 N.A. 45-66
Average value 3,273 N.A. 56
Cooking (broiling) 1,000 Negligible 13
Average value with cooking 4,273 N.A. 69
16 Calculated taking into consideration that approx. 2 kg of corn per kg of eggs are required and that corn yield is 8 t/ha
17 Dekker et al.
96 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED
Source Type LCA Data Banks
Certified publications
Scientific publications
Generated in-house
Carbon Footprint - 1 - -
Water Footprint - - - -
Ecological Footprint - 1 - -
ThedataforthefishsupplychainavailableinliteraturepertaintotheCarbonFoot-printandEcologicalFootprint.
Data pertaining to the Carbon Footprint derive primarily from the Danish LCA fooddatabase.
Thisdatabasedifferentiatesthesupplychainsintotwogroups:n wildfish;n farmedtrout.
TheresultsforthefirstcategoryaregiveninTable5.1.68,whilethoseforthesecondcategoryarefoundinTable5.1.69.
The data provided do not take into consideration impacts connected to the cookingphaseforthefish;forthisaspect,pleaserefertotheassumptionsoutlinedinspecificsectiondedicatedtocookingmethod.
DatafortheEcologicalFootprintaregiveninTable5.1.70.
Ran
dy O
lson
/ N
atio
nal
Geo
grap
hic
Imag
e Co
llect
ion
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 97
Table5.1.68–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofwildfish–Sourcewww.LCAfood.dk
Product Carbon Footprint gCO2-eq/kg
Type of fish Supply chain phase At harbor At retail
Cod
Fresh 1,200 1,200
Fillet 2,700 2,800
Frozen 2,800 3,200
Sole
Fresh 3,300 3,300
Fillet 7,400 7,400
Frozen 7,500 7,800
Herring
Fresh 580 630
Fillet 1,300 1,300
Frozen 1,400 1,800
Mackerel
Fresh 170 220
Fillet 460 510
Frozen 620 960
Industrial fish 220 -
Lobster 20,200 20,200
ShrimpFresh 2,940 3,000
Peeled/frozen 1,010 10,500
Mussels 40 90
Table5.1.69–CarbonFootprintfor1kgoffarmedtrout–Sourcewww.LCAfood.dk
ProductCarbon Footprint
gCO2-eq/kgType of fish Supply chain phase
Trout
Fresh(atfarm) 1,800
Frozenfillet(atslaughterhouse) 4,090
Frozenfillet(atretail) 4,470
Table5.1.70–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgoffish
ProductEcological Footptint
Sourceglobal m2/kg
Fish 45-66 Chamberset al(2007)
NoinformationiscurrentlyavailableregardingwaterconsumptiononthebasisoftheWaterFootprintapproach.
98 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Beverages
Thebeveragesexaminedweremineralwaterandwine.
Mineral waterTheWaterFootprintandEcologicalFootprintvaluescanbeconsiderednegligible.Ta-
ble5.1.71summarizestheenvironmentalindicatorsutilizedfortheenvironmentalsec-tionoftheDoublePyramid.
Table5.1.71–Indicatorsfor1literofwater
MINERAL WATERSCarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/liter liters/liter global m2/liter
Data range 158 - -
Average value 20018 - -
Because mineral water processing is extremely simple (only bottling and distribu-tionareinvolved),themainenvironmentalimpactsinvolvedarethoseofproducingthepackagingandtransportphase.Forthisreason,theonlyenvironmentalindicatorwithsignificantvaluesistheCarbonFootprint,thedataforwhichisgiveninTable5.1.72.
Table5.1.72–CarbonFootprintfor1literofwater
Product Carbon Footprint gCO2-eq/liter Source
Mineral water in disposable glass bottles 651 EPDCerelia19
Mineral water in disposable PET bottles 157 EPDCerelia20
WineThevaluesforthethreeindicatorsforwinearefromtheliteratureandaregivenin
Table5.1.73.
Table5.1.73–Indicatorsfor1literofwine
Indicator Unit of measure Value Source
Carbon Footprint gCO2-eq/liter 2,240 EPDGasparossa21
Water Footprint liters/liter 960 www.waterfooptrint.org
Ecological Footprint globalm2/liter 19 LivingPlanetNetworkfor2006(from2001data)
18 Data for water in PET was utilized because it is the most commonly available19 Environmental Product Declaration, mineral water Cerelia packed in PET and glass bottles, http://www.envi-
rondec.com/reg/epd123it.pdf20 Environmental Product Declaration, mineral water Cerelia packed in PET and glass bottles, http://www.envi-
rondec.com/reg/epd123it.pdf21 Environmental Product Declaration, “Vino Frizzante Rosso imbottigliato Gambarossa Respighi’”, Rev, March
2008, http://www.environdec.com/reg/epd109it.pdf
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 99
Theenvironmentalimpactdatapresentedtothispointhavealwaysreferredtofoodsonleavingindustrialprocesses.Theimpactsrelatedtothecookingrequiredofthecon-sumer(e.g.,pasta,rice,meat)mustthereforebeaddedtothevaluespresented.
Manyofthefoodsanalyzedmaybeeateneitherraworcooked.Inaddition,cookingcan vary, depending on the recipe and personal tastes of the consumer. Given this, itwasdecided,ontheonehand,tocompleteimpactanalysisbyprovidinginformationre-gardingcooking,whileontheother–giventhevirtualimpossibilityofprovidingdataforeverypossiblemethod–toutilizesimplifiedassumptionsforevaluationwhich,liketherestoftheinformationprovidedinthisreport,havebeenbasedoneasily-verifiablepublicly-availabledata.
Clearly,thismustbeconsideredaspreliminaryinformationusefulinquantifyingim-pactordersofmagnitude.Analysisofavailableliteratureledtotheidentificationoftwomainsources,asgiveninTable5.2.1.
Table5.2.1–Mainsourcesforfoodcookingmethods
Source Type of information provided Reference table Utilization of data
Danish LCA food
Dataforboiling,bakingandbroilingofsomefoods 5.2.2 Notutilizedinthe
Pyramid
Forster et al., 2006
Dataforboiling,broiling,fryingandmicrowavecookingperkg
offoodproduct5.2.3 Utilizedinthe
Pyramid
5.2Assumptions utilized for the cooking of foods
Ed
Kas
hi /
Nat
ion
al G
eogr
aph
ic Im
age
Colle
ctio
n
100 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Table5.2.2–Environmentalaspectsassociatedwithvarioustypesofcooking–Source:LCAfooddk
Cooking method QuantityEnergy
consumed (kWh)
Comments
Boiling
Water 1kg 0.18 Panandelectricburner
Water 1kg 0.12 Electrickettle
Vegetables 1kg 0.12–0.22 Panandelectricburner
Pasta 250g 0.24–0.5Pre-cookedquantity.
Cookedinpanonelectricburner
Rice 4dl 0.24–0.5Pre-cookedquantity.
Cookedinpanonelectricburner
Frozenpeas 500gpeas+2tbspwater 0.25 Cookedinmicrowave
Frozenpeas 500gpeas+200mlwater 0.15 Cookedinpanonelectric
burner
Freshcarrots 350gcarrots+2tbspwater 0.2 Cookedinmicrowave
Baking
Pizza 1pc 0.1 200°C,40mins
Cake 3,450gbatter 0.7–1.1 170°C,60mins
Pre-heatingoven - 0.5 Conventionalovento
200°CPre-heating
oven - 0.3 Convectionovento200°C
Maintaintemperatureat200°Cfor1hr
- 0.5 Conventionaloven
Maintaintemperatureat200°Cfor1hr
- 0.9 Convectionoven
Potatoes 4lgpotatoes 0.75 Combinationoftraditional/microwaveovens
Potatoes 4lgpotatoes 0.27 Microwaveovenwithbroiler
Roasting Meatballs 700g 0.008
Fromthetwoapproachesidentified,itwasdecidedtoutilizetheonecontainedinthescientificpaperofForsteretal.(Table5.2.3)thatconsidersthemostwidespreadtypescookingmethods(boiling,frying,roasting,microwave)forkgoffoods.DatacontainedintheDanishdatabasearepartialandreferredonlytosomefoods.
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 101
Tale5.2.3–Energyconsumptionforvariouscookingmethodsutilizedinthisstudy–Elaborationofpublicly-
availabledata:Forsteretal.(2006).Thevaluesshownreferto1kgoffood
Cooking method Energy consumed (MJ)22
Carbon Footprint23
[grams of CO2 eq]Ecological Footprint24
[global m2]
Boiling 3.5 420 5
Frying 7.5 900 12
Roasting 8.5 1,020 13
Microwave 0.34 59 1
Finally,Table5.2.4showsforwhichfoodsitwasdecidedtoconsidercooking,togetherwiththecookingmethodselected.Forreasonsofsimplification,microwaveandfryingwerenotappliedtoanyofthefoods.
22 It is assumed that 50% of the energy required is supplied by natural gas, and 50% by electrical power; the only exception is microwave cooking which is 100% electrical energy
23 This calculation utilized the Italian energy mix, the conversion factors for which were estimated at 174 g di CO2 equivalent per MJ of electrical energy (620 g/kWh) and 66 g di CO2 equivalent per MJ of natural gas
24 This calculation utilized data for the Italian energy mix, estimating CO2 emissions to be 157 g per MJ of electrical energy and 54 per MJ of methane; these factors were transformed into Energy land using the conversion factors cited (2.77 global m2 per kg of CO2)
Making two cups of tea using a saucepan, a kettle and a microwave oven Analysing processes using “extended” as opposed to normal logical thinking –
thusassessingtheentirelifecycle–sometimesproducesresultsthatarequitetheoppositetowhatwemightexpect.
A typical example of this involves the preparation of food with microwavetechnology,whichisoneofthesystemsthatconsumeslessenergy,thusproducingloweremissionsofCO2.
To better illustrate this statement, let’s take a simple example involving themakingoftwocupsoftea,heatingthewaterinasaucepan,inanelectrickettleandinamicrowaveoven.
SaucepanTheboilingofhalfalitreofwaterinasaucepanusinggasconsumesapprox.0.49
kWh(1.75MJ),obtainedbyprocessingthedatasuppliedbyForsteret al. (2006).
KettleA 2400 Watt electric kettle takes around a minute and a half (i.e. 0.025 h) to
bringhalfalitreofwatertotheboil(roughlytwocupsoftea).Therelativeenergyconsumption is obtained by multiplying the power consumed by the time forwhichthekettleisused:2400W*0.025h=60Wh=0.06 kWh(0.216MJ).
MicrowaveThe boiling of half a litre of water using a 1000 Watt microwave oven takes
approx. one minute (i.e. 0.0167 h); using the same calculation method an energyconsumptionofapprox.0.02 kWh(0,072MJ)isobtained.
The resulting impact on the environment, in terms, for example, of Carbon Footprint, is roughly 116, 38 and 13 g of CO2 for the saucepan, kettle and microwave oven, respectively. In contrast with what we might normally think, the microwave oven generates a smaller impact than the other two technologies.
102 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Table5.2.4–Foodsanalyzedinthisstudyandthecookingmethodapplied
Food category Food
Food cooked by consumer Comments/
Cooking method
NO YES
Agricultural products
Fruits Alltypes X -
Vegetables
Lettuce X Boiling
Potatoes X Boiling
Tomatoes X Boiling
Legumes Alltypes X Boiling
Foods from processing of agricultural
products
Pasta X Boiling
Rice X Boiling
Bread X -
Sugar X -
Sweets X -
Condiments(oils) X -
Wine X -
Foods derived from livestock
Poultry Alltypes X Roasting
Beef Alltypes X Roasting
Pork Alltypes X Roasting
Cheese X -
Milk X -
Yoghurt X -
Butter X -
Eggs X Boiling
Foods from fishing
Wildfish Alltypes X Roasting
Farmedfish Alltypes X Roasting
Beverages Mineralwater X -
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 103
Inthisstudy,transportwasincludedinthedatawhenalreadypresentinthesystemboundariesanalyzed,withoutmakingfurtherspecificelaboration.
Regardingthis, itwasfeltnecessarythatamore in-depthlookfromthestandpointoftheLifeCycleAssessmentbemade;transporthasasignificantimpactonlywhenacertaindistanceisexceededandonlyforproductswitharelativelylowspecificimpact.
Forexample,thechartsbelowoffertheimpactofroad,seaandairtransportforsomefoods.
Ascanbeseen,therelevanceoftransportdependsgreatlyonthemeansoftransportutilizedand,naturally,thespecificimpactofthefoodunderconsideration.
Forhardwheatpasta,theoverallimpactontheproductisonlyrelevantifitistrans-ported by air, while for fruit, road transport for over 500 km has a greater than 20%impactoverallongreenhousegasemissions.
Analogously, in products with greater environmental impacts (meat, for example),transporthasamuchmorelimitedeffectonoverallimpacts.
5.3When the impact of transport is relevant
Jaso
n E
dwar
ds
/ N
atio
nal
Geo
grap
hic
Imag
e Co
llect
ion
104 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Relationship between the impacts for the production (and cooking) and transportation of pasta
Relationship between the impacts for the production (and cooking) and transportation of beef
1,000
100
10
1
gCO
2 p
er k
g of
foo
d
Distance covered (km)
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000
Production
Truck
Ship
Airplane
Train
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
gCO
2 p
er k
g of
foo
d
Distance covered (km)
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000
Production
Truck
Ship
Airplane
Train
5. Details of environmental data gathered - 105
Relationship between the impacts for the production and transportation of fruits
1,000
100
10
1
gCO
2 p
er k
g of
foo
d
Distance covered (km)
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000
Production
Truck
Ship
Airplane
Train
Relationship between the impacts for the production (and cooking) and transportation of pasta
Relationship between the impacts for the production (and cooking) and transportation of beef
1,000
100
10
1
gCO
2 p
er k
g of
foo
d
Distance covered (km)
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000
Production
Truck
Ship
Airplane
Train
106 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Jam
es
P. B
lair
/ N
atio
na
l Ge
og
rap
hic
Ima
ge
Co
lle
ctio
n
6. Areas for further investigation in the subsequent edition
1.Titolo capitolo - 107
For every category examined, the values connected with each environmental indicator are given, taken from data banks and scientific studies.
108 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Gin
a M
art
in /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
High consumption of vegetables, legumes, fruits and nuts, olive oil and grains; moderate consumption of fish and dairy products (especially cheese and yoghurt) and wine; low consumption of meat provide a protective factor against the most widespread chronic diseases.
1.Titolo capitolo - 109
110 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
The first edition of this study has been based on information currently-available tothe public and elaborations made on the basis of simple and easily-verifiable assump-tions.
Giventhelivelyinterestdevelopingaroundtheseissueswhichwehopetoencouragethroughthisstudy,itisexpectedthatnewpublicationsandtheupdatingofdatabankswillcreatetheneedtoupdatethispaperinthefuture.
Forthisreason,inthesectionswhichfollow,itwasdecidedtopresentguidelinesforfurtherstudywhichwebelievenecessarytoimprovethequalityoftheworkdoneto-date.
Forthenextrevisionofthisstudy,furtheranalysesmustbedoneonthedatainorderto improve the qualitative value of the information presented, especially in terms ofstatisticalcoverageofthedata–thatiscurrentlyunevenforsomefoods–andimprovethehomogeneityofLCAboundariesandofthelifecycleassessmentassumptions.
Theworktobedevelopedwillthereforebetoincreasethesamplingofavailabledataexaminingindetailthosesupplychainsforwhichinformationiscurrentlymorelimited.
Forcondiments,itshouldbenotedthatitinvolvesawiderangeofextremelyvariedproductsextendingfromvinegar(andallitsvarieties)tomayonnaise–productswhichareobviouslyverydifferentfromeachother,bothfromanutritionalstandpointaswellastheenvironmentalaspectsconnectedwiththem.
Atthetimewerenot includedcoldcutsandcondiments(exceptafew)becauseofthescarcityorabsenceofpublishedstud-iesinthisregard.
Alsoondairyproductssuchasyoghurtand butter, studies are not available, sothat when these foods were used in thisworkasaningredientinsomerecipeshad
tomakesomeassumptionssetoutclearlyinthetext.
Anotheraspectwhichcancertainlybeconsideredrelevantincalculatingtheenviron-mentalimpactsinsomefoodsistheinfluenceofthegeographicalareainwhichtheyareproduced.Thegeographicalareaaffectsenergy-relatedaspects,aswellasthecalcula-tionoftheWaterFootprintintermsofthecomponenttiedtoevapotranspiration.
Influence of energy mixes
Intermsofenergymixes,themostoverwhelmingaspectisconnectedtotheproductionand use of electrical energy. The aspects to be taken into consideration are basicallytwo:n onthebasisoftheproductionenergymixforeachCountry,someindustrialprocesses
canbesuppliedwithelectricalenergyfromenergymixesthatareverydifferentfromeachother.Anexampleofthisarebakedgoods(bread,cookies),whichinNorthernEuropearenormallysuppliedwithelectricalenergy,whileinItalynaturalgasisused;
n thereferenceenergymix–inwhichrenewablesourceshaveanimpacttoagreaterorlesserextent–hasaninfluenceonthecalculationofgreenhousegasemissionsand,consequently,agreaterorlesserimpactintermsoftheCarbonFootprintandEcologi-calFootprint,withregardtothepartconnectedwithEnergy Land,processesbeingequal.
6. Areas for further investigation in the subsequent edition
6.1Broaden the statistical coverage of data and render LCA boundaries homogeneous
6.2Take into consideration geographical origin in evaluating impact
Another aspect which can certainly be consid-ered relevant in calculating the environmental impacts in some foods is the influence of the ge-ographical area in which they are produced.
6. Areas for further investigation in the subsequent edition - 111
Thisinformationshouldbetakenintoconsiderationinanin-depthsupplychaineval-uationinordernottoconfusethecomparisonbetweentheimpactsoftwomanufactur-ers(forexample,oneinSwedenandoneinItaly)withthecomparisonbetweentwofoodproductsingeneral.
Figure6.1.providesCarbonFootprintdatafor1kWhofelectricalenergyproducedinsomeEuropeanandnon-EuropeanCountries.
Figure6.1–Greenhousegasemissionsconnectedwiththeproductionof1kWhofelectricalenergy,includingall
phasesfromfuelextractiontoenergydistributiontotheend-user.
Source: Data was elaborated by the working group on the basis of Ecoinvent and IEA information and refer to the 2008
energy mix.
Theinfluenceofthisinformationcouldbegreaterforthosefoodsinwhichtheuseofelectricalenergycouldbeasignificantenvironmentalaspectwithintheoverallsupplychain, for example, pasta, baked goods or food products with a significant cold chaincomponent.
Geographical influence on Water Footprint data
In calculating the Water Footprint, one of its components – green water – is closelydependentongeographicalfactorsbecauseitiscalculatedtakingintoconsiderationtheEt0factorthatdependsontheRegionoftheWorldinwhichthegrainorplantthatisthebaseofthefoodproductiscultivated.
Inthiscase,theinfluenceofthisvariableisgreaterforcropsthatdonotcallformas-sive irrigation and in which, therefore, green water is the preponderant factor in cal-culatingoverallwaterconsumption.Toillustratethis,Figure6.2providesinformationregardingEt0indifferentpartsoftheworldwheredurumwheatiscultivated.
Greece
USA
Turkey
Mexico
Germany
Italy
Russian Federation
Sweden
France
Norway
g CO2 equivalent per kWh
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
112 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Figure 6.2 – Variations in Et0. Data are from Italy by: http://www.politicheagricole.it/ucea/Osservatorio/miek-
fyi01_index_zon.htmandotherpartsoftheworld:http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/gis/index3.stm
Source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/W007 3E/p389.jpg; Note: data for Italy was taken from: http://www.politicheagri-
cole.it/ucea/Osservatorio/miekfyi01_index_zon.htm, and for other parts of the world
Thefoodsupplychainhastwocollateralprocessesinvolvingproducttransport,pres-ervationandconsumption:thecoldchainandcooking.
Cold chain
By cold chain is meant all those processes aimed at maintaining a product at a lowtemperature(4°Corevenunder0°C)fromthetimeitisproduceduntilitisconsumed.
Theestimateoftheimpactsforthisphase,basicallytiedtoenergyconsumptionandthereforecapableofinfluencingtheCarbonFootprintandpartiallytheEcologicalFoot-print,isactuallyverycomplexbecauseitdependsonmanyfactors,themostsignificantofwhichare:n thenatureofthefoodproduct;n thedistancebetweenwheretheproductismadeandwhereitisconsumed.
Inthefirsteditionofthisstudy,thecoldchainwasalmostalwaysignoredand,forthisreason,theimpactassociatedwithsomefoodsexaminedcouldrepresentanunderesti-mateoftheactualimpact.
Without entering here into details of calculation for which it was felt opportune towaitforlaterinvestigation,thefollowingpointsshouldbenoted:n cold-relatedprocessesareobviouslymoresignificantwhenfoodsrequiringtempera-
turesofunder0°Careinvolved,suchasfrozenfoods,forexample,whichcanhaverelativelylongstoragetimesatlowtemperatures;
n somefoodswhichrequirethecoldchain,forexamplemilkandfreshproducts,havean expiration date very close to the date of production (just a few days), by whichdatetheproductmustbeconsumed;
n fish, especially that caught in saltwater (i.e., caught on the open sea), could have arelativelylongcoldchainiftheintervaloftimebetweenthemomentitiscaught,itsarrivalinport,anyprocessingrequired,transport,saleandconsumptionistakenintoconsideration.
Table6.3.1providesaqualitativeestimateoftheextenttowhichthecoldchaincouldhaveaninfluenceonthefoodsanalyzedinthisstudy.
France
North Italy
Center Italy
Canada
Turkey
Spain
South Italy
North USA
Greece
Mexico
Australia
South West USA
Rainfall - Et0
mm/month
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600
6.3Evaluating the influence of food refrigeration and completing analysis of cooking methods
Table6.3.1–Qualitativeanalysisofthe influenceofthecoldchainon impacts (CarbonFootprintandEcological
Footprint)offoodsanalyzed
Cooking
Intermsofcooking,requiredforconsumptionofsomefoods,thisstudytookintocon-sideration a number of very simplified assumptions involving only boiling or broiling.However,itshouldbenotedthatsomefoodscouldbesubjectedtomorecomplexcookingmethods,oratdifferent levels,dependingonindividualconsumerpreferences.This isespeciallytrueformeatorfish.
Milk may be consumed cold or hot, and this could—to a limited extent—influence theCarbonandEcologicalFootprintindicatorsrelatedtoCO2emissions.
Againhere,furtherworkforthisstudycouldincludeamorerigorousexaminationoftheimpactsassociatedwiththecookingofdifferentrecipesinfoodproduction
Thisstudyoffersapreliminarylookattheissueofseasonalityofagriculturalprod-ucts,inessencefruitandvegetables.
Regarding this, an area for further impact analysis could be more rigorous study ofthe production chain of fruit and vegetable products, including comparing this withtheir actual seasonality, evaluating this and making consumers aware of how and towhatextenttheimpactscanvaryonthebasisoftheirfoodchoices.
6.4Studying the question of the seasonal nature of agricultural products as a variable influencing impact
6. Areas for further investigation in the subsequent edition - 113
Food Influence of the cold chain Comments
Fruit and vegetables Low Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorage
Legumes None -
Pasta None -
Rice None -
Bread None -
Sugar None -
Oil None -
Desserts and Sweets None -
Cookies None -
Meat Medium Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorageandtransport.Distancesmightnotbeshort.
Eggs Low Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorage
Cheese Low Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorage
Yoghurt Medium Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorageandtransport.Distancesandtimeperiodsnormallyshort.
Butter Medium Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorageandtransport.Distancesandtimeperiodsnormallyshort.
Milk Medium Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorageandtransport.Distancesandtimeperiodsnormallyshort.
Fish High Storageandtransportunderrefrigerationorfreezingtemperaturescouldberequired,includingforlongdistancesandforextendedperiods.
114 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
B. A
nth
on
y S
tew
art
/ N
atio
na
l Ge
og
rap
hic
Ima
ge
Co
lle
ctio
n
Bibliographyby food product
1.Titolo capitolo - 115
116 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
To
ma
sz T
om
asz
ewsk
i / N
atio
na
l Ge
og
rap
hic
Ima
ge
Co
lle
ctio
n
1.Titolo capitolo - 117
118 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Foods derived from agriculture
Apples
Indicator Reference Type Unit of System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
L.MilàiCanals,G.M.Burnip,S.J.Cowell,Evaluationoftheenvironmentalimpactsof
appleproductionusingLifeCycleAssessment(LCA):CasestudyinNewZealand,
Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment114(2006)226–238
Scientificpublications
1tonofcultivated
apples,readyforstorage
and/orpacking
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),
fieldphase(applecultivation)
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=apple Database 1apple
(weight=100 InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001)
Certifiedpublication 1kgofapples InformationN.A.
Oranges and tangerines
Indicator Reference Type Unit of System boundaries
Carbon Footprint InformationN.A.
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=orange Database
1orange(weight=100
grams)InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgoforanges
ortangerines InformationN.A.
Lemons and limes
Indicator Reference Type Unit of System boundaries
Carbon Footprint InformationN.A.
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgoflemons
orlimes InformationN.A.
Bananas
Indicator Reference Type Unit of System boundaries
Carbon Footprint InformationN.A.
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgof
bananas InformationN.A.
Bibliography by food product - 119
Grapes
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint InformationN.A.
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofgrapes InformationN.A.
Fava beans
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgoffava
beans
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),
fieldphase(favabeancultivation)
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgoffava
beans
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),
fieldphase(favabeancultivation)
Peas
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofpeas
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),
fieldphase(peacultivation)andtransporttoregional
processingcenters(distance10km)
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofpeas InformationN.A.
Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofpeas
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),
fieldphase(peacultivation)andtransporttoregional
processingcenters(distance10km)
120 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Soybeans
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofsoybeans
CultivationofsoybeansinBrazil,includingdieselconsumptionanduseof
equipment,fertilizersandpesticides
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=soybeans Database 1kgofsoybeans InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofsoybeans
CultivationofsoybeansinBrazil,includingdieselconsumptionanduseof
equipment,fertilizersandpesticides
Lettuce
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
HospidoA.,MilàiCanals,McLaren,Truninger,Edwards-Jones,Clift,2009,Theroleof
seasonalityinlettuceconsumption:acasestudyofenvironmentalandsocialaspects,
InternationalJournalofLCA(14)pp.381–391
Scientificpublications 1kgoflettuce
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),
fieldphase(lettucecultivation)andtransporttoregional
distributioncenter
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),fieldphase(lettucecultivationfromseed)andtransporttoregional
distributioncenter
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint InformationN.A.
Bibliography by food product - 121
Tomatoes
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
AnderssonK.,2000,LCAofFoodProductsandProductionSystems,InternationalJournal
ofLCA5(4)pp.239–248
Scientificpublications
1000kgofketchupconsumed
Fieldphase(tomatocultivation),transportandprocessing,consumption
phase
LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database 1kgoftomatoes
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),
fieldphase(tomatocultivation)
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgof
tomatoes InformationN.A.
Onions
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint InformationN.A.
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofonions InformationN.A.
Potatoes
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database
1kgofpotatoesat
field
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),
fieldphase(potatocultivation)
1kgofpotatoesat
retail
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),
fieldphase(potatocultivation)transporttoretail
point-of-sale
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=potato Database 1kgof
potatoes InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgof
potatoes InformationN.A.
Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofpotatoes
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),
fieldphase(potatocultivation)andtransportto
farm(distance1km)
122 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Foods derived from processing of agricultural products
Pasta
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
Barilla,ProductEnvironmentalDeclarationappliedtodrieddurumwheatpastaproduced
inItalyandpackedinacardboardbox.Revision:1–Validonyearfromapproval,Pre-certifiedProductEnvironmentalDeclaration–RegisteredNumber:S-EP-00039,Dataof
approval:19/08/2009
Certifiedpublication
1kgdrieddurumwheat
pasta
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,pastaproduction,
transportofrawmaterialandproductstodistribution
centers
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Rice
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
BlenginiGA,BustoM.,2008,Thelifecycleofrice:LCAofalternativeagri-foodchainmanagementsystemsinVercelli(Italy),
JournalofEnvironmentalManagementpp.1512-1522,Vol.90(3)
Scientificpublications 1kgofrice
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),fieldphase(ricecultivation),milling,transporttoretailpoint-of-sale
Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofrice
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),field
phase(ricecultivationandharvest)
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=rice Database 1kgofrice InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofrice InformationN.A.
Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofrice
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),field
phase(ricecultivationandharvest)
Bibliography by food product - 123
Bread
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database
1kgfreshloaf
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction,transporttoretailpoint-of-sale
1kgfrozenloaf
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction,transporttoretailpoint-of-sale
1kgwheatbread(fresh)
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction,transporttoretailpoint-of-sale
1kgwheatbread(fresh)
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction,transporttoretailpoint-of-sale
1kgwheatbread(frozen)
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction
Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction,transporttoretailpoint-of-sale
AnderssonK.,OhlssonT.,1999,LifeCycleAssessment
ofBreadProducedonDifferentScales,International
JournalofLCA,4(1)25–40
Scientificpublications 1kgofbread Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,bread
production(industrial,localandhomemade)
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/ Database 1kgofbread InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1kgofbread Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,bread
production
Beet sugar
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
LCAFood(http://www.LCAfood.dk/products/crops/
sugar.htm)Database
1kgofbeetsugar
InformationN.A.
Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database
Cultivationandtransportofbeetstorefineryforprocessingintosugar(packagingnot
included)
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItalian
situationin2001(GFN–Italy2001)
Database
1kgofbeetsugar
InformationN.A.
Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database
Cultivationandtransportofbeetstorefineryforprocessingintosugar(packagingnot
included)
124 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Cane sugar
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
RamjeawonT.,2004,LifeCycleAssessmentofCane-SugarontheIslandofMauritius,
InternationalJournalofLCA9(4)pp.254–260
Scientificpublications
1tofcanesugar,
exported
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),fieldphase(sugarcanecultivationandharvest),refiningandproductionofsugar
Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofcane
sugar
Cultivationandtransportofsugarcanetorefineryforprocessingintosugar(packaging
notincluded)
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/
productgallery&product=sugarDatabase 1kgofcane
sugar InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituation
in2001(GFN–Italy2001)Database 1kgofcane
sugar
InformationN.A.
Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch)
Cultivationandtransportofsugarcanetorefineryforprocessingintosugar(packaging
notincluded)
Olive oil
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
AvraamidesM.,FattaD.,2008,Resourceconsumption
andemissionsfromoliveoilproduction:alifecycle
inventorycasestudyinCyprus,JournalofCleanerProduction
16pp.809-821
Scientificpublications
1lofextravirginoliveoil
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),fieldphase(olivecultivationandharvest),oilproductionandwaste
management
Water Footprint
Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1lofoliveoil Olivecultivationandoilproduction
Ecological Footprint
Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1lofoliveoil Olivecultivationandoilproduction
Palm oil
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
YusoffS.andHansenSB.,2007,FeasibilityStudyofPerforming
anLifeCycleAssessmentonCrudePalmOilProductionin
Malaysia,InternationalJournalofLCA12(1)pp50–58
Scientificpublications
1,000kgofrawpalmoil
Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),fieldphase(cultivationand
harvest),transport(finaloilrefiningnotincluded)
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint InformationN.A.
Bibliography by food product - 125
Vegetable oil (soybean and rapeseed oil)
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database 1lofvegetable
oil
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint InformationN.A.
Sweets
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1kgofcakeFieldphase(forraw
materials),batterpreparationandcooking(homemade)
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
Biscuits
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1kgofcookiesFieldphase(forraw
materials),doughpreparationandcooking
Water Footprint
Ecological Footprint
126 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Foods derived from animal husbandry
Beef (red meat)
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk)
Database
1kgoftenderloin
Raisingandbutchering
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgoffillet Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgoftopround*
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgofsteak* Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgoffore-end*
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgofoutside*
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgofflanksteak*
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgofroundRaisingandbutchering
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgofmincedmeat
Raisingandbutchering
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
Database 1kgofknuckleshank
Raisingandbutchering
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
Ogino,Aetal.,2007,EvaluatingEnvironmentalImpactsoftheJapanesebeefcow-calfsystembythelifecycleassessmentmethod,AnimalScienceJournal78,pp.424-
432
Scientificpublications
1beefcalf(ready for
butchering)
Birthofcalf,fattening,raising(cradletogate)
Bibliography by food product - 127
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Casey,J.W.&Holden,N.M.,2006a,QuantificationofGHGemissionsfromsuckler-
beefproductioninIreland,AgriculturalSystems90,79-98
Casey,J.W.&Holden,N.M.,2006b,GHGemissionsfromconventional,agri-
environmentalandorganicIrishsucklerbeefunits,JournalofEnvironmentalQuality35,
231-239
Scientificpublications 1kgofmeat Birthofcalf,fattening,raising
(cradletogate)
Williams,A.G.,Audsley,E&Sanders,D.L.,2006,Determiningtheenvironmental
burdensandresourceuseintheproductionofagriculturalandhorticulturalcommodities,MainReport,DefraResearchprojectIS0205,
Bedford:CranfieldUniversityandDefra,availableatwww.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk
UniversityandDefra,availableatwww.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk
Scientificpublications
1tofmeat(dead weight)
Birthofcalf,fattening,raising(cradletogate)
Birthofcalf(100%suckledbycow),fattening,raising
(cradletogate)
Verge,XCPetal.,2008,GreenhousegasemissionsfromtheCanadianbeefindustry,
AgriculturalSystems98,126-134
Scientificpublications
1kgofmeat
Birthofcalf,fattening,raising
CederbergC.,Meyer,D.&Flysjö,A.,2009a,LifeCycleInventoryofgreenhousegasemissions
anduseoflandandenergyofBrazilianbeefexportedtoEurope,SIK-Rapport792,
SIK–InstitutetförLivsmedelochBioteknik,Göteborg,ISBN978-91-7290-283-1
Fattening,raising(butcheringnotincluded)
CederbergC.,Sonesson,U.,Davis,J.&Sund,V.,2009b,Greenhousegasemissions
fromproductionofmeat,milkandeggsinSweden1990and2005,SIK-Rapport793,
SIK–InstitutetförLivsmedelochBioteknik,Göteborg,ISBN978-91-7290-284-8
Birthofcalf,fattening,raising,butchering,transportandretail
sale
CederbergC.&Darelius,K.,2000,Livscykelanalys(LCA)avnötkött-en
studieavolikaproduktionsformer(LifeCycleAssessment(LCA)ofbeef–astudy
ofdifferentproductionforms,inSwedish),Naturresursforum,LandstingetHalland,
Halmstad
Fattening,raising(togate)
CederbergC.andStadigM.,2003,SystemExpansionandAllocationinLifeCycle
AssessmentofMilkandBeefProduction,InternationalJournalofLCA8(6)pp.350-356
Birthofcalf,fattening,raising(cradletogate)
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=beef Database 1kgofmeat InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
BaglianiM.,CarechinoM.,MartiniF.,2009,Lacontabilitàambientaleapplicataalla
produzionezootecnica,l’improntaecologicadell’allevamentodibovinidirazzapiemontese,
IRES(IstitutoRicercheEconomicoSocialidelPiemonte),RegionePiemonte,Collana
ambiente29
Scientificpublications 1kgofmeat Birthofcalf,fattening,raising
* The CF value for 1 kg of this type of meat is the same ex-slaughterhouse and ex-retail
128 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Pork (red meat)
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database
1kgoftenderloin
Raisingandbutchering
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgofhamandbacon
Raisingandbutchering
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgofmincedmeat
Raisingandbutchering
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
Williams,A.G.,Audsley,E&Sanders,D.L.,2006,Determiningtheenvironmental
burdensandresourceuseintheproductionofagriculturalandhorticulturalcommodities,MainReport,DefraResearchprojectIS0205,
Bedford:CranfieldUniversityandDefra,availableatwww.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk
Scientificpublications
1tofmeat(dead weight)
Birthofpig,fattening,raising(cradletogate)
Basset-Mens,C.&vanderWerf,H.,2003,Scenario-basedenvironmentalassessmentoffarmingsystems–thecaseofpigproduction
inFrance,Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment(105),pp.127-144
1kgofmeat
Birthofcalf,fattening,raising
CederbergC.&FlysjöA.,2004,Environmentalassessmentoffuturepigfarmingsystems
–quantificationofthreescenariosfromtheFOOD21synthesiswork,SIKReport723,SIK–TheSwedishInstituteforFoodand
Biotechnology,Göteborg,ISBN91-7290-236-1
Birthofpig,fattening,raisingandbutchering
ErikssonS.,ElmquistH.,SternS.&NybrantT.,2005,Environmentalsystemsanalysisofpigproduction–Theimpactoffeedchoice,
InternationalJournalofLCA10(2)pp.143-154
Scientificpublications 1kgofmeat
Birthofpig,fattening,raising
CederbergC.,Sonesson,U.,Davis,J.&Sund,V.,2009b,Greenhousegasemissions
fromproductionofmeat,milkandeggsinSweden1990and2005,SIK-Rapport793,
SIK–InstitutetförLivsmedelochBioteknik,Göteborg,ISBN978-91-7290-284-8
Birthofpig,fattening,raising,butchering,transport
andretailsale
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=pork Database 1kgofmeat InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofmeat InformationN.A.
Bibliography by food product - 129
Poultry (white meat)
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database
1kgoffreshchicken
Raisingandbutchering
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
1kgoffrozenchicken
Raisingandbutchering
Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale
Tynelius,G.,2008,KlimatpåverkanochförbättringsåtgärderförLantmännens
livsmedel–fallstudieKronfågelsslaktkyckling(ClimateImpactandImprovementpotentials
forLantmännen’schicken,inSwedish),MastersThesis2008,Dept.ofTechnologyand
Society,EnvironmentalandEnergySystemsStudies,LundUniversity,Lund,Sweden
Scientificpublications 1kgofmeat Raising,fatteningand
butchering
PelletierN.,2008,EnvironmentalperformanceintheUSpoultrysector:Life
cycleenergyuseandgreenhousegas,ozonedepleting,acidifyingandeutrophying
emissions,AgriculturalSystems98,pp.67-73
Scientificpublications
1tofchicken(liveweight)
Chickenhatching,fattening,raising(cradletogate)
CederbergC.,Sonesson,U.,Davis,J.&Sund,V.,2009b,Greenhousegasemissions
fromproductionofmeat,milkandeggsinSweden1990and2005,SIK-Rapport793,
SIK–InstitutetförLivsmedelochBioteknik,Göteborg,ISBN978-91-7290-284-8
Scientificpublications 1kgofmeat
Chickenhatching,fattening,raising,butchering,transport
andretailsale
Williams,A.G.,Audsley,E&Sanders,D.L.,2006,Determiningtheenvironmental
burdensandresourceuseintheproductionofagriculturalandhorticulturalcommodities,MainReport,DefraResearchprojectIS0205,
Scientificpublications 1kgofmeat
Chickenhatching,fattening,raising(traditionalraising)
Chickenhatching,fattening,raising(free-range)
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=chicken Database 1kgofmeat InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofmeat InformationN.A.
130 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Cheese
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
BerlinJ.,Environmentallifecycleassessment(LCA)ofSwedishsemi-hardcheese,
InternationalDairyJournal12(2002)pp.939–953
-
1kgofsemi-hardcheese
(plastic-wrapped)
Extractionofrawmaterialsandingredientsrequiredtoproductcheese,upthrough
wastemanagement
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=cheese - 1kgofcheese InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1kgofcheese Boundariessameasthose
formilk
Milk
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
Granarolo,Dichiarazioneambientalediprodottoperillattefrescopastorizzatodi
altaqualitàconfezionatoinbottigliadiPET,revisione0del9/3/2007,CertificazioneN.
S-EP00118
Certifiedpublication
1lofmilk
Milkproductiononthefarm,packagingproduction,
pasteurization/packagingandtransporttoend-sites
CederbergC.andStadigM.,2003,SystemExpansionandAllocationinLifeCycle
AssessmentofMilkandBeefProduction,InternationalJournalofLCA8(6)pp.350-356
Scientificpublications Raisingofmilkcows,milking
Williams,A.G.,Audsley,E&Sanders,D.L.,2006,Determiningtheenvironmental
burdensandresourceuseintheproductionofagriculturalandhorticulturalcommodities,MainReport,DefraResearchprojectIS0205,
Bedford:CranfieldUniversityandDefra,availableatwww.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk
Scientificpublications
10,000lofmilk Raisingofmilkcows,milking
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=milk Database 1lofmilk InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
ChambersN.,SimmonsC.,WackernagelM.,SharingNature’sInterest,Ecological
Footprintsasanindicatorofsustainability,Earthscan,2007,chapter5,pp.79–105
Scientificpublications 1lofmilk
Milkproductiononthefarm,productprocessingand
transport
Bibliography by food product - 131
Eggs
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
DekkerS.E.M.,deBoerI.J.M.,AarninkA.J.A.andP.W.G.GrootKoerkamp,Environmentalhotspot
identificationoforganiceggproduction,FarmTechnologyEngineeringGroup,AnimalProductionSystemsGroup,AnimalSciences
Group,WageningenUniversityandResearchCentre.Sanne.Dekker@wur.nl
(from:“Proceedingsofthe6thInt.Conf.onLCAintheAgri-FoodSector,Zurich,November
12–14,2008”,pp371-380)
Scientificpublications
1kgoforganiceggs
Fieldphase(rawmaterialsrequiredforrations),raising
ofhens(includingbroodingofeggsforreproduction)
Williams,A.G.,Audsley,E&Sanders,D.L.,2006,Determiningtheenvironmentalburdensandresourceuseintheproductionofagriculturalandhorticulturalcommodities,MainReport,
DefraResearchprojectIS0205,Bedford:CranfieldUniversityandDefra,availableat
www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk
Scientificpublications 20,000eggs
Fieldphase(rawmaterialsrequiredforrations),non-
organicraisingofhens
Fieldphase(rawmaterialsrequiredforrations),organic
raisingofhens
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=eggs Database 1kgofeggs InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1kgofeggs
Fieldphase(rawmaterialsrequiredforrations),non-
organicraisingofhens
Foods from fishing
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database
1kgoffreshcod
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgofcodfillet
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgoffrozencod
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgoffreshsole
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgofsolefillet
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgoffrozensole
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
132 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database
1kgoffreshherring
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgofherringfillet
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgoffrozenherring
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgoffreshmackerel
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgofmackerelfillet
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgoffrozenmackerel
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgofindustrialfish Fishingonly(atharbor)
1kgoflobsterFishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgoffreshshrimp
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgofpeeled/frozenshrimp
Fishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgofmusselsFishingonly(atharbor)
Fishingandretailsale
1kgoffreshtrout(farmed) Fishingonly(atfarm)
1kgoftroutfillet(farmed)
Fishing,slaughter(atslaughterhouse)
1kgoffrozentrout(farmed)
Fishing,slaughterandretailsale
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
ChambersN.,SimmonsC.,WackernagelM.,SharingNature’sInterest,Ecological
Footprintsasanindicatorofsustainability,Earthscan,2007,chapter5,pp.79–105
Scientificpublications 1kgoffish InformationN.A.
Fish
Bibliography by food product - 133
Beverages
Water
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
Cerelia,EPDCerelianaturalmineralwater,bottledin:PETda1,5landglass-1l,Rev.0–
Data:30/07/2008,RegistrationN°:S-P-00123
Certifiedpublication
1000lofwater
Productionphase(waterextraction,bottle
preparation,packagingandwarehousing)andutilization
phase(distributionandconsumption)
Water Footprint InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint InformationN.A.
Wine
Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries
Carbon Footprint
ConsorzioInterprovincialevini(C.I.V),EPD,SparklingredwinebiologicalLambrusco
Grasparossa“FratelloSole”,Rev.Marzo2008,N°Registration:S-P-00119
Certifiedpublication
1lofsparklingredwine
Productionphase(vineyardactivities,pressing,1st/2nd
vinification,bottling)andutilizationphase
(distributionandproductuse)
Water Footprint
http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=wine Database 1lofwine InformationN.A.
Ecological Footprint
WWF,GlobalFootprintNetwork,ZoologicalSocietyofLondon,“LivingPlanetReport
2008”,WWF(2008)Database 1lofwine InformationN.A.
134 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Jam
es
A. S
ug
ar
/ N
atio
na
l Ge
og
rap
hic
Ima
ge
Co
lle
ctio
n
Appendix
1.Titolo capitolo - 135
136 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Ma
rc M
ori
tsch
/ N
atio
na
l Ge
og
rap
hic
Ima
ge
Co
lle
ctio
n
1.Titolo capitolo - 137
138 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Thisappendixprovidesthedetailedassumptionspertainingtotheanalysisofthelifecycleoftwotypesofbakedgoods:n ParadiseCake;n Healthycookies.
Paradise Cake
Therecipeforthiscakewastakenfromthecookbookentitled“IlCarnacina”,publishedbyGarzanti(edition1961),editedbyLuigiVeronelli:ParadiseCakeno.2176.
Unit of analysisTheunitofreferenceis1kgoffinishedcake(afterbaking).
System boundaries and main assumptionsThesystemboundariesincludethefollowingphases:
n productionofrawmaterials;n preparationandbakingofthecakeinanoven(typicalhouseholdoven).
Thephaseofcreatingthebatterhasnotbeenincludedbecauseitwaspresumedtobedonebyhandwithoutinvolvingtheconsumptionofrawmaterialsandenergy.Moreo-ver,itisassumedthatthebatterundergoesa15%moisturelossfollowingovenbaking.
Analysis of ingredients Theingredientsthat, intherecipeshownintableA.1,amounttolessthan1%have
notbeenincluded.Thesetablesalsoprovidethesourceofthedataforeachingredientusedforthecal-
culationoftheCarbonFootprint.Used, respectively, for the Water Footprint and Ecological Footprint, was the infor-
mation found on the website www.waterfootprint.org and information derived fromelaborationoftheGlobalFootprintNetwork(Italy2001)database.
A.1Calculation of the environmental impacts associated with the production of baked goods
2176. PARADISE CAKEServes for 6 persons250 gr. softened butter, kneaded by hand inside a cloth 240 gr. powdered sugar and 15 gr. vanilla-flavored sugar, mixed 110 gr. potato starchThe grated peel of ½ lemon5 yolks and 3 whole eggs125 gr. sifted flour 10 gr. baking powderExtra butter, flour and vanilla-flavored sugar
Place the softened butter in a heated and thoroughly dried bowl, beat with a whisk until creamy and add the sugar mixed with vanilla-flavored sugar. As soon as it is creamy, add 10 gr. starch and the lemon peel and whisk to obtain a smooth, uniform batter. Beat in the yolks, then, still beating, add the whole eggs and continue beating energeti-cally for about ten minutes. Sift the flour with the 100 gr. of starch remaining, add the baking powder, blend and sift again. Still beating, add the flour to the batter, sprinkling it slowly in so that it does not form any lumps. Butter a low, wide cake pan and dust with flour. Pour in the batter and bake in a moderate oven. Remove the cake from the oven when done and cool in the pan. Before serving the cake, sprinkle with the vanilla-flavored sugar.
Appendix - 139
TableA.1–Ingredientsassociatedwiththeproducitonof1kgofParadiseCake
Ingredient Unit of Value Percentage
of recipe (%) Data source Assumptions
Butter kg 0,28 24% Busser&Jungbluth(2009)
Consideredtohaveanimpact
analogoustothatofcheese
Sugar kg 0,269 23% Ecoinvent2004 -
Vanilla-flavored sugar kg 0,017 1% Ecoinvent2004
Consideredequivalenttobeet
sugar
potato starch kg 0,123 10% Paragraph5.1Considered
equivalenttopotatoes
Eggs kg 0,336 29% Dekkeretal. Weightof1egg=60grams
Flour kg 0,14 12% confidentialprimarydata
Workinggroupelaborations
Baking powder kg 0,011 1% - Negligible
DataforovenbakingweretakenfromtheDanishdatabank(LCAfoodDK)andaregiveninTableA.2.
TableA.2–Energyconsumptionassociatedwith1kgofcakebatter(cookfor1hourat170°C)
Energy source Unit of
Q.ty for batter Source Assumptions
Electrical power kWh 0,261 Elaborationsintable5.2.2ofthisdocument -
ResultsTheresultsfor1kgofcakearegiveninTableA.3.
TableA.3–Indicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofcake
"Sweet: Paradise Cake (“Il Carnacina” Cookbook
recipe no. 2176)”
Carbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg Liters/kg global m2/Kg
Data range 3.700 3.100 30
Healthy biscuits
Therecipeforthiscakewastakenfromthe“PellegrinoArtusi”recipebook:healthybuiscuitsno.573downloablefromthewww.pellegrinoartusi.itwebsite
Unit of analysisThereferencequantityis1kgofbuiscuits(afterbaking).
System boundaries and main assumptionsThesystemboundariesincludethefollowingphases:
n Productionofrawmaterials;n Preparationandbakingofthecookiesinanoven(typicalhouseholdoven).
140 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Thephaseofcreatingthedoughhasnotbeenincludedbecauseitwasassumedthatitwasdonebyhandwithoutinvolvingconsumptionofrawmaterialsandenergy.Ingredi-entsweighinglessthan3%oftherecipehavenotbeenincluded.
Itisassumedthatthedoughundergoesa15%moisturelossfollowingovenbaking.Cookiebrowningwasnotincludedinanalysisboundaries.
Ingredient analysisTheingredientsandassumptionsforeacharegiveninTableA.4.Thetablesalsoprovidethesourceofthedataforeachingredientforthecalculation
oftheCarbonFootprint.Used, respectively, for the Water Footprint and Ecological Footprint, was the infor-
mation found on the website www.waterfootprint.org and information derived fromelaborationoftheGlobalFootprintNetwork(Italy2001)database.
TableA.4–Ingredientsfor1kgofbakedbiscuits
Ingredient Unit of Measure Value Percentage
of recipe (%) Data source Assumptions
Wheat flour kg 0,56 48 Confidentialprimarydata
Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup
Brown sugar kg 0,169 14 Ecoinvent2004Considered
comparabletobeetsugar
Butter kg 0,08 7 Busser&Jungbluth(2009)
Itwasassumedanimpactequaltothe
cheeseone
Eggs kg 0,192 16 Dekkeretal. Weightofegg=60grams
Milk kg 0,16 14 EPDGranaroloMilkItwasassumedtouse100gramsof
milk
Cream of tartar kg 0,016 1 - Notincluded
Bicarbonate of soda kg 0,008 1 - Notincluded
573. HEALTHY BISCUITSBe happy, because, with these cookies you will never die or you will live to be as old as Methuselah.In fact I eat them often and if someone, seeing me more sprightly than my heavy burden of years would allow, indiscreetly asks me my age, I reply that I am as old as Methuselah, son of Enoch.
Flour, 350 gramsUnrefined cane sugar, 100 gramsButter, 50 gramsCream of tartar, 10 gramsBicarbonate of soda, 5 grams2 eggsA pinch of vanilla-flavoured sugarMilk, as required.
Mix the sugar and the flour together, make a mound and then make a hole in the centre of the mound in which to place the rest of the ingredients. Moisten with a little milk and mix until you have obtained a soft dough. Work into a flattish cylindrical shape half a metre long. To bake it in the oven or in a “country oven”, grease a baking tin with butter, and cut the dough into two pieces, placing them well apart as they swell considerably. The next day, cut them into the shape of biscuits – this amount of dough makes about thirty – and toast them.
Appendix - 141
Data for oven baking were taken from the Danish data bank (LCA food DK) and aregiveninTableA.5.
TableA.5–Energyconsumptionforovenuse
Type of cooking Energy source Unit of Measure Dough data Source
Heating convection oven to 200° C Electricalenergy kWh 0,3 Table5.2.2in
presentdocument
Maintain temperature
at 200° C for 1 hrElectricalenergy kWh 0,9 Table5.2.2in
presentdocument
Itwasassumedthatthecookieswerebakedintheoveninfourbatchesfor15minuteseach,usingtwotraysforeachbatch.
Theweightofthedoughbakedinanhouris3660grams,onthebasisofthefollowingassumptions:n Traysize:40cmX35cmn Sizeofbakedbiscuit:5cmX5cmn Numberofcookiespertray:39n Weightofbakedcookie:10gramsn Weightofunbakedbiscuit:11.76grams.
Theenergyconsumptionvaluesshowninthetablearethoserequiredtobake1kgofbiscuits.
TableA.6–Energyconsumptiontobake1kgofbiscuits
Procedure Energy source Unit of Measure Value for dough/finished biscuit
Heating convection oven to 200°C Electricalenergy kWh 0,3
Maintain temperature at
200°C for 1 hr (for 1 kg of cookies)
Electricalenergy kWh 0,289
Total consumption (for 1 kg of cookies) Electricalenergy kWh 0,589
Results
Theresultsfor1kgofbookiesaregiveninTableA.7.
TableA.7–Indicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofbiscuits
Healthy Buiscuits (P. Artusi recipe books n. 573)
Carbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint
gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg gm2/kg
Data range 2.300 1.800 16
142 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Tra
vis
Dov
e /
Nat
ion
al G
eo
gra
ph
ic Im
ag
e C
oll
ect
ion
Bibliogaphy
1.Titolo capitolo - 143
144 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
Allen,Pereira,Raes,Smith(1998),CropEvapotranspiration-Guidelinesforcomputingcropwaterrequirements-FaoirrigationandDrainagePaper56.
AnderssonK.,2000,LCAofFoodProductsandProductionSystems,InternationalJournalofLCA5(4)pp.239–248;
Andersson K., Ohlsson T., 1999, Life Cycle Assessment of Bread Produced on Different Scales, International Journal of LCA pp.25–40;
AvraamidesM.,FattaD.,2008Resourceconsumptionandemissionsfromoliveoilproduction:alifecycleinventorycasestudyinCyprus,JournalofCleanerProduction16pp.809-821;
BaglianiM.,CarechinoM.,MartiniF.,2009,Lacontabilitàambientaleapplicataallaproduzionezootecnica, l’improntaecologicadell’allevamentodibovinidirazzapiemontese,IRES(IstitutoRicercheEconomicoSocialidelPiemonte,RegionePiemonte,Collanaambiente29;
BaglianiM.,ContuS.,CosciaI.,TiezziE.,“TheevaluationoftheEcologicalFootprintoftheProvinceofSiena(Italy)”,inTiezziE.,BrebbiaC.A.,UsoJ.L.(eds.),“EcosystemsandSustainableDevelopment:Volume1”,pp.387-396,WessexInstituteofTechnologyPress,Southampton(2003)
Baldo,Marino,Rossi,AnalisidelCiclodiVitaLCA,nuovaedizioneaggiornata,EdizioneAmbiente;
Barilla,DichiarazioneambientalediprodottoapplicataallapastaseccadisemoladigranoduroprodottainItaliaeconfezionatainastucciodicartoncino,Revisione:1-Validaunannodall’approvazione,DichiarazioneAmbientalediProdottoPre-Certificata-NumerodiRegistrazione:S-EP-00039,DatadiApprovazione:19/08/2009;
Baroni L., Cenci L., Tettamanti M., Berati M., Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined withdifferentfoodproductionsystems,EuropeanJournalofClinicalNutrition(2006),1–8;
Basset-Mens, C. & van der Werf, H., 2003, Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems – the case of pigproductioninFrance,Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment1005,pp.127-144;
BeccaliM.,CelluraM.,LudicelloM.,MistrettaM.,ResourceConsumptionandEnvironmentalImpactsoftheAgrofoodSector:LifeCycleAssessmentofItalianCitrus-BasedProducts,EnvironmentalManagement(2009)43:707–724
Berlin,EnvironmentalLifeCycleAssessment(LCA)ofSwedishsemi-hardcheese-InternationalDairyJournal12(2002)pp.939–953;
Best,Aaron,StefanGiljum,CraigSimmons,DanielBlobel,KevinLewis,MarkHammer,SandraCavalieri,StephanLutterandCathyMaguire.2008.PotentialoftheEcologicalFootprintformonitoringenvironmentalimpactsfromnaturalresourceuse:AnalysisofthepotentialoftheEcologicalFootprintandrelatedassessmenttoolsforuseintheEU’sThematicStrategyontheSustainableUseofNaturalResources.ReporttotheEuropeanCommission,DGEnvironment
BlenginiGA,BustoM.,Thelifecycleofrice:LCAofalternativeagri-foodchainmanagementsystemsinVercelli(Italy),Journalofenvironmentalmanagement(2008);
BusserS.,JungbluthN.,2009,Theroleofflexiblepackaginginthelifecycleofcoffeeandbutter,InternationalJournalofLCA14(Suppl1)pp.S80–S91
Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2006, GHG emissions from conventional, agri-environmental and organic Irish suckler beef units,JournalofEnvironmentalQuality35,231-239;
Casey,J.W.&Holden,N.M.,2006a,QuantificationofGHGemissionsfromsucker-beefproductioninIreland.AgriculturalSystems90,79-98;
CederbergC.&Darelius,K.,2000,Livscykelanalys(LCA)avnötkött-enstudieavolikaproduktionsformer(LifeCycleAssessment(LCA)ofbeef–astudyofdifferentproductionforms,inSwedish),Naturresursforum,LandstingetHalland,Halmstad;
Cederberg C. & Darelius, K., 2001, Livscykelanalys (LCA) av griskött (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of pork, in Swedish),NaturresursforumHalland,Halmstad,Sweden;
CederbergC.&FlysjöA.,2004,Environmentalassessmentoffuturepigfarmingsystems–quantificationofthreescenariosfromtheFOOD21synthesiswork,SIKReport723,SIK–TheSwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnology,Göteborg,ISBN91-7290-236-1;
Bibliography - 145
Cederberg C. and Stadig M., 2003, System Expansion and Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment of Milk and Beef Production,InternationalJournalofLCA8(6)pp.350-356;
CederbergC.,Berlinj.,HenrikssonM.&Davis,Jennifer,2008,UtsläppavväxthusgaserIettlivscykelperspektivförverksamhetenvid livsmedelsföretagetBerteQvarn(Emissionsofgreenhousegases ina lifecycleperspectivefromthefoodcompanyBerteQuarn,inSwedih),SIK-Report777,ISBN978-91-7290-270-1,SIK–TheSwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnology,Göteborg,SwedenReferences22;
Cederberg C., Meyer, D. & Flysjö, A., 2009a, Life Cycle Inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and use of land and energy ofBrazilianbeefexportedtoEurope,SIK-Rapport792,SIK–InstitutetförLivsmedelochBioteknik,Göteborg,ISBN978-91-7290-283-1;
Cederberg C., Sonesson, U., Davis, J. & Sund, V., 2009b, Greenhouse gas emissions from production of meat, milk and eggs inSweden1990and2005,SIK-Rapport793,SIK–InstitutetförLivsmedelochBioteknik,Göteborg,ISBN978-91-7290-284-8;
Cerelia,Dichiarazioneambientalediprodottodell’acquamineralenaturaleCereliaimbottigliatain:PETda1,5levetroda1l,Rev.0–Data:30/07/2008,RegistrazioneN°:S-P-00123;
Chambers N., Simmons C., Wackernagel M., Sharing Nature’s Interest, Ecological Footprints as an indicator of sustainability,Earthscan,2007,chapter5,pp.79–105;
Colombo,“Manualedell’Ingegnere”;83°Edizione;Hoepli,1997
Consorzio Interprovinciale vini (C.I.V), Dichiarazione ambientale di prodotto, Vino frizzante rosso imbottigliato LambruscoGrasparossaBiologico“FratelloSole”,Rev.Marzo2008,N°Registrazione:S-P-00119;
De Lorgeril M, Salen P, Martin JL, Monjaud I, Delaye J, Mamelle N, Mediterranean diet, traditional risk factors, and the rate ofcardiovascularcomplicationsaftermyocardialinfarction:finalreportoftheLyonDietHeartStudy,Circulation,1999;
Dekker S.E.M., de Boer I.J.M., Aarnink A.J.A. and P.W.G. Groot Koerkamp, Environmental hotspot identification of organic eggproduction; Farm Technology Engineering Group, Animal Production Systems Group, Animal Sciences Group, WageningenUniversityandResearchCentre.Sanne.Dekker@wur.nl
DepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs(DEFRA),PAS2050:2008,Specificationfortheassessmentofthelifecyclegreenhousegasemissionsofgoodsandservices,BritishStandards
Eriksson S., Elmquist H., Stern S. & Nybrant T., 2005, Environmental systems analysis of pig production – The impact of feedchoice,InternationalJournalofLCA10(2)pp.143-154;
EwingB.,GoldfingerS.,WackernagelM.,StechbartM.,RizkS.,ReedA.,Kitzes J., “TheEcologicalFootprint–Atlas2008”,GlobalFootprintNetwork(2008);
FarchiG,FidanzaF,GrossiP,LanciaA,MariottiS,MenottiA,Relationshipbetweeneatingpatternsmeetingrecommendationsandsubsequentmortalityin20years,JournalClinicalNutrition1995;
FinkbeinerM.(2009)-CarbonFootprinting,opportunitiesandthreats–TheInternationalJournalofLCA,14;pp.91-94;
Foster C., Green K., Bleda M., Dewick P., Evans B., Flynn A., Mylan J. 2006. Environmental Impacts of Food Production andConsumption: A report to the Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School. DEFRA,London;
FungTT,McCulloughML,NewbyPK,MansonJE,MeigsJB,RifaiN,WillettWC,HuFB,Diet-qualityscoresandplasmaconcentrationsofmarkersofinflammationandendothelialdysfunction.AmericanJournalofClinicalNutrition,2005;
Granarolo,Dichiarazioneambientalediprodottoper il lattefrescopastorizzatodialtaqualitàconfezionato inbottigliadiPET,revisione0del9/3/2007,CertificazioneN.S-EP00118;
Haldaya,Hoekstra;“ThewaterneededtohaveItalianseatPastaandPizza”;May2009;WaterfootprintNetwork
HospidoA.,MilàiCanals,McLaren,Truninger,Edwards-Jones,Clift,2009,Theroleofseasonalityinlettuceconsumption:acasestudyofenvironmentalandsocialaspects,InternationalJournalofLCA(14)pp.381–391;
146 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
HuijbregtsP,FeskensE,RasanenL,Dietarypatternand20yearmortalityinelderlymeninFinland,Italy,andtheNetherlands:longitudinalcohortstudy,BMJ1997;
KantAK,SchatzkinA,GraubardBI,SchairerC,Aprospectivestudyofdietqualityandmortalityinwomen,JAMA2000;
KantAK,SchatzkinA,HarrisTB,ZieglerRG,BlockG,DietarydiversityandsubsequentmortalityintheFirstNationalHealthandNutritionExaminationSurveyEpidemiologicFollow-upStudy,AmericanJournalofClinicalNutritional1993;
KeysA,AravanisC,BlackburnHW,VanBuchemFSP,BuzinaR,DjordjevicBS,DontasAS,FidanzaF,KarvonenMJ,KimuraN,LekosD,MontiM,PudduV,TaylorHL,Epidemiologicstudiesrelatedtocoronaryheartdisease:characteristicsofmenaged40-59insevencountries.ActaMedScand1967(Suppltovol.460)1-392;
KeysA,AravanisC,Blackburn,H,BuzinaR,DjordjevicBS,DontasAS,FidanzaF,arvonen,MJ,KimuraN,MenottiA,Mohacek I,NedeljkovicS,PudduV,PunsarS,TaylorHL,VanBuchemFSP,SevenCountries.AMultivariateAnalysisofDeathandCoronaryHeartDisease.1980.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MAandLondon.1-381;
KeysA,Coronaryheartdiseaseinsevencountries.Circulation1970(Suppltovol.41)1-211
Kouris-BlazosA,GnardellisC,WahlqvistML,TrichopoulosD,LukitoW,TrichopoulouA,AretheadvantagesoftheMediterraneandiettransferabletootherpopulations?AcohortstudyinMelbourne,Australia,BrJNutr1999;
Kromhout D, Menotti A, The Seven Countries Study: A Scientific Adventure in Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology. 1994.Brouwer.Utrecht;
Kumagai S, Shibata H, Watanabe S, Suzuki T, Haga H, Effect of food intake pattern on all-cause mortality in the communityelderly:a7-yearlongitudinalstudy,JournalNutritionHealthAging1999;
Lasheras C, Fernandez S, Patterson AM, Mediterranean diet and age with respect to overall survival in institutionalized,nonsmokingelderlypeople,AmericanJournalClinicalNutrition2000;
Manualediagricoltura,2aedizione,manualiHOEPLI;
MichelsKB,WolkA,Aprospectivestudyofvarietyofhealthyfoodsandmortalityinwomen,InternationalJournalofEpidemiol2002;
MilàiCanalsL.,BurnipG.M.,CowellS.J.,EvaluationoftheenvironmentalimpactsofappleproductionusingLifeCycleAssessment(LCA):CasestudyinNewZealand,Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment114(2006)226–238
Mitrou PN, Kipnis V, Thiebaut Ac, Reedy J, Subar AF, Wirfalt E, Flood A, Mouw T,Hollenbeck AR, Letizmann M, Schatzkin A,Mediterranean dietary pattern and prediction ofall-cause mortality in a U.S. population: results from the NIH-AARP Diet andHealthStudy,ArchivesofInternalMedicine,2007;
NubeM,KokFJ,VandenbrouckeJP,vanderHeide-WesselC,vanderHeideRM,Scoringofprudentdietaryhabitsanditsrelationto25-yearsurvival,JournalofAmericanDietAssociation1987;
Ogino, A et al., 2007, Evaluating Environmental Impacts of the Japanese beef cow-calf system by the life cycle assessmentmethod,AnimalScienceJournal78,pp.424-432;
OslerM,HeitmannBL,GerdesLU,JørgensenLM,SchrollM,DietarypatternsandmortalityinDanishmenandwomen:aprospectiveobservationalstudy,JournalofNutrition2001;
Osler M, Schroll M, Diet and mortality in a cohort of elderly people in a north European community, International Journal ofEpidemiologic1997;
PanagiotakosaD.,PitsavosbC.,ArvaniticF,AdherencetotheMediterraneanfoodpatternpredictstheprevalenceofhypertension,hypercholesterolemia, diabetes and obesity, among healthy adults; the accuracy of the MedDietScore, Preventive Medicine,Volume44,Issue4,April2007;
Pelletier N., 2008, Environmental performance in the US poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozonedepleting,acidifyingandeutrophyingemissions,AgriculturalSystems98,pp.67-73;
Bibliography - 147
PlasticsEurope(2008)-The‘CarbonFootprint’,anunreliableindicatorofenvironmentalsustainability–PositionPaper,Brussels,18Feb.2008;
RamjeawonT.,2004,LifeCycleAssessmentofCane-SugarontheIslandofMauritius,InternationalJournalofLCA9(4)pp.254–260;
SofiF.,CesariF.,AbbateR.,GensiniG.,CasiniA,AdherencetoMediterraneandietandhealth,BMJ,luglio,2008;
TassinariG.,Manualedell’agronomo,Redaedizioniperl’agricoltura,Vedizione(5°Ristampa:aprile1998)
ToshimaH,KogaY,andBlackburnH,LessonsforSciencefromtheSevenCountriesStudy.1995.SpringerVerlag,Tokyo;
TrichopoulouA,Kouris-BlazosA,WahlqvistML,Dietandoverallsurvivalintheelderly,BMJ1995;
TrichopoulouA.,CostacouT.,BamiaC.,TrichopoulosD,AdherencetoaMediterraneanDietandSurvivalinaGreekPopulation,TheNewEnglandJournalofMedicine,Volume348,N°26,2003;
TukkerA.,Bausch–GoldbohmS.,VerheijdenM.,ArjandeKonig,KleijnRenè,WolfOliver,IgnazioPérezDomìnguez,EnvironmentalimpactsofdietchangesintheEU,JRCScientificandTechnicalReports,2009
Verge,XCPetal.,2008,GreenhousegasemissionsfromtheCanadianbeefindustry,AgriculturalSystems98,126-134;
WackernagelM.,ReesW.,“L’improntaecologica”,EdizioniAmbiente,Milano(1996);
WeidemaB.P.,WesnaesM.,HermansenJ.,KristensenT.andHalbergN.,EnvironmentalImprovementPotentialsofMeatandDairyProducts,JRCScientificandTechnicalReports,2008;
WillettWC,Dietandcoronaryheartdisease. In:WillettWC,ed.Nutritionalepidemiology.2nded.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1998;
WillettWC,SacksF,TrichopoulouA,Mediterraneandietpyramid:aculturalmodelforhealthyeating.AmericanJournalofClinicalNutrition,1995;
Williams,A.G.,Audsley,E&Sanders,D.L.,2006,Determiningtheenvironmentalburdensandresourceuseintheproductionofagriculturalandhorticulturalcommodities,MainReport,DefraResearchprojectIS0205,Bedford:CranfieldUniversityandDefra,Availableatwww.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk;
World Cancer Research Fund. Food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Washington, D.C.: AmericanInstituteforCancerPrevention,1997;
WorldResourcesInstitute,theGreenhousegasprotocol,ACorporateAccountingandReportingStandard;
WWF,GlobalFootprintNetwork,ZoologicalSocietyofLondon,“LivingPlanetReport2008”,WWF(2008);
WWF,GlobalFootprintNetwork,ZoologicalSocietyofLondon,“LivingPlanetReport2006”,WWF(2006);
www.environdec.com;
www.ipcc.org;
www.LCAfood.dk;
www.piramidealimentare.it;
www.piramidealimentaretoscana.it;
www.waterfootprint.org.
Yusoff S. and Hansen SB,. 2007, Feasibility Study of Performing an Life Cycle Assessment on Crude Palm Oil Production inMalaysia,InternationalJournalofLCA12(1)pp50–58
Double Pyramid:healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet
people, environment, science, economy
Contact Details
Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition
Via Mantova, 166
43122 Parma ITALY
info@barillacfn.com
www.barillacfn.com
Photo by
Do
ub
le P
yra
mid
: he
alth
y fo
od
for p
eo
ple
, susta
ina
ble
foo
d fo
r the
pla
net
top related