222

CHAPTER 4AN EXAMPLE OF A SUSTAINABLE DIET:THE MEDITERRANEAN DIET

SUSTAINABLE DIETS AND BIODIVERSITYDIRECTIONS AND SOLUTIONS FOR POLICY,RESEARCH AND ACTION

223

CHAPTER 4AN EXAMPLE OF A SUSTAINABLE DIET: THE MEDITERRANEAN DIET

Biocultural diversity and the Mediterranean dietPier Luigi Petrillo

Sustainability of the food chain from field to plate: The case of the Mediterranean dietMartine Padilla, Roberto Capone and Giulia Palma

Biodiversity and local food products in ItalyElena Azzini, Alessandra Durazzo, Angela Polito, Eugenia Venneria, MariaStella Foddai, Maria Zaccaria, Beatrice Mauro, Federica Intorre and Giuseppe Maiani

Organic farming: Sustainability, biodiversity and dietsFlavio Paoletti

Mediterranean diet: An integrated viewMauro Gamboni, Francesco Carimi and Paola Migliorini

Food and energy: A sustainable approachMassimo Iannetta, Federica Colucci, Ombretta Presenti and Fabio Vitali

Double Pyramid: Healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planetRoberto Ciati and Luca Ruini

222

224

230

242

254

262

274

280

BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY AND THE MEDITERRANEAN DIETPier Luigi PetrilloUniversity of Rome Sapienza Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policy, Rome, Italy

224

AbstractThe Mediterranean diet constitutes a set of skills,knowledge, practices and traditions ranging fromthe landscape to the table, including the crops, har-vesting, fishing, conservation, processing, prepara-tion and, particularly, consumption of food. TheMediterranean diet is characterized by a nutritionalmodel that has remained constant over time andspace, consisting mainly of olive oil, cereals, freshor dried fruit and vegetables, a moderate amount offish, dairy and meat, and many condiments andspices, all accompanied by wine or infusions, alwaysrespecting the beliefs of each community. However,the Mediterranean diet encompasses more thanjust food. It promotes social interaction, since com-munal meals are the cornerstone of social customsand festive events. It has given rise to a consider-able body of knowledge, songs, maxims, tales andlegends. From 15 to 19 November 2010, the FifthSession of the Intergovernmental Committee of theConvention will adopt the final decision over thenominations of new elements to be inscribed in theRepresentative List of the Intangible Cultural Her-itage of Humanity. Between these nominations, there will be thetransnational nomination of the Mediterraneandiet that already obtained in May 2010 a positiverecommendation from the Subsidiary Body of theCommittee. This decision of UNESCO will be amilestone in the path of the global recognition ofthe cultural values of food, agriculture and sus-tainable diet. The Mediterranean diet emphasizesthe development of a relatively new concept: thebio-cultural diversity. This concept encompassesbiological diversity at all its levels and cultural di-versity in all its manifestations. Biocultural diver-sity is derived from the countless ways in whichhumans have interacted with their natural sur-roundings. Their co-evolution has generated localecological knowledge and practices: a vital reser-voir of experience, methods and skills that helpdifferent societies to manage their resources.

1. Not just biodiversity: towards the biocultural di-versitySince the 1980s of the twentieth century the need toprotect and preserve biological diversity has been aglobal priority, becoming a pillar of the United Na-tions Conference on Environment and Developmentheld in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 when it was agreed aclearer notion of “biodiversity”, also developing anintegration between biodiversity, climate changeand desertification.At the same time, however, it appeared clear thatthe biological diversity of ecosystems could not beprotected without preserving cultural diversity inthat same context at the same time. This awarenessis clear from Article 8 of the Convention on Biolog-ical Diversity in which the primary objective of theStates Parties to the Convention is not only to safe-guard the biological diversity of living species, butto “respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, in-novations and practices of indigenous and localcommunities, which refer to traditional lifestylesrelevant for the conservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity”.Ten years after Rio, even though first in the scientificcommunity, the concept of “biocultural diversity”was born (Maffi, 2001, 2005, 2010).Integrating biological diversity and cultural diversityis becoming the mantra of the new century, the newcommitment of States Parties and of the numerousUnited Nations conventions.Since this concept it has been affirmed through dif-ferent years, several legal instruments were estab-lished to protect on the one hand biological diversityin a strict sense (the CBD, for example, but also theFAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Re-sources for Food Agriculture in 2001 and the MABProgramme – UNESCO Man and Biosphere), on theother hand cultural diversity (UNESCO, first, withthe conventions on cultural heritage and naturalmaterial of 1972, the intangible cultural heritage of2003 on Cultural Diversity of 2005).Over the years, the need to integrate the various in-

225

226

ternational legal instruments of protection in orderto preserve the biological and cultural diversity (i.e.the biocultural diversity) emerged.“The inextricable link between biological and cul-tural diversity” is for the first time spelled out in theDeclaration of Belem, which was adopted by theFirst International Congress of Ethnobiology in 1988.The discussion around this issue became even moreintense at the end of the last century. In 2001, UN-ESCO unanimously adopted in Paris, during the 31stSession of the General Conference, the UniversalDeclaration on Cultural Diversity, which, in additionto affirming the fundamental human rights in termsof intellectual, moral and spiritual integration withinthe concept of cultural diversity, gives some ideasand concepts related to biological diversity.In 2005, for the first time, the Tokyo Declaration wasadopted with the aim of creating a link between cul-tural diversity of religious or sacred sites protected byUNESCO and the biological richness of those contexts.In June 2010, in Montreal, many governments,NGOs and associations participated in the Interna-tional Conference on Cultural and Biological Diver-sity for Development organized by UNESCO and theCBD, and a Final Declaration was adopted which,after recognizing the need to develop actions so asto preserve biological diversity and cultural diver-sity, established a ten-year work programme thatwill, inter alia, create a link between the differentlegal instruments. This declaration (which is actu-ally much more than just a statement) was approvedat COP 10 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

2. A new challenge for world legislators: preservingthe biocultural diversitySpeaking of biocultural diversity instead of biodi-versity is not just a matter of terminology. It means,in fact, being aware of the close correlation betweenthe loss of cultural and linguistic diversity and lossof biological and genetic diversity, and vice versa(Harmon, 2002). This implies, for anyone who wantsto develop a legal discourse, perhaps in order to in-troduce measures to safeguard or enhance, learn-

ing to think in interdisciplinary terms.This same approach should be used to define the con-cept of biocultural diversity which includes “diversity oflife in all its forms: biological, cultural and linguisticdiversity, inter- (and probably co-evolved) within asocio-ecological complex adaptive system”.In order to safeguard the biocultural diversity it istherefore necessary to integrate knowledge fromdifferent fields: anthropology, linguistics, ethnobi-ology, etnoecology, biology, agronomy, ecology andmany others (Maffi and Woodley, 2010). But wemust, above all, realize that “the diversity of life isnot constituted only by the diversity of plant andanimal species, habitats and ecosystems on theplanet, but also by the diversity of cultures andhuman languages, these differences do not developin separate and parallel worlds, but are differentmanifestations of a single whole and complex rela-tionships between diversity have been developedover time through the cumulative effects of globalmutual adaptation – probably coevolutionary nature– between human beings and the local environ-ment” (Maffi, 2010, p. 298).The starting point that the lawyer must consider isthat human beings do not live in an abstract andisolated context but they always have a close rela-tionship with the environment that surroundedthem. This environment has always been changedin order to respond to the needs of the humanbeings; at the same time, they become influencedand shaped by the same environment (Posey, 1999):“This implies that the organization, the vitality andthis resilience of human communities are closelylinked organization, the vitality and resilience ofecosystems” (Maffi, 2010, p. 298).In industrialized societies the perception of identitylinked to the bond between humans and their envi-ronment is getting lost; in indigenous societies, bycontrast, the link between the languages, traditions,land and ecosystem is still very strong (Blythe andMcKenna Brown, 2004).Among others, linguistic diversity is, therefore, therepresentative indicator of cultural diversity (Stepp

227

et al., 2003). According to data provided by Terralin-gua, in the world there are from 6 000 to 7 000 dif-ferent languages, of which 95 percent is the mothertongue of less than one million people. However,linguistic diversity cannot be regarded as the onlybenchmark. Other factors that relate to the culturallife of a community, such as traditions, folk festi-vals, events, rituals, social practices, all that intan-gible cultural heritage referred to in the 2003UNESCO Convention on World Heritage IntangibleHeritage need to be analysed.

3. The world of agriculture and biocultural diversityThe close relationship between biological diversityand cultural diversity is evident especially if you lookat global food trends. In other words this relation-ship can be emphasized as the c.d. agrobiodiversitythat can be considered, in itself, an effective indexfor understanding both the causes and conse-quences of the loss of biocultural diversity.According to FAO (1998 data) the plant species usedfor food production are about 7 000, but today only 30are under cultivation, and of these, rice, wheat andcorn alone cover 50 percent of needs World Food. Theloss or abandonment of these crops can be explainedby several factors, primarily cultural, in a globalizedworld, the food seems to be the main victim of the“trend” diet, and it is not just a matter of “appeal”.The disappearance of some traditional food is closelyrelated to non-transmission, from parents to children,of the methods of production or storage or handlingof food. With a further consequence: the loss ofknowledge related to the cultivation of the plantspecies, which is the prelude to their ultimate demise.The available data are alarming in this respect: justafter the Second World War, China, for example, had10 000 cultivated varieties of wheat, in the 1970s justunder 1 000, today about 200. In Mexico, over thepast fifty years, 80% of maize varieties, the productsymbol of Mexican cuisine, have been lost. In theUnited States, 95% of the varieties of cabbage, 86%of apples, peas 94%, 81% of tomatoes have disap-peared at the same time (Buiatti, 2007, p. 109).

4. The role of UNESCO: 2003 Convention and theMediterranean dietUNESCO stands internationally as the only globalorganization that within its conventions and pro-grammes embraces the concepts of nature and cul-ture, biological and genetic diversity and culturaland linguistic diversity.Cultural diversity, as it has been mentioned, was, infact, subject to specific conventions adopted by UN-ESCO: the Convention on Cultural Heritage in 1972,the Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage of2003, the Convention on Cultural Diversity of 2005.Even before the adoption of these international con-ventions, within UNESCO in 1971 was launched, theProgramme MAB – Man and Biosphere, which im-mediately turned his attention to the protection ofbiodiversity in the traditional sense and conserva-tion and strategic management of biodiversity.Founded in the wake of the UNESCO Declaration ofPrinciples of International Cultural Cooperation in1966, the need to identify and ensure protectionmeasures for the so-called “Intangible Heritage” inits various cultural forms and in the interaction be-tween human activity and both physical and socialenvironment, was clear since 1972, the adoption ofthe best known UNESCO Convention for the Protec-tion of Cultural Heritage and World Heritage.Since then, concepts such as folklore, oral expres-sions, traditional techniques of land managementand artistic representations of identity and creativ-ity have been revised several times over severalsessions until the adoption, during the 32nd Gen-eral Conference in 2003, of an ad hoc instrument,the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangi-ble Cultural Heritage, signed on 17 October 2003.The intangible heritage, according to the list pro-vided by Article 2, para. 2, is detectable in 5 areas(oral traditions and expressions, including languageas a vehicle of intangible cultural heritage, perform-ing arts, social practices, rituals and festive events;the knowledge and practices concerning nature anduniverse, traditional craftsmanship). This list doesnot appear, however, mandatory in nature; espe-

228

cially because of the difficulty of assigning preciseclassification schemes to the concept of culture, butalso because of the intersectoral nature of someoral traditions also when the practices are inte-grated with food as an integrated system of socialrelations and shared meanings. Practices related tofood are in fact connected to the oral traditions andexpressions, to performing arts, to social practices,to some rituals and festivals, to knowledge andpractices concerning nature and to the know-howlinked to traditional crafts.Following this approach, in November 2010 on theoccasion of the Fifth Session of the Intergovern-mental Committee of the 2003 Convention, ele-ments concerning food practices, including theMediterranean diet were entered for the first timein the Representative List. In 2008, four countries, namely Italy, Spain, Greeceand Morocco, decided to share their own culturalheritage represented by a common way of life and tobegin the path of recognizing it as part of the UN-ESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. TheMediterranean diet constitutes a set of skills,knowledge, practices and traditions ranging fromthe landscape to the table, including the crops, har-vesting, fishing, conservation, processing, prepara-tion and, particularly, consumption of food. TheMediterranean diet is characterized by a nutritionalmodel that has remained constant over time andspace, consisting mainly of olive oil, cereals, freshor dried fruit and vegetables, a moderate amount offish, dairy and meat, and many condiments andspices, all accompanied by wine or infusions, alwaysrespecting the beliefs of each community. However,the Mediterranean diet (from the Greek “diaita”, wayof life) encompasses more than just food. It pro-motes social interaction, since communal mealsare the cornerstone of social customs and festiveevents. It has given rise to a considerable body ofknowledge, songs, maxims, tales and legends. Thesystem is rooted in respect for the territory and bio-diversity, and ensures the conservation and develop-

ment of traditional activities and crafts linked to fish-ing and farming in the Mediterranean communities. The decision to inscribe the Mediterranean Diet inthe UNESCO list is a milestone in the path of theglobal recognition of the cultural values of food,agriculture and sustainable diet. The Mediterraneandiet is a unique lifestyle of a particular territory andits sustainability is recognized as a common cul-tural heritage of Mediterranean communities. The Mediterranean diet, as an example of sustain-able diet, makes clear and evident the link betweencultural and biological components, between the en-vironment and human sustainable activities such astraditional agriculture and fishery. The Mediter-ranean diet emphasizes the development of a rela-tively new concept: biocultural diversity. This conceptencompasses biological diversity at all its levels andcultural diversity in all its manifestations. Biocul-tural diversity is derived from the countless ways inwhich humans have interacted with their naturalsurroundings. Their co-evolution has generatedlocal ecological knowledge and practices: a vitalreservoir of experience, methods and skills that helpdifferent societies to manage their resources. This is an example of how, thanks to the so-called“UNESCO system” (Petrillo, Di Bella, Di Palo, 2012),thereby indicating that set of conventions and pro-grammes that protect the tangible and intangiblecultural diversity and biological diversity, and to thepersistence of local populations, we may now beable to protect and preserve an area in the culturaland biological diversity, in Italy this area is theCilento.The National Park of Cilento and Vallo di Diano, infact, was inscribed in 1997 to UNESCO’s World Net-work of biosphere reserves recognized by the MABProgramme: it is, therefore, recognized as a uniqueecosystem, a high concentration of biodiversity. Inaddition, since 1998 it has been inscribed in theUNESCO World Heritage list being considered byUNESCO as a unique cultural landscape, the resultof centuries of human labour and processing of

229

natural resources. In addition, since 2010, theCilento is one of the four communities identified bythe nomination of the Mediterranean diet IntangibleHeritage of Humanity: UNESCO has recognizedCilento has handed down traditions and expressions,ancient food practices, cultural diversity, unique andpreserved over the centuries. Cilento, thus, repre-sents a unique identification of the concept of biocul-tural diversity: in this context, in fact, the originalcharacteristics of ecosystems and the knowledge andtraditions of local people and their artefacts, are thewitnesses of the inextricable link between culture andnature, that go together here, in a close co-evolution.

5. For a new awareness: it is useless to protect bio-diversity without preserving cultural diversity From this picture it is clear that the challenge thatthe legislators all over the world are facing is to in-troduce mechanisms to protect, preserve and en-hance the set of biological and cultural diversityrepresented in a community. Unique approaches tothis subject will, in the long term, avoid a furtherloss of biodiversity. In the world, where the beatingof a butterfly in China produces an economictsunami in the United States, it is no longer possi-ble to think and act locally and compartmentalized.We could also start from a fact: in the last 20 yearsthe world has lost so much of its richness in genetic,biological and cultural that if we do not do some-thing to counter this loss in a coordinated and com-prehensive way, in another two decades we will behappily doomed to extinction (UNEP, 2010). For ex-ample: in 2100 will disappear about 80 percent ofthe languages spoken today.But then, who “governs” biocultural diversity? Whohas the authority to act to redress the loss in a maybetoo much polycentric institutional context too?The challenge to counter the loss of biocultural di-versity collides with the increasingly federal structureof the states, so that we can draw a curve that showshow more fragmented institutional contexts (or “ex-ploded” or “polycentric”), the lower capacity for ac-

tion to tackle environmental and cultural damage.The real challenge of the legislative branch is pri-marily a challenge to themselves, to challengethemsleves and deal with different sciences, tryingto find a common language. It is a legal challenge tothe traditional object of study, because now lawyersshould try to analyse it in a diachronic and interdis-ciplinary way individual rules and then put them ina different context.

References

Blythe, J., McKenna Brown, R. (2003). Making the Links:Language, Identity and the Land. Papers from the 7th Foundationfor Endangered Languages conference, Bath: Foundation forEndangered Languages, Broome, Western Australia.

Harmon, D. (2002). In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity inNature and Culture Makes Us Human. Washington: Smithson-ian Institution Press.

Maffi, L. Woodley, E. (2010). Biocultural diversity conservation:a global sourcebook. London: Earthscan.

Maffi, L. (2001). On biocultural diversity: linking language,knowledge, and the environment. Washington: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, Cultural and Biological Diversity. InThe annual review of anthropology, 34, 599-617.

Maffi, L. (2010). Language: A Resource for Nature. Nature andResources. In The UNESCO Journal on the Environment andNatural Resources Research, 34, Paris, 12-21.

Petrillo P. L., Di Bella O., Di Palo N. (2012), La convenzione UN-ESCO per il patrimonio mondiale e la valorizzazione dei paesaggirurali, ed. G. M. Golinelli “Patrimonio culturale e creazione di val-ore”, CEDAM, Roma

Posey, D. (1999). Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. Acomplementary contribution to the global biodiversity assessment.In Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity, ed. D.A. Posey,UNEP and Intermediate Technology Publications, London, 1–19.

Stepp, J.R. et al. (2003). Ethnobiology and biocultural diversity:proceedings of the Seventh International Congress ofEthnobiology. International Society of Ethnobiology, Athens:University of Georgia Press.

UNEP (2010). Rapporto sullo stato dell’Ambiente. UnitedNations Environment Programme.

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE FOODCHAIN FROM FIELD TO PLATE: THE CASE OF THE MEDITERRANEAN DIETMartine Padilla,1 Roberto Capone2 and Giulia Palma11CIHEAM-IAMM, Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier2CIHEAM-IAMB, Istituto Agronomico Mediterraneo di Bari

231

AbstractThe Mediterranean diet is considered as a paragonamong the world's diets. The reference is the dietof Crete in the late 1960s. Is it provided sustainable?

Various authors have commented on the design ofsustainable food. Some emphasize healthy food andalternative agriculture, while others focus on thelink between health and welfare, or environmentalpractices on consumers. For us sustainable food isthe one that combines the protection of nutrients,environmental conservation, community develop-ment through social aspects.

The traditional Mediterranean diet may be consid-ered as sustainable in part because of (i) a greatdiversity that ensures food nutritional quality of dietand biodiversity, (ii) a variety of food practices andfood preparation techniques, (iii) main foodstuffsdemonstrated as beneficial to health as olive oil, fish,fruits and vegetable, pulses, fermented milk, spices,(iv) a strong commitment to culture and traditions,(v) a respect for human nature and seasonality, (vi) adiversity of landscapes that contribute to the well-being, (vii) a diet with low environmental impact dueto low consumption of animal products. However,trends in plant breeding on an economic base, inten-sive modes of production and greenhouse produc-tion, higher consumption of meat, industrialization offood, endanger the sustainability of food systems. Noanalysis of social impact has been achieved. Wecannot conclude on this aspect of sustainability, noron the environmental impact of the food chain.

In conclusion, the Mediterranean diet has numerousvirtues. We must ensure that modernity and globaliza-tion do not alter its characteristics of sustainability.

Introduction The Mediterranean diet has enjoyed a high reputa-tion over many years, both for its nutritional qualityand its health benefits. The traditional Mediterranean

diet of the 1960s is considered a model of nutritionalbenefits (Padilla, 2008). Its multifunctional nature,encompassing the entire range of ecological, nutri-tional, economic and social functions, puts food atthe heart of the concept of sustainable development.

Sustainable food is a concept that has been devel-oped as a key factor to reduce negative externalitiesof the global food supply chain. Beyond the preser-vation of the environment, sustainable food includesalso moral and health aspects of eating (ethic andnutrition), satisfaction of consumer expectations,and improved product accessibility at geographicand economic level. Faced with fossil energy ex-haustion, soil limited capacity, ecosystem degrada-tion, climate change and global warming,unbalanced diets and population increase, we won-der if the Mediterranean current food system canbe considered as sustainable. Is the Mediterraneandiet consistent with sustainable development? Theaims of this paper are (i) to characterize the differ-ent aspects of sustainability of the traditionalMediterranean diet (ii) to analyse what are the prin-cipal hot spots of food systems today in the Mediter-ranean area with regard to sustainability.

Material and methods The definitions of sustainable diets show that theyaffect various dimensions (agricultural, food, nutri-tional, environmental, social, cultural, economic)that interact with one another, either inseparably orseparately and distinctly. From this point of view, theMediterranean is the area where more than anyother many issues (biodiversity loss, soil erosion,water scarcity etc.) directly or indirectly related toMediterranean food consumption patterns shouldbe addressed. We have summarized the criteria ofsustainable food in Table 1. It is a combination ofpreservation of the environment, nutrition, and de-velopment of the local territory by social and eco-nomic aspects all along the food chain, fromagriculture to the consumer.

232

From our previous works and experience of theMediterranean area, we will develop our thinkingabout each element of sustainability.

Results and discussion I. Is the traditional Mediterranean food chain linkedwith the traditional diet sustainable?Environment: the uniqueness of the Mediterraneanarea, one of 25 "hot spots" of biodiversity on the planetThe importance of the Mediterranean area as re-gards crop diversity can be judged by the fact thatabout one-third of the foodstuff used by humankindcomes from the Mediterranean climatic region (Harlan,1995). The Mediterranean basin was one of the eightcentres of cultivated plant origin and diversityidentified by Vavilov (1951). He listed over 80 maincrops and the most important of these are cereals,pulses, fruit trees and vegetables. There were alsomany herbs, spice-producing plants, horticulturalcrops, and ornamentals (Heywood, 1998). Severalsociopolitical, agroclimatic, ecological and genetic

factors have contributed to this remarkable crop di-versity in the Mediterranean (Jana, 1995). Approximately 30 000 plant species occur, and morethan 13 000 species are endemic to the hot spot; yet,many more are being discovered every year(Plantlife International, 2010). The MediterraneanBasin is 1.6% of world land with 10% of known flow-ering plants and 18.4% of mammal species; 0.7% ofthe world ocean, with 8–9% of known marine or-ganisms (Sundseth, 2009). The hot spot has roughlythe same plant diversity as all of tropical Africa, al-beit in a surface area one-fourth the size of sub-Sa-haran Africa (CEPF, 2010). There are more plant species in the EuropeanMediterranean region than all the other Europeanbio-geographical regions combined. The Mediter-ranean forests are diverse and harbour up to 100different tree species. In the Mediterranean Basinthere is huge topographic, climatic and geographicvariability giving rise to an astounding array ofspecies and habitat diversity.

Table 1. The grid of sustainable food system.

Agriculture

Food Production

Consumption

Environment

Follow sustainableagricultural practices

Enhance resilienceof production systems

Deploy and maintain diversity

Reduce impact ofproduction, processing, commercialization

Reduce the environmental impact of feedingpractices

Nutrition

Promote diverse food

Produce nutritionallydense product

Preserve nutrients throughout thefood chain

Promote dietarydiversity, food balance and seasonality

Economic

Deploy affordablecultivationpractices

Promote self reliance throughlocal produce

Strengthen localfood systems

Produce affordable food

Promote accessto dietary diversity

Socio-cultural

Maintaintraditionalagriculture practicesand promote localvarieties

Produce culturallyacceptable foood

Safeguard foodtraditions and culture

Meet local preference & taste

A diverse landscapeA large diversity of landscapes was shaped by thepractices of agriculture and livestock. This con-tributes to well-being and environmental protection.Cereal, fruit trees, olive groves, vineyards, horticul-ture, gardening, were cultivated on small perime-ters. Agricultural lands and grasslands occupy 40percent of the Mediterranean region and vary be-tween large intensive olive or citrus groves to moremixed farming systems (Elloumi and Jouve, 2010).The low intensity and localized nature of thousandsof years of subsistence farming activities has had aprofound effect on the landscape, creating a com-plex mosaic of alternating semi-natural habitatsrich in wildlife. Vineyards and ancient olive grovesare also still a characteristic feature of the Mediter-ranean landscape. On flatter land and in the plainsvarious forms of sustainable agro-sylvo-pastoralfarming systems have evolved that make best useof natural resources (Sundseth, 2009). Ranching isalso practiced on the land fallow or wasteland orvast semi-desert lands.

Agriculture practices preserving the environment?We see the continuation of small-scale family farm-ing (17 million family farms with two-thirds orthree-quarters less than 5 ha in Turkey, Morocco,Italy, Greece, for example (Elloumi and Jouve, 2010).They practise traditional agriculture-intensivelabour and low use of capital. This agriculture islikely to solve the food crisis, according to Olivier deSchutter, Rapporteur on the right to Food at the UN.It is also an agriculture that preserves the earth, byincreasing local productivity, reducing rural poverty,contributing to improved nutrition and facilitatingadaptation to climate change. The richness of Mediterranean agriculture is its di-versity of cropping patterns. We distinguish fiveforms of agriculture in the Mediterranean, espe-cially on the outskirts of towns: (1) An entrepre-neurial agriculture, innovative, with high addedvalue. It is an innovative farming vegetable specu-

lative, capital intensive, growing thanks to the avail-ability of capital in the current conditions. (2) An op-portunistic agriculture in extension due to theconstraints of access to land. It is practiced on largefarms consisting of clusters of plots, left short-termleases, usually oral. (3) Family farms in the subur-ban area specialized in local productions to be solddirectly in farmers markets. (4) Agriculture need,practiced by the rural exodus from the city and re-cently installed, because of economic crises; it tendsto perpetuate. (5) Pleasure agriculture: the tradi-tional Mediterranean cultivation has an interest inlandscape and identity, such as vineyards and olivetrees; they are renewed in European countrieswhere they receive aid from the CAP. The aim of poli-cies related to territory quality (AOC) is to ensure thesustainability of these local productions (Jouve andPadilla, 2007).

Another aspect of land preservation is the commit-ment to organic farming. Mediterranean organicagriculture is growing, but covers a very smallpercentage of agricultural land: 4.5% in Italy,between 2 and 3% in Spain and Greece, 6.2% inSlovenia, less than 2% in France, 1.5% in Tunisiaand less than 1% in other countries (Plan Bleu,2006). If organic agriculture does not meet marketdemand in the North, it does not have a local marketin the South. This greatly limits its expansion.

The environmental impact of the dietDuchin (2005), who studied diets from multiplepoints of view of sustainability, showed that aMediterranean diet, which consists mainly of plant-origin foods but not excluding a small proportion ofmeat and other animal products, is closer to publichealth recommendations issued by the WorldHealth Organization and has a lower environmentaleffect than the current average United States diet.If, for reasons of public health, the plant-basedMediterranean diet is adopted throughout theUnited States, not only major structural changes

233

234

would be needed in agriculture, but the farmland ded-icated to food would decrease. Indeed, Duchin arguesthat the typical Mediterranean diet differs from thecurrent dietary recommendations in the United Statesby including a much lower meat consumption. Thischoice would also benefit the environment and thatfood choice is all the more commendable that the en-vironment would benefit too. Among the various dietstested by Duchin, in a global economy model that in-corporates Life Cycle Analysis of 30 foods, plant-dom-inated diet type emerges as the Mediterranean diet,can meet both nutritional and environmental require-ments, and for a growing world population while re-ducing the pressure of food and agricultural systemson the environment.

Nutrition sustainability: few animal products in thedietThe east Mediterranean diet of the early 1960s hasinteresting qualities for the development of optionsto create more sustainable, healthy diets. The envi-ronmental impacts of animal production vary with themethod of production (e.g. extensive grazing, graz-ing-based production) (MFAF-DK, 2010).Meat production has a higher environmental impactthan fruit and vegetables production. The global live-stock sector contributes about 40 percent to globalagricultural output. Meat and dairy animals now ac-count for about 20 percent of all terrestrial animalbiomass (Steinfeld et al., 2006). According to the Live-stock, Environment and Development initiative, thelivestock industry is one of the largest contributorsto environmental degradation, at local and globalscale, contributing to deforestation, air and waterpollution, land degradation, loss of topsoil, climatechange, the overuse of resources including oil andwater, and loss of biodiversity. The use of large in-dustrial monoculture, common for feed crops (e.g.corn and soy), is highly damaging to ecosystems. Theinitiative concluded that the livestock sector emergesas one of the most significant contributors to themost serious environmental problems. A person ex-isting chiefly on animal protein requires ten times

more land to provide adequate food than someoneliving on vegetable sources of protein (MFAF-DK,2010) which means a much higher ecological footprint

Table 2. Ecological Footprint of different food diets.Source: FAO.

The Mediterranean variety is major. It helps tomeet diverse nutritional needs and to limit theenvironmental impactThere is growing evidence of the impact of diet onhealth, including increased risk of obesity, cardio-vascular diseases and cancers, and also of its role asa social indicator (Reddy et al., 2009; Hawkesworthet al., 2010). Dietary diversity that characterizes theMediterranean diet explains the disease preventionrelated to diet. A study of the index of food variety inseveral countries has shown that France has a veryhigh rate (90%) compared to the United States (33%).In Morocco, the dietary diversity score was 10.2 forages 12 to 16 years (Aboussaleh and Ahami, 2009).Other surveys in 2006 for adults (Anzid et al., 2009)also showed high levels of dietary diversity in urbanareas only.Beyond the diversity in terms of different categoriesof food and in terms of different foods within a cat-egory, it should be noted the peculiarity of theMediterranean diet for the variety of flavours: acid,sweet and sour, salty-sweet, bitter, pungent. Thepreparation techniques are also very diverse:flavoured, breaded, chopped, into batter, stuffedpastry, salads; the techniques of preservation also:sun-drying, salting, fermentation, vinegar, oil, can-died (we find all these technical approaches in theMune in Lebanon). The diversity can be found also in

Type of Food Area required

Vegetarian food 500 m2

Dominant vegetarianfood 700 m2

Western diet 4 000 m2

Mainly meat diet 7 000 m2

235

cooking techniques: boil, simmer, roast, broil, fry,steam. People eat structured meals taken in afriendly way. Families and friends eat together tapasin Spain, tramessi in Italy, kemia in Tunisia, meze inLebanon, mézélik in Turkey.The recommended Mediterranean food pyramid ex-presses such diversity (Figure 1).

.

Figure 1. The double pyramid.Source: Barilla Center, 2010

It not only offers considerable health benefits to in-dividuals but also respects the environment and hasless impact. Barilla Center for Food and Nutritiondemonstrated that the foods that are recommendedto be consumed more frequently, are also thosewith minor environmental impacts (per kg). In otherwords, the inverted environmental food pyramid il-

lustrates how the most environmentally-friendlyfoods also tend to be the healthiest (Barilla Center,2010). As a matter of fact, the various food groupscan be evaluated in terms of their environmentalimpact. Reclassifying foods no longer in terms oftheir positive impact on health, but on the basis oftheir negative effect on the environment, producesan upside-down pyramid which shows the foodswith greater environmental impact on the top andthose with lower impact on the bottom. When thisnew environmental pyramid is brought alongside thefood pyramid, it creates a food-environmental pyra-mid called the “Double Pyramid”. It shows that foodswith higher recommended consumption levels arealso the ones with lower environmental impact. Thisunified model illustrates the connection between twodifferent but highly relevant goals: health and envi-ronmental protection. In other words, it shows that ifthe diet suggested in the traditional food pyramid isfollowed, not only do people live better (longer andhealthier), but there is a decidedly lesser impact – orbetter, footprint on the environment.

Respect of human natureMediterranean people have benefited from the influ-ence of Hippocras about the categorization of foodand eating behaviours: hot, cold, wet or dry properties.There is an adaptation to natural conditions in respectof the seasons and a necessary balance among dif-ferent kinds of products according to the seasons,metabolism and health of individuals.

Social and economy sustainability: strengthenlocal food systemsHistorically, in Europe, the Mediterranean countrieshave the largest number of initiatives of geographicalindications (GI). Locally, they are indicative of a strongconnection to the land, the notoriety, the history andthe quality of the product. Nearly 80 percent of GIs inthe European Union are from Mediterranean countries.France represents alone 20 percent followed by Italy,Portugal, Greece and Spain. In southern countries, thisprocess is beginning in Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon.

236

In Mediterranean countries, there is a strongattachment to traditions and culture and food is anintegral aspect of human culture. The culinarytradition is still transmitted from mother to daughter,although the cookingprocess is often simplified.Festive occasions around food are common: cele-brations, religious rituals. Modern life leads tostrong ambivalent practices between acculturationand transmission of a cultural identity. To preservethe Mediterranean food culture, UNESCO has recentlyrecognized the Mediterranean diet as an intangibleheritage of humanity (2010) in four countries: Spain,Greece, Italy and Morocco. It will be included in atransnational Mediterranean inventory in preparation.

II. The principal hot spots of food systems today The risks on biodiversityBiodiversity is threatened because pollution, overex-ploitation, natural disasters, invasive alien species,tourism, intensive agriculture. The change in eatinghabits combined with the pursuit of profitable vari-eties led to the abandonment of local varieties andcultural degradation of specific products. There is aglobalization of the food market with absurd trans-port costs, an organization of the food chain in func-tion of economic considerations, without taking intoaccount the environmental impact: 30 percent ofgreenhouse gas emissions are linked to the food inFrance. Specialization in agriculture and the chang-ing patterns of farming techniques deplete biodi-versity and have a negative impact on greenhousegas emissions. For instance, there are more andmore greenhouses in the south of Spain: 40 000 haof vegetables in Almería, 7 500 ha of strawberry inHuelva. A majority of the workforce is composed ofillegal immigrants.We are in an era of unprecedented threats to biodi-versity: 15 out of 24 ecosystems are assessed to bein decline (Steinfeld et al., 2006). The genetic diver-sification of food crops and animal breeds is dimin-ishing rapidly. At the beginning of the twenty-firstcentury it was estimated that only 10 percent of thevariety of crops that had been cultivated in the past

were still being farmed, with many local varietiesbeing replaced by a small number of improved non-native varieties (Millstone and Lang, 2008). Onlyabout 30 crop species provide 95 percent of food en-ergy in the world while 7 000 species, that are partlyor fully domesticated, have been known to be usedin food including many of the so-called underuti-lized, neglected or minor crops (Williams and Haq,2002). Humanity depends on ecosystems and theirlife-sustaining goods and services.WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) has listed 32ecoregions in the Mediterranean hot spot. There arethree broad vegetation types: maquis, forests andgarrigue (CEPF, 2010). Nowadays, the most wide-spread vegetation type is the maquis. Many of theendemic and restricted-range plants depend on thishabitat; thus, several species are threatened(Tucker and Evans, 1997).However, whilst small-scale farming is still prac-tised in many parts of the region, the last 50 yearshave seen a massive change in agricultural prac-tices across large parts of the Mediterranean. An-cient vineyards, orchards and olive groves have beenripped out to make way for industrial-scale fruit orolive plantations and mixed rotational farming hasbeen replaced by intensive monocultures. This hasnot only caused the loss of wildlife-rich habitats buthas also had a major socio-economic impact onlarge parts of the region as many small-scale farm-ers have been forced to abandon their land to go andsearch for jobs elsewhere.

Farming systemsThe global changes affecting the Mediterranean re-gion have effects on farming systems and process-ing of food derived from them. Overall, we canexpect a widening of the social and economic dividebetween industry and family agriculture, namely inthe South, because the region is highly dependenton of agricultural imports and therefore subject tothe hazards of world agricultural production and its"crisis"; an integration of food to better control pricevolatility of primary production, while promoting the

237

internationalization of production.These trends are consistent with the reconstructionof territories: concentration of population in urbanand coastal areas; concentration of large farms,competition for use of space between rural andurban areas, and risk of a progressive disqualifica-tion of small farming. These changes are associatedwith the degradation of agro-ecosystems due to cli-mate change, to intensifying production and a de-valuation of traditional knowledge, withconsequences: a recurring emergence of diseasesof various origins, increasing pressure of invasivespecies, and degradation of biodiversity; stress oncrop yields associated with an increase in agricul-tural water demand coupled with lower ground andunderground flows, tensions to share water betweenuses. In this context of strong pressure on resources(water, land), and increased concentration of popu-lation, and environmental degradation, the majorhealth crises, affecting animals or plants, are likely(international trade increasingly important to pro-mote migration of invasive species and pathogens).

Use of waterModern farming practices through their high demandfor pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation water alsoput excessive pressure on the environment. Morethan 26 million ha of farmland are now under irriga-tion in the Mediterranean Basin and in some areasup to 80 percent of the available water is used for ir-rigation. The exceptionally rapid growth in tourismand urban development in coastal areas combinedwith the abandonment of small-scale farming prac-tices puts immense pressure on the Mediterraneanregion’s rich biodiversity (Sundseth, 2009).The Mediterranean population is particularly af-fected by water scarcity: it represents 60 percent ofthe population of water-scarce countries in the worldwith less than 1 000 m3/inhabitant/year (PlanBlue,2006). Water demand doubled during the secondhalf of the twentieth century to reach 280 billion m3

per year for all riparian countries: 64% is for agri-culture (82% in southern countries), 13% for

tourism. Moreover, the complexity of the food chainincreases the use of virtual water. In the Mediter-ranean region, water resources are limited, fragileand unevenly distributed over space and time wheresouthern rim countries are endowed with only 13percent of the total resources (Plan Blue, 2006). Ac-cording to the projections of the Plan Blue baselinescenario and compared to the year 2000, water de-mands may increase by a further 15 percent by2025, especially in the southern and eastern coun-tries where an increase of 25 percent is expected.Furthermore, Mariotti et al. (2008) predicted by2070–2099 an average decrease of 20 percent inland surface water availability, with a decrease insoil moisture and river runoff, and a 24 percent in-crease in the loss of fresh water over the Mediter-ranean due to precipitation reduction andwarming-enhanced evaporation. Thus, improvingthe water demand management, water saving andrational water use, especially for agriculture, is ofparamount importance in the Mediterranean region.

A surge of supermarketsAccording to expert estimates, the agro-industrialservice model, characterized by mass consumptionof industrialized products driven by hyper- and su-permarkets, may locate in any region where the av-erage revenue per capita is above US $ 5 000 perhead. In 2008, in all Mediterranean countries this limitwas reached except in Morocco. For some ten yearsMediterranean countries have been facing the devel-opment of modern food distribution. If it holds 75 per-cent of the food market in the north, it remainsmodest in the south with 5–10 percent, but is growingstrongly. In Egypt, it is estimated that around 90–95percent of the food outlets can be categorized assmall grocery stores. The modern retail food servicehas tripled in five years. In Morocco, like in Tunisia,the modern distribution has duplicated the numberof establishments in the last five years. We can count32 Auchan /Marjane, Metro, Label’Vie, Casino/AsmakAssalam (Chaabi group) in Morocco; 1 Carrefour, 44super Champion et Bonprix, 1 Géant Casino, 39

238

Monoprix et Touta, 44 super Magasin Général inTunisia; and only 1 Carrefour, Blanky/Promy, Cevi-tal in Algéria.An indicator of each country potential for retail de-velopments is provided by AT Kearney. They classifyevery year the 30 more promising emerging coun-tries, according to an index based on a set of 25 vari-ables including economic and political risk, retailmarket attractiveness, retail saturation levels, mod-ern retailing sales area and sales growth. Accord-ing to the classification for 2010, there were 10Mediterranean countries ranked in the followingplaces: Tunisia (11), Albania (12), Egypt (13), Mo-rocco (15), Turkey (18), Bulgaria (19), Macedonia(20), Algeria (21), Romania (28) and Bosnia-Herze-govina (29). The problem is that this method of dis-tribution extends distribution channels, massivepurchases and sells a wide range of products highlyindustrialized and not always conducive to health.Thus we are seeing the explosion of soft drinks con-sumed at any time of the day.

A Food Quality Index of food in regressionBased on the recommendations of the National Re-search Council, the American Health Association,and the latest proposals of the joint committee of FAO/ WHO (2003), we see that the Food Quality Index isdecreasing in the main Mediterranean countries.

Figure 2. FQI evolution within the Mediterranean countries(1960-2007).Source: Based on FAO data.

Major concerns relate to the aggravation of satu-rated fat (meat, dairy and industrial foods), a verysharp increase in sugars (sodas, cookies, desserts),a reduced consumption of starches (bread, pota-toes), and micronutrient deficiencies.The mirror of the new eating behaviours is the in-creasing overweight and obesity. The main causesare: the lifestyle, the type and frequency of physicalactivity, the type and quality of food consumed andtime spent on food related activities (shopping,cooking, etc.).

A negative balance of the total ecological footprintin the Mediterranean region With modern diets and food consumption patternsthere is a trend to have a greater flow of food com-modities over long distances, and highly processedand packaged foods that contribute to increasedemissions of greenhouse gases and non-renewableresources depletion. Alteration of the ecosystem oc-curs if an area’s ecological footprint exceeds its bio-capacity. Balance of the total ecological footprint inthe Mediterranean is shown in Figure 4 based ondata of the global footprint network for the year2007. The results put in evidence an ecologicaldeficit in the Mediterranean region and an alterationof the ecosystem is therefore occurring. The ecologicaldeficit is more pronounced in the Balkans and northernMediterranean even if they have a higher biocapacitywith respect to North Africa and the Near East.

Conclusions The grid of sustainable diet: what should be done?For the immediate future, we recommend a bettersynergy between environmental and health educa-tion to obtain agreement for a dietary change forthe general public. A lot of researchers explainedthe health benefits that a plant-based diet wouldhave on health and environment, and this knowledgecould be translated into information campaigns.Further research is needed to understand barriersand why changes in diets have not been a mainissue on the climate agenda until now. It is there-

FQI Evolution n FQI 1960

n FQI 2007Score

18

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Spain

Portugal

Greece Ita

ly

Lebanon

Tunisia

Turkey

Algeria

Morocco

Egypt

Albania

France

Malta

239

Figure 3. Overweight and obesity in Mediterranean countries.Source: WHO, 2009.

fore necessary to act urgently to implement a strat-egy that promotes the use of the concept of "sus-tainable diets" in different contexts worldwide, inindustrialized as well as developing countries.The Mediterranean diet was proven as good forhealth; it has nutritional virtues, diversity, season-ality, freshness, culture, skills. The south Mediter-ranean countries should avoid reproducing aWestern pattern of which we perceive the limitstoday and should incorporate sustainable develop-

ment goals into their policies Our objective is notto cultivate the past, but to become aware ofabuses of food systems in the Mediterranean. Tra-ditional knowledge and experience are wiped out inthe name of modernity. Don’t we have to learn fromour past to ensure a sustainable modernity? It isstill possible to build our future on the triad of tra-ditional food, food industry and sustainable devel-opment including nutrition, environment andbiodiversity.

Figure 4. Balance of the total ecological footprint in the Mediterranean region.Source: Global footprint network, 2007.

Middle-East North Africa Balkans North of theMediterranean

n Ecological Footprint of Consumption n Total Biocapacity n Ecological (Deficit) or Reserve

Global hectares per capita 6

4

2

0

-2

-4

Overweight and Obesity NORD Mediterranea

F-FR M-FR F-GR M-GR F-IT M-IT F-POR M-POR F-MAL M-MAL F-ESP M-ESP F-TUN M-TUN F-ALG M-ALG F-EGY M-EGY F-LIB M-LIB F-TUR M-TUR F-MAR M-MAR F-SYR M-SYR

Overweight and Obesity SUD Mediterranea

n BMI/Overweight/Obesity BMI> 25 kg/m2n BMI/Overweight/Obesity BMI> 30 kg/m2

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

References

Aboussaleh, Y. and Ahami, A. 2009. Dietary determinants ofstunting and anaemia among preadolescents in Morocco.African Journal of Food Agriculture and Development, 9: 2.

Anzid, K., Elhamdani, F.Z., Baali, A., Boëtsch, G., Levy-Desroches, S., Lôpez, P.M. Cherkaoui, M. 2009. The effect ofsocio-economic status and area of residence on household foodvariety in Morocco. Annals of Human Biology, 36: 6.

Barilla Center (2010). Double pyramid: healthy food for peoplesustainable food the planet. Barilla Center for Food & Nutri-tion, Parma, Italy. http://www.barillacfn.com/uploads/file/72/1277731651_Posi-tionPaper-BarillaCFN_Doppia-Piramide.pdf .

CEPF (2010). Ecosystem Profile - Mediterranean Basin Biodi-versity Hotspot. For submission to the CEPF (Critical Ecosys-tem Partnership Fund) donor council.

Duchin F. Sustainable consumption of food: a framework foranalysing scenarios about changes in diets. J Ind Ecol2005;9:99–114.

Elloumi M. & Jouve A.-M. (2010). Extraordinary farm diversity.In: International Centre for advanced Mediterranean AgronomicStudies (CIHEAM); Mediterra Atlas: Mediterranean agriculture,food, fisheries and the rural world. Presses de Sciences Po,Paris; 132 p

Harlan, J.R. (1995). Agricultural Origins and Crop Domestica-tion in the Mediterranean Region. Diversity, 11: 14-16.

Hawkesworth S., Dangour A.D., Johnston D., Lock K., Poole N.,Rushton J., Uauy R. & Waage J. (2010). Feeding the worldhealthily: the challenge of measuring the effects of agricultureon health. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Sociely, B-Biological sciences, 365, 3083-3097.

Heywood V.H. (1998). The Mediterranean region. A major centreof plant diversity. In: (Heywood VH, Skoula M eds) “Wild food andnon-food plants: information networking”. Proceedings of the IIMEDUSA Regional Workshop (1-3 may 1997, Port El-Kantaoui,Tunisia). Cahiers CIHEAM, Options Méditerranéennes 38: 5-15.

Jana S. (1995). Factors Contribution to Crop Diversity in theMediterranean. Diversity, 11:15.

Jouve AM, Padilla M (2007). Les agricultures périurbainesméditerranéennes à l'épreuve de la multifonctionnalité: com-ment fournir aux villes une nourriture et des paysages de qual-ité, Cahiers de l'Agriculture, Vol 16, 4, juillet-août 2007 pp311-318.

MFAF-DK (2010). Food�s carbon footprint. Ministry of Food,Agriculture and Fisheries, Danemark DKhttp://www.fvm.dk/Foods_Carbon_Footprint.aspx?ID=42268

Mariotti A., Zeng N., Yoon J., Artale V., Navarra A., Alpert P. and Millstone E. & Lang T. (2008). The Atlas of Food. Earthscan, sec-ond edition, London.

Padilla M. (2008). Dietary patterns and trends in consumption. InMediterra 2008 - The future of agriculture and food in Mediter-ranean countries. International centre for advanced Mediter-ranean studies – Paris; Presses de Sciences Po. Pp: 149- 170.

Plan Bleu (2006). Executive summary on “A Sustainable Futurefor the Mediterranean: The Plan Blueì�s Environment and De-velopment Outlook”, edited by Guillaume Benoit and AlineComeau 2005. 464 p. Earthscan.

Plantlife International (2010).

Reddy Sh., Lang T., Dibb S. (2009). Setting the table - Advice toGovernment on priority elements of sustainable diets. Sustain-able Development Commission, UK.

Steinfeld H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar T., Castel V., Rosales M. &de Haan C. (2006). Livestock�s long shadow: Environmentalissues and options-FAO Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations (FAO), Rome.

Sundseth, K. (2009). Natura 2000 in the Mediterranean Region.European Commission; Environment Directorate General, Lux-emburg.

Trichopoulou A. & Lagiou P. (1997). Healthy traditional Mediter-ranean diet: an expression of culture, history, and lifestyle. Nutr.Rev.; 55: 383–389.

Tucker G.M. & Evans M. (1997). A Conservation Strategy for theWider Environment. BirdLife Conservation Series 6, 464 pp.

Vavilov N.J. (1951). Phytogeographic basis of plant breeding -The origin, variation, immunity and breeding of cultivatedplants. Chronica Bot., 13: 1-366.

Williams J.T. & Haq N. (2002). Global research on underutilisedcrops – An assessment of current activities and proposals forenhanced cooperation. International Centre for Underutilisedcrops, Southampton, UK.

240

241

BIODIVERSITY AND LOCAL FOODPRODUCTS IN ITALYElena Azzini, Alessandra Durazzo, Angela Polito, Eugenia Venneria, Maria Stella Foddai, Maria Zaccaria, Beatrice Mauro,Federica Intorre and Giuseppe MaianiINRAN - National Institute for Research on Food and Nutrition,Rome, Italy

242

243

AbstractThe role of biodiversity for food quality and healthystatus is well recognized. The question is whether en-vironmental changes could affect the compositionand bioavailability of bioactive and other food compo-nents and in what way the production of local and tra-ditional foods in the various Italian countries can beimproved by applying advanced technologies. Thegreat progress in technological processes (advancedtechnologies, innovative food equipment manufactur-ers), agricultural practices (food production, trans-port and processing) and so the changes in lifestyleled to take attention towards both local foods andfunctional foods as principal elements for improvingfood product quality and in the meantime supportinglocal agrobiodiversity. The main aim of this researchis to identify the many different local and traditionalfoods in Italy, their production methods, domesticcooking and the environmental factors that may af-fect food quality addressing towards a healthy status.Our study has been focused on quantification of bioac-tive molecules (vitamins, polyphenols, carotenoids)and evaluation of ferric-reducing antioxidant power(FRAP) of selected foodstuffs, representing Italianagricultural ecotypes. FRAP value, measured onAprica‘s cherries, was 18.55 mmolkg-1 (SD 1.91) andvitamin C concentration was 0.22 gkg-1 (SD 0.76).Wild strawberries presented more efficiency in thetotal value then literature data 62.85 mmolkg-1 (SD3.32). In the selected agricultural ecotypes of carrots,α-carotene and β-carotene reached highest values.The antioxidant levels and their bioactivity could indi-cate a better potential for health for the artisanniches improving their quality and biodiversity.The conservation and valorization of local/traditionalproducts could increase the adoption of more sus-tainable agricultural systems together with the adop-tion of practices more respective of the environmentsand the natural habitats.

IntroductionThe great progress in technological processes (ad-vanced technologies, innovative food equipment

manufacturers), agricultural practices (food pro-duction, transport and processing) and so thechanges in lifestyle led to take attention towardsboth local foods and functional foods as principal el-ements for improving food product quality and in themeantime supporting local agrobiodiversity. Qual-ity should be identified as valorization of traditionalagricultural patrimony, peculiarity of cultivation anduniqueness of typical products. The high qualityfood products have significant nutritive and excel-lent biological properties and so they have a crucialrole in the productive process and the manufactur-ing system in the agro-alimentary industry. Nowa-days, several researches emphasize benefits thataccrue to the small-scale producer and to the con-sumer, due to the linkage between food quality andagricultural biodiversity. The artisan niches production, founded on qualityand agricultural biodiversity and intended for localand regional use, seems to meet requirements ofconsumers about safety and genuineness. The localsmall production (niche) represents a system basedon support of agricultural ecotypes cultivated bytechniques based on the historical and cultural tra-dition of a specific territory and occurring only in theirnative place. Through buying locally grown produce,consumers could give their support to local produc-ers as well as helping to revitalize rural economies.Our study represents a step within a research pro-gramme aiming to improve the valorization of dif-ferent agricultural ecotypes as artisan niches, inparticular their nutritional and health value. The ge-ography influences the variation in crop growth andso the nutrient/micronutrient content varies consid-erably by species, genotype and ecotype and by therange of crop management practices employed. Theenvironmental and agricultural specification couldcontribute to further valorization of local agriculturalproducts by adding market value to a specific basketof products, and then can be a tool for the promotionof local products and varieties in the frame of sus-tainable rural development, with the adoption ofpractices more respective of the environments and

244

the natural habitats. It will be clear that local andtraditional foods play an important role in the foodpattern of many population groups in several coun-tries. Their nutritional quality and safety are essen-tial elements in dealing with those foods. Over thelast 15 years, several researchers have shifted to-wards quality that is related to antioxidants that areactive in preventing widespread human diseases.Much epidemiological and experimental evidence hasshown the correlation between diet and degenerativediseases in humans such as cancer and cardiovascu-lar disease (1,2,3,4). The contents of antioxidant sub-stances, mainly phenolic compounds, carotenoids,tocopherol and ascorbic acid have been determinedin many species of fruits, vegetables, herbs, cereals,sprouts and seeds (5,6). Particular attention is givento fruits, as rich sources of phenolic compounds.Changes in antioxidant composition of the selectedvegetables were linked to agricultural practices andenvironmental factors. The potential antioxidant ef-fects and the high phytochemical content representan essential tool for obtaining high quality andhealthy products.The main aim of this research was to investigate the an-tioxidant properties and bioactive molecules contentsof selected local and traditional foods in Italy, their pro-duction methods, domestic cooking and the environ-mental factors that may affect food quality addressingtowards a healthy status. In addition the bioactivity ofpolyphenolic extracts obtained from cultivated and wildchicory in human epithelial colorectal adenocarcinomacell (caco-2) models were studied.

Material and methodsSelected foodstuffs. The foods, selected to representItalian agricultural ecotypes, were taken from differentregions of Italy: strawberry, cherry “Aprìca” fromLombardia; potato “Rotzo”, raspberry “Cansiglio”from Veneto; potato “Val Belbo”, pear “Madernassa”from Piemonte; apple “Limoncelle”, purple carrots“Fucino” from Abruzzo; chicory, strawberry “Mara desBois” from Calabria; chicory and plums from Lazio(Table 1).

Table 1. Selected local Italian agricultural ecotypes.

Species Ecotypes Origin

Fragaria vesca strawberry LombardiaPrunus padus cherry LombardiaSolanum tuberosum potato VenetoRubus idaeus raspberry VenetoSolanum tuberosum potato Val Belbo PiemontePyrus communis pear Madernassa PiemonteMalus domestica apple Limoncella AbruzzoDaucus carota purple carrot AbruzzoChicorium intybus chicory Calabria,

LazioFragaria ananassa strawberry “

Mara des Bois” CalabriaPrunus domestica plum Lazio

We have analysed some of these products cookedbecause our aim was to study the food as it used tobe consumed. Chicory, potatoes and carrots areused also as cooked vegetables. In addition, for po-tatoes, we analysed potatoes cultivated following twotypes of cultural practices, organic and integrated,in the same region.

Chemicals and standards. The organic solventsused for the separation of carotenoids, ascorbic acidand polyphenols were of HPLC grade and purchasedfrom Carlo Erba, Milan, Italy. Other organic solventsand chemicals used in the extraction procedureswere of analytical grade (Sigma). Standard regres-sion lines pure were purchased from Sigma.

Sample preparation. A representative sample fromeach treatment was homogenized in a Waringblender for 1 minute. Two replicates were preparedfrom each sample. Aliquots of the samples werestored at -80°C until the polyphenols, carotenoids,vitamin C analysis were conducted.

Methodologies. The total antioxidant activity wasmeasured by ferric-reducing antioxidant power asproposed by Benzie and Strain (8). The obtained su-pernatants were combined and used directly for

assay (9). The absorbance was recorded through theuse a Tecan Sunrise® plate reader spectrophotometer.Total ascorbic acid (AA+DHAA) was extracted andquantified by HPLC system according to the methodof Margolis et al. (10), with some modifications (11).Chromatographic separation was carried on a 250 x4.6 mm Capcell Pak NH2 column (Shiseido, Tokyo,Japan), using ESA series HPLC, equipped an eight-channel coulometric electrode array detector and anESA coularray operating software that control theequipment and perform data processing (ESA,Chemsford, MA, USA). Phenolics were hydrolyzed toobtain total free forms, and extracted as described byHertog et al. (12). Quantitative analysis was per-formed using an ESA series (MODEL 580) of HPLCsolvent delivery module, an ESA 5600 eight-channelcoulometric electrode array detector and an ESAcoularray operating software that control the equip-ment and perform data processing (ESA, Chemsford,MA, USA). Carotenoids were determined as described by Sharp-less et al. (13). The extracts were analysed by aPerkin-Elmer ISS 200 series HPLC system. The elu-ents were methanol/acetonitrile/tetrahydrofuran(50:45:5). The peaks were detected with a variablespectrophotometric detector (Perkin-Elmer LC-95,Norwalk, CO, USA) connected to a personal computerPe Nelson mod 1020 (Perkin-Elmer). The detectionwavelengths was 450 nm for carotenoids (14).

MTT test to evaluate cytotoxicity of phenolic chicoryextracts on Caco-2 cells was used. The MTT colori-metric assay determines the ability of viable cells toconvert a soluble tetrazolium salt (MTT) into an insol-uble formazan precipitate. The ability of cells to reduceMTT provides an indication of mitochondrial integrityand activity which, in turn, may be interpreted as ameasure of viability and/or cell number. The assay hastherefore been adapted for use with cultures of expo-nentially growing cells such as the human epithelialcolorectal adenocarcinoma cells. Determination oftheir ability to reduce MTT to the formazan productafter exposure to test compounds, enables the rela-tive toxicity of test chemicals to be assessed.

StatisticsData are given as the mean and standard deviation(SD). Statistical analysis was performed using stu-dent's t-test.

Results and discussionOur study has been focused on quantification ofbioactive molecules (vitamins, polyphenols,carotenoids) and on evaluation of antioxidant powerof local selected foodstuffs (Table 1). It is importantnot only levels of phytochemicals in foodstuffs, butthe contribution of foodstuffs to dietary intake (7).Detailed consumption data for fruit and vegetablesin Italy are in Table 2.

245

Table 2. The contribution of selected foodstuffs to dietary intake.

Total Northwest Northeast Centre South and islandsFood Average SD % cons.a Average SD % cons.a Average SD % cons. Average SD % cons.a AverageSD % cons.a

Raw carrots 9.24 16.45 53.08 12.36 19.17 50.09 12.50 18.64 66.11 6.62 14.72 49.37 6.26 12.12 50.85Potatoes 38.59 38.58 78.01 34.51 35.74 73.48 35.21 35.67 75.63 41.18 41.42 78.84 42.51 40.21 82.84Vegetables 19.91 32.63 47.62 19.05 30.80 46.10 15.69 29.84 45.38 24.05 34.52 54.91 20.47 34.14 45.75Apples 52.88 73.82 60.67 62.59 82.33 62.74 58.04 82.82 66.39 45.27 59.47 60.71 46.05 66.95 55.64Pears 16.87 34.13 30.69 18.09 35.86 29.81 12.28 29.46 25.77 16.19 31.94 30.73 18.75 35.96 34.16Cherries 3.88 16.08 8.95 1.71 10.40 5.37 1.73 9.91 4.20 5.12 19.03 11.08 6.25 20.11 13.45Strawberries 3.51 14.00 10.72 3.93 16.55 10.92 3.71 16.28 8.96 3.66 11.84 12.59 2.94 11.05 10.36Berries 0.61 6.28 1.77 0.26 2.28 1.91 0.31 3.16 1.12 0.14 1.79 0.76 1.39 10.37 2.63

a % of people who consumed food in study week.Data from A. Turrini, A. Saba, D. Perrone, E. Cialfa and A. D’Amicis, Food consumption patterns in Italy: the INN-CA Study 1994-1996.European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55:571-588 (2001), adapted by Aida Turrini.

246

In an accurate evaluation of the total antioxidant ca-pacity, the antioxidant properties of single moleculespresent in a single product, but also the synergic ef-fects of interactions between the different bioactivecompounds may be considered. In addition, we havestudied the relative contributions of vitamin C andphenolic compounds to the antioxidant potential offruits and vegetables. In Table 3, the FRAP valueshave been shown and have been compared to valuesderived from literature data (9, 15).The antioxidant capacity often could be linearly cor-related with the phenolic content. So we have eval-uated the content of most representative moleculesin every selected product (Table 4) and we have re-lated it to literature data (16,17, 18, 19, 20).

FruitsApple polyphenols have been widely observed; cin-namic acid derivatives, flavonols and anthocyanins,compounds with strong antioxidant activity, havebeen found mainly in cortex and in skin (21). TheFRAP values for apple with peel was 7.65 mmolkg-1 (SD 0.49) and for apple without peel was 4.15mmolkg-1 (SD 0.07). In particular, the contribution oflipophilic fraction was more than hydrophilic frac-tion for both apple with peel and apple without peel.According to our results, the value of the total an-tioxidant power, obtained for apples, should be dueto contribution of flavonoids such as quercetin, epi-catechin and procyanidin B(2) rather than vitamin C. In addition we have calculated that the percentage

Table 3. Ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) of selected food extracts.

Mean totalRegion Food

(mmol kg-1) SD Literature dataAbruzzo Raw carrot 0.93 0.12 1.06c

Cooked carrot 0.8 0.02Apple with peel 7.65 0.49 7.4c

Apple without peel 4.15 0.07 3.23c

Calabria Chicory 20.36 0.08Strawberry (cultivated) 17.79 0.43 22.74c

Lazio Chicory (cultivated) 4.61 0.38Chicory (wild) 7.33 0.36Plums (cultivated) 9.80 0.89Plums (wild) 83.86 14.73

Lombardia Strawberry (wild) 62.85 3.23 28.00c

Cherry 18.55 1.91 8.10c

Piemonte Pear with peel 2.9 0.28 5.00c

Pear without peel 1.35 0.07Raw potatoa 2.6 0 3.67c

Cooked potatoa 3.95 0.21Raw potatob 2.6 0.14 3.67c

Cooked potatob 4.4 0.71Veneto Raw potato Rotzo 3.05 0.64 3.67c

Cooked potato Rotzo 4.3 0.14Raspberry 57.7 6.2 43.03c

a Organic cultivation.b Integrated cultivation.c Data from Pellegrini et al. Mol Nutr Food Res 50:1030 – 1038 (2006). d Data from Khanizadeh et al. JFAE 5: 61-66 (2007).

247

of decreasing from apple with peel to apple withoutpeel was 46 percent. For example, in the study ofChinnici et al. (22), a strong divergence between theflavonol values obtained for apple peels and pulpwas noticed: quercitrin (94.00 mgkg-1 (SD 36.00) offresh wt peels to 7.76 mgkg-1 (SD 1.95) of fresh/wtpools), reynoutrin (48.9 mgkg-1 (SD 16.20) of freshwt peels to 1.98 mgkg-1 (SD 0.50) fresh/wt pools),avicularin (110.00 mgkg-1 (SD 32.90) of fresh/wtpeels to 2.27 mgkg-1 (SD 0.46 fresh/wt pools).For Aprica‘s cherries, the FRAP value 18.55mmolkg-1 (SD 1.91) was higher than the literaturedata (16). In addition the contribution to value oflipophilic fraction and hydrophilic fraction were re-spectively 8.69 mmolkg-1 (SD 1.12) and 9.87

mmolkg-1 (SD 0.81).For Aprica‘s cherries vitamin C concentrationreached 0.22 g kg-1 (SD 0.76). The activities of phe-noloxidase and ascorbic acid oxidase enzymes dur-ing storage contributed to the total content ofascorbic acid (23). Relevant levels of anthocyaninsand ascorbic acid (AA) were found in the juice pro-duced from blackcurrants, elderberries, sour cher-ries (24). Therefore, it is interesting to compare thevitamin C content to the values found for total an-tioxidant capacity. The percentage contribution of AAto the total antioxidant capacity (FRAP value) was 14percent. TAC of cherry should be tightly correlated tovitamin C content.Wild strawberries presented more efficiency in the

Table 4. More representative bioactive molecules of selected local food extract.

Mean Literature dataRegion Food Target molecule (mg kg-1) SD mean (mg kg-1)

Abruzzo Raw carrot α-carotene 47.88 9.28 26.60a

β-carotene 116.83 3.97 85.21a

Cooked carrot α-carotene 30.63 3.56 28.38a

β-carotene 81.09 7.50 88.31a

Calabria Chicory chlorogenic acid 24.1 2.31Strawberry (cultivated) coumaric acid 12.4 0.2 7–27 b

quercetin 31 0.04 22.0-57.11c

kaempferol 15.6 0.59 4.72-21.8c

Lazio Chicory (cultivated) vitamin C 4.43 0.69Chicory (wild) vitamin C 9.21 0.95

Lazio Plums (cultivated) β-carotene 5.28 1.02vitamin C 34.09 4.37 30-100f

Plums (wild) β-carotene 7.54 1.11vitamin C 56.09 2.69 30-100f

Lombardia Strawberry (wild) coumaric acid 8 0.31 7–27 b

quercetin 24.6 0.45 22.0-57.11c

kaempferol 33.8 0.97 4.72-21.8c

Cherry vitamin C 229.2 0.76 184d

Veneto Raspberry vitamin C 222.1 1.34 152.9e

a Data from Hart and Scott, Food Chemistry 54 (1):101–111(1995).b Data from Prior, et al. J. Agric Food Chem 46: 2686–2693 (1998). c Data from Cordenunsi et al. J Agric Food Chem 50:2581–2586 (2002). d Data from Jacob et al. J Nutr 133: 1826–1829 (2003).e Data from Oregon Raspberry and Blackberry Commission.f Data from GIL et al. J. Agric. Food Chem., 50: 4976–4982 (2002).

248

FRAP value than literature data 62.85 mmolkg-1(SD 3.32), while for cultivated strawberries 17.79mmolkg-1 (SD 0.43) (Table 3), FRAP values are lessthan literature data (9). Recent studies have shownthe correlation between the phenolic constituentsand antioxidative (25) and anticarcinogenic (26)properties of berries, as strawberries and berriesof the genus Vaccinium. p-Coumaric acid deriva-tives, ellagic acid, quercetin 3-O-glycoside, andkaempferol 3-O-glycoside were detected (27,28,29).The occurrence of p-coumaroylglucose, quercetin3-glucoside, quercetin 3-glucuronide, kaempferol3-glucoside, and kaempferol 3-glucuronide was re-ported in strawberries and ellagic acid was also de-scribed as an important phenolic constituent of thisfruit (30). These bioactive molecules were selectedfor their proposed health promoting effects as an-tioxidants and anticarcinogens (31). Compared to lit-erature data, wild strawberries (from Lombardia)show an antioxidant power higher and p-Coumaric,quercetin and kaempferol content, too. So, the highcontent of bioactive molecules and the high antiox-idant power value demonstrated as strawberries of“Aprìca” should be seen as ecotype representing aquality cultivation. Moreover, in the study of Häkki-nen (32), varietal differences were observed in thecontents of flavonols and phenolic acids among sixstrawberry and four blueberry cultivars studied.Scalzo et al. (33), analysing both wild and cultivatedstrawberries, as indicated by the Trolox EquivalentAntioxidant Capacity (TEAC), found antioxidant ac-tivities of wild strawberries higher than cultivatedstrawberries (34). From elucidation of specificflavonol glycosides in cranberry, quercetin-3-arabinoside was found in both furanose and pyra-nose forms in cranberry (35). Strawberries containhigh levels of antioxidants. Phenolic phytochemicalsprobably play a large role than previously thought intotal antioxidant activity (36).Wild plums (from Lazio) showed significantly higherFRAP value (83.36±14.73 mmol kg-1) than cultivatedones (9.08±0.89 mmol kg-1). In recent years antiox-idant activity and the content of total phenolic com-

pounds of several plum cultivars have been investi-gated in order to suggest plum varieties rich in an-tioxidants, which may possibly exert beneficialeffects on human health. Gil et al. (2002) have foundclose correlations between antioxidant capacitiesand both the anthocyanins and total phenolics con-tent (37). The contributions of phenolic compounds to antiox-idant activity were much higher than those of vita-min C and carotenoids. In Table 4 observedβ-carotene content was 7.54 mg kg-1 (SD 1.11) and5.2 mg kg-1 (SD 1.02) in wild and cultivated plumsrespectively, while ascorbic acid content was 56.96mg kg-1 (SD 2.69) and 34.09 mg kg-1 (SD 4.37) re-spectively for wild and cultivated plums. From our data reported in Table 3, FRAP value forpear with peel was 2.90 mmolkg-1 (SD 0.28) and forpear without peel was 1.35 mmolkg-1 (SD 0.07). Inaddition we have calculated that the percentage ofdecreasing from pear with peel to pear without is 53percent. Leontowicz et al. observed a strong diver-gence between pear skin and pear pulp (38). In fact,in several studies, the antioxidant levels were foundto be higher in the skin than in the pulp. Finally, themain phenolics found in pear are leucocyanidin, cat-echin, epicatechin, chlorogenic acid, quercitrin andquercetin (39). The total antioxidant activity ex-pressed as FRAP value was found to be 57.70mmol/kg (SD 6.20); in particular, the contribution tovalue of lipophilic fraction and hydrophilic fractionwere respectively 43.00 mmol/kg (SD 7.55) and14.64 mmol/kg (SD 1.36). The high contribution toantioxidant activity is attributed to higher content oftotal phenolics, flavonoids, and anthocyanins in redraspberry fruits (40). Vitamin C contributes only 4.3percent of the total antioxidant activity (41).

VegetablesComparing the results obtained in this work withthose found in literature, no differences for antioxidantcapacity were recorded in raw and cooked carrots(8). The percentage of decreasing was found to be14 percent. Carotenoids are the main representa-

249

tive antioxidant molecules of this vegetable: β-carotene (60–80%), α-carotene (10–40%), lutein (1–5%) and the other minor carotenoids (0.1–1%)(42).α-carotene and β-carotene levels decreased afterboiling: the percentages of decreasing were foundto be 0.36% and 0.31% for α-carotene and for β-carotene respectively. In these agricultural ecotypesα-carotene and β-carotene values are higher thanthose shown in literature data (17). In addition β-carotene values were higher than α-carotene forboth raw and cooked carrots (43). Chicory represents a main source of micronutrients:in fact, it easily grows year-round, due to its ability toresist to high temperatures. It should be an interest-ing and cheap source of antioxidant phenolic extracts.The chicory (from Calabria) FRAP value observedwas higher 20.36 mmolkg-1 (SD 0.08), than thevalue 6.72 mmolkg-1 reported in literature and theobserved value in chicory from Lazio (4.43 and 9.21mmolkg-1 respectively for wild and cultivatedchicory): this could suggest a better benefit powerfor the human health. The results obtained indicatethat chicory could be a remarkable source of anti-oxidants (44). The main representative compound ofchicory was found to be the chlorogenic acid 24.1mg kg-1 (SD 2.31). To improve the quality of chicoryecotypes, the phenolic content and composition ofdifferent chicory varieties have been previously in-vestigated considering the influence of variety, pro-cessing and storage on this composition (45). Inaddition differences between the way of cookingwere observed in chicory from Lazio (Figure 1):

lutein and β-carotene values were significant higherin pan-fried product than fresh product (P<0.02and P<0.05 respectively) for cultivated chicory,while significantly higher values of β-carotene wereobserved in boiled wild chicory than wild fresh(P<0.05) and lutein was significantly higher in wildfresh than wild pan-fried chicory (P<0.02). Thiscould be due to the greater extractability ofcarotenoids after cooking, while their their low con-tribution to total antioxidant capacity is enhanced byhigher values of TAC in both wild and cultivatedfresh chicory.In potatoes, a slight increase in the FRAP valueswas observed after cooking. The percentage rangeof increasing was found to be 41–70 percent. Indeedthe increase of reducing power may be correlatedto release of glucosydes from food matrix aftercooking (Table 3). After cooking, potato varieties dif-fer in antioxidant values from each other, while anti-oxidant levels do not change in fresh potatoes. Thevery low values of antioxidant activity were found inwatery vegetables such as potato, marrow and cu-cumber. In addition, the chemical components ofthe potato and interactions occurring during cook-ing, influenced the quality of potatoes and the tex-ture of the cooked tubers (46). No remarkabledifferences were found in antioxidant activity be-tween the several varieties of potatoes.

Bioactivity testRegarding potential bioactivities, the chicory ex-tracts seem to cause a high cytotoxicity in humanepithelial colorectal adenocarcinoma cells (caco-2)by reducing cell viability to values lower than 10percent. The results indicate that the polyphenolicextract of wild chicory possesses a marked cytotox-icity compared to cultivated chicory reducing cell vi-ability lower than 10 percent using 50 ml/l of theextract (Figure 2).

ConclusionOur findings show that local products have a distinc-tive and unique nutritional value. Their antioxidant

Figure 1. Effect of cultivated and wild chicory extractson CaCo-2 viability.

cultivated chicorywild chicory

cell viability (%)

0 0,5 1 5 10 50 100ml/l

140120100806040200

rm

250

levels and their bioactivity could indicate a betterpotential for health. Several antioxidant capacitiesfor Valtellina typical foodstuffs appear to havehigher values compared to literature data. A strongdifference has been obtained for cherries of“Aprìca”. Chicory (from Calabria and Lazio) repre-sents an important source of micronutrients, thatgive to this vegetable a resistance to cold tempera-tures, consenting growth of the plant during all year.It needs to be underlined that wild chicory appearsto have higher phytochemicals and its extractsseem to exert cytotoxicity in human epithelialcolorectal adenocarcinoma cell (caco-2) and so pro-moting good health and preventing or modulatingdiseases.

Our data highlight the direct linkages between bio-physical attributes of location and agricultural po-tential to improve crop growth models. On this basisthe typical local production mostly in terms of qual-ity and safety of the products should become a basefor maintaining a correct nutritional plane. In addi-tion, the conservation and valorization of local/tra-ditional products could increase the adoption ofmore sustainable agricultural systems togetherwith the adoption of practices more respective of theenvironments and the natural habitats.

AcknowledgementsThis study was performed within the “Food Quality”and “Biovita” projects supported by MiPAF.

Figure 2. Effect of way of cooking on bioactive molecules and total antioxidant capacity in cultivated and wildchicory from Lazio.

Way of cooking

Lutein content (mg/kg)

Pan-friedproduct

Boiledproduct

Fresh product

nWild chicorynCultivated chicory

0,00 20,00 40,00 60,00

Way of cooking

FRAP (mmol/kg)

Pan-friedproduct

Boiledproduct

Fresh product

nWild chicorynCultivated chicory

0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00

Way of cooking

β-carotene (mg/kg)

Pan-friedproduct

Boiled product

Fresh product

nWild chicorynCultivated chicory

0 50 100 150

Way of cooking

TEAC (mmol /kg)

Pan-friedproduct

Boiled product

Fresh product

nWild chicorynCultivated chicory

0 1 2 3 4

251

References

Etminan M, Takkouche B and Caamano-Isorna F, The role oftomato products and lycopene in the prevention of prostate can-cer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Cancer EpidemiolBiomark Prev 13:340-34 (2004).

Thompson LU, Antioxidants and hormone-mediated health ben-efits of whole grains. Crit Rev Food Sci Tech 34:473-497 (1994).

Aruoma OI, Antioxidant actions of plant foods: use of oxidativeDNA damage as a tool for studying antioxidant efficacy. FreeRadic Res 30:419-27 (1999).

Allen RD, Dissection of oxidative stress tolerance using trans-genic plants. Plant Physiol 107: 1049-1054 (1995).

Beecher GR, Overview of dietary flavonoids: nomenclature, oc-currence and intake. J Nutr 133:3248S-3254S (2003).

Kahkonen MP, Hopia AI, Vuorela HJ, Raucha JP, Pihlaja K, Ku-jala TS and Heinonen M, Antioxidant activity of plant extractscontaining phenolic compounds. J Agric Food Chem 47: 3954–3962 (1999).

Turrini A, Saba A, Perrone D, Cialfa E, and D’Amicis A, Foodconsumption patterns in Italy: the INN-CA Study 1994-1996. Eu-ropean Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55:571-588 (2001).

Benzie IFF and Strain JJ, The ferric reducing ability of plasma(FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”: the assay. AnalBiochem 239:70-76 (1996).

Pellegrini N, Serafini M, Colombi B, Del Rio D, Salvatore S,Bianchi M and Brighenti F, Total antioxidant capacity of plantfoods, beverages and oils consumed in Italy assessed by threedifferent in vitro assays. J Nutr 133:2812-2819 (2003).

Margolis SA and Schapira R, Liquid chromatographic meas-urement of L-ascorbic acid e D-ascorbic acid in biological sam-ples. J Chromatogr 690: 25-33 (1997).

Serafini M, Bugianesi R, Salucci M, Azzini E, Raguzzini A andMaiani G, Effect of acute ingestion of fresh and stored lettuce(Lactuca sativa) on plasma total antioxidant capacity and an-tioxidant levels in human subjects. British Journal of Nutrition88: 615-623 (2002).

Hertog MGL, Hollman CH and Vanema DP, Optimization of aqualitative HPLC determination of a potentially anti-carcenogenic flavonoids in vegetables and fruits. J Agric FoodChem 40:1591-1598 (1992).

Sharpless KA, Arce-Osuna M, Thoma JB and Gill ML, Value as-signment of retinyl palmitate, tocopherol and carotenoid con-centrations in standard reference material 2383 (Baby foodcomposite). J AOAC Int 82: 288-296 (1999).

Maiani G, Pappalardo G, Ferro-Luzzi A, Raguzzini A, Azzini A,Guadalaxara A, Trifero M, Frommel T and Mobarhan S. Accu-mulation of beta-carotene in normal colorectal mucosa andcolonic neoplastic lesions in humans. Nutr Cancer 24: 23-31,(1995).

Khanizadeh S, Tsao R, Rekika D, Yang R and DeEll J, Phenoliccomposition and antioxidant activity of selected apple geno-types. JFAE 5: 61-66 (2007).

Jacob RA, Spinozzi GM, Simon VA, Kelley DS, Prior RL, Hess-Pierce B and Kader AA, Consumption of cherries lowersplasma urate in healthy women. J Nutr 133:1826-1829 (2003).

Hart DJ and Scott KJ, Development and evaluation of an HPLCmethod for the analysis of carotenoids in foods, and the meas-urement of the carotenoid content of vegetables and fruits com-monly consumed in the UK. Food Chemistry 54(1):101-111(1995).

Oregon processors

Cordenunsi BR, do Nascimento JR, Genovese MI and Lajolo FI,Influence of cultivar on quality parameters and chemical com-position of strawberry fruits grown in Brazil. J Agric Food Chem50 :2581 -2586 (2002).

Prior RL, Hoang H, Gu L, Wu X, Bacchiocca M, Howard L,Hampsch-Woodill M, Huang D, Ou B and Jacob RA. Assays forhydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidant capacity (oxygen radicalabsorbance capacity (ORACFL) of plasma and other biologicaland food samples. J Agric Food Chem 51:3273–3279 (2003).

Ju Z and Bramlage WJ, Phenolics and lipid-soluble antioxidantsin fruit cuticle of apples and their antioxidant acivities in modelsystems. Post Biol Techn 16:107–118 (1999).

Chinnici F, Bendini A, Gaiani A and Riponi C, Radical scaveng-ing activities of peels and pulps from cv. Golden Delicious ap-ples as related to their phenolic composition. J Agric FoodChem 52:4684-4689 (2004).

Salunkhe DK, Boun HR, Salunkhe DK, Boun HR, Reddy NR,Storage, processing and nutritional quality of fruits and veg-etables: fresh fruits and vegetables. CRC Press Inc., Boston,vol. 1 (1991).

Rababah TM, Ereifej KI, Howard L, Effect of ascorbic acid anddehydration on concentrations of total phenolics, antioxidantcapacity, anthocyanins, and color in fruits. J Agric Food Chem53:4444-4447 (2005).

Netzela M, Strass G, Kau l, Bitschc I, Dietrich H and Bitsch, Invivo antioxidative capacity of a composite berry juice. Food Resint 35:213–216 (2002).

Bomser J, Madhavi DL, Singletary K, Smith MA, In vitro anti-cancer activity of fruit extracts from Vaccinium species. PlantaMed 62:212-216 (1996).

Mosel HD and Hermann K, The phenolics of fruit. III. The con-tents of catechins and hydroxycinnamic acids in pome andstone fruits. Z. Lebens. Unters-Forsch 154:6-11 (1974).

Rommel A and Wrolstad RE, Ellagic acid content of red rasp-berry juice as influenced by cultivar, processing, and environ-mental factors? J Agric Food Chem 41:1951-1960 (1993)a

Mabry TJ, Markham KR and Thomas MB, The aglycone andsugar analysis of flavonoid glycosides. In the systematic iden-

tification of flavonoids. Springer-Verlag, New York (1970).

Rommel A and Wrolstad RE, Influence of acid and base hydrol-ysis on the phenolic composition of red raspberry juice. J AgricFood Chem 41:1237-1241 (1993).

Williamson G, Plumb GW, Uda Y, Price KR and Rhodes MJC, Di-etary quercetin glycosides: antioxidant activity and induction ofthe anticarcinogenic phase II marker enzyme quinone reduc-tase in Hepalclc7 cells. Carcinogenesis 17:2385-2387 (1996).

Häkkinen S, Flavonols and phenolic acids in berries and berryproducts. Kuopio University Publications D. Medical Sciences.(shared supervision with University of Kuopio), (2000).

Scalzo J, Politi A, Pelligrini N, Mezzetti B and Battino M, Plantgenotype affects total antioxidant capacity and phenolic con-tents in fruit. Nutrition 21 : 207–213 (2005).

Proteggente AR, Pannala AS, Paganga G, Van Buren L, WagnerE, Wiseman S, van de Put F, Dacombe C and Rice-Evans CA,The antioxidant activity of regularly consumed fruit and veg-etables reflects their phenolic and vitamin C composition. FreeRadic Res 36:217-233 (2002).

Vvedenskaya IO, Rosen RT, Guido JE, Russell DJ, Mills KA andVorsa N, Characterization of flavonols in cranberry (Vacciniummacrocarpon) powder. J Agric Food Chem 52:188-95 (2004).

Meyers KJ, Watkins CB, Pritts MP and Liu RH, Antioxidant andantiproliferative activities of strawberries. J Agric Food Chem51: 6887-6892 (2003).

Gil M. I., Tomaa S-Barberaa N F., A Betty Hess-Pierce, and A.A. Kader Antioxidant Capacities, Phenolic Compounds,Carotenoids, and Vitamin C Contents of Nectarine, Peach, andPlum Cultivars from California J. Agric. Food Chem 50: 4976-4982 (2002).

Leontowicz M, Gorinstein S, Leontowicz H, Krzeminski R, LojekA, Katrich E, Milan i, Martin-Belloso O, Soliva-Fortuny R, Haru-enkit R and Trakhtenberg S, Apple and pear peel and pulp andtheir influence on plasma lipids and antioxidant potentials inrats fed cholesterol-containing diets. J Agric Food Chem 51 (19),5780 -5785 (2003).

Schieber A, Keller P and Reinhold C, Determination of pheno-lic acids and flavonoids of apple and pear by high-performanceliquid chromatography. J Chromatogr A 910:265–273 (2001).

Liu M, Li XQ, Weber C, Lee CY, Brown J and Liu RH, Antioxidantand antiproliferative activities of raspberries. J Agric FoodChem 50:2926-2930 (2002).

Kalt W, Forney CF, Martin A and Prior RL, Antioxidant capacity,vitamin C phenolics, and anthocyanins after fresh storage ofsmall fruits. J Agric Food Chem 47:4638-4644 (1999).

Chen BH, Peng HY and Chen HE, Changes of carotenoids, color,and vitamin A contents during processing of carrot juice. JAgric Food Chem 43:1912–1918 (1995).Alasalvar C, Grigor JM, Zhang D, Quantick PC and Shahidi F,Comparison of volatiles, phenolics, sugars, antioxidant vita-

mins, and sensory quality of different colored carrot varieties.J Agric Food Chem 49:1410–1416 (2001).

Llorach R, Tomas-Barberan FA and Ferreres F, Lettuce andchicory byproducts as a source of antioxidant phenolic extracts.J Agric Food Chem 52:5109-5116 (2004).

Stratil P, Klejdus B and Kuban V, Determination of total contentof phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity in vegeta-bles evaluation of spectrophotometric methods. J Agric FoodChem 54:607-616 (2006).

Jarvis MC, Mackenzie E and Duncan HJ, The textural analysis ofcooked potato. 2. Swelling pressure of starch during gelatini-sation. Potato Research 35: 93–102 (1992).

252

253253

254

ORGANIC FARMING: SUSTAINABILITY, BIODIVERSITYAND DIETSFlavio PaolettiINRAN - National Institute for Research on Food and Nutrition,Rome, Italy

AbstractThe current agrofood system is one of the most re-sponsible for the ecosystem degradation, in partic-ular, the biodiversity loss. Moreover, it has provedto be unable to addres hunger and malnutrition.Biodiversity in the food systems is absolutely cru-cial for both a sustainable food production and foodsecurity. Diets based on different food species pro-mote health by addressing the problem of micronu-trient and vitamin deficiencies. Therefore, it seemsthat the transition towards sustainable forms ofagriculture cannot be deferred further.The organic food production is seen having the po-tential to contribute substantially to the global foodsupply and reduce the environmental impact of theconventional agriculture.This paper summarizes the evidence present in thescientific literature on these subjects and offers in-sights into the links between organic food produc-tion, sustainability, biodiversity and healthy diets.

IntroductionThe current globalized food system is one of the mostresponsible for the ecosystem degradation. Agricul-ture alone contributes about 13 percent to the globalhuman-induced greenhouse gas emissions, but thisrate increases ranging from 17 to 32 percent if theindirect emissions (fertilizers production and distri-bution, farm operations, land conversion to agricul-ture) are included (Bellarby et al., 2008). Therefore,the so-called “industrial agriculture” based on theadoption of large-scale farming systems, on themassive use of fertilizers, that needs high energy in-puts to have high yields and to maintain a constantlevel of production, is widely considered no longersustainable. Overall, if one takes into account that itfailed to address hunger and malnutrition.Currently, it is widely accepted that facing the dualchallenge of achieving food security and reducingthe environmental impact of food production, it isnecessary to take steps of transition towards sus-tainable forms of agriculture (Hoffmann, 2011).

Organic farming and sustainabilityInterest in organic production has grown appreciablyover the last few decades in the world (Willer andKilcher, 2011). According to EC Reg. No. 834/2007,organic production is defined as: “…an overall sys-tem of farm management and food production thatcombines the best environmental practices, a highlevel of biodiversity, the preservation of natural re-sources, the application of high animal welfare stan-dards and a production method in line with thepreferences of certain consumers for products pro-duced using natural substances and processes”.Organic management practices exclude such con-ventional inputs as synthetic pesticides and fertiliz-ers, instead putting the emphasis on building up thesoil with compost additions and animal and greenmanures, controlling pests naturally, rotating cropsand diversifying crops and livestock.Organic agriculture is generally considered as hav-ing a lower environmental impact than conventionalagriculture. According to Hoffmann (2011), a con-version to organic agriculture could significantly re-duce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions(reduction of the use of industrial nitrogen-fertilizerand of the soil-based N2O emissions). However, anexamination of the scientific literature demon-strates that the lower environmental impact of or-ganic agriculture is true for many foods but not forall, and not for all the classes of environmental im-pact. (Foster et al., 2006). An energy analysis car-ried out at the Rodale Institute showed a 33 percentreduction in fossil-fuel use for organic farming sys-tems in comparison with the equivalent conven-tional ones (Pimentel, 2005). Fewer energy inputrequirements have been observed for the organicproduction of wheat, beef, sheep and pork meat, oilseed rape, milk (Foster et al., 2006; Williams et al.,2006); whereas the energy inputs were higher fororganic poultry meat and eggs. No difference wasobserved, instead, between organic and conven-tional potato production (Foster et al., 2006).In terms of land use, organic production generally

255

requires substantially more farmland than the con-ventional one (Cederberg and Mattsson, 2000; Fos-ter et al., 2006).On the other hand, organic agriculture has a signif-icant ability to sequester large amounts of atmos-pheric carbon into the soil (Hepperly et al., 2007),thus contributing to counteracting greenhousegases. Therefore, carbon sequestration of organicfarming is crucial in assessing the environmentalimpact (Niggli et al., 2008).Leaching of nutrients, nitrogen in particular, is re-sponsible for much of the environmental damagecaused to many ecosystems by intensive agriculture(Hansen et al., 2001). In organic production only or-ganic fertilizers can be used to supply the soil withnitrogen. From the scientific literature, the nitrogenleaching in organic farming results lower than thatoccurring in conventional agriculture (Knudsen etal., 2006; Hansen et al., 2001). However, nitrogenleaching depends not only on the type of fertilizerused, but also on the management practices (Knud-sen et al., 2006). In fact, the mineralization of or-ganic fertilizers is slow and problems with thesupply of nitrogen can occur, particularly when thedemands of the plants are high (Kelderer et al.,2008).The lower yields generally observed in the organiccrop production are ascribed to the limited avail-ability of nitrogen in the organic systems (Doltra et al.,2011). By an efficient and careful management ofthe nutrient supply to the plants, it is possible tocounterbalance the negative effects on the yields(Doltra et al., 2011; Crews and Peoples, 2004;Hansen et al., 2001; Pang and Letey, 2000). Maderet al. (2002) reported a reduction of only 20 percentof the yield of grain crops in organic systems, al-though the fertilizer input was reduced by 34–53percent. Pimentel et al. (2005) reported yields inorganic maize and soybean comparable to those ofconventional production, suggesting that organiccrop production can be competitive with conven-tional faming.

Organic farming and biodiversityAgricultural biodiversity (agrobiodiversity) is funda-mental to agricultural production, food security andenvironment conservation. Agrobiodiversity, in fact, in-cludes a wide variety of species and genetic resourcesand also the ways in which the farmers can exploitthem to produce and manage crops, land, water, in-sects and biota (Thrupp, 2000). Agricultural biodiver-sity, moreover, provides ecosystem services on farm,such as pollination, fertility enhancement, insect anddisease management. Over the last 40 years themodel and patterns of industrial agriculture havecaused serious degradation of natural resources and,in particular, biodiversity: loss of plant genetic re-sources, livestock, insect and soil organisms. The ero-sion of biodiversity is manifested both within farmingsystems and off farms, in natural habitats. A principal objective of organic farming is to main-tain, to enhance the natural fertility of the soil. Or-ganic farming systems which involve the use of catchcrops, the recycling of crop residues, the use of or-ganic fertilizers and perennial crops, are assumed topromote higher levels of organic matter and biologi-cal activity in the soil (number and variety of soil or-ganisms). Microorganisms, like bacteria or fungi,play a central role in maintaining the fertility of thesoil through the decomposition of organic matter.Several studies have demonstrated an increase in thebiodiversity, biological activity and fertility in the soilmanaged by organic systems (Bengtsson et al., 2005;Pimentel et al., 2005; Mader et al., 2002). Moreover,in organic farms it has been observed a higher diver-sity and abundance of birds, pollinator, insect andherbaceous plants (Holzschuh et al., 2008; Rundlöfet al., 2008a; Rundlöf et al., 2008b; Holzschuh et al.,2007) than in conventional ones.However, Gabriel et al. (2010) have demonstratedthat within a farm biodiversity is influenced by bothmanagement within the farm and management ofsurrounding farms, thus highlighting the crucialrole of the landscape. Belfrage et al. (2005) com-pared diversity and abundance of birds, butterflies,

256

bumblebees and herbaceous plants between or-ganic and conventional farms of different sizes.They found more bird species, butterflies, herba-ceous plant species, and bumblebees on the smallfarms compared to the large farms. The largest dif-ferences were found between the small organic andlarge conventional farms. However, differenceswere also noted between small and large organicfarms: This study introduces the aspect of the farmsize as a co-factor contributing to the higher biodi-versity in organic farms, and the small size farmsseem to behave better in terms of biodiversity thanthe larger ones. Clearly, the farm size per se does not affect biodi-versity. However, it is possible to state that the bio-diversity results are affected by the different farmregimes and management practices that differentfarm sizes require.

Organic farming and sustainable dietsFruit and vegetables contain health-related com-pounds, such as vitamins, dietetic fibre, antioxidants(ascorbic acid, phenolic compounds, carotenoids)whose consumption can positively contribute to humanhealth by reducing the risk of cardiovascular and de-generative diseases (Béliveau and Gingras, 2007; Baz-zano et al., 2002; Ness and Powles, 1997). For thesereasons, the dietary patterns grounded on scientific ev-idence encourage the consumption of fruit and veg-etables and suggest to reduce the frequency of theconsumption of meat. One of the most known dietarypatterns is the so-called “Mediterranean diet”, that re-cently has been recognized by UNESCO as an intangi-ble heritage of humanity. The Mediterranean dietpromotes the consumption of plant products typical ofthe countries of the Mediterranean Basin such as oliveoil, cereals, legumes, fruit and vegetables.It has been demonstrated that encouraging individu-als to consume less meat and more plant-basedfoods may be also a measure to increase the sus-tainability and reduce the environmental costs of foodproduction systems. In fact, the production of animal

food has a higher global warming potential (GWP)than that of plant food (Moresi and Valentini, 2010;Duchin, 2005; Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2003; Rejin-ders and Soret, 2003) and needs higher arable sur-face than plant food production (Brandão, 2008).From a comparison between different dietary pat-terns combined with different production systems itresulted that: i) within the same method of produc-tion, a greater consumption of animal productstranslates to a greater impact on the environment; ii)within the same dietary pattern, conventional pro-duction methods have a greater environmental im-pact than organic methods (Baroni et al., 2006).On the whole, the evidence seems to support theopportunity of educating people, mainly in westerncountries, to shift their eating habits towards the in-crease of direct consumption of plant foods to pro-tect their own health and the environment.Consumer awareness of the environmental impactof the food system has increased in recent decades,thus leading to an expansion of the organic foodsector (Willer and Kilcher, 2011). Consumers pur-chasing organic food demonstrate to have an atti-tude towards health (Tjärnemo and Ekelund, 2004),environment quality, food safety (Loureiro et al.,2001), ethical values (animal rights) (Honkanen etal., 2006). It has been suggested the existence of apotential relation between organic food and vege-tarianism. The ecological motivations underlyingorganic food choice and vegetarian diet choice arequite similar (Honkanen et al., 2006).Consumer studies have shown that among the mul-tiple reasons for organic preference, the belief thatthe organic foods are healthier than the conven-tional ones is one of the most important (Shepherdet al., 2005). A number of studies have been pub-lished during the last two decades comparing thenutritional quality of conventionally and organicallyproduced fruit and vegetables. It is known that cropmanagement can affect the composition of plant ma-terial (Bourn and Prescott, 2002). Different theorieshave been put forward to describe the mechanisms

257

on which the organic production system could affectthe nutritional value and the content of health-re-lated compounds (Brandt and Molgaard, 2001). How-ever, the research on this aspect is not conclusiveand only some trends have been individuated: ahigher content of vitamin C, dry matter, phosphorus,titratable acidity, phenols (antioxidant) and less of ni-trates in organic fruit and vegetables in comparisonwith conventional ones (Lairon, 2009; Bourn andPrescott, 2002; Brandt and Molgaard, 2001). The in-terpretation of the results of the investigations pub-lished in the scientific literature is difficult, becauseof methodological differences related to cultivar se-lection, growing conditions, sampling and analyticalmethods. Most of these studies fail in describing the field ex-periment design and represent only one seasonalharvest. In a recently published systematic review, inwhich the authors adopted a series of criteria to se-lect the comparative studies conducted over the past50 years, only a higher content of phosphorus andvalues of titratable acidity in the organic productswere confirmed (Dangour et al., 2009). This showsthat further research is needed on this subject be-fore conclusively stating if differences exist in the nu-tritional quality between organically andconventionally grown fruit and vegetables.In the decade 1999–2009 the organic agricultural landhas increased from 11 million to 37.2 million ha. Aus-tralia, Argentina, the United States, China and Brazilare the countries with the most organic agriculturalland. However, if the share of the organic agriculturalland out of the total agricultural land is considered,small countries such as Falkland, Liechtenstein, Aus-tria, Switzerland hold the first positions in the world.The countries with the largest numbers of organic pro-ducers are India, Uganda, Mexico, Ethiopia, Tanzania.In these countries the average farm size is low, andthe conversion to organic agriculture could representa quite easy option to the small farmers, because theyare used to producing more or less “organic”, with lit-tle or no application of chemical inputs.

The role of small-size farms is fundamental in pre-serving and enhancing biodiversity. Worldwide smallfarmers are those who generally practise high-diver-sity agriculture, both in terms of cultivated crops andvarieties of a single crop. This practice is necessaryalso to increase food security, because it providesmore options to cope with pests and diseases. Gen-erally, the small farmers cultivate local varieties of acrop, because well adapted to local conditions andable to resist or tolerate the typical diseases of thecrop. Promoting this high diversity of crops and varietieshas doubtless positive effects on human health. Fruitand vegetables have a fundamental role in diet, be-cause they are the main natural sources of micronu-trients, dietary fibre, bioactive compounds. Manyfactors can affect the nutritional content of horticul-tural crops, including climate, geography, soil, fertil-ization, but the differences between varieties are oftenby far more relevant. Interestingly, the nutrient con-tent of the less-known cultivars and wild varieties hasoften resulted higher than that of the widely-culti-vated cultivars, thus suggesting the need of composi-tional researches to characterize these products andproviding data useful for their protection and use (Lu-taladio et al., 2010). The market where small farmerscan sell their products is different from that of thelarge-size farms. These latter select the crop and varieties to cultivate ina way to match the standards fixed and the amount de-manded by the organized distribution chains. Instead,the final destination of the products from small-sizefarms is mainly represented by the local markets orthe so-called short food supply chain, such as farmers’markets or other forms of direct selling from the pro-ducer to the consumer. These short supply chains aregaining more and more interest among consumers inwestern countries, thus creating a new relationshipbetween agricultural and urban worlds. The organicsmall farms often find the commercial outlet for theirproducts in this kind of market (Böhnert and Nill,2006).

258

References

Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., Berati, M. (2006). Evaluat-ing the environmental impact of various dietary patterns com-bined with different food production systems. European Journalof Clinical Nutrition, 61, 279-286.

Bazzano, L. A., He, J., Ogden, L. G., Loria, C. M., Vupputuri, S.,Myera, L., Whelton, P. K. (2002). Fruit and vegetable intake andrisk of cardiovascular disease in U.S. adults: the first NationalHealth and Nutrition Examination SurveyEpidemiologic Follow-up Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 76, 93-99.

Belfrage, K., Björklund, J., Salomonsson, L. (2005). The effectsof farm size and organic farming on diversity of birds, pollina-tors, and plants in a Swedish landscape. Ambio, 34, 582-588

Béliveau, R. and Gingras, D. (2007). Role of nutrition in pre-venting cancer. Canadian Family Physician, 53, 1905-1911.

Bellarby, J., Foereid, B., Hastings, A., Smith, P. (2008). CoolFarming: Climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation poten-tial. Greenpeace International from:http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/re-ports/cool-farming-full-report

Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J., Weibull, A. C. (2005). The effects oforganic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 261-269.

Böhnert, E. and Nill, D. (2006). Value Chains for the Conserva-tion of Biological Diversity for Food and Agriculture. DeutscheGesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Es-chborn, Germany from: www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-biodiv-value-chains-2006.pdf

Bourn, D. and Prescott, J. (2002). A comparison of the nutri-tional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organicallyand conventionally produced foods. Critical Reviews in FoodScience and Nutrition, 42, 1-34

Brandão, M. (2008). Food systems revisited: their evolution andsustainability implications from an interdisciplinary perspec-tive. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Food Security andEnvironmental Change Linking Science, Development and Pol-icy for Adaptation: University of Oxford, UK, fromwww:gecafs.org/documents/PP10Brandao.pdf.

Brandt, K., Molgaard, J. P. (2001). Organic agriculture: does itenhance or reduce the nutritional values of plant foods. Jour-nal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 81, 824-831.

Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Ekströmm, M. P., Shanahan, H. (2003).Food and life cycle energy inputs: consequences of diet andways to increase efficiency. Ecological Economics, 44, 293-307.

Cederberg, C., Mattsson, B. (2000). Life cycle assessment ofmilk production – a comparison of conventional and organicfarming. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8, 49-60

Crews, T. E., Peoples, M. B. (2004). Legume versus fertilizerssources of nitrogen: ecological tradeoffs and human needs.Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 102, 279-297.

Dangour, A. D., Dodhia, S. K., Hayter, A., Lock, K., Uaury, R.(2009). Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90, 680-685.

Doltra, J., Laegdsmand, M., Olesen, J. E. (2011). Cereal yield andquality as affected by nitrogen availability in organic and con-ventional arable crop rotations: A combined modelling and ex-perimental approach. European Journal of Agronomy, 34, 83-95.

Duchin, F. (2005). Sustainable consumption of food: a frame-work for analyzing scenarios about changes in diets. Journal ofIndustrial Ecology, 9, 99-114

Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A.,Mylan, J. (2006). Environmental Impacts of Food Production andConsumption: A report of the Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School. Defra,London.

Gabriel, D., Sait, S. M., Hodgson, J. A., Schmutz, U., Kunin, W.E., Benton, T. G. (2010). Scale matters: the impact of organicfarming on biodiversity at different spatial scales. Ecology Let-ters, 13, 858-869.

Hansen, B., Alroe, H. F., Kristensen, E. S. (2001). Approaches toassess the environmental impact of organic farming with par-ticular regard to Denmark. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Envi-ronment, 83, 11-26.

Hepperly, P. R., Seidel, R., Pimentel, D., Hanson, J., Douds, D.(2007). Organic farming enhances soil carbon and its benefits.In J. Kimble, C. Rice, D. Reed, S. Mooney, R. Follet, R. Lal (Eds.),Soil Carbon Management Economic, Environmental, and Soci-etal Benefits (pp. 129-153). Boca Raton, CRC Press

Hoffmann, U. (2011). Assuring food security in developing coun-tries under the challenges of climate change: key trade and de-velopment issues of a fundamental transformation. UnitedNations Conference on Trade and Development (UCTAD), Dis-cussion Papers No. 201, February 2011.

Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. (2008). Agri-cultural landscapes with organic crops support higher pollina-tor diversity. Oikos, 117, 354-361.

Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Klejin, D., Tscharntke, T.(2007). Diversity of flower visiting bees in cereal fields: effectsof farming system, landscape composition and regional con-text. Journal Applied Ecology, 44, 41-49.

Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., Olsen, S. O. (2006). Ethical val-ues and motives driving organic food choice. Journal of Con-sumer Behaviour, 5, 420-430.

Kelderer, M., Thalheimer, M., Andreaus, O., Topp, A., Burger,R., Schiatti, P. (2008). The mineralization of commercial organicfertilizers at 8°C temperature. In Proceedings of the 13th In-ternational Conference on Cultivation Technique and Phy-topathological Problems in Organic Fruit-Growing (pp.160-166). Weinsberg, Germany.

Knudsen, M. T., Kristensen, I. S., Berntsen, J., Petersen, B. M.,

259

Kristensen, E. S. (2006). Estimated N leaching losses for or-ganic and conventional farming in Denmark. Journal of Agri-cultural Science, 144, 135-149.

Lairon, D. (2009). Nutritional quality and safety of organic food.A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 1, 1-9.

Loureiro, M. L., McCluskey, J. J., Mittelhammer R. C. (2001).Assessing consumer preferences for organic, eco-labelled, andregular apples. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Econom-ics, 26, 404-416.

Lutaladio, N., Burlingame, B., Crews, J. (2010). Horticulture,biodiversity and nutrition. Journal of Food Composition andAnalysis, 23, 481-485.

Mader, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gnst, L., Fried, P., Niggli,U. (2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Sci-ence, 296, 1694-1697.

Moresi, M., Valentini, R. (2010). Dieta Mediterranea e impattoglobale. Industrie Alimentari, 49, 9-20.

Ness, A. R. and Powles, J. W. (1997). Fruit and vegetables, andcardiovascular disease: A review. International Journal of Epi-demiology, 26, 1-13.

Niggli, U., Fliessbach, A., Hepperly, P., Scialabba, N. (2008). Lowgreenhouse gas agriculture: Mitigation and adaptation potentialof sustainable farming systems. Rome, FAO.

Pang, X. P., Letey, J. (2000). Organic farming: Challenge of tim-ing nitrogen availability to crop nitrogen requirements. Soil Sci-entific Society American Journal, 64, 247-253.

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., Seidel, R.(2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisonsof organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55,573-582;

Rejinders, L., Soret, S. (2003). Quantification of the environ-mental impact of different dietary protein choices. AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition, 78 (Suppl.), 664S-668S.

Rundlöf, M., Nilsson, H., Smith, H. J.(2008a). Interacting effectsof farming practice and landscape context on bumble bees. Bi-ological Conservation, 141, 417-426.

Rundlöf, M., Bengtsson, J., Smith, H. G. (2008b). Local and land-scape effects of organic farming on butterfly species richnessand abundance. Journal Applied Ecology, 45, 813-820.

Shepherd, R., Magnusson, M., Sioden, P. O. (2005). Determi-nants of consumer behaviour related to organic foods. Ambio,34, 352-359.

Thrupp, L. A. (2000). Linking agricultural biodiversity and foodsecurity: the valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainableagriculture. International Affairs, 76, 265-281.

Tjärnemo, H., Ekelund L. (2004). Consumers choice of organicversus conventional fruit and vegetables – The role of the gro-cery store. W. Bokelmann (Ed.) ISHS Acta Horticulturae 655:

Proceedings of the XV International Symposium on HorticulturalEconomics and Management. Germany, Berlin (pp. 115-120)

Willer, H., Kilcher, L. (2011). The World of Organic Agriculture – Sta-tistics and Emerging Trends 2011. IFOAM, Bonn, and FiBL, Frick.

Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. and Sandars, D.L. (2006). Determin-ing the environmental burdens and resource use in the pro-duction of agricultural and horticultural commodities. MainReport. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield Uni-versity and Defra. From: www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk, andwww.defra.gov.uk

260

261

MEDITERRANEAN DIET: AN INTEGRATED VIEWMauro Gamboni,1 Francesco Carimi2 and Paola Migliorini31 CNR, National Research Council, AgroFood Department, Rome, Italy

2 CNR, National Research Council, Institute of Plant Genetics,Section of Palermo, Italy

3 University of Gastronomic Sciences, Bra (Cn), Italy

263

AbstractMalnutrition, in its two contradictory aspects con-cerning undernutrition and unbalanced overnutri-tion, is becoming one of the main threats to theworldwide population. This calls for a radicalchange on how food is daily produced, thought andmanaged. New food behaviours are to be developed,proposed and disseminated in order to actively com-bat both hunger and the growing phenomenon ofobesity in the framework of sustainable food sys-tems. In this context, the Mediterranean diet repre-sents a very effective model of sustainable diet.Characterized by a healthy nutritional model, richin olive oil, whole grains, fish, fruits and vegetablesand (a little) wine, the Mediterranean diets arebased on respect for the territory and on activitiesperformed by local communities including crop har-vesting, fishing, conservation, processing, prepara-tion and consumption of food. One of the mainpeculiarities of the Mediterranean diets is the rele-vance of biodiversity. The Mediterranean Basin hasa high heterogeneity of cultures and a high biodi-versity. Epidemiological studies have drawn atten-tion to certain traditional Mediterranean diets whichpresent a high variety of plant- and animal-derivedfoods that favour better nutritional conditions. Sci-entific investigation on this kind of diet and moregenerally on sustainable food systems and diet re-quires a new holistic vision of research and innova-tion, based on a pro-active and very participativeapproach involving stakeholders. This also requiresto strongly support independent and transparent re-search and innovation, open to the public and notsubject to economic speculation in order to appro-priately respond to the big worldwide questionsabout the food.

1. IntroductionFood security represents a multifaceted issue grip-ping the world, intimately linked to the big chal-lenges humanity faces in the coming years. Properfood production and supply as well as correct and

balanced diets for all are crucial and closely asso-ciated to a new ecological vision of developmentbased on sustainability principles. Malnutrition, inits two contradictory aspects concerning undernu-trition and unbalanced overnutrition, is dramaticallyrising, becoming one of the main threats to theworldwide population. Often coexisting in the samegeographical area, it is the result of different foodhabits, among different social status and betweenold and new generations. The World Health Organ-ization refers that 35 million of the 43 million over-weight children live in developing countries, mainlyin Asia but the fastest growth rates are registeringin Africa (De Onis et al., 2010). The contradictionmore shocking is that, at the same time, hungry andundernourished are rising worldwide. According tothe recent estimate of the UN Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO, 2009; UNEP, 2009), between1990 and 2000, the number of people that live withinsufficient food has increased by 34 million only insub-Saharan Africa. In this way, food insecurity andundernourishment are now present in differentcountries in the world as well as conditions of over-weight and obesity and vitamin and mineral defi-ciencies. It should be noted that, over the past twodecades, food trade liberalization policy has gener-ated dramatic implications for health, facilitatingthe “nutrition transition” towards unsustainablemodels (Kearney, 2010). Going back in the time, itshould also highlight that the so-called "green rev-olution", while helping to reduce world hunger, hasalso produced significant negative impacts on theenvironment. The productivity of the main agricul-ture crops increased up to 4–5 times (Conway, 1997;Tilman et al., 2002; Pimentel and Pimentel, 2008),but the consequences were very high on soil (Shiva,2002), biodiversity, energy input use (Pimentel andPimentel, 2008), water use (Molden, 2007), nega-tively impacting, among others, traditional rurallivelihoods, indigenous and local cultures, acceler-ating indebtedness among millions of farmers andseparating them from lands that have historically

fed communities and families. In more recent years,the fluctuations and increases in oil and commodi-ties prices have increased food insecurity and in-equalities, with a progressive lack of access to landor to agricultural resources. Meanwhile, the actualintensive production system is also increasing alien-ation of peoples from nature and the historical, cul-tural and natural connection of farmers. Finally, it isto consider that, over the next decades, the world’spopulation is expected to grow from 6.8 billion in2008 (medium estimates) to 8.3 billion by 2030, andto 9.2 billion by 2050 (UNEP, 2009). The question ishow to feed a growing population in a world havingless soil, less water and energy. The answer can onlybe found in a sustainable model of production anddistribution and in an appropriate public policy thatmakes it possible. This includes prioritizing the pro-curement of public goods in public spending; invest-ing in knowledge providing adequate support toresearch and innovation; fostering forms of socialorganization that encourage partnerships, includingfarmer field schools and farmers’ movements inno-vation networks; sustaining empowering women andcreating a macro-economic enabling to connect sus-tainable farms to fair markets (UN, 2010). All theabove considerations call for a radical change onhow food is daily produced, thought and managed(Worldwatch Institute, 2011). New dietary behavioursare to be developed, proposed and disseminated(Nestlè, 2006; Pollan, 2010) in order to actively com-bat both hunger and the growing phenomenon ofobesity. At the same time, it is to strongly emphasizethe indissoluble linkage between ecosystems pro-tection and fairness issues in the world. Environ-mental justice necessarily requires social equity andrespect to the human rights among all the socialgroups and societies, from present and future gen-erations. The most political act we do on a daily basisis choosing what to eat.

2. Towards sustainable food systemsThe whole food chain has to be considered for mov-

ing to a real sustainable food system, starting fromprimary producer for arriving to the final consumer,assuring any health precaution in each step. The in-timate connection among food, health and sustain-able development has been well formulated by theAmerican Public Health Association in a major pol-icy statement (American Public Health Aassocia-tion, 2007). Similarly, the American DieteticAssociation, in its position statement, encouragesenvironmentally responsible practices for support-ing ecological sustainability of the food system(American Dietetic Association, 2007). A “sustain-able food system” is “one that provides healthy foodto meet current food needs while maintaininghealthy ecosystems that can also provide food forgenerations to come with minimal negative impactto the environment. A sustainable food system alsoencourages local production and distribution infra-structures and makes nutritious food available, ac-cessible, and affordable to all. Further, it is humaneand just, protecting farmers and other workers, con-sumers, and communities” (American Public HealthAssociation, 2007). In this regard, it has to be remarked the convergenceof the "food security" concept with that of "sustain-able food system", proposed by the Sustainable De-velopment Commission (SDC) of the United KingdomGovernment that suggested a new definition of foodsecurity in terms of “genuinely sustainable food sys-tems where the core goal is to feed everyone sus-tainably, equitably and healthily; which addressesneeds for availability, affordability and accessibility;which is diverse, ecologically-sound and resilient;which builds the capabilities and skills necessary forfuture generations” (Sustainable Development Com-mission, 2009). Within the framework of a sustain-able food system, sustainable diets assume a centralrole. According to FAO, sustainable diets are definedas “those diets with low environmental impactswhich contribute to food and nutrition security and tohealthy life for present and future generations.Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of

264

biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable,accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutri-tionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizingnatural and human resources” (FAO, 2010). Closelylinked to the mentioned issues, the cultural aspectsof food are highly significant. Unfortunately, foodsystems and related diet are facing a process of cul-tural homogenization and standardization. Foryears, indeed, conservation of different traditionalcultures and knowledge were not enough consid-ered in public policies. Mainly in urban places, people rarely know culturaland environmental meaning of what they eat and donot usually think about the food chain and how foodis produced and prepared. On the contrary, it shouldbe affirmed that eating cannot be relegated to themere act of taking food but it also represents theway that populations spread their selves throughthe environment (Murrieta et al., 1999). In otherwords, it has to be recognized the close connectionof food with space and time with a proper specificidentity. Sustainable diet calls also for following healthylifestyle and reassigning to the food its close link-age with seasonality. Local ways of livelihood havebeen viewed as possible solutions, like using localproduction, spreading regional culinary culturesand traditions, supporting traditional trades (e.g.fishermen, shepherds, butchers, sausage makers,bakers) and encouraging people in re-dignifying theact of eating. In a global perspective, this representsa valid contribution to face the challenge of food se-curity. It is indeed not thinkable ensuring global ac-cess to food without supporting peoples in choosingtheir own production and farming systems. For a world with environmental and social justice,one should foster the capacity of governance inbasal communities, leading to assert the impor-tance of “food sovereignty” defined as the right ofpeoples and sovereign states to democratically de-termine their own agricultural and food policies (In-ternational Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,

Science and Technology for Development, 2008).Another aspect to be considered is the occasion ofconviviality connected with the eating act. Convivi-ality is described as being synonymous with empa-thy “which alone can establish knowledge of otherminds” (Polanyi, 1958), sharing of a certain kind offood and/or drink, reinforcing the positive feeling oftogetherness on which the community’s awarenessof its identity is based (Schechter, 2004). The mentioned very interconnected considerationsneed to be assembled and recomposed in a well-ordered coherent way, for defining and implementingsuitable policies addressed to support sustainablefood systems. Similarly, effective sustainable foodsystems and diet models are useful for transposingin practice the above conceptual schemes.

3. The global value of the Mediterranean dietmodel

3.1 General remarksUNESCO inscribed in 2010 the Mediterranean dieton the Representative List of the Intangible CulturalHeritage of Humanity, being recognized the impor-tance of maintaining the healthy aspects, the goodpractices and traditions related to this diet as wellas its peculiar cultural diversity in the face of grow-ing globalization. This helps intercultural dialogue,and encourages mutual respect for other ways oflife, taking into account that the importance of in-tangible cultural heritage lies in the wealth ofknowledge and skills that is transmitted through itfrom one generation to the next. The reason why the Mediterranean diet can be ac-tually considered as a very effective model is that itproposes a food system scheme based on sustain-ability, collecting the mentioned aspects and able tocontribute in pursuing real food security. The system is characterized by a healthy nutritionalmodel, which consists mainly of olive oil, cereals,fruit, fresh or dried, and vegetables, moderateamounts of fish, dairy products and meat, whole

265

266

grains, many condiments and spices accompaniedby wine or teas, always respecting the traditions ofeach community (Figure 1). These are common characteristics, but there aremany different Mediterranean diets. A famous cook-book, “Eat well and stay well” by Ancel and Mar-garet Keys makes it known to the United Stateswhich is exported to Europe and worldwide (Keysand Keys, 1959). Prof. Keys, after a long-term studyin seven countries concluded that we should cutdown drastically on saturated fat and meat and turnto vegetable oils and fresh fruit and vegetables in-stead in order to have lower rates of heart disease,diabetes and depression. His fortune in the secondhalf of the twentieth century is explained by the gas-

tronomic tourism and the development of olive cul-tivation and production in California and Australia. Itis the effect of habits, tastes, knowledge that is con-fronting scramble and recompose transposed (Ca-patti et al., 2003). The Mediterranean diets arebased on the respect for the territory and biodiver-sity (Figures 2, 3 and 4) and on activities performedby local communities including crop harvesting,fishing, conservation, processing, preparation andconsumption of food, following traditional recipesand the way and context of eating them (Serra-Majem et al., 2006). They promote social interactionby communal meals and emphasize the relevant po-sition of women that play an important role in trans-mitting expertise and traditional gestures as well as

Figure 1. Mediterranean Diet Pyramid

267

Figure 2. Secular olive cultivation in Mallorca Island (Spain). Photo by Migliorini.

Figure 3. Organic cultivation of old varieties of com-mon wheat. Photo by Migliorini.

Figure 4. Vitis vinifera (Zibibbo cv.) cultivated in Pan-telleria Island. Photo by Carimi.

in safeguarding ancient techniques. For confirmingits global value, it is also to consider that Mediter-ranean does not represent only a geographic di-mension but a build-up of knowledge that tracehistorical human events. In this context at Europeanand global level, Italy appears as an ideal referencecountry for the sustainable diet model because ofits production of high quality and typical in all re-gions, its climate, the richness and diversity of itsecosystems, the type and variety of its products, itslarge agro-food and gastronomic traditions.

3.2 The crucial role of biodiversity conservationDuring the past decade the concept of biodiversityhas passed from the sphere of academic authoritiesto the growing attention of public opinion that con-siders its defence as an important issue for sus-tainable development. A promising approach fordealing with this theme, is to identify “biodiversityhot spots”, or areas featuring exceptional concen-trations of endemic species and experiencing ex-ceptional loss of habitat. One key hot spot, theMediterranean Basin, should be considered as ahyper-hot candidate for conservation support inlight of its exceptional total (13 000) of endemicplants (Myers et al., 2000). There is growing atten-tion to the implications of cultivated biodiversityloss, affecting the livelihoods of resource-poorfarmers and threatening the future prospective ofagricultural developments (Tripp and van der Heide,1996). The replacement of traditional landraces ofmajor crops with modern cultivars had practicallybeen completed when, in the 1970s, the green rev-olution in the developing world started (van deWouw et al., 2009). It is estimated that over 7 000plant species used for food can be found across theworld (Bioversity International, 2009). Harlan (1975)assesses around 360 cultivated crops and severalthousand species are also collected in their wildhabitats for food, fibre or medicine. However, thehuman diet is based on very few crops. In fact, about20 crops play a major role in human nutrition; cere-

als (wheat, maize, rice, barley, sorghum and millet,Table 1), root and tuber crops (cassava, potatoes,yams and sweet potatoes) are the main starch com-ponent of the human diet (Vigouroux et al., 2011).

Table 1. Land used to grow the main cereal cropsin 2008. The area is based on data from FAOSTAT 2010

Crop(s) Cultivated land in millions of hectares

Wheat 224Maize 161Rice, paddy 159Barley 57Sorghum 45Millet 37

In addition to conventional strategies addressing theconservation and use of plant genetic resources,farmer-participatory plant breeding is flanked today(Tripp and van der Heide, 1996). Recent studies onfarmer-participatory plant breeding indicate thatdecentralized participatory plant breeding is impor-tant to increase and stabilize productivity and main-tain genetic diversity as each pocket area isoccupied by the best and different genotypes. In re-gions characterized by high genetic diversity, lan-draces often evolve through crossing with wildrelatives, and farmers play an important role in se-lecting and adapting new genotypes (Tripp and vander Heide, 1996). Farmers should be encouraged todiversify and not all select the same cultivars andspecies, while breeders need to guarantee thatfarmers can choose from a wide range of locallyadapted genotypes with a different genetic base (vande Wouw et al., 2009). Conservation and sustainableuse of genetic resources is strategic to meet the fu-ture demand of farmers and consumers. Mainte-nance and survey of traditional germplasm typicalof the different regions as well as its wild or semi-domesticated relatives can be of strategic impor-

268

269

Table 2. Examples of nutrient composition within varieties (per 100 g edible portion, raw).

Species Protein (g) Fibre (g) Iron (mg) Vitamin C (mg) Beta-carotene (mcg)Rice 5.6–14.6 0.7–6.4Cassava 0.7–6.4 0.9–1.5 0.9–2.5 25–34 <5–790Potato 1.4–2.9 1–2.29 0.3–2.7 6.4–36.9 1–7.7Sweet potato 1.3–2.1 0.7–3.9 0.6–14 2.4–35 100–23 100Taro 1.1–3 2.1–3.8 0.6–3.6 0–15 5–2 040Breadfruit 0.7–3.8 0.9 0.29–1.4 21–34.4 8–940Eggplant 9–19 50–129Mango 0.3–1.0 1.3–3.8 0.4–2.8 22–110 20–4 320Banana 0.1–1.6 2.5–17.5 <1–8 500Pandanus 0.4 5–10 14–902GAC 6 180–13 720Apricot 0.8–1.4 1.7–2.5 0.3–0.85 3.5–16.5 200–6 939

(beta-carotene equivalent)

Source: Burlingame et al., 2009.

tance to ensure a gene pool useful for future breed-ing programmes. Moreover, recent studies showthat there is great variability in nutrient contentamong varieties (Table 2), demonstrating significantnutritional differences (Burlingame et al., 2009).Transition from traditional to intensive farming, inaddition to recent phenomena of degradation, frag-mentation and loss of habitat, pollution, wildfires,non-sustainable exploitation of natural resourcesand climate changes, involved genetic erosion bothin cultivated and wild taxa. The Council Regulation(EC) N° 870/2004 promotes ex situ and in situ con-servation of genetic resources in agriculture, in-cluding forest species, as well as the use of for along time ignored and therefore underutilized vari-eties. Thus, there is an urgent need to identify pri-ority wild species and areas for conservation and todevelop integrated in situ and ex situ preservationstrategies, to ensure that the rich genetic diversityof crop wild relatives is protected and the biodiver-sity loss is halted. The Mediterranean Basin has ahigh heterogeneity of cultures and a high biodiver-sity. Epidemiological studies have drawn attentionto certain traditional Mediterranean diets. However,

wild gathered food species, which are an important,but fast disappearing element of these diets, so farhave been largely neglected in scientific studies(Leonti et al., 2006). Wild harvested plant foods in-clude: roots and other underground parts; shootsand leafy greens; berries and other fleshy fruits;grains, nuts and seeds; and mushrooms, lichens,algae and other species (Turner et al., 2011). Theuse of non-cultivated leaves in Mediterranean cui-sine is inextricably embedded with cultural con-cepts describing the traditional management ofnatural resources and the spatial organization ofthe natural/cultural landscape (Pieroni et al., 2005).Better conservation and use of wild food plants willbe crucial to help farmers adapt to current and up-coming challenges. In the light of these considera-tions, the traditional use of non-cultivated foodplants may represent a valuable supplementaryfood source for present and future generations, andthus preservation of knowledge of plant identitiesand uses is of major concern (Pasta et al., 2011).

3.3 The importance of research and innovationThe above-cited food-related problems call for very

270

intensive, global dimensioned and well targeted re-search and innovation actions. They play a funda-mental role to generate new knowledge andeffectively face the main obstacles in a prospect ofwell balanced, healthy and sustainable food sys-tems worldwide. In this context, “social innovation”has to be recognized “as an important new fieldwhich should be nurtured” (European Commission,2010). Results derived from research and innovationare, in a framework of sustainability, key factors fora fair growth that is, at the same time, able to com-bine the conservation of natural resources, publicwelfare and social equity. Putting more importancein dealing with social issues by research and inno-vation is clearly supported in the recent issuedGreen paper “From Challenges to Opportunities: To-wards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Re-search and Innovation Funding” (EuropeanCommission, 2011), in which it is evidenced that theEurope 2020 strategy calls for future EU fundingprogrammes to focus more on societal challenges.A multi- and interdisciplinary approach is alsoneeded, involving all the actors including academicand scientific institutions, public authorities, farm-ers, different economic operators and citizens, fo-cusing on the grand challenges, going beyond thecurrent rigid thematic setting (Lund Declaration,2009). The investigation area of sustainable foodsystems and diet needs to overcome disciplinarybarriers and requires a new vision of research andinnovation, based on a proactive stakeholders in-volvement. This also requires supporting inde-pendent and transparent research and innovationprocesses, open to the public and not subject toeconomic speculation. Therefore, public researchin this field should assume a central role in orderto appropriately respond to big worldwide ques-tions in a very balanced manner according to thegeneral public interest. The systemic nature of theMediterranean diet model represents its hallmark.Consequently, research in this field cannot be lim-ited to separate study of individual elements but

calls for investigating, as well as on single "ob-jects" (food composition, quality, safety, ...), alsoon the relationships between "objects" (food andenvironment, food and culture, food and culinarytradition, food and territorial specificities, ….). Thisleads to innovative research, that should devotegreater emphasis to system interactions and com-parisons. This is a pillar of the methodological ap-proach that has to be pursued. Moreover, thisgenerates a change in the way of looking at re-search. The researchers have to deal with multi-ple objectives that, in addition, are not solely tracedback to traditional criteria with productivity and ef-ficiency. Similarly, the related research resultsallow consumers to have the opportunity to choosefood with awareness, not depending on a short-term economic assessment. They are motivated,not only by the protection of health and that of theirloved ones, but also by ecological reasons as wellas ethical and social solidarity considerations. Theguiding principle should be the sustainability in itsfullest meaning, which implies long-term re-search, which can combine with the immediateneeds "practice" of farmers and traditional culturewith those of a better understanding of natural bi-ological processes that underlie each agro-ecosys-tem. Such an approach can only be founded inincreasing knowledge and ability to criticallyanalyse the world around us, which is also thefoundation for scientific research. This concept isdirected towards research and innovation which in-volves, beyond the traditional agricultural scienceand in a very comprehensive manner, different in-vestigation areas, including modeling, sustainabil-ity and complexity sciences, system engineering,managing sciences, economic and social sciences.The difference – compared to conventional re-search – is in how to mix and combine the variousskills in a holistic, interdisciplinary and very partic-ipative approach directly involving farmers thathave to regain the importance that has been pro-gressively removed from them.

271

4. ConclusionsOne of the main global threats in the next years isthe transition to unsustainable diets that are oc-curring in different developing countries, leadingthem to adopt diet habits mainly existing in thericher countries and based on energy-dense foods.This leads to the emergence, also in those coun-tries, of an increase in diet-related diseases, thatare coexistent with still present problems of un-dernutrition that urgently call for being faced ef-fectively within the framework of food security(Alexandratos, 2006). At the same time, climatechanges and other worldwide environmental issueshave to be dealt with, through efficient internationalcooperation. In this context, proper food productionand supply as well as correct and balanced dietsfor all, closely associated to a new ecological visionof development based on sustainability principlesare crucial. The adoption of sustainable food sys-tems and diets in their broadest and comprehen-sive meaning should be the right way to go. Theyshould include a revision of the current develop-ment model and related food trade liberalizationpolicies. Sustainable food policies should consider,in a coherent manner, both agriculture and thehealth sector, as well as new challenges repre-sented by ageing, globalization and urbanization,with the aim to ultimately benefit agriculture,human health and the environment. To be really ef-fective, these policies should be more locallybased, self-reliant food economies in which sus-tainable food production, processing, distributionand consumption are integrated to enhance eco-nomic, environmental and social health (Kearney,2010). Apart from the need to better assemble andrecompose the conceptual aspects connected tosustainable food systems and diets, their transpo-sition in practice through helpful and replicablemodels is essential. The Mediterranean diets, fortheir intrinsic characteristics can represent validmodels to address the main issues concerning thesustainable food system worldwide.

References

Alexandratos, N. (2006). The Mediterranean diet in a world con-text. Public Health Nutrition: 9(1A), 111–117.

American Dietetic Association (2007). Position of the AmericanDietetic Association: Food and Nutrition Professionals Can Im-plement Practices to Conserve Natural Resources and SupportEcological Sustainability. J Am Diet Assoc, 107, 1033–1043.

American Public Health Association (2007). Toward a Healthy,Sustainable Food System. American Public Health Association,Policy Statement 200712. Washington, DC: APHA. Retrieved 15may 2011 from: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policy-search/default.htm?id=1361

Bioversity International, (2009). Neglected and UnderutilizedSpecies - Overview. Retrieved 15 may 2011 from:http://www.bioversityinternational.org/scientific_information/themes/neglected_and_underutilized_species/overview.html.

Burlingame, B., Charrondiere, R., Mouillè, B. (2009). Food com-position is fundamental to the cross-cutting initiative on biodi-versity for food and nutrition. Journal of Food Composition andAnalysis 22, 361–365.

Capatti, A., Montanari, M., O'Healy, A. (2003) - Italian cuisine: acultural history - Columbia University Press, 2003 - 348 pages

Conway, G. (1997). The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All inthe Twenty-First Century. Penguin, London.

De Onis, M., Blössner, M., Borghi E. (2010). Global prevalenceand trends of overweight and obesity among preschool chil-dren. Am J Clin Nutr 92, 1257–64.

European Commission (2010). Communication from the Com-mission to the European parliament, the Council, the EuropeanEconomic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Re-gions: Europe 2020 Innovative Flagship Initiative - InnovationUnion. SEC (2010) 1161 – COM (2010) 546 final

European Commission (2011). Green paper “From Challengesto Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework forEU Research and Innovation funding”. COM(2011) 48 Final

FAO (2009). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. FAO,Rome. Retrieved January 2011 from:http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0876e/i0876e00.HTM.

FAO (2010). International Symposium on Food-based Approachfor Improving Diets and Raising Levels of Nutrition. FAO, Rome,7-9 December 2010

Harlan, J.R. (1975). Crop and man. American Society of Agron-omy and Crop Science Society of America, Madison.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scienceand Technology for Development - IAASTD (2008). Global Sum-mary for Decision Makers Retrieved 12 May 2010 from:http://www.agassessment.org/docs/Global_SDM_060608_Eng-lish.htm.

Keys, A. and Keys, M. (1959) - Eat well & stay well; foreword byPaul Dudley White, M.D Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & C., 1959.

Kearney, J. (2010). Food consumption trends and drivers. Phi-los Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 365(1554), 2793-2807.

Lund Declaration (2009) issued in July 2009. Retrieved 16 May2011 from: http://www.epsoweb.org/news/lund-declaration

Leonti, M., Nebel, S., Rivera, D., Heinrich, M. (2006). Wild gath-ered food plants in the European Mediterranean: a compara-tive analysis. Economic Botany 60, 130-142.

Molden, D. (Ed.) (2007). Water for Food, Water for Life. A Com-prehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture.Earthscan, London. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from:http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/Publications/books.ht.

Murrieta, R. S. S., Dufour, D.L, Siqueira, A. D. (1999). Food Con-sumption and Subsistence in Three Caboclo Populations onMarajó Island, Amazonia, Brazil. Human Ecology, 27(3), 455-475.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca,G. A. B., Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservationpriorities. Nature 403, 853-858.

Nestlè, M. (2006). What to eat? North Point Press, NY.

Pasta S., Garfì G., La Bella F., Rühl J., Carimi F. (2011). AnOverview on the Human Exploitation of Sicilian Native EdiblePlants. In: Davis RE (Ed.), Wild Plants: Identification, Uses andConservation. Nova Science Publishers, New York. In press.

Pieroni, A., Nebel, S., Santoro, R. F., Heinrich, M. (2005). Foodfor two seasons: culinary uses of non-cultivated local vegeta-bles and mushrooms in a south Italian village, Int. J. Food Sci.and Nutr. 56, 245–272.

Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2008). Food, Energy, and Society.3rd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Criti-cal Philosophy,Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London.

Pollan, M. (2010). Food Rules: An Eater's Manual. New York,Penguin Press.

Schechter, M. (2004). Conviviality, gender and love stories:Plato’s symposium and Isak Dinesen’s (K. Blixen’s) Babette’sfeast. Trans, Internet Journal for Cultural Sciences, No. 15.

Serra-Majem, L., Bach, A. and Roman, B. (2006). Foreword.Recognition of the Mediterranean diet: going at the step fur-ther. Public Health Nutrition: 9(1A), 101–102.

Shiva, V. (2002). The Violence of the Green Revolution. ZedBooks, New York, USA.

Sustainable Development Commission (2009). Food securityand sustainability- the Perfect Fit. Position paper UK Govern-ment 2009. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from: http://www.sd-com-mission.org.uk/presslist.php/101/sdc-stop-decline-in-uk-food-production.

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., Polasky,S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive productionpractices. Nature 418, 671–677.

Tripp, R., van der Heide, W. (1996). The erosion of crop geneticdiversity: Challenges, strategies and uncertainties. Natural Re-source Perspectives, No 7, March 1996. London: ODI.

Turner, N. J., Łuczaj, Ł. J., Migliorini, P., Pieroni, A., Dreon, A. L.,Sacchetti, L. E., Paoletti, M. G. (2011). Edible and Tended WildPlants, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Agroecology, Crit-ical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1), 198-225.

UN (2010). Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on theright to food, Olivier De Schutter. General Assembly, HumanRights Council, Sixteenth session, GE.10-17849 A/HRC/16/4920 December 2010.

UNEP (2009). The environmental food crisis the environment’srole in averting future food crises a UNEP rapid response as-sessment. UNEP, GRID-Arendal, Retrieved 12 May 2010 from:http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis.

van de Wouw, M., van Hintum, T., Kik, C., van Treuren, R., Visser,B. (2009). Genetic erosion in crops: concept, research resultsand challenges. Plant Genet Resour Charact Util 8(1), 1-15.

Vigouroux, Y., Barnaud, A., Scarcelli, N., Thuillet, A.C. (2011).Biodiversity, evolution and adaptation of cultivated crops.Comptes Rendus Biol. In press.

Worldwatch Institute (2011). The State Of The World: Innova-tions that Nourish the Planet. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.,New York, N.Y. ISBN 978-0-393-33880-5.

272

273

FOOD AND ENERGY: A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH Massimo Iannetta, Federica Colucci, Ombretta Presenti and Fabio VitaliSustainable Development and Innovation of the Agro-Industrial System Technical Unit, ENEA, Rome, Italy

274

275

AbstractThe question of food production implies social, ethical,economic and environmental aspects that in recenttimes have become increasingly important and rel-evant. The global food production heavily relies onfossil resources, among which the most importantis oil. Up to now, the modern food system has beenbased on the assumption of an unrestricted avail-ability of low-cost fossil resources. Moreover, its ex-pansion contributes to global warming due to theemission of greenhouse gases. From an energy efficiency standpoint, the modernfood system is the least effective industrial system:it consumes more energy than it produces. A studyon the environmental impact of the products andservices used in the EU-25 has evidenced how thefood and drink, tobacco and narcotics are collectivelyresponsible for 22–31 percent of the global warming.Recently, owing to problems linked to the food systemsustainability, it was considered how changes inlifestyles could influence greenhouse gas emissions.Consumer choices could play a leading role. Dietarychoices could give their contribution not only tohealth, but also to the sustainability of the agriculturalsystem. In recent years, some indicators were devel-oped in order to evaluate the environmental perform-ance of food production systems like food miles andLife-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the food supply chain.The challenge is to develop and exploit the tools nec-essary to better understand the sustainability of foodchains, optimize sustainable primary production andidentify consumer attitudes towards sustainable foodproduction. In this context, the Mediterranean dietwould represent a key resource for sustainable de-velopment around the Mediterranean Basin andworldwide. The diet is grounded in respect for the en-vironment and biodiversity, and ensures the preser-vation and development of traditional activities andcrafts related to the fishing and farming communities.

The energy issueThe continuing world population growth, rapid eco-nomic development (even if interspersed with peri-

ods of stagnation and recession) and – above all –the request of emerging countries to benefit fromthe economic boost, inevitably imply the need forgreater energy requirements. Global food produc-tion heavily relies on fossil resources, among whichthe most important is oil. As a consequence, everythreat to the regular supply of oil is a threat to foodsecurity, that is to the availability of and access tosafe food, adequate for a nutrient diet. Our modernagro-industrial food system is comparable to theother industrial systems for its complex structureand the amount of energy used. Furthermore, it canalso be considered as part of the same industrialeconomic system which is traditionally thought tooperate like a bubble floating in the space, benefit-ing from an unlimited supply of natural resources,bolstering economic activities and pouring waste inthe environment. The environment is therefore theonly one to pay, in the form of waste, the environ-mental costs of the entire economic system.Up to now, the modern food system has been basedon the assumption of an unrestricted availability oflow-cost fossil resources. Moreover, its expansioncontributes to global warming due to the emissionof greenhouse gases. As Herman E. Daly has as-serted for a long time, modern economies must beconsidered as subsystems of larger ecosystems andhave to function within those constraints. That is tosay, modern economies must be able to managelimited resources and create sustainable develop-ment at the same time. The entire food system usesenergy, both directly and indirectly, and depends onfossil resources: chemical industry products, mainlyfertilizers and pesticides, farming machines andtheir fuel, energy for water supply and its distribu-tion, for the transport of agricultural products, fortheir transformation and packaging and, finally, forthe distribution to the final consumers. In the lastcentury, in the western countries, the progress ofgenetics, mechanics and chemistry (the green rev-olution) as well as the low cost of energy, have de-termined the development of the food system,ensuring copious and good quality food production.

276

In the last 50 years, the global production of cerealstripled (from 631 million tonnes in 1950 to 2 029 mil-lion tonnes in 2004) and the current situation forcesus to pay attention to the adoption of sustainableagricultural practices and natural resources (en-ergy, climate, water, soil and biodiversity).

The energy efficiency of the food system From an energy efficiency standpoint, the modernfood system is one of the least effective industrialsystems: it consumes more energy than it produces.One indicator of the unsustainability of the modernfood system is the Sustainability Index (SI), the ratioof energy inputs (the energy required to produce afood divided by the energy content of a food product,evaluated in calories). In the last century (1910–2010), this indicator hasincreased from close to 1 for traditional pre-indus-trial societies at the beginning of the last century toa value close to 9 in the 1970s, to arrive, today, to avalue equal to, and sometimes higher than 100.

The food system and global warmingA study on the environmental impact of the productsand services used in the EU-25 (cited in Moresi andValentini, 2010) has evidenced how the food anddrink, tobacco and narcotics are collectively re-sponsible for 22–31 percent of global warming.Among these products, meat and meat productshave the largest environmental impact of the totalconsumption, their estimated contribution to globalwarming (GWP1) being close to 12%, 24% of Eu-trophication Potential (EP2) and 10% of Photochem-ical Ozone creation potentials (PCOP3). Dairyproducts contribute some 5% to GWP, some 10% to

EP and some 4% to PCOP. Cereal products (bread,pasta, flours) contribute some more 1% to GWP andPCOP, and close to 9% to EP. Finally, fruits and veg-etables (including frozen ones) give a contributionclose to 2% to GWP, EP and PCOP.

Consumer choices Consumer choices could play a leading role. In 1986,J. Gussow and K. Clancy introduced the term “sus-tainable diet”: dietary choices could give their con-tribution not only to health, but also to thesustainability of the agricultural system. Their stud-ies showed the strong link that exists between di-etary choices and land use and conservation, watermanagement and energy resources. Recently,owing to problems linked to the food system sus-tainability, it was considered how changes inlifestyles could influence greenhouse gas emis-sions. In the United Kingdom, it has been calculatedthat the CO2e emissions per capita due to dairyproducts and meats consumption equal 2 194 kgCO2e, whereas those due to vegetable productsconsumption (cereals, fruits and vegetables) corre-spond to 450 kg CO2e. A diet with a 30% decrease inanimal products and a 15% increase in vegetableswould allow a reduction of emissions of 590 kg CO2eper capita per year. This reduction would be equiv-alent to a total decrease of 5% of the global emis-sions per capita, equal to 10.3 Mg CO2e expected in2008. Dietary choices aimed at reducing CO2e emis-sions must however be formulated guaranteeingnutritionally balanced menus.

Sustainability indicatorsIn recent years, some indicators were developed in

1 Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of how much a givenmass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming.The global warming potential is calculated in carbon dioxide equiva-lents (CO2-Eq.). This means that the greenhouse potential of an emis-sion is given in relation to CO2. Since the residence time of the gasesin the atmosphere is incorporated into the calculation, a time rangefor the assessment must also be specified. A period of 100 years iscustomary.

2 Eutrophication Potential (EP): Eutrophication is the enrichment of nu-trients in a certain place. Eutrophication can be aquatic or terrestrial.

Air pollutants, waste water and fertilization in agriculture all contributeto eutrophication. The eutrophication potential is calculated in phos-phate equivalents (PO4-Eq).

3 Photochemical Ozone creation Potential (PCOP): photochemical ozonecreation potential (POCP) is measured in ethylene-equivalents (C2H4-Eq.). Despite playing a protective role in the stratosphere, at ground-level ozone is classified as a damaging trace gas. Photochemical ozoneproduction in the troposphere, also known as summer smog, is sus-pected to damage vegetation and material. High concentrations ofozone are toxic to humans.

277

order to evaluate the environmental performance offood production systems. In the 1990s, Tim Lang(Professor of Food Policy, City University, London)coined the term “food miles”. Food miles is a termthat refers to the distance that a food item travelsfrom the place where it is produced to the placewhere it is eaten. The idea behind food miles was tohighlight the hidden ecological, social and economicconsequences of food production to consumers in asimple way. In recent years, food miles have in-creased very rapidly. Between 1978 and 2002, theamount of food trucked increased by 23 percent.And the distance for each trip increased by over 50percent. In 2002, food transport accounted for anestimated 30 billion vehicle kilometres. The originalidea behind the food miles concept was that the dis-tance that farm produce travelled before consump-tion was a good indicator of the amount of CO2 thathad been emitted.That idea has been seriously challenged, becausetransport accounts for only a very small proportion ofthe CO2 emissions from farm produce. In some cases,carbon emissions are much lower for items producedin tropical countries rather than in temperate coun-tries. In other cases, emissions are much lower whenthey come from the most efficient source. Consider-ing these limits, it seems more appropriate to con-sider how food is produced and with what kind ofenergy. A suitable strategy is the Life-Cycle Assess-ment (LCA) of the food supply chain. LCA is a method-ology used for analysing and assessing theenvironmental impacts of a material, product or serv-ice throughout its entire life cycle, from the extractionof raw materials and their processing, through man-ufacturing, transport, use and final disposal: ananalysis from cradle to grave. Recently, Life-Cycle As-sessments have been utilized to evaluate and improvethe environmental performance of food productionsystems. In order to find the possible directions tosustainable food production and consumption, LCAhas been applied for more than 15 years to agricul-tural and food systems, identifying their environmen-tal impacts throughout their life cycle and supporting

environmental decision-making. A variety of data-bases and methodological approaches have been out-lined over this period to support the applications ofLCA to food systems. LCA results have been used inthe development of eco-labelling criteria with the aimof informing consumers of the environmental char-acteristics of products. However, most analyses arelimited to case studies of either a single food or a lim-ited set of items. The challenge is to develop and ex-ploit the tools necessary to better understand thesustainability of food chains, optimize sustainable pri-mary production and identify consumer attitudes to-wards sustainable food production.

Mediterranean dietThe Mediterranean diet is an example of sustain-able food production. It is a dietary pattern that cancombine taste and health, environmental protec-tion, biodiversity protection and consumption oflocal and seasonal products. The concept of aMediterranean diet was developed for the first timein 1939, by Lorenzo Piroddi, a nutritionist who un-derstood the connection between diet and diabetes,bulimia and obesity, as confirmed by the studiesconducted by Ancel Keys and his school afterwards.The main features of the Mediterranean diet are: • a high intake of vegetables, legumes, fruits, nutsand cereals, mostly wholemeal;

• the prevalence of the use of olive oil, compared witha modest intake of saturated fats;

• a moderate intake of fish, also as a function of distance from the sea;

• a regular but limited intake of dairy products (mainly in the form of yogurt and cheese);

• a moderate consumption of meat and poultry; • a moderate intake of ethanol and active ingredientssuch as resveratrol, mainly in the form of wine consumed during meals.

"The Mediterranean Diet is a set of skills, knowl-edge, practices and traditions that range from land-scape to the table, including crops, harvesting,fishing, preservation, processing, preparation and,

278

in particular, the consumption of food. [...]. How-ever, the Mediterranean diet (from the Greek diaita,or lifestyle) is more than just a set of foods. It pro-motes social interaction, because the common mealis the basis of social customs and festivities sharedby a given community, and resulted in a consider-able body of knowledge, songs, maxims, tales andlegends. The Diet is grounded in respect for the en-vironment and biodiversity, and ensures the preser-vation and development of traditional activities andcrafts related to the fishing and farming communi-ties of the Mediterranean ". For these reasons, re-lated to both nutritional and social, cultural andenvironmental aspects, on 17 November 2010 inKenya, the Mediterranean diet was declared part ofthe intangible heritage of humanity by the Intergov-ernmental Committee of the Convention on intan-gible heritage of humanity of UNESCO. Thecharacteristics of the diet can be graphically repre-sented by the food pyramid, whose first version wasdrawn in 1992 by the United States Department ofAgriculture. The food pyramid shows in a conciseand effective way how to adopt a healthy and bal-anced type of diet. As part of Expo 2015, having thetheme "Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life", amongthe project proposals is a proposal on the Mediter-ranean diet. The Expo will be an extraordinary in-ternational context in which to recognize andpromote the Mediterranean diet as a key resourcefor sustainable development around the Mediter-ranean Basin and worldwide. The ability to inspirethrough food a sense of continuity and identity forlocal people may represent, now and even more inthe future, a factor of sustainable growth.

Conclusions The current production of food in our society is ex-tremely complex. This complexity has led to a grad-ual loss of knowledge and awareness on how thefood that every day we put on our tables is producedand prepared. The question of food production im-plies social, ethical, economic and environmental

aspects that in recent times have become increas-ingly important and relevant. Food, especially in acountry like Italy, must regain its importance notonly nutritionally but also socially. Significantly inthis context is the consumer behaviour and the vir-tuous changes that it can promote in the food sys-tem. The inclusion of the Mediterranean diet intothe intangible heritage of humankind by UNESCOand the project application on the Mediterraneandiet as part of Expo 2015 are clear indications of adifferent way of looking at food production and nu-trition. All of the above must be linked to the need tofeed an increasing world population. The global gov-ernance could achieve the necessary objectives: 1.increase international trade in order to balance thesurplus production in OECD, former Soviet andSouth American countries with Asian and Africandeficits; 2. increase agricultural production, adopt-ing technological and organizational progressesthat promote sustainability; 3. change consumptionpatterns, starting from developed countries, aim-ing at a consumption of about 2 000 kilocalories perday (of which only 500 kilocalories derived from an-imals) and reducing waste (presently, 800 kilocalo-ries per day go in the garbage); 4. reduce thebioaccumulation of toxic substances within foodmatrices, through a mapping of the major sourcesof pollution. If international policies to promote bet-ter nutrition are successful, rich countries will ex-perience reduced diseases from overweight and adiet that is more environmentally sustainable. Ifgovernments manage to agree on a stable tradingsystem to compensate the deficit and the surplusfood production in the different parts of the world,a structural problem of social injustices on theplanet will be healed, reducing now evident socialtensions. If science and technology once again dotheir job, the quantity and quality of food produc-tion will make a leap forward. Everyone should dohis part and then the world of tomorrow will befairer and more virtuous than that of today in termsof food security.

References

Barclay C. (2010) Food Miles Standard Note SN/SC/4984 Sci-ence and Environment Section House of Commons Library UK

Clancy K., Gussow J.(1986) Dietary guidelines for sustainability.Journal of nutrition Education 18, 1-5, USA.

Daly H.E. (1999) Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Eco-nomics Northampton, Mass: Edward Elgar, Maryland, USA.

“La Dieta Mediterranea è patrimonio immateriale dell’Uman-ità” (17-11-2010), website referenceshttp://www.unesco.it/cni/index.php/news/174-la-dieta-mediterranea-e-patrimonio-immateriale-dellumanita.

Moresi M., Valentini R. (2010), “Dieta mediterranea e impattoambientale”, Rivista Industrie Alimentari XLIX, maggio, 9-20,Chirotti Editore, Torino.

Pirrodi L. (1993). “Cucina Mediterranea. Ingredienti, principi di-etetici e ricette al sapore di sole”, Mondadori, Milano.

279

DOUBLE PYRAMID: HEALTHYFOOD FOR PEOPLE AND SUSTAINABLE FOR THE PLANETRoberto Ciati and Luca RuiniBarilla Center for Food & Nutrition, Parma, Italy

280

AbstractMan has long been aware that correct nutrition isessential to health. Development and modernizationhave made available to an increasing number ofpeople a varied and abundant supply of foods. Without a proper cultural foundation or clear nutritionalguidelines that can be applied and easily followedon a daily basis, individuals risk following unbalanced– if not actually incorrect – eating habits. Proof ofthis is the recent, prolific spread of pathologiescaused by overeating and accompanying reductionin physical activity (including obesity, diabetes andcardiovascular disease) in all age brackets of thepopulation, including children and young people.The Mediterranean diet, recognized by UNESCO in2010 as an “Intangible Cultural Heritage” and inter-nationally recognized as a complete and balanceddiet pattern, proves to be a sustainable model forthe environment.The Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition is offeringthe Food Pyramid in a double version, positioningfoods not only following the criteria nutritional sci-ence has long recommended on the basis of theirpositive impact on health, but also in terms of theirimpact on the environment. The result is a “DoublePyramid”: the familiar Food Pyramid and an envi-ronmental Food Pyramid. The latter, placed along-side the Food Pyramid, is shown upside-down:foods with higher environmental impact are at thetop and those with reduced impact are at the bottom.From this “Double Pyramid” it can be seen thatthose foods with higher recommended consumptionlevels, are also those with lower environmental im-pact. Contrarily, those foods with lower recom-mended consumption levels are also those withhigher environmental impact. In other words, thisnewly-elaborated version of the Food Pyramid il-lustrates, in a unified model, the connection be-tween two different but highly-relevant goals: healthand environmental protection.The Environmental Pyramid was constructed on thebasis of the environmental impact associated with

each food estimated on the basis of the Life CycleAssessment (LCA), an objective method for evalu-ating energy and environmental impact for a givenprocess (whether an activity or product). Morespecifically, process assessment underscores theextent to which the main environmental impacts areseen in the generation of greenhouse gas (CarbonFootprint), consumption of water resources (WaterFootprint) and Ecological Footprint “land use”. Inorder to provide a more complete and effective com-munications tool, only the Ecological Footprint wasused as a reference index in creating the Environ-mental Pyramid.This work, far from being conclusive, aims to en-courage the publication of further studies on themeasurement of environmental impacts of food,which will be considered in future editions of thisdocument.In this sense the most innovative element of theupdated Double Pyramid is represented by its co-herence with the needs of those who are still grow-ing. Since food needs during the age of developmentdiffer from those of adults, it was decided to designa specific nutritional pyramid. The same approachused to design the “adult version” of the pyramidwas employed to realize the “Double Pyramid forthose who are still growing” and its environmentalimpact has been calculated according to the samecriteria.The objective is to increase the coverage of statisti-cal data and examine the influence that may havesome factors, such as, for example, geographicalorigin or food preservation.Finally the technical aspects, data and considera-tions are highly summarized in order to provideproper scientific information and conclusions. Thetechnical document, on the contrary, is for “expertsonly” and presents detailed data and elaborations

1. The Food Pyramid modelThe Pyramid was created using the most currentnutrition research to represent a healthy, traditional

281

282

Mediterranean diet. It was based on the dietary tra-ditions of Crete, Greece and southern Italy in the1960s at a time when the rates of chronic diseaseamong populations there were among the lowest inthe world. From the first “Seven Countries Study”to the current days, many other studies haveanalysed the characteristics and the relationshipsbetween dietary habits adopted and the onset ofchronic disease. Starting in the 1990s, there hasalso developed a line of study into the relationshipbetween diet and longevity. In general, whatemerges is that the adoption of a Mediterranean, orsimilar, diet, provides a protective factor against themost widespread chronic diseases. In other words,high consumption of vegetables, legumes, fruits andnuts, olive oil and grains (which in the past wereprevalently wholemeal); moderate consumption offish and dairy products (especially cheese and yo-ghurt) and wine; low consumption of red meat,

white meat and saturated fatty acids. The interestof the scientific and medical community in theMediterranean diet is still extremely active, and, infact, the current specialist literature often publishesinformation about the relationship betweenMediterranean-style dietary habits and the impacton human health. The beneficial aspects of theMediterranean diet are backed by increasing evi-dence in terms of both prevention and clinical im-provement regarding specific pathology areas.These publications present the results of clinical orepidemiological research in which adherence to theMediterranean diet translates into measurable ben-efits in numerous areas of human health, which in-clude, for example, cardiovascular disease,metabolic conditions, neurological or psychiatricpathologies (e.g. Alzheimer’s), respiratory diseaseor allergies, female and male sexual disorders (e.g.erectile dysfunction) and certain oncological

FOOD PYRAMID

SweetsBeef

CheeseEggs

PoultryFish

Cookies

MilkYogurt

Olive oil

Bread, PastaPotatoes

Legumes

FruitVegetables

LOW

HIGH

283

pathologies. In terms of this last point, of particularinterest are the recent conclusions of a broad-rang-ing EPIC European study which examined 485 044adults over the course of nine years; EPIC showedthat increased adherence to the Mediterranean dietis connected to a significant reduction (-33%) in therisk of developing gastric cancer. Finally, it is inter-esting to note that the scientific literature demon-strates a positive impact of the Mediterranean dietacross all age brackets, starting from pre-natal tochildhood, adulthood and old age.

Its adoption is especially pronounced in the moreeducated segments of the population (not Europeonly) which, moreover, it perceived consistency withthe current sociocultural trends, such as attentionto the welfare, the fight against obesity, the promotionof typical products, the search for natural productsand natural attention to environmental protection.

The value of the Food Pyramid is twofold: first it isan excellent summary of the main knowledgegained from studies on medicine and nutrition, es-sential for anyone who pays attention to theirhealth, second it is a powerful tool for consumer ed-ucation, thanks also to its effective graphic form andits undoubted simplicity, it plays an important pro-motional role for the benefit of all those foods (fruitsand vegetables in particular) that are almost always“unbranded” and not advertised by manufacturers.

2. The environmental impact of food productionand Double PyramidsThe estimated environmental impact for each singlefood item was calculated on the basis of the infor-mation and public data which was measuredthrough the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): an objec-tive assessment methodology to detect energy andenvironmental loads in a process (either an activityor a service). This kind of assessment includes theanalysis of the whole value chain, starting fromgrowing or extraction practices, raw material pro-cessing, manufacturing, packaging, transportation,

distribution, use, re-use, recycling and final dis-posal. On the one hand, the LCA approach has theadvantage of offering a fairly objective and completeassessment of the system; on the other hand, thedisadvantage lies in a difficult transmission of theresulting complex outcome.

Synthetic indicators are then used to fully understandthis outcome. These indicators are meant to pre-serve the scientific basis of the analysis as much aspossible; they are selected according to the kind ofsystem analysed and must simply and correctly rep-resent the relations with the main environmentalcategories. The process analysis, more specificallyand focusing our attention on food production, high-lights the main environmental loads: greenhousegas generation, the use of water resources and theability to regenerate local resources. According tothis input, and considering this work’s aim to pro-vide valid results in an initial analysis, the followingenvironmental indicators were chosen:

• Carbon Footprint, representing and identifyinggreenhouse gas emissions responsible for climatechange: measured through the CO2 equivalent. By“Carbon Footprint” is meant the impact associatedwith a product (or service) in terms of emission ofcarbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-equiv), calculatedthroughout the entire life cycle of the system underexamination. It is a new term utilized to indicate theso called Global Warming Potential (GWP) and, there-fore, the potential greenhouse effect of a system calcu-lated using the LCA – Life Cycle Assessment method.

In calculating the Carbon Footprint are always takeninto consideration the emissions of all greenhousegases, which are then converted into CO2 equiva-lent using the international parameters set by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),a body operating under the aegis of the United Na-tions. Correctly calculating the Carbon Footprint ofa good or service must necessarily take into accountall the phases of the supply chain starting with the

284

extraction of the raw materials up through disposalof the waste generated by the system on the basis ofLCA methodology. Clearly, this requires the creationof a “working model” that can fully represent the sup-ply chain in order to take into account all aspectswhich actually contribute to the formation of the GWP.

• Water Footprint or virtual water content, meas-ures the use of water resources in terms of volume(expressed in m3) of water consumed and/or pol-luted by the entire chain – from production to directconsumption of goods/services.

The indicator is closely linked to the concept of vir-tual water (virtual water), theorized in 1993 by Pro-fessor John Anthony Allan of King's College LondonSchool of Oriental and African Studies, which indi-cates the volume of freshwater consumed to pro-duce a product (a commodity, good or service) bysumming all phases of the production chain. Theterm "virtual" refers to the fact that the vast major-ity of water used to produce the product is not phys-ically contained in the same product, but has beenconsumed during its entire life cycle.The methodology used for the measurement of theindicator was developed by the Water Footprint Network(www.waterfootprint.org), a non-profit organizationof reference that operates at international level tostandardize the calculation and use of this impactindicator. According to the protocol published in aversion updated in 2011, the Water Footprint of asystem is the sum of three specific components both

geographically and in terms of time and which cor-responds to a different impact on the environment.When looking at the details of agrifood chains, themost characteristic item, but also the most complexto evaluate, is the green water component given itsclose ties to the local climatic conditions and speciescultivated as well as its productive yield. Thiscomponent is particularly important for agriculturalcultivations (it encompasses plant transpiration andother forms of evaporation). The following formulais used to calculate green water:

where:• ET0 is a factor that represents the volume of rainwaterand depends on local climatic characteristics;

• Kc depends on the plant species cultivated;• Yield depends on the crop cultivated and climaticconditions of the cultivation area.

As one might easily suppose, the value of greenwater of a product can vary greatly both from regionto region and from year to year, as much dependson the value of ET0. The availability of public data-bases and tools, made available by FAO (Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations), al-lows simple retrieval of the necessary factors forthe calculation of this contribution.The blue water component is represented by boththe quantity of water used during industrial produc-tion and that consumed for irrigation in the agricul-tural phase.Lastly, the evaluation of the grey water componenttakes into account both the characteristics of waterreleased from the system and the natural conditionsof the receiving body in which it is released.

• Ecological Footprint, measuring the quantity ofbiologically productive land (or sea) needed toprovide resources and absorb the emissions produced

Component Description

Green waterVolume of rainwater evapotranspired from theground and cultivated vegetation.

Blue water

Volume of freshwater, which originated from surfaceor groundwater sources, used throughout the entirechain under observation that is not repleneshed intothe basin or origin. This footprint includes both irri-gation and process water consumption.

Grey water

Voume of polluted water associated with the produc-tion of goods or services measured as the amountof water (theoretically) required to dilute the pollutantsto a degree as to ensure the quality of the water.

Green waterETO (mm) * Kc * 10

yeld

=t

ha

l

kg

285

by a manufacturing system: measured in m2 orglobal hectares.The Ecological Footprint is an indicator used to esti-mate the impact on the environment of a given popu-lation due to its consumption; it quantifies the totalarea of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems requiredto provide in a sustainable manner all the resourcesutilized and to absorb (once again in a sustainableway) all the emissions produced. The Ecological Foot-print measures the quantity of biologically productiveland and water required to both provide the resourcesconsumed and absorb the waste produced.

The calculation methodology is identified by the GlobalFootprint Network and includes the following com-ponents in the calculation:• Energy Land, represents the forest area required toabsorb the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel burning and power for the production of that good;

• Cropland, represents the area of cultivated land

necessary for the production of food and other non-edible resources of plant origin (cereals, fruit,vegetables, tobacco, cotton etc.);

• Grazing Land, represents the area required to produce food and non-edible resources of animalorigin (meat, milk, wool etc.);

• Forest Land, represents the land, either cultivatedor wild,utilized for the production of wood-based products;

• Built-up Land, represents the land occupied forthe construction of roads, homes and other infra-structures;

• Fishing Ground, represents the marine and freshwater surface area required for fisheries.

The Ecological Footprint is thus a composite indicatorwhich, through conversion and specific equivalences,measures the various ways in which environmentalresources are utilized through a single unit of meas-ure, the global hectare (gha).

Global Footprint Network

In 2004 Mathis Wackernagel and his associates founded the Global Footprint Network,a network of research istitutes, scientists and users of this indicator which aims tofurther improve its calculation method and bring it to higher standards, while at thesame time guarantee enhanced scientific “robustness” for the indicator as well aspromoting its spread.Together with the Living Planet Index it representsone of the two indicators throught which, ona two-years basis, the WWF in collabo-ration with the Global FootprintNetwork and the Zoological Society of London, assessesthe conservation status of the planet: the results arepresented in the Living PlantReport.

ENERGY LAND

FOREST

BUILT-UP LAND

GROPLAND

FISHING GROUND

GRAZING LAND

286

Carbon Footprint impact

It is, nevertheless, important to notice that the impactsthis research takes into consideration are not just theones generated by a food production chain; they canbe the most relevant ones in terms of real impact andcommunication. Even though the environmentalpyramid has been represented through the ecological

footprint, for synthetic reasons the food environmentalimpact was measured by water and carbon footprintindicators, to avoid partial and sometimes misleadingideas of the phenomena. The pyramids concerningthe three environmental impact indicators and theEnvironmental Pyramid are displayed below.

Water Footprint or virtual water content

287

Ecological Footprint

The BCFN environmental pyramid. Its layout is based on the re-classification of the foods’ environmentalimpact, represented through their ecological footprints.

Beef

CheeseFish

Olive oilPorkPoultry

LegumesSweetsYogurtEggs

BreadMilkPastaRice

Cockies

FruitPotatoesVegetables

100 global m2

50 global m2

25 global m2

15 global m2

5 global m2

0

Global m

2per kilo or liter

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

288

In the same way it has been developed the sameconcept for children and adolescents: if the mainconnections are changed between macro- andmicronutrient intake and proper development atdifferent stages of growth in an average diet whichis adequate for meeting the requirements identified

by pediatricians and nutritionists, it is possible toachieve the definition of a weekly composition offood eaten by children and adolescents that – as awhole – is both correct and balanced, in terms oftype of food ingested and the distribution of dailycalories.

The Double Food-Environmental Pyramid is obtainedby comparing the two pyramids (one in its correct po-sition and the other one upside down). It is clear that,in general, the more recommended foods have alower impact on the environment as well. Conversely,

foods which are recommended for a lower con-sumption are also the ones that have the greatestimpact on the environment.In practice, two differentbut equally relevant goals – people’s health and envi-ronmental protection – fit into one single food model.

Breakfast 20%

Mid-morning snack 5%

Lunch 35%

Dinner 30%

Afternoon snack 10%

Source The European House-Ambrosetti elaboration of data from the Italian Society of Human Nutrition

ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMID

FOOD PYRAMID

289

As in the case of adults, the diet of children andadolescents, too, should be based mainly on plantfoods, particularly the various cereals, especiallywholegrains, which are very important for their fibrecontent and protective components, and fruits andvegetables. Slightly above, we find milk and dairyproducts, preferably low-fat versions, as well asmeat and fish; while higher up we get to products

with a higher fat and sugar content, for which wesuggest a relatively low frequency of consumption.The necessary intake of unsaturated fats should becovered by fish and dried fruit, preferably by usingvegetable oils for condiments. The combination ofan environmental and a nutritional pyramid for childrenhas allowed us to create the BCFN Double Pyramid,dedicated to those who are growing.

3. The impact of dietary habitsUsing the ecological footprint – the indicator that wasused for the Double Pyramid – as a point of reference,this chapter examines how the eating habits of peo-ple have an environmental impact. Significant reduc-tions can be achieved both by changing eating habits(as demonstrated by some examples of menus) andby reducing waste.According to recent statistics published by the GlobalFootprint Network (GFN), a citizen who lives in acountry with a high income, in order to maintain thedesired level of well-being, requires an ecologicalarea of about 6.1 gha (1gha is approximately 170square feet total per day), more than twice the global

average (2.7 gha). Analysing the data in its compo-nents, one finds that food consumption is the firstentry in terms of impact, with a significant EcologicalFootprint totaling around 30–40 percent, which cor-responds to about 1.8/2.4 gha per year. Referring tothe average consumption (2.1 gha) and the reporteddaily impact, one can assume that every individualneeds approximately 60 square meters to meet theirglobal needs for food. The estimate takes into ac-count the fact that, on average, a citizen who lives ina high-income country follows a diet of 2 650 kcal perday, considering the consumption of both food anddrink, including food waste (unfortunately, a verycommon phenomenon). As an example, we can also

ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMID

FOOD PYRAMID

290

cite the case of the average Italian citizen, 42 squareglobal metres exploited for food compared to 137total, and that of a citizen of London with a global im-pact of 75 square metres out of 180. At this point, it isinteresting to see to what extent the eating habits ofindividuals affect the Ecological Footprint.In order to estimate the extent to which the foodchoices of individuals affect the Ecological Footprint,two different daily menus were analysed: both arebalanced from anutritional point of view, both interms of calories and nutrients (proteins, fats and

carbohydrates), but in the first one, the protein is ofplant origin (“vegetarian menu”), while in the sec-ond, it is mainly of animal origin (“meat menu”). Themeat menu has an environmental impact that is twoand a half times higher than the vegetarian one: 42square global metres compared to 16; that is, a dif-ference of at least 26, which represents a very sig-nificant share in the daily impact of an individual.Based on this data, we can hypothesize what thereduction of environmental impact of an individualmight be if he or she simply changes eating habits.

Composition of a vegetarian menu and its environmental impact

Composition of a meat menu and its environmentalimpact

Variations in the ecological footprint depending on food choicesimpact

Colazione

1 Porzione di frutta (200 gr)

4 Fette biscottate

1 global m2

Spuntino

1 Vasetto di yogurt magro1 Pacchetto di cracker non salati

1 global m2

Spuntino

1 Vasetto di yogurt magro

1 Frutto

3 global m2

Cena

1 Porzione di verdurefagiolini (200 gr) epatate (400 gr) al vaporecon scaglie di grana (40 gr)

7 global m2

Pranzo

1 Porzione pasta con finocchietto

1 Porzione di sformato di zucca e porri

4 global m2

Colazione

1 Tazza di latte parz. scremato

4 Biscotti

3 global m2

Spuntino

1 Vasetto di yogurt magro

2 global m2

Spuntino

1 Porzione di frutta (200 gr)

1 global m2

Cena

1 Porzione di minestrapasta e piselli1 Bistecca di carne bovinaalla griglia (150 gr)1 Fetta di pane

20 global m2

Pranzo

1 Porzione di pizzaMargherita

Ortaggi misti crudi

16 global m2

Fonte: BCFN, 2011

Fonte: elaborazione BCFN sulla base dei dati dell’Ecological Footprint Network.

DIETA SETTIMANALEIMPATTO

SETTIMANALE[GLOBAL m2]

IMPATTOSETTIMANALE[GLOBAL m2]

MENÙ DI CARNE

7VOLTE5VOLTE

7VOLTE2VOLTE

294

164

116

42

23

16

MENÙ DI CARNE

MENÙ VEGETARIANO

MENÙ VEGETARIANO

+

291

Taking the example of a week’s worth of food, we canhypothesize having three different diets on the basisof how many times a vegetarian menu is eaten andhow many times the menu is based on meat: limitinganimal protein to just twice a week, in line with therecommendations of nutritionists, you can “save” upto 20 square global meters per day.

Conclusions and suggestions for further researchThe present study represents a further step in theinvestigation of the relationships between people’seating habits and food environmental impact. Theanalysis of main publicly available data lets us makesome considerations about the impact on soil use(ecological footprint), water consumption (waterfootprint) and greenhouse gas emissions (carbonfootprint) of foodstuffs included in the traditionalfood pyramid.Indicators have been chosen in order to achieve theright balance between simplicity of the message tocommunicate and scientific rigour. The most interesting result that emerges from themodel is the strong correlation between environ-mental impact of foodstuffs and their nutritionalcharacteristics. Specifically, it turns out that thefoodstuffs of which we suggest a moderate con-sumption are also those that have a greater impactin terms of soil use, water consumption, and CO2emissions. And vice versa. In the future, in addition to the enlargement of thesample, that will enable the investigation of a highernumber of product categories, two further limita-tions of the research have to be addressed. (a) thelack of references both to seasonality issues (con-sidering that the environmental impact increasesconsistently when foodstuffs are consumed out ofseason) and (b) to logistics needed for transporta-tion, with particular reference to the food cold chain.Therefore, further research by BFNC, that will bepublished in the third edition of the paper, will takeinto account data relative to the geographical vari-able in terms of both food production (i.e. origin) andplace of consumption.

Bibliography

NutritionBarilla Center for Food and Nutrition “Double Pyramid: healthyfood for people, sustainable food for the planet” – 2010

Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition “2011 Double Pyramid:Healty food for people, sustainable for the planet” - 2011

Butte, N .F. et al., Nutrient Intakes of US Infants, Toddlers andPreschoolers Meet or Exceed Dietary Reference Intakes, BaylorCollege of Medicine, Houston, TX, 2006.

De L orgeril, M . et al., Mediterranean Diet, Traditional Risk Fac-tors, and the Rate of Cardiovascular Complications after My-ocardial Infarction: Final Report of the Lyon Diet Heart Study, in“Explorations Fonctionnelles Cardiorespiratoires etMétaboliques”, Saint-Etienne, 1999.

European Union, EU Platform on Diet Physical Activity on Health,2005.

Ewing, B. et al., The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010, GlobalFootprint Network, Oakland, CA, 2010.

Farchi, G . et al., Relationship Between Eating Patterns MeetingRecommendations and Subsequent Mortality in 20 Years, in“European Journal of Clinical Nutrition”, # 49, pp. 408-419,1995.

Fox, M .K. et. al., Food Consumption Patterns of YoungPreschoolers: Are They Starting off on the Right Path?, BaylorCollege of Medicine, Houston, TX, 2010.

Frankel, S ., D .J. G unnel and T.J. P eters, Childhood Energy In-take and Adult Mortality from Cancer: The Body Orr CohortStudy, in “British M edical Journal”, vol. cccxvii, n. 7155, A ugust1998, p. 414.

Gonzalez-Gross, M . et al., The Healthy Lifestyle Guide Pyramidfor Children and Adolescents, Universidad Politécnica deMadrid, Madrid, 2007.

Haskell, W .L. et al., Physical Activity & Public Health UpdatedRecommendations for Adults, American College of Sports Med-icine & the American Heat Association, S tanford U niversity School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 2007.

Huijbregts et al., Dietary Pattern and 20 Year Mortality in ElderlyMen in Finland, Italy and the Netherlands, in “British MedicalJournal”, vol. CCCXV, # 7099, July 1997, p. 13.

International A gency for R esearch on Cancer, Weight Controland Physical Activity in Cancer Prevention, Lyon, 2002.

Istituto della S cienza dell’Alimentazione, La Piramide italianadell’attività fisica, U niversità La Sapienza, Rome, 2005.

Kant, A .K. et al., A Prospective Study of Diet Quality and Mor-tality in Women, in “Journal of the American Medical A ssocia-tion”, # 283, pp. 2109-2115, 2000.

Keys, A . et al., Seven Countries. A Multivariate Analysis ofDeath and Coronary Heart Disease, Harvard University Press,

292

Cambridge, MA/London, 1980.

Kouris-Blazos et al., Are the Advantages of the MediterraneanDiet Transferable to Other Populations? A Cohort Study in Mel-bourne, Australia, in “British Journal of Nutrition”, # 82, 1999,pp. 57-61.

Lasheras, C., S . F ernandez e A .M. P atterson, MediterraneanDiet and Age with respect to Overall Survival in Institutional-ized, Nonsmoking Elderly People, in “American Journal of Clin-ical N utrition”, # 71, pp. 987-992, 2000.

Michels K.B. and A .A. W olk, A Prospective Study of Variety ofHealthy Foods and Mortality in Women, in “International Jour-nal of Epidemiology”, A ugust 2002.

Must, A . and R .D. L ipman, Childhood Energy Intake and Can-cer Mortality in Adulthood, in “Nutrition Reviews”, vol. LVII , #1, January 1999, pp. 21-24.

OMS R egional O ffice for E urope e UNI CEF, Feeding and Nu-trition of Infants and Young Children, OMS Regional Publica-tions, European Series, # 87, 2000 (updated reprint in 2003).

Osler, M . and M . S chroll, Diet and Mortality in a Cohort of Eld-erly People in a North European Community, in “InternationalJournal of Epidemiology”, # 26, pp. 155-159, 1997.

Osler, M . et al., Dietary Patterns and Mortality in Danish Menand Women: A Prospective Observational Study, in “BritishJournal of Nutrition”, # 85, pp. 219-225, 2001.

Ramic, E . et al., Influence of Lifestyle on Overweight and Obe-sity in School-age Children, P rimary Health Care Center, Tuzla,2008.

Scaglioni, S . et al., Early Macronutrient Intake and Overweightat Five Years of Age, in “International Journal of Obesity”, # 24,pp. 777-781, 2000.

Trichopoulou et al., Diet and Overall Survival in Elderly People,in “British M edical Journal”, vol. CCCXI, # 7018, Dicember1995, pp. 1457-1460.

Victoria J. et al., Generation M2. Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-olds, Kaiser F amily F oundation Study, January 2010.

World Health Organization (WHO), Global Strategy on Diet Phys-ical Activity on Health, Geneva 2004.

EnvironmentalBaldo, G .L., M . M arino and S . R ossi, Analisi del ciclo di vitaLCA, E dizioni A mbiente, M ilan, 2008 (new updated edition).

Barilla Center for F ood & N utrition, Doppia piramide: alimen-tazione sana per le persone, sostenibile per il pianeta, Parma,2010.

Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition, Water Economy, Parma,2011.

Baroni, L . et al., Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Vari-ous Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production

Systems, in “European Journal of Clinical Nutrition”, 2006, pp.1-8.

City L imits, A Resource Flow and Ecological Footprint Analysisof Greater London, Best Foot Forward, IWM (EB), 2002.

Ewing, B. et al., The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010, GlobalFootprint Network, Oakland, CA, 2010.

Global F ootprint N etwork, Zoological Society of London, LivingPlanet Report 2010, WWF , Gland, 2010.

Hoekstra, A .Y., A .K. Chapagain, M .M. A ldaya and M .M. Mekonnen, The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting theGlobal Standard, Earthscan, London, 2011.

Nikos, A . et al., World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050 – In-terim Report, Prospects for food, nutrition, agriculture andmajor commodity groups, Global Perspective Studies Unit, FAO, Rome, June 2006, pp. 3-8.

Segrè, A . and L . Falasconi, Il libro nero dello spreco alimentarein Italia, Edizioni Ambiente, Milan, 2011.

Tiezzi E., Tempi storici tempi biologici. Vent’anni dopo, Donzelli,Rome, 2001.

Allen, Pereira, Raes, Smith (1998), Crop Evapotranspiration -Guidelines for computing crop water requirements - Fao irri-gation and Drainage Paper 56. Andersson K., 2000, LCA of FoodProducts and Production Systems, International Journal of LCA5 (4) pp. 239 – 248; Andersson K., Ohlsson T., 1999,

Life Cycle Assessment of Bread Produced on Different Scales,International Journal of LCA pp. 25 – 40; Avraamides M., FattaD., 2008

Resource consumption and emissions from olive oil production:a life cycle inventory case study in Cyprus, Journal of CleanerProduction 16 pp. 809-821; Bagliani M., Carechino M., MartiniF., 2009,

La contabilità ambientale applicata alla produzione zootecnica,l’impronta ecologica dell’allevamento di bovini di razza piemon-tese, IRES (Istituto Ricerche Economico Sociali del Piemonte,Regione Piemonte, Collana ambiente 29;Bagliani M., Contu S., Coscia I., Tiezzi E., “The evaluation of theEcological Footprint of the Province of Siena (Italy)”, in TiezziE., Brebbia C.A., Uso J.L. (eds.), “Ecosystems and SustainableDevelopment: Volume 1”, pp. 387-396, Wessex Institute of Tech-nology Press, Southampton (2003)

Baldo, Marino, Rossi, Analisi del Ciclo di Vita LCA, nuova edi-zione aggiornata, Edizione Ambiente;

Baroni L., Cenci L., Tettamanti M., Berati M., Evaluating the en-vironmental impact of various dietary patterns combined withdifferent food production systems, European Journal of ClinicalNutrition (2006), 1–8;

Basset-Mens, C. & van der Werf, H., 2003, Scenario-based en-vironmental assessment of farming systems – the case of pigproduction in France, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ-

293

ment 1005, pp. 127-144;

Beccali M., Cellura M., Ludicello M., Mistretta M., ResourceConsumption and Environmental Impacts of the Agrofood Sec-tor: Life Cycle Assessment of Italian Citrus-Based Products,Environmental Management (2009) 43:707–724

Berlin, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Swedishsemi-hard cheese - International Dairy Journal 12 (2002) pp.939– 953;

Best, Aaron, Stefan Giljum, Craig Simmons, Daniel Blobel,Kevin Lewis, Mark Hammer, Sandra Cavalieri, Stephan Lutterand Cathy Maguire. 2008. Potential of the Ecological Footprintfor monitoring environmental impacts from natural resourceuse: Analysis of the potential of the Ecological Footprint and re-lated assessment tools for use in the EU’s Thematic Strategy onthe Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. Report to the Euro-pean Commission, DG Environment

Blengini GA, Busto M., The life cycle of rice: LCA of alternativeagri-food chain management systems in Vercelli (Italy), Journalof environmental management (2008);

Busser S., Jungbluth N., 2009, The role of flexible packaging inthe life cycle of coffee and butter, International Journal of LCA14 (Suppl 1) pp. S80 – S91

Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2006, GHG emissions from con-ventional, agri-environmental and organic Irish suckler beefunits, Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 231-239;

Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2006a, Quantification of GHG emis-sions from sucker-beef production in Ireland. Agricultural Sys-tems 90, 79-98;

Cederberg C. & Darelius, K., 2000, Livscykelanalys (LCA) avnötkött - en studie av olika produktionsformer (Life Cycle As-sessment (LCA) of beef – a study of different production forms,in Swedish), Naturresursforum, Landstinget Halland, Halm-stad;

Cederberg C. & Darelius, K., 2001, Livscykelanalys (LCA) avgriskött (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of pork, in Swedish),Naturresursforum Halland, Halmstad, Sweden;

Cederberg C. & Flysjö A., 2004, Environmental assessment offuture pig farming systems – quantifi cation of three scenariosfrom the FOOD 21 synthesis work, SIK Report 723, SIK – TheSwedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Göteborg,ISBN91-7290- 236-1;

Cederberg C. and Stadig M., 2003, System Expansion and Allo-cation in Life Cycle Assessment of Milk and Beef Production,International Journal of LCA 8 (6) pp. 350 -356;

Cederberg C., Berlin j., Henriksson M. & Davis, Jennifer, 2008,Utsläpp av växthusgaser I ett livscykelperspektiv för verk-samheten vid livsmedelsföretaget Berte Qvarn (Emissions ofgreenhouse gases in a life cycle perspective from the food com-pany Berte

Quarn, in Swedih), SIK-Report 777, ISBN 978-91-7290-270-1,

SIK – The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Göte-borg, Sweden References 22;

Cederberg C., Meyer, D. & Flysjö, A., 2009a, Life Cycle Inven-tory of greenhouse gas emissions and use of land and energy ofBrazilian beef exported to Europe, SIK-Rapport 792, SIK – In-stitutet för Livsmedel och Bioteknik, Göteborg, ISBN 978-91-7290-283-1;

Cederberg C., Sonesson, U., Davis, J. & Sund, V., 2009b, Green-house gas emissions from production of meat, milk and eggs inSweden 1990 and 2005, SIK-Rapport 793, SIK – Institutet förLivsmedel och Bioteknik, Göteborg, ISBN 978-91-7290-284-8;Cerelia, Dichiarazione ambientale di prodotto dell’acqua min-erale naturale Cerelia imbottigliata in: PET da 1,5l e vetro da 1l,Rev.0– Data: 30/07/2008, Registrazione N°: S-P-00123;

Chambers N., Simmons C., Wackernagel M., Sharing Nature’sInterest, Ecological Footprints as an indicator of sustainability,Earthscan,2007, chapter 5, pp.79 – 105;

Colombo, “Manuale dell’Ingegnere”; 83° Edizione; Hoepli, 1997

SitographyGlobal Footprint Network: www.footprintnetwork.orgLa piramide alimentare italiana (The Italian food pyramid):www.piramideitaliana.it

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: www.ghgprotocol.orgWater Footprint Network: www.waterfootprint.org26. Nikos,2006.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do notimply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organ-ization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country,territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or notthese have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended byFAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not neces-sarily reflect the views of FAO.

E-ISBN 978-92-5-107288-2 (PDF)

All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this infor-mation product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Repro-duction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incurfees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and allqueries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail tocopyright@fao.org or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of KnowledgeExchange, Research and Extension, FAO,Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

© FAO 2012