THE CURRENT GLOBAL PICTURE

Modern agricultural systems are cause to multiple environmental problems from local to global scale, such as deforestation, loss of habitat, biodiversity and other ecosystem services, soil erosion, disruption of nutrient cycles and emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG). About a quarter of mankind´s worldwide GHG emissions stem from the agriculture, forestry and land-use sector.

However, when it comes to emissions, there are large differences between food products and their origin. The livestock sector alone is responsible for 14,5% of all global GHG emissions.[1] This means almost two thirds and hence the majority of all agricultural emissions results from the production of animal-based products like meat, egg and dairy.

&nbsp

Meat and dairy products from cattle are the largest GHG emitters. This is for two reasons: firstly, meat and dairy have a very low energy conversion efficiency, due to large areas of land required for growing feed used in raising livestock. The second factor is the way cattle digest their feed. Like buffalo, sheep and goats, cattle are ruminant animals; when chewing and fermenting their feed some of the carbon is converted into methane, CH₄, which is released to the atmosphere. CH₄ is a (34 times) more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide CO₂.

THE GLOBAL FUTURE

Climate change and the cuts in emissions required to limit global average temperature increase to below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels, as agreed by 195 nations at the UNFCCC Climate Conference in Paris in December 2015[2], poses a major challenge to all economic sectors. While GHG emissions have to be reduced, the livestock sector is at the same time facing a significant rise in demand, due to the growing world population and increasing wealth.

Recently published research points out that it will not be enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in the energy system [3]. Thus, it is imperative to also reduce emissions of nitrous oxide and methane from agriculture. Increased productivity, technological advancements and reduced food wastage contribute to emission reductions, however, it will also require dietary changes, for example in the form of reduced consumption of beef and dairy products [3].

THE SWEDISH CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE

From the perspective of an individual living in Sweden, on average one quarter of emissions which are directly or indirectly caused by private consumption stem from food [4].

Source: European Commission, 2016. EC Climate Action.
[online] Available at: this URL [Accessed 22 Mar. 2016].

Over the course of one year, this equals approximately 1.8 tonnes of CO₂-eq, of which 38 % are from ruminant meat and 23% from dairy products [4]. Comparing this to people´s energy and protein consumption, however, only small shares are covered by beef and dairy respectively, as shown in the following graph.

In total every Swede emits an average of about 7.2 tonnes CO₂-eq per year [4]. Note that this is private consumption only, and does not include emissions from the public sector.

THE CARBON FOOTPRINT LABEL

Being aware of the climate issues related to food, we decided to assess the carbon footprints of meals on campus. Starting in our biggest restaurant, Karrestaurangen at Johanneberg Campus, we introduced carbon labeling to the menus. It is a way for us to learn, and at the same time an opportunity to share information about the food’s climate impact with our guests. The traffic-light-colored bars shall allow easy distinction between low and high footprints and comparison among the different dishes.

The values to the right of the colored bars express the approximate amount of greenhouse gases emitted per serving.

HOW IS THIS VALUE CALCULATED?

Our chefs know how much of each ingredient they use to prepare your lunch. These ingredients are listed in different product groups. For each product group, the respective quantities are combined with scientific data on life cycle emissions, adding up to the footprint per dish.

WHAT DOES THE FOOTPRINT INCLUDE AND WHAT NOT?

The resolution of available data from life cycle assessments is limited due to the complexity of the method. The data underlying this label is therefore aggregated to average emission values for groups of food products consumed in Sweden. For example, one kilogram of pasta sold in Sweden has an average footprint of 0.6 kg CO₂ [3]. Distinctions between different producers and product types like whole grain pasta, conventional or organic are not made. The footprint includes direct emissions resulting from the consecutive production stages along the supply chain. Additionally, indirect emissions related to these processes are included, such as fertilizer production or power generation. Both, direct and indirect emissions are expressed in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂-eq), that is both, CO₂ itself, but also other climate relevant gases, like methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O). Not included in the footprint label, due to their minor contribution, are life cycle stages at the sales level, such as transportation to our restaurant, preparation of the food and management of food waste.

HOW MUCH IS 1 KG OF CO2 EQUIVALENT?

The traffic- light colors from green (low emissions) to red (high emissions) and the length of bars according to the footprint indicate what is a relatively better or worse choice for the climate. In absolute terms, however, the emission values may be harder to interpret. How much is a lot or a little and how does this compare to other emission sources in our life? Food products are not commonly associated with emissions, such as driving a car, i.e. car-emissions seem to be much more concrete than emissions from production processes with many steps. So how many kilometers could you drive, causing an equal amount of emissions as your lunch? We calculated some examples below:

How were the emissions translated into car kilometers? Assuming specific emissions of 130g/km under test conditions (according to the New European Driving Cycle EU target for new cars in 2015) plus 31% to compensate for real world driving conditions[5] and another 17% for well-to-wheel fuel life cycle emissions[6], gives roughly 200 g CO2-eq per km driven.

References

[1] Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. & Tempio, G., 2013. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock – A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.

[2] European Commission, 2016. EC Climate Action. [online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm [Accessed 22 Mar. 2016].

[3] Bryngelsson, D., Wirsenius, S.,, Hedenus, F., and Sonesson, U., 2015. How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy, [online] 59, pp.152–164. Available at: .

[4] Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. The Climate Impact of Swedish Consumption. [online] Available at: . Naturvårdsverket, 2010. The Climate Impact of Swedish Consumption. [online] Available at: .

&nbsp

[5] Mock, P.; Tietge, U.; Franco, V.; German, J.; Bandivadekar, A.; Ligterink, N.; Lambrecht, U.; Kühlwein, J.; Riemersma, I., 2014. From laboratory to road – A 2014 update of official and ‘real-world’ fuel consumption and CO2 values for passenger cars in Europe. [online] International Council on Clean Transportation.

[6] Edwards, R.,, Larive, J.-F.,, Rickeard, D., and Weindorf, W., 2014. Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context, WELL-TO-TANK (WTT) Report. Version 4.a. [online] Joint Research Center of the EU (JRC): Ispra, Italy.

[7] Edwards, R.,, Larive, J.-F.,, Rickeard, D., and Weindorf, W., 2014. Well-to-Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the European context, WELL-TO-TANK (WTT) Report. Version 4.a. [online] Joint Research Center of the EU (JRC): Ispra, Italy.