Are you one of many people who are trying to minimize the environmental impact of food production? If so, you might use common environmental footprint to decide what to purchase.
Environmental footprintsThe environmental damage caused by a product during its lifetime is measured. This includes the environmental impacts of growing crops, livestock, and manufacturing the inputs such as fertilisers. It can also include transport and packaging.
Unfortunately, the environmental footprints of many foods don’t tell the whole story. Consumers will switch to foods that are more eco-friendly, which means that their production increases at the expense of other products. This can have unforeseen consequences that environmental footprints do not consider.
These calculators can be a promise that they will help consumers live a more sustainable life. They may encourage people to make choices that do not benefit the environment or may even cause harm.
Neil Hall/EPA
A problem assumption
We are experts in assessing climate change mitigation effectiveness for agricultural systems. We provide regular policy advice to governments and other organizations, including the United Nations.
International guidelines are used to guide the design and development of environmental footprint calculators. Organizations that are standards-orientedand policymakers, which includes the European Union. The tool can be found on the websites often of environmental groups, government departments, companies, and other organisations.
The calculators are intended to help consumers make informed decisions by assessing the impact of current production on the environment. This is a problem.
It assumes that the footprint of a product today will remain the same regardless of how production is scaled down or up. But this is often false. The demand for a product can change, which can have knock-on effects on the environment. It could lead to more agricultural land being needed, or the use of river water to irrigate different crops.
Below are three ways that environmental footprints can mislead consumers about a product’s true impacts.
1. Land use
Agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emission. This is mainly due to animal belches as well as the production and usage of synthetic fertilisers.
Organic farming can reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it does not use synthetic fertiliser. Some research suggests that organic farming may increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Shutterstock
One StudyEngland and Wales compared what would happen if all food production were converted to organic. It was discovered that global greenhouse gas emissions from food production could rise by approximately 12%. About 60%.
This was due to organic systems producing lower yields. Therefore, more livestock and crop production would be required overseas to make up the difference. Clearing vegetation would be required to create this agricultural land. This emits carbon dioxide when it decays.
When grasslands are converted into cropland, soil organic matter is also lost.
Only a small portion of the higher international emissions can be offset by enhanced soil carbon storage from organic agriculture.
It is important to consider the impact of switching from one type of food to another when considering the consequences.
Read more:
Men and meat: Why some men can’t digest plant-based food
Australia has 325 million hectares. raise cattleTo produce red meat. This land is often used to produce red meat. cannot be usedTo grow crops because it is too dry, steep or vegetated.
To produce alternative proteins, such as legumes and plant-based meats, consumers would need more land, either in Australia or abroad.
Australia’s existing arable land is being used to supply crops to both domestic and international markets. The new land would have the potential to be used for crops by clearing forests or cultivating grazing land. You could also increase crop production by using more fertiliser and other inputs.
These shifts do not contribute to the carbon footprint of plant-based protein production.
Rick Rycroft/AP
2. Water
It is often called “The Commonsense of it.” AssumedA product that has a smaller water footprint can help to replenish the environment and increase water flow in rivers. In Australia, however, water use is determined by policy and markets.
You can trade irrigation water between users. The farmer can either trade the water with another farmer or use it to grow another water-intensive crop, such as rice. In this scenario, water is not returned to the environment.
The same goes for a decrease in red meat production. However, this does not necessarily mean that water for the environment will be more plentiful.
Farmers whose land borders a river or another water body are eligible It is allowed to takeWater for livestock to drink. A smaller number of livestock would mean more water in rivers. ResearchThis water could be used for domestic purposes in Australia, particularly in dry years.
3. Produced together
Many agricultural products can be combined with other products. A cow that is slaughtered for red meat can also produce hide, meat meal, and tallow. The same goes for sheep. Wool can be produced when they are alive and then later on when they are slaughtered.
Consumers could also avoid red meat due to its high carbon emissions, and the associated products would need to be replaced. This would have negative environmental effects.
Demand for oil will likely rise if synthetic materials replace wool and hides. Cropland demand will also increase if wool is replaced by biobased products like hemp and cotton.
Shutterstock
To reduce livestock emissions, it has been possible to increase milk production per cow by keeping fewer cattle. But ResearchThis suggests that it may not be the intended result.
A smaller number of cows would result in fewer calves which are used to make veal. Research found that less veal would require greater red meat to be made elsewhere, which would lead to no overall reduction in emissions.
It is reasonable to assume that more red meat will be needed. While beef consumption is on the decline in some areas, it is not impossible to imagine that there will be more red meat. Western countriesGlobal beef demand is expected to rise. 2030As the wealth in developing nations increases, so does the world’s population.
For a healthier planet
Experts and I are working together to improve our understanding of the subject. Increase awarenessThe SimpleNature is the source of our environmental footprints.
It is important to recognize the limitations of current methods, and create tools that fully evaluate the consequences of consumers’ decisions.
These tools will be developed. challengingBecause of the many uncertainties involved, it will require significant research investment.
But it will lead towards better environmental policies, fewer unintended outcomes, and a more healthy planet.
Continue reading:
Don’t drink milk? Here’s how you can get enough calcium and other nutrients