Search
Eating healthy or wasting less? Reducing resource footprints of food consumption

April 29, 2021 | Environmental Research Letters | Source |

 

Introduction: Researchers from the University of Freiburg and University of Kassel (Germany), together with the Vienna University of Economics and Business (Austria), assessed how halving food waste compares with shifting to healthier, plant-based diets in reducing Germany’s food-related resource footprints. Using the Food and Agriculture Biomass Input–Output (FABIO) model, they analyzed 2013 supply chains for biomass, cropland, and blue-water use under four scenarios: current diet, German dietary guideline diet, EAT–Lancet sustainable diet, and a low-dairy vegetarian diet—each with and without a 50% food waste reduction. The study evaluated which strategies, alone or combined, deliver the greatest environmental benefits.

 

Key findings: Dietary changes provided far greater biomass and cropland savings than halving food waste alone. The sustainable and vegetarian diets reduced biomass use by 54–61% and cropland by 43–48%, compared with only 11% and 15% from halving waste. For blue water, halving food waste achieved the largest reduction (14%), while sustainable or vegetarian diets delivered smaller cuts (~7%) and the guideline diet even increased use by 6% unless paired with waste reduction. Combining strategies yielded the greatest benefits: a vegetarian diet plus waste reduction cut biomass by 65%, cropland by 53%, and blue water by 16%.

Yet, plant-rich diets increased the overall mass of food waste because fruits, vegetables, cereals, and roots have higher waste shares. Waste rose from 145 kg/capita/year (current) to 186 kg (guideline), 154 kg (sustainable), and 156 kg (vegetarian). This highlights a trade-off: while healthier diets reduce resource footprints, they may hinder progress on food waste targets. The authors argue that policies should integrate both strategies and track outcomes with resource footprint indicators, rather than waste volumes alone, to avoid misleading priorities and maximize environmental gains.

 

Figure | System definition and boundaries. The supply chains are global and defined based on the food consumed and eaten in Germany. The system processes are defined according to FAO (2011).

 

Viewed Articles
Eating healthy or wasting less? Reducing resource footprints of food consumption
April 29, 2021 | Environmental Research Letters | Source |  Introduction: Researchers from the University of Freiburg and University of Kassel (Germany), together with the Vienna University of Economi
Read More
Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration in organic dehesa livestock farms. Does technical-economic management matters?
October 20, 2022 | Journal of Cleaner Production | Source |  Introduction: While organic livestock systems are often hailed as environmentally friendly, their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon
A theoretical framework to improve the adoption of green integrated pest management tactics
March 18, 2024 | Communications Biology | Introduction: Despite the availability of environmentally friendly pest control options, uptake of green Integrated Pest Management (IPM) remains slow. A mult
Rice paddy soils are a quantitatively important carbon store according to a global synthesis
August 06, 2021 | Communications Earth & Environment |  Introduction: Rice paddies are widely discussed for methane emissions, but their role as carbon stores is less consistently quantified. Led by C
Cover crops support the climate change mitigation potential of agroecosystems
May 8, 2024 | PLOS ONE | Introduction: Assessments of cover crop climate value typically quantify carbon sequestration and N₂O emissions, but omit land-use effects, specifically the carbon savings tha
Design considerations for net zero energy buildings for intensive, confined poultry production: A review of current insights, knowledge gaps, and future directions
February, 2022 | Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews | Introduction: Poultry housing may account for up to 50% of total non-renewable energy use and 20-35% of the life cycle impacts of poultry pr
TOP