Maria Hatjiathanassiadou
Priscilla Moura Rolim
Larissa Mont'Alverne Jucá Seabra- 1Nutrition Post Graduate Program, Center for Health Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
- 2Department of Nutrition, Center for Health Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Current food systems are associated with the unsustainable use of natural resources; therefore, rethinking current models is urgent and is part of a global agenda to reach sustainable development. Sustainable diets encompass health, society, economy, culture as well as the environment, in addition to considering all the stages that make up the food production chain. This study aimed to perform a review on the importance of using environmental footprints (EnF) as a way of assessing the environmental impacts of food systems. The most used EnF to assess impacts related to the food system was the carbon footprint, followed by the water footprint, and the land use footprint. These EnF usually measured the impacts mainly of the current diet and theoretical diets. Animal-source foods were the ones that most contribute to the environmental impact, with incentives to reduce consumption. However, changing dietary patterns should not be restricted to changing behavior only, but should also involve all stakeholders in the functioning of food systems. We conclude that EnF are excellent tools to evaluate and guide the adoption of more sustainable diets, and can be applied in different contexts of food systems, such as food consumption analysis, menu analysis, food waste, and inclusion of EnF information on food labels.
1. Introduction
For a long time, nutrition science has been seen as predominantly biological science, comprehending physiological, biological, genomics, and medical aspects and geared toward the interaction between foods and the human body, aiming at preventing and maintaining the health of individuals and populations (Beauman et al., 2021).
According to the Giessen Declaration, the world where we live today is very different from the world in which the concept of nutrition as science was created. The conventional concept of nutrition as a biological science can be adapted and expanded to also include social and environmental aspects. Hence, nutrition science starts being defined as the study of food systems, foods and drinks, their nutrients and other constituents, and their interactions within and among all relevant biological, social, and environmental systems (Beauman et al., 2021).
Food systems are characterized by a complex relation of elements and activities that involve the production, transformation, distribution, and preparation of foods for consumption. Such food systems are key for the health and nutrition of people, influence environmental wellbeing, and promote social justice [Ericksen, 2008; High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE), 2014; Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde, 2017]. In 2014, at the Second International Conference on Nutrition promoted by the World Health Organization (WHO), it was discussed that there is a great challenge of current food systems to promote adequate, safe, diversified, and healthy eating to all due to unsustainable patterns of production and consumption that lead to the scarcity of resources and environmental degradation (Food Agriculture Organization of United Nations World Health Organization, 2015).
The currently prevailing food systems, associated with current ways of life and production, have caused harm to the environment, climate change, and excessive use of natural resources, exceeding the biocapacity of the planet, in addition to direct negative impacts on the economy and society. In face of this scenario, the United Nations (UN) released in 2015 the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) to be reached by 2030 (United Nations, 2015). Among the 17 goals listed, goals 2, 6, 12, and 13 have a direct relation with sustainable food systems since they seek, respectively, to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and sustainable agriculture, ensure the availability of water and sanitation for all, promote responsible consumption and production, and foster urgent actions against global climate change.
The production of food for humans and animals is one of the activities that most cause climate change, particularly by using natural resources such as water, soil, and energy. Arable land for agriculture and livestock causes significant emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), and the use of agricultural pesticides contributes to impoverishing the soil and contaminating rivers and water, in addition to reducing biodiversity (Vermeulen et al., 2012; Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016; Campbell et al., 2017). Rethinking the models of food production and consumption is part of a worldwide agenda that seeks to transform the agroindustry model. Considering the principles of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social), the evaluation of impacts on the environment is one of the ways of incentivizing more sustainable production and consumption.
Environmental indicators are instruments used to assess, compare, and control the impacts on the environment, being a way of keeping a tally of the environmental costs involved in the various steps of processing a product. One example of indicators employed to measure environmental impact at a global scale is environmental footprints, which can be used throughout the food production chain, using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology (Garzillo et al., 2019).
The analysis of environmental footprints is also associated with the concept of healthy and sustainable diets. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), sustainable diets are dietary patterns that are capable of promoting all dimensions of health and wellbeing of individuals, which have a low environmental impact, and are accessible to all, safe, and culturally acceptable (Food Agriculture Organization of the United World Health Organization, 2019).
Several studies (Vanham and Bidoglio, 2013; Rose et al., 2019; Auclair and Burgos, 2021; da Silva et al., 2021; Vanham et al., 2021) have shown the environmental impacts of diets, from the standpoint of environmental footprints, and also point to the need for changes in dietary patterns and, consequently, food systems, given the impact not only on the environment but also on other dimensions of sustainability.
Furthermore, some dietary guidelines from some countries have already started to discuss the relationship between diets and sustainability. The Dietary Guideline for the Brazilian Population is internationally renowned and is, possibly, one of the first ones to fully incorporate the need for sustainability in the dimension of food supply, expanding the discussion to all three components of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social). Also, the guideline states in one of its five principles that healthy diets derive from environmentally and socially sustainable food systems. Other countries such as Australia, Sweden, Qatar, the Netherlands, Nordic Countries, and some countries of the UK (Brasil Ministério da Saúde, 2014; Monteiro et al., 2015; da Silva Oliveira and Silva-Amparo, 2018; Ahmed et al., 2019) also discuss sustainability in their dietary guidelines. This review is considered essential for the academic community and society as there is still the need to explore content and include factors to assess nutrition from a sustainable perspective. In this sense, this review aims to summarize the applicability of environmental footprints in the context of food consumption analysis and its relationship with nutrition, highlighting the relevance and need for a transformation in the current production model toward more sustainable food systems in a global approach. In this sense, this review seeks to answer the following question: “How is the concept and applicability of environmental footprints inserted in the food system, considering socioeconomic, cultural, environmental, and health dimensions?”.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Search strategy
The information contained in this study comes from an extensive review of the literature on the relationship between environmental footprints and human nutrition. Therefore, this review was carried out in a non-systematic way from February 2021 to December 2021. Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect databases were used to identify relevant studies according to the development of the review and complemented with a manual search in the reference lists of selected studies. Books, reports, and official documents were also included. Search terms were the following Health Sciences Descriptors: “environmental footprint,” “sustainable diet,” and “food consumption.” The inclusion criteria were the relevance of the bibliographic material, regardless of the year or place of publication, and articles or documents written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese. Conference abstracts, thesis, preprint, and review articles were excluded. The selection of articles, official documents, books, and reports cover the period from 2000 to 2021. Any disagreement was resolved through discussion between the authors.
2.2. Study selection
Authors reviewed all studies that met the following criteria: (1) Access relation between environmental footprint and food consumption; (2) Available in full-text.
2.3. Data extraction
The following information was extracted from each selected study: Author, year of publication, location, aim, environmental footprints analyzed, food and/or diet data source, and main findings. The methodology used for this study is better described in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Flowchart of study selection process.
3. Background: Concepts, concerns, and advances in the relationship between nutrition and sustainability
Before presenting the results of the study, it is worthwhile to give an overview of how food production and diets have impacted planet earth over the years, as well as introduce the environmental footprints.
3.1. Food systems and environmental impacts
The current food systems have caused several impacts on the environment. Food production contributed to up to 34% of the total GHG emissions in 2015, of which 71% of this amount came from agriculture. Food production is also associated with deforestation, soil degradation, and considerable loss of biodiversity on the planet (Jägerskog and Jønch Clausen, 2012; Vermeulen et al., 2012; Crippa et al., 2021).
Current dietary trends, combined with the forecast of population growth of around 10 billion in 2050, may exacerbate the risks to people and the planet. The effects of food production threaten the stability of the Earth's system via emissions of GHG, pollution with nitrogen and phosphorus, loss of biodiversity, and water and land use. Strong trends indicate that food production is one of the greatest drivers of environmental change on the planet (Willett et al., 2019).
In 2009, Rockström, along with other scientists, introduced the concept of Planetary Boundaries (PB), which can be defined as the nine processes that regulate the stability and resilience of planet Earth. By identifying those processes, quantitative limits (high risk, increasing risk, and safe) were also proposed within which humanity could develop. Overcoming the limits (safe operating space) would raise the risk of causing changes to the environment, which could be large and irreversible (Rockström et al., 2009a,b).
The nine PB are (1) land-system change; (2) freshwater use; (3) biogeochemical flows—nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; (4) biosphere integrity; (5) climate change; (6) ocean acidification; (7) stratospheric ozone depletion; (8) atmospheric aerosol loading; (9) introduction of novel entities. Steffen et al. (2015) suggest that at least four PBs have been exceeded, which means they are in the uncertainty/risk zone, possibly causing irreparable changes, namely: climate change, land-system change, biogeochemical flows, and biosphere integrity. Recently, studies have indicated that the planetary boundaries of freshwater use (specifically the green water) and novel entities have exceeded (Persson et al., 2022; Wang-Erlandsson et al., 2022).
According to Campbell et al. (2017), the current agricultural production is associated with destabilizing the Earth system and has been identified as the main driver of two PBs: land-system change and freshwater use, besides also directly contributing to climate change. Figure 2 shows a graphical representation of the problems caused by the food system that are also related to the PB and some actions needed to protect the Earth and humankind. It is possible to understand how current food systems impact dimensions that go beyond the environment, such as promoting increased hunger and malnutrition, and changes in dietary patterns, favoring the consumption of foods with a high amount of calories and high consumption of food of animal origin.
Figure 2. Scenario of environmental and health consequences of the food system associated with the planetary boundaries (Campbell et al., 2017; Swinburn et al., 2019; Willett et al., 2019).
In this context, the broad approach to nutrition is increasingly necessary when we approach the issue of current food system impacts. The concept of “sustainable nutrition” was developed by von Koerber et al. (2017) discusses well how the various dimensions of sustainability should be worked together. Previously, sustainability was defined by three pillars (social, economic, and environmental), the authors, however, include two new pillars to create the concept of “sustainable nutrition” which are health and culture. Health was included since sustainable eating has beneficial effects on health, and culture influences the formation of dietary habits. The authors also enumerated seven principles for individuals to reach sustainable nutrition. Figure 3 illustrates the concept of sustainable nutrition, containing some examples of actions that fit into each of the five dimensions.
Figure 3. Dimensions of Sustainable Nutrition: Symbol of Life. ASF, Animal source foods; FMPF: Fresh or minimally processed foods (von Koerber et al., 2017).
This complex relationship between nutrition and food systems was further explored in a recently published report that discusses the Global Syndemic.
The word “syndemic” means a synergy of pandemics, i.e., two or more diseases that coexist and interact and have in common the same social motivators. The Global Syndemic involves obesity, malnutrition, and climate change pandemics (Swinburn et al., 2019).
According to the report, one of the greatest drivers of this worldwide issue is food and agriculture (Swinburn et al., 2019). The planet currently produces enough food to meet the needs of the global population, however, over one-third of the global population is impacted by malnourishment and nutritional deficiencies. It is estimated that one-third of what is produced is lost and wasted, and how the current food systems are organized today influences this dynamic. Because of globalization and the growing need for commodities to attend to the interests of large food corporations, agriculture production tends to favor the production of basic and energetic foods, not focusing so much on nutritional value.
In this context, the current food system delivers low-quality food, with severe expenses in production, distribution, and consumption, and with a high cost to the environment. As a very important factor for sustainability, diets affect different social, cultural, economic, agricultural, environmental, and nutritional factors, which interact with one another (Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010). Scientific evidence around the world point to the need to change current food systems toward healthier and more sustainable ones, thinking about the development of more sustainable cities, more resilient healthcare systems, a reduction in food loss and waste, preservation of ecosystems, and reduction in the emission of GHG, among other actions [High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE), 2014; Hawkes and Fanzo, 2017; High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security Nutrition HLPE, 2017; IPES-Food, 2017; Food Agriculture Organization of the United World Health Organization, 2019].
In face of this discussion, in Figure 4 we can see a scheme of what a sustainable food system would be like taking into account the three pillars of sustainability and how each one contributes to this system.
Figure 4. Representative scheme of a sustainable food system. R&T, Research & Technology; Inputs, Human Resources (e.g. laborers, managers, professionals) and Natural Resources; Impacts, Outcomes; Influence, Social and Economic Sphere (Harmon and Gerald, 2007; von Koerber et al., 2017; Nguyen, 2018; Bhunnoo and Poppy, 2020).
3.2. Environmental indicators: Initial concepts
The use of indicators that measure the environmental impact of products, production processes, and behavioral patterns of society has proven important to warn about the damage caused to the environment. Such indicators assess the potential environmental impact of production processes and help identify points where the consumption of natural resources can be reduced or where to introduce technologies that reduce or even eliminate the pollution load. They are objective parameters in the choice of products or the adoption of environmentally favorable practices and, in the context of nutrition, can guide the choices of foods and diets (Garzillo et al., 2019).
Some environmental indicators that may be employed in the analysis of food consumption are environmental footprints. According to van Dooren et al. (2018a), 15 different footprint indicators have been identified, of which ten are relevant to the agricultural and food system. After carrying out a literature review, those authors identified five main footprints that are used as instruments to assess nutrition and diets as a whole. The main footprints are ecological footprint, carbon footprint, water footprint, energy footprint, and land footprint. The carbon and land footprints are derived from the ecological footprint. We will discuss below with greater emphasis the carbon, water, and ecological footprints.
3.2.1. Carbon footprint (CF)
There is not a universally accepted definition for CF, and about which gases are included in this estimative. In this sense, for this review we will accept the concept that the CF is “an estimate of the total amount of GHG emitted from a life cycle perspective from the product under study, thus giving an estimate of the contribution to climate change from the product or service provided” (Röös, 2013). The CF is commonly expressed in carbon equivalent (CO2eq). The emissions for each of the different gases are converted to CO2eq using the global warming potential factor (GWP), considering the GWP for a time horizon of 100 years, as established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The analysis of CF is considered a measure of climate change impact and makes use of the LCA methodology to assess the potential impact on global warming of different activities or individuals.
The LCA methodology began between the 1960s and 1970s, however, only in the 1990s did it become popular worldwide. According to ISO 14044:2006, the LCA can be defined as a “compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and the potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle.” Normally, the LCA is described in six steps, namely: (1) Raw materials extraction; (2) Material processing; (3) Production, Manufacturing, and Assembly; (4) Distribution; (5) Use; (6) End of life (International Standard Organisation (ISO), 2006; Matthew and Defne, 2012).
It is important to also highlight the need to define the limits of the system under study, i.e., isolate it from the natural system. To analyze the production of grains, vegetables, and fruits, for example, the steps of cultivation and harvest must be analyzed. To analyze ready-to-eat foods, the steps of use, consumption, and preparation of those foods at home must be included. And, finally, an analysis of the entire cycle of food must consider from the beginning until the generation of residues (Pandey and Agrawal, 2014; Röös et al., 2014).
Establishing such boundaries is important so the results can be used in the best way possible, according to the goal. When comparing different agricultural practices, for example, ideally analyses would be used that tally up the emissions up to the gates of the farm. It is also important to point out the difficulties related to the development of such cradle-to-plate studies, for example, since the post-retail steps are controlled by the consumer and those may vary widely, which hinders the calculation (Pandey and Agrawal, 2014; Röös et al., 2014). Figure 5 shows some examples of boundaries that may be used to assess the environmental footprints established for foods.
Figure 5. System boundaries classifications for food environmental footprint analysis considering the food life cycle (Pandey and Agrawal, 2014; Röös et al., 2014).
In that sense, it is common to see a large variation between the values of footprints, even if it is the same product. That variation occurs because, as the analysis takes into account the entire LCA involved in the production of a given food, it may vary depending on the production system (Röös et al., 2014).
3.2.2. Water footprint (WF)
The WF, developed by Arjen Hoekstra in 2002, is an indicator of the use of freshwater, whether directly or indirectly. The WF considers the entire volume of water used throughout the productive chain, also using LCA methodology. The WF is multi-dimensional and works with several concepts, and is subdivided into three: green water, blue water, and gray water. Blue water refers to the use of surface or subterranean water (such as rivers, lakes, and aquifers), green water refers to the use of rainwater, and the gray footprint is associated with pollution, more specifically with the volume of water needed to assimilate the load of pollutants generated (Hoekstra, 2003, 2008, 2011).
Although the water footprint assesses the consumption and pollution of freshwater, it is not a measure that assesses the severity of the environmental impact. That occurs because analyzing the environmental impact caused by those activities also involves analyzing the vulnerability of the local water system and the number of consumers and polluters, therefore, this interpretation will vary according to each water system (Hoekstra, 2003, 2008, 2011).
The evaluation of the WF may have several focuses, i.e., one can assess the WF of processes, products, individuals, a community, companies, a geographically delimited area, or even of humanity as a whole. What will guide this analysis is the objective, from which the calculation of the footprint will be planned, specifying what will and will not be included in the analysis (Hoekstra, 2003, 2008, 2011).
Thinking about food production and consumption, the WF employed would be those with a focus on products and on a consumer or group of consumers. For the WF of a product, the estimate is done based on the amount of water consumed and the pollution generated in all steps of the productive chain. In the case of foods and agricultural products, WF is normally expressed as m3/ton or liters/kg, but it may take other formats. In the case of diet analyses, for example, the values might be expressed in volumes of water/kcal (Hoekstra, 2003, 2008, 2011).
3.2.3. Ecological footprint (EF)
The EF was created as a tool able to assess the demand human activity imposes on the biosphere. More precisely, the EF seeks to measure the biologically productive area of land and water needed to produce all the resources and absorb the residues of an individual, population, or activity. This area analyzed can be defined as biological capacity or biocapacity. Thus, the EF seeks to jointly assess the environmental impacts caused by human beings, impacts that are normally assessed separately, such as GHG emissions (Wackernagel and Rees, 1998; Galli et al., 2012; Garzillo et al., 2019; Global Footprint Network, 2022a).
Biocapacity can be defined as the capacity that ecosystems have of regenerating what people demand from them. The value of biocapacity may change year over year due to human intervention (Global Footprint Network, 2009). In 2017, the biocapacity of the Earth was estimated at 1.6 gha per person, while the global EF was 2.8 gha per person, i.e., a deficit in biocapacity reserve of −1.2 gha per person. In other words, it is estimated that we would need 1.73 planets to sustain the needs of the human population (Global Footprint Network, 2022a).
Biocapacity is measured in five large types of land, whereas the EF is measured in six. The five types of land or areas analyzed by biocapacity are (1) crops; (2) grazing land; (3) fishing grounds; (4) forest; (5) built-up land. For analysis of the EF, the following lands are considered: (1) crops; (2) grazing products; (3) forest products; (4) seafood; (5) built-up land; (6) carbon footprint (Wackernagel et al., 2019).
Both EF and biocapacity are expressed as global hectares (gha). One global hectare is a biologically productive hectare, with the analysis of the mean worldwide productivity. An analysis of gha also takes into account the type of land, seen as each land has different productivity, such as agricultural land being worth more gha than grazing land. In this way, to convert the calculations and reach the value in gha, one needs the equivalent factor. Each territory assessed has its own, which represents the global average productivity for each of the types of land assessed, which is divided by the mean global productivity for all types of land. When we analyze the EF of a product, it has been standardized expressing those results as global hectares per year (Global Footprint Network, 2009; Wackernagel et al., 2019). According to the objective of the study and what it intends to analyze, other approaches may be used and other measures may arise.
The ecological footprint, when compared with the water and carbon ones, is the only one capable of providing an ecological benchmark, i.e., biocapacity, which allows establishing clearer targets. It is also worth pointing out that the water and carbon footprints are closely related to estimates based on the analysis of the life cycle of products or processes, whereas the ecological footprint manages to have a broader approach, that seeks to assess the renewable resources available and their use for consumption by goods and services, not focusing so much on production cycles (Becker et al., 2012). However, EF had been criticized in recent years due to lack of transparency and standardization of analyzes. In that respect, in 2009, the standards for EF analysis were published to ensure that the evaluations of footprint are conducted and communicated more precisely and transparently (Global Footprint Network, 2009).
4. Results and discussion
Dietary patterns can be defined as “the quantities, proportions, variety, or combination of different foods, drinks, and nutrients (when available) in diets, and the frequency with which they are habitually consumed” (Alexandria, 2014). Those patterns are changing due to the increase in movement of people to urban centers and cities, demographic changes, increase in the number of meals had away from home, increase in the size of portions and amount consumed, besides the influence of globalization and commerce on the food sector (Fanzo and Davis, 2019).
Due to these changes, an increase has been noticed in the consumption of critical components and some dietary groups such as red meat, dairy, sugar beverages, and processed and ultra-processed foods, which are rich in sodium, sugar, and saturated and trans fats. These current dietary patterns have a direct impact on health, being considered the greatest risk factors for several forms of malnutrition, deaths, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) around the world (Afshin et al., 2019; Swinburn et al., 2019).
That said, changes in the dietary patterns of populations are increasingly discussed with a view to promoting healthier and more sustainable patterns. According to the FAO, healthy and sustainable diets are “dietary patterns that promote all dimensions of individuals' health and wellbeing; have low environmental pressure and impact; are accessible, affordable, safe and equitable; and are culturally acceptable” (Food Agriculture Organization of the United World Health Organization, 2019). With this in mind, healthier and more sustainable dietary patterns feature lower amounts of animal-source foods, particularly red meat, and processed and ultra-processed products (Swinburn et al., 2019).
The use of environmental indicators such as the WF, CF, and EF may serve as a basis for educational actions and public policies that prioritize the supply of foods that do not negatively impact the environment. According to Lovarelli et al. (2018), one of the greatest environmental impacts caused by activities such as agriculture and food production is related to water consumption. Several studies have also shown the impacts food supply has regarding GHG emissions and other Earth impacts. The consumption of foods at a global level is considered one of the activities that most demand resources, being also considered one of the main drivers of environmental impacts. The food production chain is responsible for 19–29% of all GHG emissions from human activities. Furthermore, 50% of all GHG emissions generated by this food chain come from agricultural activities, related to cattle and emissions of methane gas and nitrous oxide, once again highlighting the impact current dietary patterns have on the environment (Searchinger et al., 2008; Friel et al., 2009; Notarnicola et al., 2017).
According to data provided by the Global Footprint Network, considering the areas analyzed for estimating the EF, the component with the greatest contribution was the carbon footprint with 1.06 gha per person. This same pattern is seen in other countries, which shows the great impact that gas emissions have at both the global and national levels and, as previously mentioned, food production accounts for a considerable percentage of those emissions. The second area that exhibited a greater contribution of EF values was cropland, i.e., the area associated mainly with food production, again showing the impact that food has on the environment and the pressure it exerts on the natural systems of the planet (Global Footprint Network, 2022b).
In face of that context, studies targeting the analysis of the environmental impact of food consumption have been increasingly frequent, especially those associated with the analysis of environmental footprints. For this review, we select articles that analyzed the environmental impacts of food consumption in various dimensions. Figure 6 provides a summary of the selected studies' characteristics.
Figure 6. Summary of the characteristics of the selected studies (n = 56). GHGE, Greenhouse gas emissions.
As seen in Figure 6, most of the selected studies (n = 49) used CF as the main indicator to assess the sustainability of food systems. The other footprints that were also widely used were WF (n = 27), land use (n = 14), energy use (n = 12), and EF (n = 7). Some studies used innovative footprints such as the studies by Ridoutt et al. (2020, 2021) and Belgacem et al. (2021). The analysis of the different footprints provides a broader view of the different impacts associated with food systems.
Ridoutt et al. (2021), for example, highlighted that a dietary shift toward recommended diets could increase the pesticide toxicity footprint compared to the current average diet in the Australian population. This would contradict dietary recommendations to eat a variety of fruits of different types and colors, once those foods make a large contribution to the dietary pesticide toxicity footprint. In this sense, only changing dietary habits is not enough when we are talking about sustainability. In this case, changing how food is being produced, such as reducing pesticide use, is also very important.
Other studies reinforce this discussion about the importance of not only focusing on changing population behavior but also modifying food systems since they are capable of influencing consumer preferences (Sáez-Almendros et al., 2013; Naja et al., 2018, 2020; Esteve-Llorens et al., 2019a,b; Auclair and Burgos, 2021; Belgacem et al., 2021). In this way, the offer of healthier, culturally acceptable, accessible, and sufficient food options, as highlighted in some studies, is in line with what is proposed by FAO (Food Agriculture Organization of the United World Health Organization, 2019).
About the methodologies used by the selected studies to access food, food consumption, and diets, most evaluated current food consumption (n = 41). The studies that used the current diet evaluated it directly, but also through the identification of dietary patterns (Veeramani et al., 2017; Naja et al., 2018), and division of the population into groups according to footprint values (Rose et al., 2019; Auclair and Burgos, 2021). A relationship between these values and other information such as sociodemographic factors, food report behaviors, nutrient consumption, and diet quality was also observed (Rose et al., 2019; Auclair and Burgos, 2021).
Another widely used methodology was the theoretical diets (n = 17), which in many cases were used in addition to assessing food consumption, scenarios, or standards to compare the environmental impacts. Some theoretical diets used were the Mediterranean diet, the EAT-Lancet reference diet, and different dietary patterns such as vegan and vegetarian (Sáez-Almendros et al., 2013; van de Kamp and Temme, 2018; Bruno et al., 2019; Esteve-Llorens et al., 2019a,b, 2020; Tang and Sobko, 2019; Batlle-Bayer et al., 2020; Grosso et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Belgacem et al., 2021; Ridoutt et al., 2021; Vanham et al., 2021). This analysis is interesting because it allows comparability between different types of dietary patterns and allows us to understand which foods are impacting the most and where it is possible to improve.
In the study by Sáez-Almendros et al. (2013), analyzed the adherence of the Spanish population to the Mediterranean pattern. A greater adherence showed a reduction in all footprints (GHG emissions, agricultural land use, energy consumption, and water consumption), which would also result in a reduction in the consumption of animal-based products and an increase in plant-based products. The authors also point out that in the context of Spain, the adoption of this dietary pattern is in line with the local culture and carries benefits to the health of individuals.
Other methodologies such as menu analysis (n = 5), food waste (n = 6), and food purchase (n = 3) were observed in more than one article. Menu analysis is a different way of assessing food consumption and it is an interesting analysis to be performed, given that more and more people are eating out. The five studies that evaluated menus analyzed school, university, or institutional menus (Strasburg and Jahno, 2015; de Laurentiis et al., 2017; van de Kamp and Temme, 2018; Hatjiathanassiadou et al., 2019; Rossi et al., 2021), and a study evaluated food waste in 6 restaurants with different service categories (Matzembacher et al., 2020). Food waste was a methodology that was often associated with others, as in studies of Song et al. (2015), Veeramani et al. (2017), Mogensen et al. (2020), and Wang et al. (2020) who used food waste along with food consumption analysis, to estimate environmental footprints. However, it can also be used separately (Chen et al., 2020; Matzembacher et al., 2020).
Food Purchase analysis is also a way to access the environmental impacts of food consumption. Three studies (Hadjikakou, 2017; da Silva et al., 2021; Esteve-Llorens et al., 2021a) clearly indicated that they used this information to estimate environmental footprints. In the study by da Silva et al. (2021), the authors highlight the influence of ultra-processed foods on the values of WF, CF, and EF in the diet of Brazilians over the years. The same was observed in the study performed by Hadjikakou (2017), Ridoutt et al. (2020), and van Dooren et al. (2018b). The profile of ultra-processed products directly impacts environmental footprints values, needing to consider the proportion of meat products in the ultra-processed foods (da Silva et al., 2021; Garzillo et al., 2022). We also emphasize that current footprint assessments, which make use of the LCA methodology, often do not consider industrial processes and the wide variety of components that are added to food, as well as the impacts related to the packaging, which are discarded and are sources of environmental impacts. In addition to the environmental impacts, the excessive use of food additives and components present in packaging can also pose a risk to human health. Thus, these foods may be having their environmental impacts underestimated, which may be greater than expected, a doubly negative impact (Seferidi et al., 2020).
Some studies (Song et al., 2015; Batlle-Bayer et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Esteve-Llorens et al., 2020, 2021a; Vanham et al., 2021) used purchase and/or food supply information as a proxy to access the current diet. This is a very interesting way to be applied in different contexts, especially when there are no studies that seek to analyze food consumption more precisely, using instruments such as a food frequency questionnaire and a 24-h dietary recall, for example.
Finally, two other approaches used were food labels and future projections. Leach et al. (2016) worked with food labels, presenting four examples of environmental impact food label designs. According to the authors, information on environmental footprints on labels will enhance a consumer's ability to make informed purchasing decisions based on the environmental impact of products. It is an interesting approach to disseminate information already explored in the literature, making them reach the population. In the study by Han et al. (2020) future projections were made for the CF, WF, and EF of Chinese food systems by 2100. The authors demonstrated that the footprints would peak between 2030 and 2035 and that they would decline by 2100 due to population aging. However, it should be noted that this increase can be modified depending on the public policies adopted.
It is also important to highlight the need to expand studies that assess the impacts of food around the world. As observed in Table 1, most studies are focused on Europe. Five of the six economies contributing the most to total global GHG emissions from the food system are from outside Europe, namely China, Indonesia, the USA, Brazil, and India. India and China are the most populous countries in the world, followed by Indonesia (Roser and Rodés-Guirao, 2019; Crippa et al., 2021).
Table 1. Number of studies per continent.
4.1. The role of animal-source foods in environmental footprint values
A common discussion found among almost all selected studies was the emphasis given to the impacts of animal products, especially red meat (Sáez-Almendros et al., 2013; Song et al., 2015; Strasburg and Jahno, 2015; Leach et al., 2016; Sjörs et al., 2016; Biesbroek et al., 2017, 2018; de Laurentiis et al., 2017; Galli et al., 2017; Hadjikakou, 2017; Rosi et al., 2017; Veeramani et al., 2017; Lacour et al., 2018; Naja et al., 2018, 2020; Seconda et al., 2018; van de Kamp and Temme, 2018; van de Kamp et al., 2018; van Dooren et al., 2018b; Bahn et al., 2019; Bruno et al., 2019; Esteve-Llorens et al., 2019a,b, 2020, 2021a,b; Hatjiathanassiadou et al., 2019; Rose et al., 2019; Tang and Sobko, 2019; Batlle-Bayer et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2020; Chapa et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; González-García et al., 2020; Grasso et al., 2020; Han et al., 2020; Matzembacher et al., 2020; Mogensen et al., 2020; Rabès et al., 2020; Ridoutt et al., 2020; Scheelbeek et al., 2020; Travassos et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020; Auclair and Burgos, 2021; Belgacem et al., 2021; da Silva et al., 2021; González et al., 2021; Kesse-Guyot et al., 2021; Long et al., 2021; Mehlig et al., 2021; Rossi et al., 2021; Üçtug et al., 2021; Vale et al., 2021; Vanham et al., 2021), except for Ridoutt et al. (2021) which presented another view of the problem associated with the analysis of the pesticide toxicity footprint. According to the authors, the fruits had the highest pesticide toxicity footprint scores per serving. Ruminant meats such as beef and lamb had lower pesticide footprint than chicken and pork. In this sense, for this analysis, it is difficult to generalize whether plant-based and animal-based foods are better in terms of environmental impacts. This is an interesting result, since it presents a different point of view of the environmental impacts, highlighting the need to also prioritize how plant-based products are being produced.
Regarding the consumption of animal-source foods, some studies have even pointed out how the reduction in the consumption of these products and the increase in the consumption of plant-derived products are positive not only for reducing the environmental impacts of diets but also at a nutritional and health level (Naja et al., 2018, 2020; Auclair and Burgos, 2021; González et al., 2021), since the association between excessive consumption of meat and the development of obesity, chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer are already well-known (Micha et al., 2010; Pan et al., 2011; Bouvard et al., 2015; Clonan et al., 2016; Swinburn et al., 2019).
However, this dietary change will not be so simple. It is known that developed countries have a high consumption of red meat, while developing countries, as they develop, increase the consumption of red meat. This is due to the high status associated with meat consumption, Western dietary patterns, and social and cultural factors. It is important to say that eating patterns are relatively conservative and tend to change slowly over the years (Swinburn et al., 2019). In this context, the development of studies that assess the feasibility and acceptability of changing this consumption by individuals is important (van Dooren et al., 2018a; Grasso et al., 2020).
Going beyond individual food choices, we highlight that the involvement of other sectors is essential for changing food systems and achieving sustainability. The change will only be possible through widespread actions at all levels of the food production chain. Actions such as reducing food waste, intensifying and improving food production, encouraging agroecological production, reducing the consumption of animal-source foods, and implementing public policies aimed at producing more sustainable food and protecting the environment are essential (Swinburn et al., 2019; Willett et al., 2019; Jacob, 2021).
Finally, we emphasize that scientific research is a crucial point for the modification of food systems. It is with research that we identify problems, expose evidence and induce change through knowledge (Willett et al., 2019). Environmental footprints play a crucial role since they are very important indicators for accessing the environmental impacts associated with the production and consumption of current foods, being able, for example, to guide better food choices, compare dietary patterns or scenarios to investigate solutions, make projections and investigate the impacts of food waste. The footprints can be used in isolation as well as in combination with other analyzes that access the other dimensions of sustainability, such as social, cultural, and health through the use of information about sociodemographic factors, food behaviors, and association with the development of NCDs. This combined analysis allows the development of studies that manage to cover all dimensions of sustainability, being more assertive and explanatory since food and food systems are influenced by several factors.
We highlight that this review does not intend to do an exhaustive literature review. The main intent was to provide an overview of how environmental footprints have been used in the context of nutrition, sustainability, and food systems. However, this review has some limitations such as a lack of research that use environmental drivers in food studies/food service and food consumption, the variety of data and diversity of studies which makes comparability between studies difficult, the heterogeneous potential of selected studies, with their different biases and scope of the publication.
5. Conclusions
We highlight that footprints have proven to be a great tool to analyze and guide actions toward more sustainable nutrition. It is also worth highlighting that the association of footprint estimation with other analyzes such as diet quality, acceptability, and degree of food processing has further enriched the discussion, by going beyond environmental impacts and embracing other important points in the area of nutrition and public health.
Animal source foods, especially red meat, have been identified as one of the main foods related to climate change. With the analysis of the footprints, the impact that these foods have becomes even clearer. Ultra-processed products are also foods that significantly impact the environment and deserve to be highlighted.
The environmental impact of food production and consumption must reach consumers given that the footprints of food products provide a way for consumers to know about those indicators and how to use them to benefit the health of the planet.
However, it is also important to discuss the responsibility of companies, to internalize the costs, as well as governments, to guide actions in favor of minimizing the environmental, social, economic, cultural, and health impacts that are related to food consumption and the food system. Thinking about the applicability of the footprints, the implementation of environmental labels in food products and meals could be a strategy to promote information to consumers and ways for governmental action to promote policies.
It is important to point out as well that environmental sustainability cannot be split from other dimensions (social and economic) as all dimensions are interconnected. Disseminating this type of information will increase the capacity of all to improve the environmental performance of the food system and the planet.
Author contributions
MH, PR, and LS: conceptualization and writing—review and editing. MH and LS: methodology. MH: investigation and writing—original draft preparation. PR and LS: supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This study was funded in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil—CAPES—Financial Code 001.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2022.1078997/full#supplementary-material
References
Afshin, A., Sur, P. J., Fay, K. A., Cornaby, L., Ferrara, G., Salama, J. S., et al. (2019). Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 393, 1958–1972. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8
Ahmed, S., Downs, S., and Fanzo, J. (2019). Advancing an integrative framework to evaluate sustainability in national dietary guidelines. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3, 76. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00076
Aleksandrowicz, L., Green, R., Joy, E. J. M., Smith, P., and Haines, A. (2016). The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 11, e0165797. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165797
Alexandria, V. (2014). A Series of Systematic Reviews on the Relationship Between Dietary Patterns and Health Outcomes. Alexandria, VA. Available online at: https://nesr.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/DietaryPatternsReport-FullFinal2.pdf
Auclair, O., and Burgos, S. A. (2021). Carbon footprint of Canadian self-selected diets: Comparing intake of foods, nutrients, and diet quality between low- and high-greenhouse gas emission diets. J. Clean. Prod. 316, 128245. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128245
Bahn, R., el Labban, S., and Hwalla, N. (2019). Impacts of shifting to healthier food consumption patterns on environmental sustainability in MENA countries. Sustain. Sci. 14, 1131–1146. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0600-3
Batlle-Bayer, L., Aldaco, R., Bala, A., Puig, R., Laso, J., Margallo, M., et al. (2020). Environmental and nutritional impacts of dietary changes in Spain during the COVID-19 lockdown. Sci. Total Environ. 748, 141410. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141410
Beauman, C., Cannon, G., Elmadfa, I., Glasauer, P., Hoffmann, I., Keller, M., et al. (2021). The Principles, Definition and Dimensions of the New Nutrition Science. Available online at: https://www.cambridge.org/core
Becker, M., da Silva Martins, T., de Campos, F., and Morales, J. C. (2012). A Pegada Ecológica de São Paulo - Estado e Capital e a família de pegadas. Brasília. Available online at: https://wwfbr.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/pegada_ecologica_de_sao_paulo.pdf
Belgacem, W., Mattas, K., Arampatzis, G., and Baourakis, G. (2021). Changing dietary behavior for better biodiversity preservation: A preliminary study. Nutrients 13, 2076. doi: 10.3390/nu13062076
Bhunnoo, R., and Poppy, G. M. (2020). A national approach for transformation of the UK food system. Nat. Food 1, 6–8. doi: 10.1038/s43016-019-0019-8
Biesbroek, S., Monique Verschuren, W. M., van der Schouw, Y. T., Sluijs, I., Boer, J. M. A., and Temme, E. H. M. (2018). Identification of data-driven Dutch dietary patterns that benefit the environment and are healthy. Clim. Change 147, 571–583. doi: 10.1007/s10584-018-2153-y
Biesbroek, S., Verschuren, W. M. M., Boer, J. M. A., van de Kamp, M. E., van der Schouw, Y. T., Geelen, A., et al. (2017). Does a Better Adherence to Dietary Guidelines Reduce Mortality Risk and Environmental Impact in the Dutch Sub-Cohort of the European Prospective Investigation Into. cambridge.org. doi: 10.1017/S0007114517001878
Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F., el Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., et al. (2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 16, 1599–1600. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1
Brasil Ministério da Saúde Secretária de Atenção à Saúde, Departamento de Atenção Básica, Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde, Departamento de Atenção Básica. (2014). Guia alimentar para a população brasileira, 2nd Edn., Vol. 2. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde. Available online at: www.saude.gov.br/bvs
Bruno, M., Thomsen, M., Pulselli, F. M., Patrizi, N., Marini, M., and Caro, D. (2019). The carbon footprint of Danish diets. Clim. Change 156, 489–507. doi: 10.1007/s10584-019-02508-4
Campbell, B. M., Beare, D. J., Bennett, E. M., Hall-Spencer, J. M., Ingram, J. S. I., Jaramillo, F., et al. (2017). Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22, 8. doi: 10.5751/ES-09595-220408
Cao, Y., Chai, L., Yan, X., and Liang, Y. (2020). Drivers of the growing water, carbon and ecological footprints of the Chinese diet from 1961 to 2017. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 1803. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051803
Chapa, J., Farkas, B., Bailey, R. L., and Huang, J. Y. (2020). Evaluation of environmental performance of dietary patterns in the United States considering food nutrition and satiety. Sci. Total Environ. 722, 137672. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137672
Chen, C., Chaudhary, A., and Mathys, A. (2020). Nutritional and environmental losses embedded in global food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 160, 104912. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104912
Clonan, A., Roberts, K. E., and Holdsworth, M. (2016). Socioeconomic and demographic drivers of red and processed meat consumption: implications for health and environmental sustainability. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 75, 367–373. doi: 10.1017/S0029665116000100
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., and Leip, A. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
da Silva Oliveira, M.S., and Silva-Amparo, L. (2018). Food-based dietary guidelines: a comparative analysis between the Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population 2006 and 2014. Public Health Nutr. 21, 210–217. doi: 10.1017/S.1368980017000428
da Silva, J. T., Garzillo, J. M. F., Rauber, F., Kluczkovski, A., Rivera, X. S., da Cruz, G. L., et al. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions, water footprint, and ecological footprint of food purchases according to their degree of processing in Brazilian metropolitan areas: a time-series study from 1987 to 2018. Lancet Planet Health 5, e775–e785. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00254-0
de Laurentiis, V., Hunt, D. V. L., and Rogers, C. D. F. (2017). Contribution of school meals to climate change and water use in England. Energy Procedia 123, 204–211. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.241
Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environ. Change 18, 234–245. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002
Esteve-Llorens, X., Darriba, C., Moreira, M. T., Feijoo, G., and González-García, S. (2019b). Towards an environmentally sustainable and healthy Atlantic dietary pattern: life cycle carbon footprint and nutritional quality. Sci. Total Environ. 646, 704–715. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.264
Esteve-Llorens, X., Dias, A. C., Moreira, M. T., Feijoo, G., and González-García, S. (2020). Evaluating the Portuguese diet in the pursuit of a lower carbon and healthier consumption pattern. Clim. Change 162, 2397–2409. doi: 10.1007/s10584-020-02816-0
Esteve-Llorens, X., Moreira, M. T., Feijoo, G., and González-García, S. (2019a). Linking environmental sustainability and nutritional quality of the Atlantic diet recommendations and real consumption habits in Galicia (NW Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 683, 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.200
Esteve-Llorens, X., Moreira, M. T., Feijoo, G., and González-García, S. (2021a). Could the economic crisis explain the reduction in the carbon footprint of food? Evidence from Spain in the last decade. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142680. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142680
Esteve-Llorens, X., van Dooren, C., Álvarez, M., Moreira, MT, Feijoo, G., and González-García, S. (2021b). Environmental and nutritional profile of food consumption patterns in the different climatic zones of Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 279, 123580. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123580
Fanzo, J., and Davis, C. (2019). Can diets be healthy, sustainable, and equitable?. Curr. Obesity Rep. 8, 495–503. doi: 10.1007/s13679-019-00362-0
Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010). Biodiversity International Report of the International Scientific Symposium on Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets. Rome. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/ag/%0Ahumannutrition/28506-0efe4aed57af34e2dbb8dc578d465df8b.pdf%0A
Food Agriculture Organization of the United World Health Organization (2019). Sustainable Healthy Diets - Guiding Principles. Rome. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/ca6640en/ca6640en.pdf?eloutlink=imf2fao
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations and World Health Organization (2015). Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2): Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Secretariat on the Conference. Rome.
Friel, S., Dangour, A. D., Garnett, T., Lock, K., Chalabi, Z., Roberts, I., et al. (2009). Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture. Lancet 374, 2016–2025. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61753-0
Galli, A., Iha, K., Halle, M., el Bilali, H., Grunewald, N., Eaton, D., et al. (2017). Mediterranean countries' food consumption and sourcing patterns: an ecological footprint viewpoint. Sci. Total Environ. 578, 383–391. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
Galli, A., Wiedmann, T., Ercin, E., Knoblauch, D., Ewing, B., and Giljum, S. (2012). Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecol. Indic. 16, 100–112. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.017
Garzillo, J. M. F., Machado, P. P., Louzada ML da, C., Levy, R. B., and Monteiro, C. A. (2019). Pegadas dos alimentos e das preparações culinárias consumidos no Brasil. Universidade de São Paulo. Faculdade de Saúde Pública. doi: 10.11606/9788588848368
Garzillo, J. M. F., Poli, V. F. S., Leite, F. H. M., Steele, E. M., Machado, P. P., Louzada ML da, C., et al. (2022). Ultra-processed food intake and diet carbon and water footprints: a national study in Brazil. Rev. Saude Publica 56, 6. doi: 10.11606/s1518-8787.2022056004551
Global Footprint Network (2009). Ecological Footprint Standards 2009. Oakland, CA. Available online at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org
Global Footprint Network (2022a). Glossary. Available online at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/glossary/#Ecologicalfootprint
Global Footprint Network (2022b). Open Data Platform. Available online at: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends?cn=231&type=BCpc,EFCpc
González, C. A., Bonet, C., de Pablo, M., Sanchez, M. J., Salamanca-Fernandez, E., Dorronsoro, M., et al. (2021). Greenhouse gases emissions from the diet and risk of death and chronic diseases in the EPIC-Spain cohort. Eur. J. Public Health 31, 130–135. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckaa167
González-García, S., Green, R. F., Scheelbeek, P. F., Harris, F., and Dangour, A. D. (2020). Dietary recommendations in Spain -affordability and environmental sustainability? J. Clean. Prod. 254, 120125. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120125
Grasso, A. C., Olthof, M. R., van Dooren, C., Roca, M., Gili, M., Visser, M., et al. (2020). Effect of food-related behavioral activation therapy on food intake and the environmental impact of the diet: results from the MooDFOOD prevention trial. Eur. J. Nutr. 59, 2579–2591. doi: 10.1007/s00394-019-02106-1
Grosso, G., Fresán, U., Bes-Rastrollo, M., Marventano, S., and Galvano, F. (2020). Environmental impact of dietary choices: role of the mediterranean and other dietary patterns in an Italian Cohort. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 1468. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051468
Hadjikakou, M. (2017). Trimming the excess: environmental impacts of discretionary food consumption in Australia. Ecol. Econ. 131, 119–128. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.006
Han, A., Chai, L., and Liao, X. (2020). Demographic scenarios of future environmental footprints of healthy diets in China. Foods 9, 1021. doi: 10.3390/foods9081021
Harmon, A. H., and Gerald, B. L. (2007). American dietetic association position of the American dietetic association: Food and nutrition professionals can implement practices to conserve natural resources and support ecological sustainability. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 107, 1033–1043. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2007.04.018
Hatjiathanassiadou, M., Souza, S. R. G., de Nogueira, J. P., Oliveira L de, M., Strasburg, V. J., Rolim, P. M., et al. (2019). Environmental impacts of university restaurant menus: a case study in Brazil. Sustainability 11, 5157. doi: 10.3390/su11195157
Hawkes, C., and Fanzo, J. (2017). Nourishing the SDGs: Global Nutrition Report 2017. Bristol. Available online at: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/19322/1/GlobalNutritionReport_2017FINAL.pdf
High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) (2014). Food Losses and Waste in the Context of Sustainable Food Systems. Rome.
High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security Nutrition HLPE. (2017). Nutrition and Food Systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World. Rome. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7846e.pdf
Hoekstra, A. Y. (2003). Virtual water trade: Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade. Delft. Available online at: https://www.waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report12.pdf
Hoekstra, A. Y. (2008). “The water footprint on food,” in Water for Food, ed J. Förare (Stockholm: The Swedisch Research Council For Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning), 49–61.
Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011). The Water Footprint Assessment Manual : Setting the Global Standard. Padstow: Earthscan. p. 228. Available online at: https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/TheWaterFootprintAssessmentManual_2.pdf
International Standard Organisation (ISO) (2006). Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva: ISO.
IPES-Food (2017). Unravelling the Food-Health Nexus: Addressing Practices, Political Economy, and Power Relations to Build Healthier Food Systems. p. 120. Available online at: https://www.ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/Health_FullReport(1).pdf
Jägerskog, A., and Jønch Clausen, T. (2012). Feeding a Thirsty World - Challenges and Opportunities for a Water and Food Secure Future. Stockholm. Available online at: https://www.droughtmanagement.info/literature/SIWI_feeding_a_thirsty_world_2012.pdf
Kesse-Guyot, E., Rebouillat, P., Brunin, J., Langevin, B., Allès, B., Touvier, M., et al. (2021). Environmental and nutritional analysis of the EAT-Lancet diet at the individual level: insights from the NutriNet-Santé study. J. Clean. Prod. 296, 126555. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126555
Lacour, C., Seconda, L., Allès, B., Hercberg, S., Langevin, B., Pointereau, P., et al. (2018). Environmental impacts of plant-based diets: how does organic food consumption contribute to environmental sustainability? Front. Nutr. 5, 8. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00008
Leach, A. M., Emery, K. A., Gephart, J., Davis, K. F., Erisman, J. W., Leip, A., et al. (2016). Environmental impact food labels combining carbon, nitrogen, and water footprints. Food Policy 61, 213–223. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.03.006
Long, Y., Hu, R., Yin, T., Wang, P., Liu, J., Muhammad, T., et al. (2021). Spatial-temporal footprints assessment and driving mechanism of China household diet based on CHNS. Foods 10, 1858. doi: 10.3390/foods10081858
Lovarelli, D., Ingrao, C., Fiala, M., and Bacenetti, J. (2018). Beyond the water footprint: a new framework proposal to assess freshwater environmental impact and consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 4189–4199. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.067
Matthew, J. F., and Defne, A. (2012). Carbon Footprint Analysis: Concepts, Methods, Implementation, and Case, 1st Edn. CRC Press. p. 270. Available online at: https://www.routledge.com/Carbon-Footprint-Analysis-Concepts-Methods-Implementation-and-Case-Studies/Franchetti-Apul/p/book/9781439857830#
Matzembacher, D. E., Brancoli, P., Maia, L. M., and Eriksson, M. (2020). Consumer's food waste in different restaurants configuration: a comparison between different levels of incentive and interaction. Waste Manage. 114, 263–273. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.014
Mehlig, K., Blomqvist, I., Klingberg, S., Bianchi, M., Sjons, J., Hunsberger, M., et al. (2021). Secular trends in diet-related greenhouse gas emission estimates since 2000 - a shift towards sustainable diets in Sweden. Public Health Nutr. 24, 3916–3921. doi: 10.1017/S1368980020004073
Micha, R., Wallace, S. K., and Mozaffarian, D. (2010). Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. Circulation 121, 2271–2283. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.924977
Mogensen, L., Hermansen, J. E., and Trolle, E. (2020). The climate and nutritional impact of beef in different dietary patterns in Denmark. Foods 9, 1176. doi: 10.3390/foods9091176
Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Moubarac, J. C., Martins, A. P. B., Martins, C. A., Garzillo, J., et al. (2015). Dietary guidelines to nourish humanity and the planet in the twenty-first century. A blueprint from Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 18, 2311–2322. doi: 10.1017/S1368980015002165
Naja, F., Hwalla, N., El Zouhbi, A., Abbas, N., Chamieh, M. C., Nasreddine, L., et al. (2020). Changes in environmental footprints associated with dietary intake of lebanese adolescents between the years 1997 and 2009. Sustainability 12, 4519. doi: 10.3390/su12114519
Naja, F., Jomaa, L., Itani, L., Zidek, J., el Labban, S., Sibai, A. M., et al. (2018). Environmental footprints of food consumption and dietary patterns among Lebanese adults: a cross-sectional study. Nutr. J. 17, 85. doi: 10.1186/s12937-018-0393-3
Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G., Renzulli, P. A., Castellani, V., and Sala, S. (2017). Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 753–765. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.080
Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (2017). Sistemas alimentares e nutrição: a experiência brasileira para enfrentar todas as formas de má nutrição. Brasília.
Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Schulze, M. B., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., et al. (2011). Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 94, 1088–1096. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.018978
Pandey, D., and Agrawal, M. (2014). “Carbon footprint estimation in the agriculture sector,” in Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial Sectors, Vol. 1, ed S. S. Muthu (Hong Kong: Springer-Verlag Singapur), 297.
Persson, L., Carney Almroth, B. M., Collins, C. D., Cornell, S., de Wit, C. A., Diamond, M. L., et al. (2022). Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 1510–1521. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04158
Rabès, A., Seconda, L., Langevin, B., Allès, B., Touvier, M., Hercberg, S., et al. (2020). Greenhouse gas emissions, energy demand and land use associated with omnivorous, pesco-vegetarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets accounting for farming practices. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 22, 138–146. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.02.010
Ridoutt, B., Anastasiou, K., Baird, D., Garcia, J. N., and Hendrie, G. (2020). Cropland footprints of Australian dietary choices. Nutrients 12, 1212. doi: 10.3390/nu12051212
Ridoutt, B., Baird, D., Navarro, J., and Hendrie, G. A. (2021). Pesticide toxicity footprints of Australian dietary choices. Nutrients 13, 4314. doi: 10.3390/nu13124314
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009a). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475. doi: 10.1038/461472a
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, I. I. I. F. S., Lambin, E., et al. (2009b). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14(2). doi: 10.5751/ES-03180-140232
Röös, E. (2013). Analysing the Carbon Footprint of Food. Insights for Consumer Communication. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Available online at: https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/10757/1/roos_e_130821.pdf
Röös, E., Sundberg, C., and Hansson, P. A. (2014). “Carbon footprint of food products,” in Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial Sectors, Vol. 1, ed S. S. Muthu (Hong Kong: Springer-Verlag Singapur), 297.
Rose, D., Heller, M. C., Willits-Smith, A. M., and Meyer, R. J. (2019). Carbon footprint of self-selected US diets: nutritional, demographic, and behavioral correlates. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 109, 526–534. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy327
Roser, M., and Rodés-Guirao, L. (2019). Future Population Growth. Our World in Data. Retrieved from: https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
Rosi, A., Mena, P., Pellegrini, N., Turroni, S., Neviani, E., Ferrocino, I., et al. (2017). Environmental impact of omnivorous, ovo-lacto-vegetarian, and vegan diet. Sci. Rep. 7, 6105. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06466-8
Rossi, L., Ferrari, M., Martone, D., Benvenuti, L., and de Santis, A. (2021). The promotions of sustainable lunch meals in school feeding programs: the case of Italy. Nutrients 13, 1571. doi: 10.3390/nu13051571
Sáez-Almendros, S., Obrador, B., Bach-Faig, A., and Serra-Majem, L. (2013). Environmental footprints of Mediterranean versus Western dietary patterns: beyond the health benefits of the Mediterranean diet. Environ. Health 12, 118. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-12-118
Scheelbeek, P., Green, R., Papier, K., Knuppel, A., Alae-Carew, C., Balkwill, A., et al. (2020). Health impacts and environmental footprints of diets that meet the Eatwell guide recommendations: analyses of multiple UK studies. BMJ Open 10, e037554. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037554
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., et al. (2008). Use of U.S. Croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319, 1238–1240. doi: 10.1126/science.1151861
Seconda, L., Baudry, J., Allès, B., Soler, L. G., Hercberg, S., Langevin, B., et al. (2018). Identification of sustainable dietary patterns by a multicriteria approach in the NutriNet-Santé cohort. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 1256–1265. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.143
Seferidi, P., Scrinis, G., Huybrechts, I., Woods, J., Vineis, P., and Millett, C. (2020). The neglected environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods. Lancet Planet Health 4, e437–e438. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30177-7
Sjörs, C., Raposo, S. E., Sjölander, A., Bälter, O., Hedenus, F., and Bälter, K. (2016). Diet-related greenhouse gas emissions assessed by a food frequency questionnaire and validated using 7-day weighed food records. Environ. Health 15, 15. doi: 10.1186/s12940-016-0110-7
Song, G., Li, M., Semakula, H. M., and Zhang, S. (2015). Food consumption and waste and the embedded carbon, water and ecological footprints of households in China. Sci. Total Environ. 529, 191–197. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.068
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855–1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855
Strasburg, V. J., and Jahno, V. D. (2015). Sustentabilidade de cardápio: avaliação da pegada hídrica nas refeições de um restaurante universitário. Ambiente e Agua Interdiscipl. J. Appl. Sci. 10, 903–914. doi: 10.4136/ambi-agua.1664
Swinburn, B. A., Kraak, V. I., Allender, S., Atkins, V. J., Baker, P. I., Bogard, J. R., et al. (2019). The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: the lancet commission report. Lancet 393, 791–846. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32822-8
Tang, T. W., and Sobko, T. (2019). Environmental impact of the average Hong Kong diet: a case for adopting sustainable diets in urban centers. Challenges 10, 5. doi: 10.3390/challe10020005
Travassos, G. F., Antônio da Cunha, D., and Coelho, A. B. (2020). The environmental impact of Brazilian adults' diet. J. Clean. Prod. 272, 122622. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122622
Üçtug, F. G., Günaydin, D, Hünkar, B., and Öngelen, C. (2021). Carbon footprints of omnivorous, vegetarian, and vegan diets based on traditional Turkish cuisine. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 26, 597–609. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.027
United Nations (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York, NY. Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030AgendaforSustainableDevelopmentweb.pdf
Vale, D., Dantas, N. M., Souza, C. V. S., de Hatjiathanassiadou, M., and Seabra, L. M. J. (2021). Pegada hídrica da alimentação de adolescentes do Brasil: relações com o consumo de fast food e o local de moradia. Res. Soc. Dev. 10, e528101220597. doi: 10.33448/rsd-v10i12.20597
van de Kamp, M. E., and Temme, E. (2018). Plant-based lunch at work: effects on nutrient intake, environmental impact and tastiness-a case study. Sustainability 10, 227. doi: 10.3390/su10010227
van de Kamp, M. E., van Dooren, C., Hollander, A., Geurts, M., Brink, E. J., van Rossum, C., et al. (2018). Healthy diets with reduced environmental impact? - The greenhouse gas emissions of various diets adhering to the Dutch food based dietary guidelines. Food Res. Int. 104, 14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.06.006
van Dooren, C., Aiking, H., and Vellinga, P. (2018a). In search of indicators to assess the environmental impact of diets. Int. J. Life Cycle Assessment 23, 1297–1314. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1371-2
van Dooren, C., Keuchenius, C., de Vries, J. H. M., de Boer, J., and Aiking, H. (2018b). Unsustainable dietary habits of specific subgroups require dedicated transition strategies: evidence from the Netherlands. Food Policy 79, 44–57. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.05.002
Vanham, D., and Bidoglio, G. (2013). A review on the indicator water footprint for the EU28. Ecol. Indic. 26, 61–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.021
Vanham, D., Guenther, S., Ros-Baró, M, and Bach-Faig, A. (2021). Which diet has the lower water footprint in Mediterranean countries? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 171, 105631. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105631
Veeramani, A., Dias, G. M., and Kirkpatrick, S. I. (2017). Carbon footprint of dietary patterns in Ontario, Canada: a case study based on actual food consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 1398–1406. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.025
Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., and Ingram, J. S. I. (2012). Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 195–222. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608
von Koerber, K., Bader, N., and Leitzmann, C. (2017). Wholesome nutrition: an example for a sustainable diet. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 76, 34–41. doi: 10.1017/S0029665116000616
Wackernagel, M., Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Galli, A., and Iha, K. (2019). “Ecological footprint,” in Encyclopedia of Ecology (Elsevier), 270–282. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09567-1
Wackernagel, M., and Rees, W. (1998). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers. p. 176.
Wang, L., Gao, B., Hu, Y., Huang, W., and Cui, S. (2020). Environmental effects of sustainability-oriented diet transition in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 158, 104802. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104802
Wang-Erlandsson, L., Tobian, A., van der Ent, R. J., Fetzer, I., te Wierik, S., Porkka, M., et al. (2022). A planetary boundary for green water. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 3, 380–392. doi: 10.1038/s43017-022-00287-8
Keywords: sustainable development, environmental indicators, water footprint, carbon footprint, ecological footprint, food systems
Citation: Hatjiathanassiadou M, Rolim PM and Seabra LMJ (2023) Nutrition and its footprints: Using environmental indicators to assess the nexus between sustainability and food. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:1078997. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1078997
Received: 24 October 2022; Accepted: 06 December 2022;
Published: 06 January 2023.
Edited by:
Muhammad Asad Ur Rehman Naseer, Bahauddin Zakariya University, PakistanReviewed by:
Shamsheer Ul Haq, University of Education Lahore, PakistanMuhammad Khalid Bashir, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Copyright © 2023 Hatjiathanassiadou, Rolim and Seabra. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Priscilla Moura Rolim, 
cHJpc2NpbGxhLnJvbGltJiN4MDAwNDA7dWZybi5icg==