A labeling policy to reduce food consumption impact on the environment

Abstract

Given the fact that livestock products consumption is one of the leading causes –if not the most relevant– of pollution on our planet, the aim of this article is to propose an innovative labeling policy in order to encourage consumers toward the adoption of a more environmentally concerned diet. To achieve this purpose, firstly effects of meat production will be briefly analyzed; later, some alternatives to animal-derived products will be examined; finally, the labeling policy will be displayed.

Is a change in our diet the only viable way to reduce greenhouse gases emissions related to food consumption?

Intervention, in order to reduce food production related pollution, can operate at two levels: agricultural stage and post-farm gate stage. The two are responsible for more or less the same amount of greenhouse gases emissions (GHG), albeit there are other emissions related to the fact that land use is changed into agriculture –and it is not absorbing CO2 anymore.

With regard to the so-called agricultural stage, the best opportunities for trade-offs –environmental and ethical– arise from an improvement in productivity and increment in soil carbon sequestration. This substantially means investing in scientific research and on agriculture in general. The former is already the addressee of approximately 38% of the EU budget under the voice agriculture and rural development. As things stand this is not enough.

For what concern the post-farm gate stage, at the manufacturing and retailing stages the first cause of emissions is refrigeration. However, it is thought that technological improvement will play a marginal role in this direction.
For these reasons, an increasing body of research recommends making changes in our dietary habit in order to reduce GHG emissions attributable to food production. In particular, this means reducing meat and dairy products consumption.

In this scenario, nutritional problems must be addressed. It has been proved that a diet without animal source foods –or with a very low amount of them– if adequately planned can be healthful (American Dietetic Association, 2009). However, this requires the access to a wide food variety which rises no problems in developed countries, where a reduction in meat and animal-derived food may even result in health benefits. On the other hand, it must not be taken for granted that such a change in diet can have positive effects in developing countries –especially in very low-income ones– where access to a varied diet is limited, malnutrition and undernutrition are common. In this cases, animal source foods are often the only way a family has to maintain a healthful diet (Garnett, 2011).

Moreover, projections for the future demonstrate that even if meat consumption was reduced in rich developed countries, the forecast increase in livestock production will not change. For this reason, it is fundamental for the western world to cut down decisively their animal product consumption; similarly, developing countries must address the matter trying to reduce their per capita intakes of animal products (Garnett, 2009).

In conclusion, improvements in technology alone are thought not to be sufficient for diminishing GHG emissions. Only a change in diet can have immediate effect and can be successful in the long run.

The inefficiency of meat production

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report (FAO, 2006), stressed the fact that livestock consumes more proteins and calories than what they produce. This phenomenon is also known as livestock inefficiency and it is measured by Feed Conversion Ratios (FCR), which consist of the ratio between input –animal feed– and output –animal product. FCR’s results are always positive, which means that the inputs –mostly agriculture products– are greater than the outputs – meat, milk, and eggs above all. This is caused by the fact that livestock consumes part of the absorbed energy to perform its vital functions. As a result, it can be inferred that if agriculture was entirely devoted to feeding humans instead of livestock, food production efficiency would surge.

Greenhouse gases production, water, and land exploitation: the impact of meat industry

GHG emissions

In the mentioned FAO report –Livestock’s long shadow– useful data are illustrated in order to raise awareness on the impact of animal husbandry. The most relevant information for the purpose of this article were those concerning greenhouse gases emissions. In particular, the authors show how the total amount of exhaust related to the sum of all means of transportation reaches the 13% of the total greenhouse gases emissions, on the other hand, animal agriculture accounts for a considerable 18%. Moreover, it has been proved that 65% of the human-related emission of nitrous oxide are attributable to livestock. This gas is believed to have a warming potential 296 times greater than carbon dioxide (CO2) and can last in the atmosphere for around 150 years.

In addition, the article “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are… cows, pigs and chickens?” (Goodland and Anhang, 2009) illustrates that animal farming and its waste is responsible for 51% of worldwide emissions of greenhouse gases, which means that 32.000 million tons of CO2 are produced yearly.

Finally, it is stated in “Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States” (Miller et al., 2013) that cattle in the United States daily produce about 150 billion gallons of methane. A gas that is thought to be 86 times worse than carbon dioxide for what concerns global warming. Further on this matter, during the 2014 Climate Summit in New York, it was highlighted that a strong reduction in methane emission would result in tangible and short-term benefits for our world.

For this reason, it is fundamental to cut down the consumption of meat, that is responsible for a huge amount of GHG emissions.

Water exploitation

For what concern water exploitation, there are some relevant features provided by Water Footprint Network. More specifically, reference must be made to a thorough work “The green, blue, and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products” (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2006), in which

water footprint of different crop and animal products is compared according to liter per kilogram, liter per kilocalorie, liter per gram of protein, liter per gram of fat. From this article, it is noticeable that on average animal products have a greater water footprint than crop products –liter per kilogram. Furthermore, it shows that beef requires twenty times more water than cereals and starchy roots in order to obtain the same amount of calories. For what concern the production of a gram of protein, it can be inferred that pulses are the most efficient requiring 1,5 times less water than chicken meat, eggs and milk; a gram of protein derived from beef consumes six times more water than pulses. A similar feature is observable also in the case of the production of a gram of fat.

For these reasons, in order to preserve freshwater resources, the most efficient way to obtain protein, fat, and calories is through the consumption of crop products instead of animal products.

Eventually, another article (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012) “A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products”, stated that today animal agriculture accounts for a consumption between 20% and 33% of the total amount of all fresh water. Due to this, a reduction in consumption of animal-derived food is a viable way not only to grant access to clean water in those countries where it is in short supply but also to keep in good conditions fresh water where is abundant.

Ocean dead zones

In addition, animal farming is one of the leading causes of ocean dead zones, which are areas of bodies of water that are hypoxic –they lack oxygen– and are not suitable for marine life. This phenomenon is the result of an increase in nutrients in the water that allow algae to reproduce rapidly. This biomass –dead algae– becomes the nutrient for bacteria that consume an enormous quantity of oxygen, preventing other living beings to survive. The main causes: animal husbandry waste and excessive use of fertilizers in agriculture; both –waste and fertilizers– rich in nitrogen and phosphorous, nutritious for algae. “What Causes Ocean “Dead Zones”?” (Paine, 2016), depict a situation in which by 2008 there were more than 400 dead zones worldwide. An interesting example is northern Adriatic sea, indeed a dead zone has formed where Po river delta is. In fact, Po collects a

remarkable amount of Pianura Padana agricultural wastes –together with cities drainage systems liquids– that dissolve in the water and are brought down to the sea. As a result, the ecosystem in that area is damaged causing loss of marine life.

Land exploitation

Lastly, with regard to land exploitation, it has been computed that approximately a third of ice-free land on our planet is covered by livestock or livestock feed, as it is reported in “The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production” (Walsh, 2013) on the Time. This astonishing extension was reached through deforestation and caused the loss of biodiversity together with habitat destruction. For instance, an environmental advocacy group has collected evidence of the fact that Cargill –a global corporation which main activity is trading in agricultural goods– is pushing Bolivian local farmers to trade in soybeans. To do so, they are setting fire to their land which is covered by rainforest. Deforestation in the area is increasing dramatically after a decade of steadiness. Something similar is happening in the Brazilian savanna according to what is written in “Amazon Deforestation, Once Tamed, Comes Roaring Back” (Hiroko, Rigby and White, 2017) published on The New York Times: «Behind the rise in deforestation is a strategy by multinational food companies to source their agricultural commodities from ever more remote areas around the world. These areas tend to be where legal protections of forests are weakest». Soy demand is driven by animal farming need since the crop is an essential constituent of livestock feed providing an extremely high intake of proteins.

Alternatives: past behavior and a look into the future

When agriculture was first achieved by human societies it was marginal and insufficient to provide all the nutrients. For this reason, it was run together with hunting-gathering activities. When plant domestication reached a more mature stage –around 10.000 years ago– food producers diet shifted toward vegetarianism, with occasional game meals. In fact, there are shreds of evidence that in the Fertile Crescent –and other sites where pristine agriculture developed– agriculture was the main, and sometimes the only, food-providing activity. Moreover, archaeobotanists –as it is reported in Guns, Germs and Steel (Diamond, 1997)– have demonstrated that those days people’s diet was

composed of a combination of cereals and pulses. For example, in the Fertile Crescent, the most familiar combination was of wheat and barley with peas and lentils. This diet provided those populations with enough calories, carbohydrates, and proteins to survive: it was healthful.
In recent years, not only cereals and pulses qualities have been improved, but also other potentially viable alternatives to meat have been explored. In the work “Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes” (Smetana, et al. 2015), comparative analysis of various meat substitutes are made (plant-based, mycoprotein-based, dairy-based, and animal-based substitutes) in order to identify the most environment-respectful food. It must be stressed, as the authors mention, that by 2050 food production is esteemed to increase by 70%, in this perspective the concern of the impact of meat production gathers greater importance. Coming to the results of the research: soy and insect-based meals proved to have the lowest environmental impact. It must be mentioned that pulses have an important quality, they are nitrogen-fixing which means that they absorb the element from the atmosphere and do not require nitrogen-containing fertilizers (nitrogen effects on water have been mentioned above). On the other hand, insect cultivation has some extraordinary features and is believed to have great potential. For instance, the production of a kilogram of insect requires around ten liters of water and produces two grams of CO2 while a kilo of bovine meat is responsible for the consumption of 22.000 liters of water and the emission of 2.850 grams of carbon dioxide (Sartori, 2018).

For what concern gluten-based substitutes, “A Consequential Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Seitan and Beef” (Berardy, 2012) shows that beef GHG emissions are estimated to be twice as much those of seitan. In fact, “100 servings of beef result in the emission of 92.3 kg of CO2 and 1.73 kg of methane […] 1000 servings of seitan result in the emission of 45.5 kg of CO2 and 81 g of methane”; and the difference in land use change is even greater in favor of seitan. Similarly, dairy products are more efficient than beef.

Finally, with regard to mycoprotein-based substitutes, it was proved that they had the highest environmental impact among tested foods –although still lower than meat. However, such a technology will surely enhance.

A step forward has been taken with regard to insect-based foods. From 1 January 2018 the new EU Regulation 2015/2283 on Novel Foods –food that had not been consumed to a significant extent by people in the EU before 15 May 1997– is applicable and includes insects. In particular, it establishes a new simplified and centralized authorization procedure managed by the European Commission as well as a centralized safety evaluation carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Eventually, it promotes innovation granting any applicant –who is in compliance with the law– with a five years individual authorization to put a certain novel food on the market. As a consequence, insects have entered the European market although there are some cultural barriers that do not exist for example in Asia. In fact, in Italy a study on a sample of 714 people revealed that 73% of the interviewed were not and will not be willing to eat any insect-based food; 83% of them because of disgust, while 11% because they believe is not safe. This response is caused both by a lack of information and prejudice (Sartori, 2018).

What is fundamental to acknowledge here is that there are viable alternatives to meat, all with a low environmental impact that can be even lowered through scientific research.

Environmental labeling in a European perspective
Toward sustainable consumption

Taking into consideration the above-mentioned issues concerning animal agriculture, any legislator worldwide should set on their agenda the objective to reduce meat consumption. As things are at the moment, seeking an implementation of consumption taxes on meat or public direct intervention in the consumer arena is not viable, a consumer-oriented policy would be more appropriate (Dagevos and Voordouw, 2013). Moreover, in order to be effective, policies cannot rely on an ethical transformation of the consumerist ideology as highlighted in “Constructing Sustainable Consumption” (Holt, 2012): «Theories of cultural change and the empirical track record both strongly suggest that environmental strategies based on the ethical transformation of consumerism cannot have the necessary impact in the time that we have remaining (estimates vary by expert and by problem but generally point to the years 2020 to 2050) to solve major overshoot problems». Indeed, greater results can be achieved stressing the qualities of a more sustainable product –meat

substitutes in this case– and, at the same time underlining the drawbacks of the competitor product –meat. It is fundamental to address the market ideology, to disrupt the sedimented belief that a meat-abundant diet is superior to a vegetarian one in the sense that it provides more energy and proteins than cereals and pulses, for example. However, this goal is being achieved in the European Union. In fact, EU Regulation 1169/2011 applicable since 13 December 2016 establish meticulous rules regarding labeling that must provide all the nutritional values of the product. As a result, consumers are allowed to make their nutritional choices in a transparent environment; they can easily compare different foods with regard to their nutrients. Now, in this context, not only the average consumer can infer that meat is equally nutritious as its vegetal substitutes, but they can also realize how crop derived proteins are cheaper than meat and dairy products. This is one quality that meat substitutes have, they are less expensive; also, this quality do address the market ideology, a cheaper good that has the same features of a more expansive one should be more appealing.Nutrition Facts panel perception

In order to understand if a labeling policy would have meaningful results, it is fundamental to make a brief review of the relevant European literature on how the widespread Nutritional Fact labeling has been perceived by final users.
In general consumers’ self-perception of the usage of Nutritional Fact panel (NFP) is high. In the European Union, nearly 60% of consumers report that they make a regular use of nutrient information on labels attached to food. Moreover, the majority of EU residents are able to rank foods for healthiness using nutrition labels. There is evidence suggesting that consumers consult Nutritional Fact panels with the main purpose of following a healthy diet. As an effect, those who often read labels are more likely to have a healthier diet compared to consumers that reported to never do so. Moreover, consumers who make daily use of nutrition values usually have a lower intake of fat and calories; and consume more fibers and vitamins than those who do not (A. Kerr, 2014).

On field research was made as well. In-store observation on a cross-section of 2000 consumers in three major UK retailers was made. It showed that more or less a third of the shoppers always

consulted the nutrition information on the label (A. Kerr, 2014).
From the compared analysis of 58 academic publication, interesting results were obtained. Firstly, it appeared that nutrition information on food packages is highly appreciated by consumers and it is of their interest. Especially, they are more likely to consult simplified front-of-pack information. However, there is no unanimity on how the label format should be. The majority of consumers understand the most common data and are able to use them for their personal purposes. Finally, consumers commonly dislike labels putting pressure on the adoption of certain behaviors (M. Will, 2009).
In conclusion, it can be said that nutrition information displayed on labels are generally appreciated and widely consulted. The simpler the information is the more impact it has. An objective indication of nutrition value is preferred to serving size or maximum daily consumption recommendations.
A new labeling policy
The Nutrition Fact panel was introduced in order to make people aware of the fact that their choices in food consumption affect their health. In this perspective, meat substitutes play an important role in reducing the intake of certain unhealthy food. However, meat substitutes have another quality that has been stressed above: they have a minor impact on the environment. Given the fact that a polluted environment directly affects our health, it is fundamental to develop a new labeling policy so as to provide consumers with full information, give them a little nudge in order to allow them to make environmentally oriented choices.
As mentioned above, this article aim is to display a possible labeling strategy that might result in driving consumers choice toward a more sustainable consumption.
To this end, an ideal label should add to the well known Nutrition Facts panel on which nutritional information are displayed three more lines: CO2, H2O, Land. Where the meaning is the emission of carbon dioxide, the quantity of water and land, of which each product, as it is on the supermarket shelf, is responsible.
More specifically, for what concern carbon dioxide emissions it is important to include also

methane as well as nitrous oxide emissions. in order to do so, a conversion factor of 86 and 296 respectively must be applied (Miller et al., 2013; FAO, 2006). In fact, the average consumer is used to the CO2 grams emission indicator which is part of everyday language employed widely by all the media. Moreover, this kind of unit of measurement is used for cars exhaust, grams of CO2 per kilometer. For this reason, a label which shows grams of carbon dioxide emissions can be available to everybody. In addition, including all gas emissions under one indicator is fundamental in keeping the label as concise as possible, with just three environment-related voices. Eventually, it must be stressed that CO2 emissions must cover all the factors that are involved in the whole process of creation of the final product: from fertilizer to transportation and packaging. However, it must be taken into account that while there are studies that quantify greenhouse emissions related to agricultural production, no estimates of GHGs attributable to the whole production chain are available.

With regard to water, accurate data of its consumption during the food production process are already available and expressed in liters. However, it must be noticed that the overwhelming usage of water in meat production is caused mainly by the fact that to the total amount of water contributes not only the water consumed by the livestock and the one used to mix the feed but also the irrigation water necessary to grow the crop that then constitutes the feed itself. Moreover, also this indicator is easily usable by the average consumer who, for instance, can compare the amount of water written on the label with their daily consumption.

Coming to land exploitation, in this case too, accurate data are available and obtainable where needed. In addiction expressing land usage in square meters will ease consumer understanding of the data, who uses such a unit of measurement daily.
In addition, European consumers in recent years have learned to rely on nutritional values written on law-compliant labels. Therefore, if on the label table three more lines appear, people will certainly go through them as well; realizing that a certain food has a certain impact on our environment and possibly choosing the products with the lowest impact.

Lastly, this policy has the capability to influence the production side as well. In fact, it is likely that

producers will seek to put on the market food of high quality, which in this case means a product with as low impact on the environment as possible, because this will result in higher profits. This is valid along the whole food chain. In fact, farmers, packaging and transportation companies, and retailers will be committed to improving every step in the process in order to reduce GHG emissions, water and land exploitation.

Conclusion: a little nudge to consumers’ freedom of choice

In conclusion, this measure not only refers to the market ideology –enhancing products qualities–, but it is also susceptible of influencing consumers ideology –giving them the opportunity to make environment-oriented decisions. Indeed, freedom of choice is not only granted but also encouraged giving the consumer more information. However, that particular information is supposed to give the consumer a little nudge, making him or her conscious of how food impacts on our environment. As a result, consumers can make the best choice, both nutritional, but even more importantly environmental.