Position paper Double Pyramid: healty food for people, sustainable food for the planet

Double Pyramid:healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet

people, environment, science, economy

Contact Details

Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition

Via Mantova, 166

43122 Parma ITALY

[email protected]

www.barillacfn.com

Photo by

Do

ub

le P

yra

mid

: he

alth

y fo

od

for p

eo

ple

, susta

ina

ble

foo

d fo

r the

pla

net

www.barillacfn.com

[email protected]

Advisory Board:

Barbara Buchner, Claude Fischler, Jean-Paul Fitoussi, Mario Monti,

Gabriele Riccardi, Camillo Ricordi, Joseph Sassoon, Umberto Veronesi.

In collaboration with:

Life Cycle Engineering

Carlo Alberto Pratesi - Professore Facoltà di Economia, Università Roma Tre

The European House-Ambrosetti

Graphics, paging, editing:

Burson-Marsteller

Photo by:

National Geographic Image Collection


Index - 1

The Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition 2

Executive summary 4

1. EATING BETTER FOR A BETTER WORLD 10 1.1 TheFoodPyramidasaneducationaltool 14 1.2 ComponentsoftheFoodPyramid 19 1.3 FromtheFoodPyramidtotheEnvironmentalPyramid 22

2. SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF THE FOOD PYRAMID 26 2.1 StudiesinvolvingtheMediterraneanDiet 30

3. INDICATORS USED TO MEASURE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 34 3.1 CarbonFootprint 41 3.2 WaterFootprint 43 3.3 EcologicalFootprint 45

4. MEASURING THE IMPACT OF FOODS: THE THREE ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMIDS 48 4.1 Summaryofenvironmentaldata 52 4.2 ThreepossibleEnvironmentalPyramids 56 4.3 TheEnvironmentalpyramidbasedontheEcologicalFootprint 57

5. DETAILS OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA GATHERED 60 5.1 Maindatasources 64 5.2 Assumptionsutilizedforthecookingoffoods 99 5.3 Whentheimpactoftransportisrelevant 103

6. AREAS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN THE SUBSEQUENT EDITION 106 6.1 BroadenthestatisticalcoverageofdataandrenderLCAboundarieshomogeneous 110 6.2 Takeintoconsiderationgeographicalorigininevaluatingimpact 110 6.3 Evaluatingtheinfluenceoffoodrefrigerationandcompletinganalysisofcookingmethods 112 6.4 Studyingthequestionoftheseasonalnatureofagriculturalproductsasavariableinfluencingimpact 113

BIBLIOGRAPHY BY FOOD PRODUCT 114 Foodsderivedfromagriculture 118 Foodsderivedfromprocessingofagriculturalproducts 122 Foodsderivedfromanimalhusbandry 126 Foodsfromfishing 131 Beverages 133

APPENDIX 134 A.1 Calculationoftheenvironmentalimpactassociatedwiththeproductionofbakedgoods 138

BIBLIOGRAPHY 142

Index

The Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition is a think tank with a multi-disciplinary approachwhosegoalistogatherthemostauthoritativethinkingonaninternationallevelregardingissueslinkedtotheworldoffoodandnutrition. Itsareasofstudyandanalysisincludeculture,theenvironment,healthandtheeconomy,and-withintheseareas-itintendsproposingsolutionstotakeonthefoodchallengestobefacedoverthecomingyears.

Specifically,theBarilla Center for Food & Nutrition intends to provide a forum for the current and future needs of our society in terms of major themes tied to foodandnutrition,identify key issues, bring together and examine the most advanced, cutting-edge experiences, knowledge and competencies available today on a world level.Itsend-purposeistodevelop and make available considerations, proposals and recommendations aimed at promoting better living and general, sustainable health and well-being for everyone.

The Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition

2 - Doppia Piramide: alimentazione sana per le persone, sostenibile per il pianeta

The Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition - 3

Interpreting such complex phenomena requires a methodology which goes beyondthe confines of individual disciplines and this was the approach adopted for the fourthematicareas–Food for Sustainable Growth, Food for Health, Food for All, Food for Culture–inwhich,ititsfirstyear,theBarillaCenterforFood&NutritionpreparedandcirculatedfivePositionPapers,providingareasonedoverviewoftheavailablescientificfindings and an original analytical perspective on the phenomena covered. Throughthese documents, the BCFN not only expressed its own position, but also proposed aseriesofrecommendationsforindividuals,thebusinessworldandthepublicsector.

Ineacharea,atleastonespecificadvisorwasnamed,selectedforhisorherexpertiseand professional experience in the field: Barbara Buchner (expert in energy issues,climatechangeandtheenvironment)fortheFood for Sustainable Growtharea;Mario MontiandJean-Paul Fitoussi(economists)forthe Food For Allarea;Umberto Veronesi (oncologist),Gabriele Riccardi(nutritionist)andCamillo Ricordi(immunologist)fortheFood for Healtharea;Joseph SassoonandClaude Fischler(sociologists)fortheFood for Culture area.

Thethemeofenvironmentalsustainability(Food for Sustainable Growth)andrelatedrecommendation on eco-sustainable life and eating styles was the first issue takenonbytheBCFN,but,giventherelevanceofthisissue,itisalsotheonewhichattractedparticularinterestfromthemediaandopinionleaders.

The principal point to emerge from the Position Paper “Climate Change, Agriculture& Food” is that modern lifestyles tend to have a growing impact on the ecological equilibrium of our Planet. Particularly in the area of diet, models of consumptioninconsistentwiththegoalsofenvironmentalconservationhaveassertedthemselves.Themake-upandqualityoffoodproducedandconsumedhaveasignificantimpactonbothgreenhousegasemissionsandnaturalresources.

With the aim of proposing more environmentally sustainable and healthy foodchoices,theBarillaCenterforFood&Nutritionsuggeststhe“Double Pyramid”whichflankedthe“FoodPyramid”withthe“EnvironmentalPyramid”,inordertoofferanewtoolforsolvingwhatMichaelPollandefinedthe“omnivore’sdilemma”, i.e., thetypicaldifficultyfacedbymanindecidingonadailybasiswhatshouldbeincludedinhisdiet.

Vo

lkm

ark

K. W

en

tze

l / N

atio

na

l Ge

og

rap

hic

Ima

ge

Co

lle

ctio

n

Executive summary

Development and modernization have made available to an increasing number of people a varied and abundant supply of foods. Without a proper cultural foundation or clear nutritional guidelines that can be applied and easily followed on a daily basis, individuals risk following unbalanced – if not actually incorrect – eating habits.

To

dd

Gip

ste

in /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

Foods with higher recommended consumption levels, are also those with lower environmental impact. Contrarily, those foods with lower recommended consumption levels are also those with higher environmental impact.

8 - Double Pyramid: healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet

Man has long been aware that correct nutrition is essential to health. Development

and modernization have made available to an increasing number of people a varied

andabundantsupplyoffoods.Withoutaproperculturalfoundationorclearnutritional

guidelinesthatcanbeappliedandeasilyfollowedonadailybasis,individualsriskfollowing

unbalanced–ifnotactuallyincorrect–eatinghabits.Proofofthisistherecent,prolific

spread of pathologies caused by overeating and accompanying reduction in physical

activity(includingobesity,diabetesandcardiovasculardisease)inallagebracketsofthe

population,includingchildrenandyoungpeople.

In the 1970s, American physiologist Ancel Keys explained to the world the diet he

dubbed “Mediterranean” based on balanced consumption of natural foods (olive oil,

fruit,grains,legumes,etc.),thankstowhichdeathratesfromheartdiseasewereshown

to be lower than with saturated fat-rich diets typical of Northern Europe. In 1992, the

US Department of Agriculture developed and released the first Food Pyramid which

conciselyandefficaciouslyexplainedhowtoadoptanutritionally-balanceddiet.

Today,theBarillaCenterforFood&NutritionisofferingtheFoodPyramidinadouble

version, positioning foods not only following the criteria nutritional science has long

recommendedonthebasisoftheirpositive impactonhealth,butalso intermsoftheir

impactontheenvironment.Theresultisa“Double Pyramid”:thefamiliar Food Pyramid

andanEnvironmental-Food Pyramid.Thelatter,placedalongsidetheFoodPyramid,is

shown upside-down: foods with higher environmental impact are at the top and those

withreducedimpactareonthebottom.

Fromthis“DoublePyramid”itcanbeseenthatthosefoods with higher recommended

consumption levels, are also those with lower environmental impact. Contrarily,

those foods with lower recommended consumption levels are also those with higher

environmentalimpact.Inotherwords,thisnewly-elaboratedversionoftheFoodPyramid

illustrates,inaunifiedmodel,theconnectionbetweentwodifferentbuthighly-relevant

goals:health and environmental protection.

TheFood Pyramidpresentsthevariousfoodgroupsinagraduatedorder.Atthebase

ofthePyramidarefoodsofvegetalorigin(characteristicoftheMediterraneandiet),rich

in nutrients (vitamins, minerals and water) and protective compounds (fiber and bioac-

tivecompoundsofvegetalorigin),andwithlowerenergydensity.Graduallymovingup,

arethosefoodswithhigherenergydensity(highlypresentintheNorthAmericandiet)

whichshouldbeconsumedlessfrequently.

TheEnvironmental Pyramidwasconstructedonthebasisoftheenvironmentalim-

pactassociatedwitheachfoodestimatedonthebasisoftheLifeCycleAssessment(LCA),

anobjectivemethodforevaluatingenergyandenvironmentalimpactforagivenprocess

(whetheranactivityorproduct).Morespecifically,processassessmentunderscoresthe

extent to which the main environmental impacts are seen in the generation of green-

house gas (Carbon Footprint), consumption of water resources (Water Footprint) and

EcologicalFootprint“land use”.

Executive summary - 9

In order to provide a more complete and effective communications tool, only the

Ecological Footprint was used as a reference index in creating the Environmental

Pyramid.Theresultisanupside-downPyramidgraduatedintermsofenvironmental

impact: on the top are foods with higher impact, while on the bottom are those with

minorimpact.

From “Double Pyramid” can be observed that the food which is recommended morefrequent consumption, are also those with minor environmental impacts. Conversely,foods for which consumption is recommended less frequent, are also those that havemostimpact.Inotherwords,thisdevelopingnewfoodpyramidshowsthecoincidence,in one model, two different but equally important goals: health and environmentalprotection.

This work, far from being conclusive, aims to encourage the publication of further

studiesonthemeasurementofenvironmentalimpactsoffood,whichwillbeconsideredin future editions of this document. The objective is to increase the coverage ofstatistical data and examine the influence that may have some factors, such as, forexample,geographicaloriginorfoodpreservation.

O. L

ouis

Maz

zate

nta

/ N

atio

nal

Geo

grap

hic

Imag

e Co

llect

ion

Sa

m A

be

ll /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

1. Eating better for a better world

The mortality rate due to heart disease in the Countries of Southern Europe and Northern Africa is lower than that found in Anglo-Saxon and Northern European countries.

Luis

Ma

rde

n /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

In recent years, confirmation regarding the importance of proper diet in preventing illness has increased enormously thanks to further laboratory studies and empirical evidence. However, the same cannot be said of public awareness of this, which has grown more slowly.


Manhasalwaysbeenawarethatcorrectnutritionisessentialtohealth.Nonetheless,formillennia,thedrivingneedtofindenoughfoodtosurvivehasrelegatedthisnaturallawtoabackseat:untilrecently,veryfewhadthepossibilityofchoosingbetweendif-ferenttypesofabundantly-availablefoods.

Ithasbeenindustrialdevelopment,modernizationofagricultureandtheopeningofmarketsthathavemadeanincreasingvarietyandquantityoffoodavailabletoagrow-ingnumberofpeople.

Buttheproblemofhungeriscertainlynotsolved,quitethecontrary.Weknowthataboutonebillionpeoplecircathroughouttheworldliveinastateofundernutrition(ormalnutrition)1.Butontheotherhand,thenumberofpeoplewhocanchoosewhatandhowmuchtoeathasincreasedsignificantly.However,withoutaproperculturalfoun-dationorclearnutritionalguidelines–illustratedandmadeapplicable–theseindividu-alsriskfollowingunbalanced–ifnotactuallyincorrect–eatinghabits.

Proofofthisistherecent,prolificspreadofpathologiescausedbyovereatingandtheconcomitant reduction of physical activity (including obesity, diabetes and cardiovas-culardisease)inallagebracketsofthepopulation,includingchildrenandyoungpeople.

ItwasAmericanphysiologistAncelKeyswho,inthe1970s,publishedabookentitled“Eat Well and Stay Well” which explained to the world why in some regions of Italy –forexampleinCilento(theareaintheCampaniaregionthatliesbetweenthegulfsofSalernoandPolicastro)–thepopulationenjoyedgreaterlongevity:theirsecretwasthebalancedconsumptionofnaturalfoods(oliveoil,fruit,grains,legumes,etc.).Inparticu-lar,Keysdiscoveredthatthankstothisdiet,whichhedubbeda“Mediterranean Diet”,themortalityrateduetoheartdiseaseintheCountriesofSouthernEuropeandNorth-ernAfricawaslowerthanthatfoundinAnglo-SaxonandNorthernEuropeancountrieswherethedietisrichinsaturatedfats.

It is a shame that since then, including in Italy, the Mediterranean diet has enteredinto increasing competition with globaldietarymodels(theforemostofthesebe-ing “fast food”, normally concentrated onNorth American-type foods). More gener-ally,thegrowingstandardizationoffoodsorientedtowardsmakingfoodproduction,distribution and preparation more effi-

cientandfunctional,hasplayedasignificantroleinprovidinganeasieraccesstofoodalthough,ithasoftenalsoworkedagainstcorrectnutritionalbalance2.

InordertoinitiateaprocessofnutritionaleducationcenteredontheMediterraneandiet, in1992,theUSDepartmentofAgriculturedevelopedandreleasedthefirstFoodPyramid(Figure1.1)whichconciselyandefficaciouslyexplainedhowtoadaptanutri-tionally-balanceddiet.

1 Regarding this, please see the BCFN Position Paper, “The challenges of food security”, November 2009, (http://www.barillacfn.com/uploads/file/72/1261504283_BarillaCFN_FOODforALL_ENG.pdf)

2 For a more detailed discussion, please refer to the BCFN Position Paper, “The cultural dimension of Food”, December 2009, (http://www.barillacfn.com/uploads/file/72/1261504283_BarillaCFN_FOODforCULTURE_ENG.pdf)

1. Eating betterfor a better world

1.1The Food Pyramid as an educational tool

The mortality rate due to heart disease in the Countries of Southern Europe and Northern Africa is lower than that found in Anglo-Saxon and Northern European countries.

1. Eating better for a better world - 15

Figure1.1-FoodPyramidproposedbytheUSGovernment–Source:http://www.health.gov/DIETARYGUIDELINES/

dga2000/document/images/pyramidbig.jpg

Thesuccessofthischartcanbeseenbythefactthatinsubsequentyearsnumerousvariationshavebeendevelopedbyinstitutionsonaninternational(FAO,WorldHealthOrganization),national (ItalianMinistryofHealth)and local (e.g.,theTuscanyRegion)level,aswellasuniversities,associationsandprivatecompanies(seefiguresbelow).

Figure1.2–FoodPyramidproposedbytheFAO–Source:http://www.fao.org/docrep/W0073E/p389.jpg

TheFoodPyramidmodelproposedbyFAOisidenticaltothatproposedbytheUSGov-ernment,therebyemphasizingthesignificanceoftheinformationcontainedtherein.


Figure1.3.FoodPyramidproposedbytheWHO–Source:http://www.euro.who.int/IMAGES/Nut/FoodPyra-

mid2.jpg

TheWorldHealthOgranizationFoodPyramidshownabovewasproposedundertheCountrywide Integrated Noncommunicable Disease Intervention-CINDIProgramme,fo-cusedonthereductionoflevelsofmajornoncommunicablediseases(e.g.cardiovascu-lardiseases,diabetes,etc.)throughcoordinated,comprehensivehealthpromotionanddiseasepreventionmeasures.ThisProgramme–whichwaslaunchedin1982aspartofaninternationalstrategytosupport“Health for All by the Year 2000”–haspromoted,overtheyears,anintegratedsetofinitiativesaimedtopromotehealthierlifestylesincommunitiesandtopreventandcontrolcommonriskfactors(suchasunhealthydiet,sedentarylifestyle,smoking,alcoholabuseandstress).

Figure1.4.FoodPyramidproposedbytheItalianMinistryofHealth–Source:http://www.euro.piramideita-

liana.it

AfteracarefulanalysisandobservationoftrendstakingplaceintheCountry,in2003(D.M.,1.09.2003)theMinistry of HealthhiredagroupofexpertstodevelopareferencemodelofdietconsistentwiththelifestyleandthefoodtraditionsofourCountry.


Then,theFoodSciencesandNutritionInstituteoftheUniversityofRome“LaSapien-za”drawnupthe Italian Food Pyramidindicatingwhichportionsofeachgroupoffoodsshouldbeconsumedtomaintainavariedandbalanceddiet.Itshouldbenotedthatthis“daily” Pyramid is part of the weekly Italian Lifestyle Pyramid that, being based onthedefinitionof“QuantityofWellness”(QB),considersbothfoodandphysicalactivity.Thus,italsoprovidesa“recommendeddailydoseofphysicalactivity”accordingtotheindicationsgiveninthe“PyramidofPhysicalActivity”.

Figure1.5.TheItalianFoodPyramid–Source:ItalianMinistryofHealth,http://piramideitaliana.it


Figure1.6.FoodPyramidproposedbyOldways-Source:http://oldwaystable.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/395o

ldwaysmdp_1000copyright.jpg

Oldways, an internationally-respectedno-profit organization promoting healthylifestylesthrough ad hocprojectsandini-tiatives, in 1993 introduced (in collabora-tion with the Harvard School of PublicHealth and the European Office of theWorld Health Organization) the classicalMediterranean Diet along with the Medi-terranean Diet Pyramid graphic, to rep-resentitvisually.

The Pyramid was created using themost current nutrition research to repre-sentahealthy,traditionalMediterraneandiet.Itwasbasedonthedietarytraditionsof Crete, Greece and southern Italy circa1960 at a time when the rates of chronicdisease among populations there wereamongthelowestintheWorld3.

Figure1.7.FoodPyramidproposedbyCiiSCAM,UniversityofRome“LaSapienza”–Source:http://www.ciiscam.

org/files/immagini/immagini/piramide3_520.jpg

InNovember2009,theInternationalUniversityCentreforStudiesonMediterraneanFood Cultures. CiiSCAM presented one of the first version of the Modern Mediterra-nean Diet Pyramid. This new model of the Pyramid, developed in collaboration withtheNationalResearchInstituteonFoodandNutrition–INRANandotherrenownedex-perts,highlightstheimportanceofphysicalactivity,conviviality,thecustomofdrink-ingwaterandsuggeststheconsumptionoflocalandseasonalfoods4.

3 Oldways, “What is the Mediterranean Diet Pyramid?”, http://www.oldwayspt.org/mediterranean-diet-pyramid4 Ciiscam, Novembre 2009

Modern Mediterranean Diet Pyramid

Physical activity Conviviality Seasonality Local products

Adult population18-65 years old

Each country hasits own serving sizebased on frugality

Wine in moderation,& respecting religious& social beliefs

Weekly

Every day

Every MainMeal

Drinking Water

Bread, Pasta, Rice, Couscousand other cereals, 1-2,preferably whole grain

Fruits 1-2 Vegs ≥2

Variety of colors

Olive oil 3-4Dairies 2-3(preferably low fat)

Herbs, spices,garlic, onions,

(less added salt)

Nuts,Seeds, Olives,

1-2

Eggs 2-4Legumes ≥2

Poultry 1-2Fish/Seafood ≥2

Meat ≤2 &Processed meat ≤1

Sweets ≤2

Mediterranean Diet PyramidA contemporary approach to delicious, healthy eating

Meats and SweetsLess often

Poultry and EggsModerate portions,

every two days or weekly

Cheese and YoghurtModerate portions,

every two days or weekly

Fish and SeafoodOften,

at least two times per week

Fruits, Vegetables, Grains (mostly whole),

Olive oil, Beans, Nuts, Legumes and Seeds, Herbs and

SpicesBase every meal on these foods

Be Physically Active,Enjoy Meals with Others

Wine In moderation

Drink Water


Althoughtheyallstartfromacommonscientificbase,eachPyramidadaptstheorigi-nalmodeltothespecificcharacteristicsofitstargetaudience,differentiatingbetweenvarious age brackets (children, adults, the elderly), prevalent lifestyle (sedentary, ac-tive,etc.),specifictimesoflife(pregnancy,nursing)ordietarypractices(vegan,vegetar-ian,etc.).Inaddition,inalmostallthemostrecentversionsofthePyramid(suchas,forexample,theModernMediterraneanDietPyramidshownabove),appendedtothedia-gramarefurtherrecommendationsforacorrectlifestyle(forexample,howmuchwatershouldbedrunk,howmuchtimetodedicatetophysicalactivity,etc.).

ThisdenseandcontinuouscommunicationactivitiesisservedintimetoacquainttheaudienceourMediterraneandiet,positioningitinthecommonperceptionasstylefoodhealthier.

Itsadoptionisespeciallypronouncedinthemoreeducatedsegmentsofthepopula-tion (not Europe only) which, moreover, it perceived consistency with the current so-cio-culturaltrends,suchasattentiontothewelfare,thefightagainstobesity,thepro-motionoftypicalproducts,thesearchfornaturalproductsandnaturalel‘attentiontoenvironmentalprotection.

ThevalueoftheFoodGuidePyramidistwofold:firstisanexcellentsummaryofthe

main knowledge gained from studies on medicine and nutrition, essential for anyonewhopaysattentiontotheirhealth,theotherisapowerfultoolforconsumereducation,thanksalsoinitseffectivegraphicformanditsundoubtedsimplicity,playsanimportantpromotionalroleforthebenefitofallthosefoods(fruitsandvegetables inparticular)thatitisalmostalways“unbranded”arenotadvertisedbymanufacturers.

Asmentionedinthepreviousparagraph,the“Food Pyramid”–avisualtooltocom-municatetheprinciplesofcorrectdiet inaconciseandeffectivemanner–wasdevel-opedinordertoeducatethepublictomorebalanceddietaryhabits(based,therefore,ontheMediterraneandietmodel).Fromtheversionsdevelopedovertheyears,thecom-monpositionsofthevariousfoodgroupscaneasilybeidentified.

TheconceptofthePyramidimpliesthat,gradually moving up, the consumption fre-quency of the various food groups diminishes,althoughnospecificgroupisexcluded,thusguaranteeingavarietyoffoodsconsumption,oneofthebasicprinciplesofcorrectnutrition.

Generallyspeaking,atthebaseofthePyramidarefoodsofvegetalorigincharacter-isticoftheMediterraneanDiet,richinnutrients(vitamins,minerals,water)andprotec-tivecompounds(fiberandbioactivecompoundsofvegetalorigin).MovinguptowardsthepeakofthePyramidarethosefoodswithhigherenergydensity(highlypresentintheNorthAmericandiet)whichshouldbeconsumedinlesseramounts.

Takingacloserlook,startingfromthebasetowardsthetop,arefruits and vegeta-bleswhichhavealowercaloriccontentandsupplythebodywithwater,carbohydrates,vitamins,mineralsandfiber.Theproteincontentisverylow,asisthefatcontent.Thecarbohydratecontentinfruitandvegetablesconsistsprimarilyofsimplesugarswhichareeasilyprocessedbythebody,aswellasasmallamountofstarch.Foodsofvegetableoriginaretheprimarysourceoffiberwhichnotonlykeepsintestinalactivityregular,but also contributes to creating a sense of satiety and therefore helps to control con-sumptionoffoodswithahigh-energycomponent.

Moving up, we find pasta, rice, potatoes, bread and legumes. Pasta is a foodstuffrichinstarchwithamoderateamountofproteinandinsignificantlipidcontent.Likeallgrains,ricehasahighstarchcontent,lowproteincontentandevenlowerfatcontent.Inaddition,italsocontainssmallamountsofBgroupvitaminsandminerals.

1.2 Components of the Food Pyramid


Potatoeshaveaverylowfatandproteincontent, but are rich in starch and carbo-hydrates.Theyareoneofthemostimpor-tant sources of potassium, phosphorusandcalcium.

Bread is a basic foodstuff since it pro-vides the body with the amount of car-bohydrates required to assure the body

receivesthefuelnecessarytoproduceenergy.Legumes are plant foods with higher protein and high fiber content. They provide

highqualityproteins,andseingrichinessentialaminoacidsareeasilydigestible.Leg-umesareagoodsourceofGroupBvitamins,especiallyB1andB12,niacin,andmineralssuchasironandzinc,andcanbeanalternativetomeatconsumption.

OnthenextlevelonthePyramid,wefindextra virgin olive oilwhichiscomprisedoftriglycerides(richinmonounsaturatedfattyacids),essentialfattyacidsandvitaminE,andalsoincludessubstancessuchaspolyphenolsandphytosterolswhichhaveapro-tectiveeffectonthehumanbody.

Continuingup,wefinda largegroupwithmanydifferentproteinsources, includingmilk,yoghurt,cheese,white meat,fish,eggs andbiscuits.

Milk is almost 90% water which contains traces of high-quality proteins, predomi-nantly easily-digestible short-chain saturated fats (many of them, however, are alsorichinanimalfatsthatpromoteincreasedlevelsofplasmacholesteroland,therefore,should consumed in moderation) and sugars (primarily lactose, made up of galactoseandglucose).ThepredominantvitaminsfoundinmilkareA,B1,B2,B12andpantothenicacid.Milkisalsothemainsourceofcalciuminthehumandiet.

Likemilk,yoghurthashighnutritionalvalue,butcanbeeasiertodigestforlactose-intolerantindividualsbecauseofthepresenceofbacteriallactase.

Cheese contains protein and fats, but its carbohydrate content is virtually nil. Par-ticularlysignificantisitscalciumcontentwhichispresentinahighlybioavailableformandmakesasignificantcontributiontotheneedsofthehumanbody.ItcontainssmallamountsofBgroupvitamins,whileitsvitaminAcontentissignificant.

Thentherearefishandeggs:fishhasahigh-qualityproteincontentandvariablefatcontent that can even reach levels of 10% of its weight. Fats in fish contain polyun-saturatedfattyacidsthatbelongtothecategoryofessentialfattyacids.Thefamilyofomega-3fattyacids, inparticular, isconsideredbeneficial inthepreventionofcardio-vasculardisease.

Eggshavesuchahighproteincontentthatforyearstheproteincompositionofeggswasthereferencestandardforevaluatingthequalityofproteininotherfoods.

Thebiscuitsaremadeupofseveralingredientsandtheircompositionintermsofnu-trients and energy value highly variable, in general, is important content into simplesugars,butishighlyvariablefatcontent,usuallybetweenabout9%to25%.

Meatconsumption,especiallyleanmeat,isimportantbecauseitprovideshigh-qualityproteinrequiredforgrowthinchildrenandmuscleformation.Approximatelyhalfoftheproteinsinmeatarecomprisedofaminoacidsessentialtothehumanbody;alsopresentareBgroupvitamins(especiallyB12),selenium,copperandzinc.Fatcontentcanvaryfromalmostnothingtocloseto30%,dependingonthetypeofmeat,andareprimarilysaturatedandmonounsaturated,whileonlyasmallnumberarepolyunsaturated:itisthereforetobepreferredtheconsumptionofwhitemeatratherthanredmeat,ashigh-lightedinseveralversionsoftheFoodPyramidelaboratedbynationalandinternationalInstitutions,thatrankthematthetop,aswellassweets,thatbeinghighinfatandsim-plesugarsshouldbeeateninmoderation.

The value of the Food Pyramid is two-fold: on one hand it represents an excellent synthesis of the main concepts developed by medical and nutritional science; on the other it is a powerful educational tool regarding consumption.


Figure1.8.-TheBCFNFoodPyramid


Inrecentyears,confirmationregardingtheimportanceofproperdietinpreventingill-nesshasincreasedenormouslythankstofurtherlaboratorystudiesandempiricalevi-dence.However,thesamecannotbesaidofpublicawarenessofthiswhichhasgrownmoreslowly.

Thisisthereasonwhy,25yearslater,theBarillaCenterforFood&Nutritionhasde-cidedtoofferonceagaintheFoodPyramid,afamiliarandwell-establishedtoolinthescientificandnutritionalcircles.

Thesecondreasonislessobviousandisconnectedtotheproblemofclimatechangeand,moregenerally,theimpactofhumanactivityontheenvironment.

Not everyone knows that farming and animal husbandry activities are among themainsourcesofgreenhousegasemissions.Forthisreason,aswasexplicitlysuggest-ed in the document entitled “Climate Smart Food” – published in November 2009 bySIK(SwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnology)andcommissionedbytheSwedishPresidency–environmentalvariablesmustalsobetakenintoconsiderationinfoodanddietarychoices.

Fromthisstandpoint,thevariousfoodgroupscanbeevaluatedintermsoftheirenvi-ronmentalimpact,i.e.,intermsofgreenhousegasemissions(CarbonFootprint),waterresources use (Water Footprint) and society’s use of natural’s assets (Ecological Foot-print).

Reclassifyingfoodsnolongerintermsoftheirpositiveimpactonhealth,butonthebasisoftheirnegativeeffectontheenvironment,producesanup-side-downPyramidwhichshowsthefoodswithgreaterenvironmentalimpactonthetopandthosewithlowerimpactonthebottom.

WhenthisnewEnvironmentalPyramidisbroughtalongsidetheFoodPyramid,itcre-atesaFood-Environmental Pyramid whichwehavecalledthe“Double Pyramid”.

Itshowsthatthosefoods with higher recommended consumption levels are also those with lower environmental impact. Contrarily, those foods with lower recom-mendedconsumptionlevelsarealsothosewithhigherenvironmentalimpact.

This newly-elaborated version illus-trates,inaunifiedmodel,the connection between two different but highly-rel-evant goals: health and environmental protection.Inotherwords,itshowsthatifthedietsuggestedinthetraditionalFoodPyramid is followed, not only do people

livebetter(longerandhealthier),butthereisadecidedlylesserimpact–orbetter,foot-print–leftontheenvironment.

Allofus,througheatingresponsibly,candefinitelyreconcileourpersonalwell-being(personalecology)withtheenvironment(ecologicalcontext).

In the following chapters it is described how the combination of the nutritional as-pectsofthevariousfoodsandtheirenvironmentalimpactshavecreatedthe“Double Pyramid”.

TheherewithpresentedEnvironmentalPyramidwasdesignedwithouttheinclusionofdetailedvalues.However,atthebaseofthis imagethere isapreciseevaluationoftheimpactofthevariousfoodsperformedutilizingtheLife Cycle Assessmentmethod(i.e., calculating the effects produced on the environment from the cultivation of therawmaterialsthroughthedistributionchainand,whennecessary,cookingofthefoodsanalyzed).

1.3From the Food Pyramid to the Environmental Pyramid

This illustrates, in a unified model, the connection between two different but highly-relevant goals: health and environmental protection.

Qu

i app

oggi

a il

sest

ino

chiu

so

Sk

ip B

row

n /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

Red meat

Fruit

Cheese, Fish

White meat,Sweets

Vegetables, Bread, Potato

Legumes, Pasta, Biscuits Olive oil, Milk,Yoghurt, Rice, Egg

Sweets,Red meat

Fruit, Vegetables

Cheese, EggWhite meat,

Fish, Biscuits

Milk, Yoghurt

Bread, Pasta, Rice,Potato, Legumes

Olive oil

ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMID

FOOD PYRAMID

HIGH

LOW

LOW

HIGH

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L IM

PAC

T

SUG

GES

TED

AM

OU

NTS

Piega

Taglio

Red meat

Fruit

Cheese, Fish

White meat,Sweets

Vegetables, Bread, Potato

Legumes, Pasta, Biscuits Olive oil, Milk,Yoghurt, Rice, Egg

Sweets,Red meat

Fruit, Vegetables

Cheese, EggWhite meat,

Fish, Biscuits

Milk, Yoghurt

Bread, Pasta, Rice,Potato, Legumes

Olive oil


FOOD PYRAMID

HIGH

LOW

LOW

HIGH

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L IM

PAC

T

SUG

GES

TED

AM

OU

NTS

Wil

lia

m A

lbe

rt A

lla

rd /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

2. Scientific basis of the Food Pyramid

The diet traditionally followed in the Countries of the Mediterranean Region (in particular, in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Southern France) is a dietary model characterized by its marked nutritional balance and is recognized by many nutritionists and dieticians as one of the best diets in terms of physical well-being and the prevention of chronic diseases, especially cardiovascular ones.

To

ma

sz T

om

asz

ewsk

i / N

atio

na

l Ge

og

rap

hic

Ima

ge

Co

lle

ctio

n

It is desirable that the publication of this document – as it happened with recent studies published by the European Commission – will be an incentive for the publication of further studies and publications related to the environmental impacts of foods.


ThediettraditionallyfollowedintheCountriesoftheMediterraneanRegion(inpar-ticular,inItaly,Spain,Portugal,GreeceandSouthernFrance)isadietarymodelcharac-terizedby itsmarkednutritionalbalanceand isrecognizedbymanynutritionistsanddieticiansasoneofthebestdietsintermsofphysicalwell-beingandthepreventionofchronicdiseases,especiallycardiovascularones.

TheideaandtheconceptofaMediterraneandiethadalreadybeenhypothesizedin1939bythemedicalnutritionistLorenzoPiroddi,whowasthefirsttosuggestthecon-nection between food and diabetes, overeating and obesity1. Subsequently, in the fif-ties,AncelKeys2-amedical-scientistfromtheUniversityofMinnesotaSchoolofNutri-tion–cametoItalywiththeoccupationtroopsandbecameawareofsomethingthat,atthetime,seemedverystrange.Thelessaffluent(theso-calledpoor)inthesmalltownsofSouthern Italywhosurvivedprevalentlyonbread,onionsandtomatoes,showedalowerincidenceofcardiovasculardiseases,notonlythanthecitizensofNewYork,butalsothantheirownrelativeswhohademigratedpreviouslytotheUnitedStates.

ThenutritionalvalueoftheMediterraneandietwasscientificallyshownbythewell-known“Seven Countries Study”directedbyKeys(Keys et al.,1955) inwhichthedietsfollowedbythepopulationsofdifferentCountrieswerecomparedtoidentifytheben-eficialandcriticalaspectsofeachdiet.Thisledtoanunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweendietandriskofonsetofchronicdiseases(Keyset al.,1967),anditwasdiscov-eredthatthehighlevelofsaturatedfatsandcholesterolinthebloodrepresentsafactorcapablenotonlyofexplainingthedifferencesinmortalityrates,butalsoofpredictingthefutureratesofcoronarydiseaseinthepopulationsanalyzed(Keys,1970;Kromhoutet al.,1994).Thestudyalsodemonstratedthatthebestdietwasthe“Mediterranean”one, the proof being that the populations of Montegiorgio (Marches) and the inhabit-antsofCrevalcore(aruraltownintheEmilia-RomagnaRegion)hadaverylowlevelofcholesterolinthebloodandaminimumpercentageofcoronarydiseases,thankstotheirconsumptionofoliveoil,breadandpasta,garlic,redonions,aromaticherbs,vegetablesandverylittlemeat.

1 “Cucina Mediterranea. Ingredienti, principi dietetici e ricette al sapore di sole”, Mondadori, Milan, 19932 Ancel Benjamin Keys (1904-2004), American physician and physiologist, is famous for having been one of the main

advocates of the benefits of the Mediterranean diet for combating a large number of widespread diseases in the West, particularly cardiovascular diseases

2. Scientific basis of the Food Pyramid

2.1 Studies involving the Mediterranean Diet

Jam

es L

. Sta

nfi

eld

/ N

atio

nal

Geo

grap

hic

Imag

e Co

llect

ion

2. Scientific basis of the Food Pyramid - 31

Fromthefirst“Seven Countries Study”tothecurrentdays,manyotherstudieshaveanalyzedthecharacteristicsandtherelationshipsbetweendietaryhabitsadoptedandtheonsetofchronicdisease3.Starting inthenineties,therehasalsodevelopeda lineof study into the relationship between diet and longevity4. In general, what emergesis that the adoption of a Mediterranean, or similar, diet, provides a protective factoragainst the most widespread chronic diseases. In other words, high consumption ofvegetables,legumes,fruitsandnuts,oliveoilandgrains(whichinthepastwerepreva-lentlywholemeal);moderateconsumptionoffishanddairyproducts(especiallycheeseandyoghurt)andwine;lowconsumptionofredmeat,whitemeatandsaturatedfattyacids(Willett&Sacks,1995).

TheinterestofthescientificandmedicalcommunityintheMediterraneanDietisstillextremelyactive,and,infact,thecurrentspecialistliteratureoftenpublishesinforma-tionabouttherelationshipbetweenMediterranean-styledietaryhabitsandtheimpacton human health. The beneficial aspects of the Mediterranean Diet are backed by in-

creasingevidenceintermsofbothpreven-tion and clinical improvement regardingspecific pathology areas. It is interestingto note that a study conducted utilizingthe PubMed scientific database, over a3-month period, indicates approximately70 scientific publications whose primarythemeistheMediterraneanDiet5.

These publications present the resultsof clinical or epidemiological research inwhich adherence to the MediterraneanDiettranslatesintomeasurablebenefitsinnumerous areas of human health6, which

include,forexample,cardiovasculardisease,metabolicconditions,neurologicalorpsy-chiatricpathologies(e.g.,Alzheimer’s),respiratorydiseaseorallergies,femaleandmalesexualdisorders(e.g.,erectiledysfunction)andcertainoncologicalpathologies.Intermsof this last point, of particular interest are the recent conclusions of a broad-rangingEPIC European study which examined 485,044 adults over the course of nine years;EPICshowedthatincreased adherence to the Mediterranean Diet is connected to a significant reduction(-33%)in the risk of developinggastriccancer7.

Finally, it is interestingtonotethatthescientificliteraturedemonstratesapositiveimpact of the Mediterranean Diet across all age brackets, starting from pre-natal tochildhood,adulthoodandoldage.

3 World Cancer Research Fund, 1997; Willett, 19984 Nube et al., 1993; Farchi et al., 1995; Trichopoulou et al., 1995; Huijbregts et al., 1997; Kouris-Blazos et al., 1999;

Kumagai et al., 1999; Osler & Schroll, 1997; Kant et al., 2000; Lasheras et al., 2000; Osler et al., 2001; Michels & Wolk, 2002

5 PubMed, Search Mediterranean Diet in Title/Abstract, from January 25 to April 25, 20106 Middleton L, Yaffe K., “Targets For The Prevention Of Dementia”, J. Alzheimers Dis. 2010 Apr 22; Camargo A et al.

“Gene expression changes in mononuclear cells from patients with metabolic syndrome after acute intake of phenol-rich virgin olive oil”, BMC Genomics. 2010 Apr 20; Camargo A et al., “A low carbohydrate Mediterranean diet improves cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes control among overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 1-year prospective randomized intervention study”, Diabetes Obes Metab. 2010 Mar;12(3):204-9.; Vlismas K et al. Quality, but not cost, of diet is associated with 5-year incidence of CVD: the Zutphen study. Public Health Nutr. 2010 Apr 1:1-8; Castro-Rodriguez JA et al., “Olive oil during pregnancy is associated with reduced wheezing during the first year of life of the offspring”, Pediatr Pulmonol. 2010 Apr;45(4):395-402; Llaneza P et al., “Soy isoflavones, Mediterranean diet, and physical exercise in postmenopausal women with insulin resistance. Menopause”, 2010 Mar;17(2):372-8; Giugliano F et al. Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Erectile Dysfunction in Men with Type 2 Diabetes. J Sex Med. 2010 Feb 25; Giugliano F et al. “Adherence to Mediterranean Diet and Erectile Dysfunction in Men with Type 2 Diabe-tes”, J Sex Med. 2010 Feb 25

7 Vessby et al., “Adherence to a Mediterranean diet and risk of gastric adenocarcinoma within the European Prospecti-ve Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort study”, Am J Clin Nutr 73: 2010 Feb;91(2):381-90

The Mediterranean diet has been adopted to a greater extent among the higher-educated segments of the population above all which perceives it as cohering more closely to cur-rent social/cultural trends, such as attention to well-being, fight against overweight, pro-motion of traditional foods, search for natural, healthy products and awareness of environ-mental issues.


The eating habits which constitute the Mediterranean Diet would seem to cohere with the nutritional recommendations expressed by the guidelines issued by the most authoritative scientific bodies and international institutions involved withthemajorpathologiesafflictingourera(inparticular,cardiovasculardisease,canceranddiabetes). In fact, one of the many tasks of medical bodies is that of preparing guide-linesrelatingtoprevention,diagnosisandtreatmentintheirrespectivefields.Intermsof diet, each scientific body dealing with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer,whetheronanationalorinternationallevel,hasdrawnuprecommendationsaimedatpreventingtheappearanceoftheirrespectivepathologies.TheBarillaCenterforFood& Nutrition has gathered, analyzed and summarized the guidelines published by themostauthoritativeItalianandinternationalscientificbodiesandinstitutionsonthisis-sue8,andhasfoundthattherearemanyaspectsonwhichtheyconverge9.Thisanalysishasmadeitpossibletooutlinewhichbehaviorsandlifestylesshouldbeadoptedforahealthy diet to provide generalized prevention against the risk of cardiovascular dis-ease,diabetesandcancer(Figure2.1).

Theresultsoftheanalysisunderscorethat,thankstoitsstrictsimilaritywiththerec-ommendationsmadeonascientificlevel,the Mediterranean model is one of the most effective in terms of promoting and preserving well-being and preventing chronic disease.

Withthegoalofquantifyingtheextenttowhichanygivendietcoincidesordiffersfrom the Mediterranean diet, a number of “Mediterranean adequacy” indices havebeendeveloped.Inparticular,afterhavingcreatedanindexthatquantifiesadherenceto the Mediterranean diet on a scale from 0 to 9 (where the maximum value meansmaximumadherenceandviceversa),Trichopoulou(Trichopoulouet al.,1995)foundaninverserelationshipbetweenthescoreobtainedbyapopulationandthemortalityratesofmoreelderlyindividuals.

AlsofromthestudiesofPanagiotakos(Panagiotakoset al.,2007)itemergedthattheincreaseinthelevelofadherencetotheMediterraneandietwassignificantforthepre-dictionofcasesofhypertension,hypercholesterolemia,diabetesandobesityinadults.Anincreaseofapprox.20%ofadherencetotheMediterraneandiet10reducestheonsetofcardiovasculardiseaseby4%overaten-yearperiod.OtherstudiesconductedbyTri-chopoulou(Trichopoulouet al.,2007)showedhowadherencetotheMediterraneandietproduces significant reductions in the overall mortality rates of the population, espe-ciallyindeathsduetocardiovasculardiseaseandtumors.ThesameresultsemergealsofromtherecentstudiesofMitrou(Mitrouet al.,2007)conductedfortenyearsonasam-pleofover380,000Americans.Inthespecificcaseofcoronarydisease,DeLongeril(DeLorgerilet al.,1999)demonstratedhowtheMediterraneandietreducestheriskofheartattack by 72%. The results of the studies of Fung (Fung et al., 2005) have confirmed,once more, the cardio protective effects of the Mediterranean diet. In a recent meta-analysisstudybySofi(Sofiet al.,2008),itemergedthattheMediterraneandietprovidesaprotectivefactoragainstallcausesofmortalityand,inthespecificinstance,towardsthoseconnectedwithcardiovasculardiseaseandtumors,butalsotowardsParkinson’sandAlzheimer’sdisease.

8 Among the sources used for the analyses it can be cited: World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, American Cancer Association, American Institute for Cancer Prevention, Federation of European Cancer Society, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, Italian Society of Cardiology (SIC), Na-tional Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), British Heart Foundation, International Diabetes Federation, American Diabetes Association, Italian Society of Diabetology

9 For more detailed information about this question, please refer to Chapter 3 of the “Food and Health” Position Paper published by the Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition in September 2009

10 The scale used in the study runs from 0 to 55, so an increase of 10 points on the Mediterranean adequacy index is equivalent to an increase of approx. 20%.

Un aumento del 20% circa di aderenza alla Dieta Mediterranea riduce l’insorgenza di malattie cardiovascolari del 4% nell’arco di dieci anni.

To conclude, the majority of the most authoritative scientific studies on the rela-tionship between diet and chronic diseases indicates, without any reasonable doubt,that the Mediterranean diet is the model to be used as the point of reference for correct dietary habits.

Figura2.1.Convergencebetweenguidelinesforthepreventionofcardiovasculardisease,diabetesandcancer:sum-

marydiagram.Source:“FoodandHealth”,BarillaCenterforFood&Nutrition,September2009

2. Scientific basis of the Food Pyramid - 33

Jod

i Co

bb

/ N

atio

na

l Ge

og

rap

hic

Ima

ge

Co

lle

ctio

n

3. Indicators used to measure environmental impact

Focusing directly on the food production chain, process assessment underscores the extent to which the main environmental impacts are seen in the generation of greenhouse gas, consumption of water resources and land use.

Me

dfo

rd T

aylo

r /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

The environmental impact associated with each food includes analysesof the entire supply chain, including cultivation and raw materials processing, manufacturing, packaging, transport, distribution, use, re-use, re-cycling and final disposal.


The environmental impact associated with each food was estimated on thebasis of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), an objective method for evaluatingenergy and environmental impact for a given process (whether an activity or aproduct). This evaluation includes analyses of the entire supply chain, including,cultivation and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, packaging, transport,distribution,use,re-use,re-cyclingandfinaldisposal.

TheLCAmethodisgovernedbyinternationalstandardsISO14040and14044,whichdefineitsspecificcharacteristics.

LCAstudiesarepreciseanalysistoolswhich,ontheonehand,offertheadvantageofhavingasobjectiveandcompleteassessmentofthesystemaspossible,and,ontheoth-er,thedisadvantagethatsometimestheresultsaredifficulttocommunicate. Inordertorendertheresultsofastudyeasytounderstand,normallysummaryindicatorsareusedthathavebeendefinedtopreservethescientificnatureoftheanalysisasmuchaspossible.

Generally,theseindicatorsareselectedonthebasisofthetypeofsystembeingana-lyzedandmustbeselectedinordertorepresentasfullyandsimplyaspossibletheinter-actionwiththemainenvironmentalsectors.

3. Indicators used to measure environmental impact

Field Production

Packaging

Transport

Cooking

3. Indicators used to measure environmental impact - 39

Morespecificallyandfocusingdirectlyonthefoodproductionchain,processassess-mentunderscorestheextenttowhichthemainenvironmentalimpactsareseeninthegenerationofgreenhouse gas,consumptionofwater resourcesand land use.

Startingfromtheseassumptions,andbearinginmindthatthisdocumentintendstogiveresultsatafirstlevelofinvestigation,theenvironmentalindicatorsthathavebeenselectedare:n the Carbon Footprint, which represents greenhouse gas emissions responsible for

climatechangeandismeasuredintermsofamountofCO2equivalent;n theWater Footprint(orvirtualwatercontent),whichquantifiestheamountofwa-

terresourcesconsumedandhowtheyareconsumed;itmeasureswateruseintermsofvolume.

n the Ecological Footprint, which measures the biologically productive land and seaareahumanactivityrequirestoproducetheresourcesitconsumesandtoabsorbthewasteitgenerates;itismeasuredinsquaremetersor“globalhectares”.

AlthoughitwaschosentousetheEcologicalFootprintfortheconstructionoftheEn-vironmentalPyramid,thedocumentshowstheenvironmentalimpactsofthevariousfoodsconsideredalsointermsofCarbonFootprintandWaterFootprintbecauseusingthesethreeindicatorsinacomparedmanneroffersamorecompleteviewoftheimpactsinvolved,avoidingapartialoneand,insomecases,onethatcouldbemisleadin.

Conceptual differences between the indicators analyzed

It was decided to use these three environmental indicators because they comple-ment each other in the way they are designed and allow a comprehensive view of the environmental impacts involved.

The Carbon Footprint is an indicator representing greenhouse gas emissions generated by processes which, in the specific case of the agri-food chain, are comprised primarily of CO2 generated through the use of fossil fuels, from methane (CH4) derived from livestock enteric fermentation, and emissions of nitrogen protoxide (N2O) caused by the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers in farming. This indicator is also designed, to a certain extent, to represent energy consumption, especially fossil fuels.

The Ecological Footprint is a method for calculating society’s use of natural’s as-sets. Is a method for calculating society’s use of natural’s assets.

The water component is handled by the Ecological Footprint solely as the occupied surface used for fishing, but not in terms of consumption of this resource. Thus, al-though the Ecological Footprint is the most complete of all the indicators, the Water Footprint is also required to complete the set of indicators.


Given in the box below is a brief description of these indicators (with references towheretoobtainmoredetailedinformation),alsoprovidingisgeneralinformationaboutthecalculationassumptionsutilized.Thesecondpartofthisdocumentpresentsmorespecificaspectsofindividualfoods.

Currently-existing environmental indicators

The Carbon Footprint, Water Footprint and Ecological Footprint were chosen as indi-cators of environmental sustainability after having taken into consideration the wide range of indicators available. The decision was based on how complete an assessment is expressed by the individual indicator.

At the same time, however, the scientific world and institutions have made available myriad indicators capable of measuring sustainability in an effective and detailed manner. For example, the European Environmental Agency (EEA)1 has identified a group of indicators which assess environmental impact in the various areas:n Agriculture (Area under organic farming; Gross nutrient balance);n Atmospheric pollution (Emissions of acidifying substances; Emissions of ozone

precursors; Emissions of primary particles and secondary particulate matter pre-cursors; Exceedance of air quality limit values in urban areas; Exposure of ecosys-tems to acidification, eutrophication and ozone);

n Biodiversity (Designated areas; Species diversity; Threatened and protected spe-cies);

n Climate change (Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations; Global and Euro-pean temperature; Greenhouse gas emission projections; Greenhouse gas emission trends; Production and consumption of ozone depleting substances);

n Energy (Final energy consumption by sector; Primary energy consumption by fuel; Renewable electricity consumption; Renewable primary energy consumption; To-tal primary energy intensity);

n Fishing industry (Aquaculture production; Fishing fleet capacity; Status of marine fish stocks);

n Land (Land take; Progress in management of contaminated site);n Transport (Freight transport demand; Passenger transport demand; Use of clean-

er and alternative fuels);n Waste (Generation and recycling of packaging waste; Municipal waste generation);n Water (Bathing water quality; Chlorophyll in transitional, coastal and marine wa-

ters; Nutrients in freshwater; Nutrients in transitional, coastal and marine waters; Oxygen consuming substances in rivers; Urban waste water treatment; Use of freshwater resources).

Similarly, the Sustainable Development Strategy2 defined by the European Union identifies a set of indicators that can monitor and assess the quality and efficacy of the policies implemented by individual Member States. These indicators involve ten areas (Socio-economic development; Sustainable consumption and production; Social inclusion; Demographic Changes; Public Health; Climate Change and Energy; Sustainable Transport; Natural Resources; Global Partnership; Good Governance), which are divided, in turn, into sub-categories. The large number and completeness of the group of indicators made available by the European Union makes it possible to assess whether basic and priority goals of the policies have been met and to establish if the actions developed have actually been implemented.

1 Source: EEA Core Set of Indicators (http://themes.eea.europa.eu/IMS/CSI)2 Source: Indicators for monitoring the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/

page/portal/sdi/introduction)


By “Carbon Footprint” is meant the impact associated with a product (or service) intermsofemissionofcarbondioxideequivalent(CO2-equiv),calculatedthroughouttheen-tirelifecycleofthesystemunderexamination.ItisanewtermutilizedtoindicatethesocalledGlobalWarmingPotential(GWP)and,therefore,thepotentialgreenhouseef-fectofasystemcalculatedusingtheLCA–LifeCycleAssessmentmethod.

IncalculatingtheCarbonFootprintarealwaystakenintoconsiderationtheemissionsofallgreenhousegases,whicharethenconvertedintoCO2equivalentusingtheinter-national parameters set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), abodyoperatingundertheaegisoftheUnitedNations.

CorrectlycalculatingtheCarbonFootprintofagoodorservicemustnecessarilytakeintoaccountallthephasesofthesupplychainstartingwiththeextractionoftherawmaterials up through disposal of the waste generated by the system on the basis ofLCAmethodology.Clearly,thisrequiresthecreationofa“workingmodel”thatcanfullyrepresentthesupplychaininordertotakeintoaccountallaspectswhichactuallycon-tributetotheformationoftheGWP.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

In 1988 the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Envi-ronment Program (UNEP) created the IPCC with the purpose of providing policymak-ers with an objective analysis of the technical-scientific and social-economic litera-ture available regarding climate change.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body (and not a direct research body) open to all member Countries of the WMO and UNEP. Each Government has an IPCC Focal Point that coordinates IPCC-related activity within that Country. Currently, the IPCC Focal Point for Italy is the Euro-Mediterranean Center for Climate Change – CMCC.

The primary activity of the IPCC consists of producing regular scientific assessment reports (every 6 years) on findings related to the field of climate and climate change (Assessment Reports). The Assessment Reports, which reflect analysis and evalua-tion of international scientific consensus of opinion, are reviewed by experts. In recent years, the work of the IPCC has been approved by leading scientific organizations and academies throughout the world.

In particular, the most recent report of the IPCC, published in 2007, stressed even more forcefully “that the majority of the increase in average global temperature ob-served starting from the mid-20th century, is due to the observed increase in concen-trations of anthropogenic greenhouse gas” and that future climate change does not involve solely the rise in temperature, but will also modify the entire climate system, with serious repercussions on ecosystems and human activity.

The IPCC has recently initiated preparation of a new Assessment Report (AR5) to take into consideration recent technical-scientific developments and it will outline a new set of climate, social-economic and environmental scenarios. The final document should be ready in 2014. The information produced by the IPCC is important for the negotiation process currently underway under the United Nations Framework Con-ference on Climate Change – UNFCCC.

On October 12, 2007, the IPCC, together with former US Vice President Al Gore, were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The award dedication read: “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”.

3.1Carbon Footprint


Thanks above all to the ease with which it can be communicated and understoodevenbylaymen,theconceptoftheCarbonFootprinthasspreadtothepointthattherearemanystandardsrecognizedonaninternationallevelwhichdefine,tovaryingde-gree,therequisitestobefollowedforthecalculations.

Themostimportantones,oratleastthosemostwidelyused,are:n ISO standards 14040 and 14044: in reality, they are the standards relative to life

cycleassessment,buttheycanalsobeconsideredthemethodologicalbasisforcalcu-latingthecarbonfootprint;

n ISO 14064isorientedtowardsdefiningthemodalityforcalculatinggreenhousegasemissionsandverificationbyanindependententity;

n GHG protocol: document prepared bythe Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative,a supra-governmental organization thatprepared the calculation protocol mostwidelyusedonaninternationallevel,thisprotocol combines technical aspects withmore economically-oriented ones of or-ganizationalmanagement;

n PAS 2050 (Assessing the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and serv-ices): document prepared by the British Standards Institute to provide a technicaldocumentthatismoredetailedthantheISOstandardsandwhosegoalistoprovidemorespecificrulestoadoptinCarbonFootprintcalculation.Itisoneofthemostre-centandoperationally-orienteddocumentsand,asaresult,amongthoseofgreaterinteresttothescientificcommunity;

n EPD™ system:preparedbytheInternationalEPDConsortium(IEC),itsetstherulesforpreparing,verifyingandpublishingtheso-calledproductenvironmentaldeclara-tionswhich,inessence,aretheverified“ID”ofaproduct’senvironmentalcharacter-istics.AlthoughthesystemisnotaimedspecificallyattheCarbonFootprint,inthiscontextitisextremelyrelevantbecausegreenhousegasemissionsareoneoftheen-vironmentalparameterswhich,typically,arepartofanenvironmentaldeclaration.

Itmustbenotedthatthevariouscalculationprotocolsdonotconflictonatechnicalleveland,forthisreason,arenormallyalltakenintoconsiderationcontemporaneouslyduringtheCarbonFootprintassessmentofaproduct.

By “Carbon Footprint” is meant the impact associated with a product (or service) in terms of emission of carbon dioxide equivalent, calculated throughout the entire life cycle of the system under examination.


The Water Footprint (or virtual water content) is a specific indicator for the use offreshwaterandhasbeendesignedtoexpressboththeamountofwaterresourcesactu-allyconsumed,aswellasthewayinwhichthewaterisutilized.

ThecalculationmethodwasdevelopedbytheWaterFootprintNetwork3andwasde-signedsothattheindicatorcalculatedwouldtakeintoconsiderationthreebasiccom-ponents:n thevolumeofrainwaterevapotranspiredfromthegroundandcultivatedplants;this

componentisdefinedgreen water;n thevolumeofwatercomingfromsurfaceorundergroundwatersourcesutilizeddur-

ingthecourseofthesupplychainbeinganalyzed,includingbothirrigationandproc-esswater;thiscomponentisalsoknownas blue water;

n grey waterwhichrepresentsthevolumeofpollutedwaterderivingfromtheproduc-tionofgoodsandservicesmeasuredasthevolumeofwater(theoretically)requiredtodilutepollutantssufficientlytoguaranteethequalitystandardofthewateritself.

Water Footprint

The Water Footprint was conceived in 2002 by Prof. Arien Y. Hoekstra of the University of Twente (The Netherlands) within the context of UNESCO-promoted activities, as an alternative to traditional indicators utilized for water resources.

This indicator measures water use in terms of volume (expressed in m3) of evaporated and/or polluted water for the entire supply chain, from production to direct consumption, and may be calculated not only for each product or activity, but also for each well-defined group of consumers (an individual, family, inhabitants of a town or an entire nation) or producers (private companies, public entities, economic sectors). Specifically:- the Water Footprint of a product (tangible good or service) consists of the total

volume of freshwater consumed to produce it, taking into consideration the various phases in the production chain;

- the Water Footprint of an individual, community or nation consists of the total volume of freshwater consumed either directly or indirectly by the individual, community or nation (water consumed to produce goods and services utilized);

- the Water Footprint of a company consists of the volume of freshwater consumed during the course of its activity, added to that consumed in its supply chain.

The Water Footprint is tied to the concept of virtual water, hypothesized in 1993 by Professor John Anthony Allan of King’s College London School of Oriental and African Studies, which indicates the volume of freshwater consumed to produce a product (a commodity, good or service), totaling all the phases of the production chain. The term “virtual” refers to the fact that the vast majority of water utilized to create the product is not physically contained in the product itself, but was consumed during the phases of its production.

The Water Footprint Network is a non-profit organization created in 2008 through the combined efforts of major organizations involved in the question of “water resources” (including the University of Twente, WWF, UNESCO, Water Neutral Foundation, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and others) to coordinate the activities undertaken in this area, spread knowledge of concepts involving the Water Footprint, the various calculation methods and tools utilized, as well as promote sustainable equitable and efficient use of global freshwater resources.

The Scientific Director of the Water Footprint Network is Professor Arjen Y. Hoekstra, the creator of the concept of the Water Footprint.

3 Source: Arjen Y. Hoekstra, et al., “Water Footprint Manual. State of the art 2009”, November 2009; www.waterfoot-print.org

3.2Water Footprint


Ascanbeintuitedfromthisbriefdefinition,thecalculationmethodrequiredtoquan-tifythethreecomponentsoftheindicatorvariesonthebasisofthecategoryanalyzed.

Specifically, blue water is just a simpleaccount of water consumption. For theproductionchainoffoods,boththewaterutilized during manufacturing as well aswater used for irrigation during cultiva-tionaretakenintoconsideration.

Estimate of the grey water componentcanbemadebyimaginingatheoreticalbal-anceofmassbetweentheflowofpolluted

waterandcleanwater.Theresultisanoutflowwhichmustmeetacceptablestandardssetbylocallaw.Practically,however,itcanbehypothesizedthattheoutflowsofapro-ductionsystemmustalwaysbewithinlocallegislatedlimitsofacceptabilityand,there-fore,asafirstapproximation,thegreywatercomponentmaybeconsiderednegligible.

Themostsignificantcomponent,andthereforetheonemostcomplextoevaluate,isunquestionablythatofgreen watersinceitdependsonlocalclimaticconditionsandspe-ciescultivated.

Calculating Green WaterGreen Water is calculated utilizing the following equation:

where:n ET0 is dependent upon local climate characteristics; n Kc is dependent upon cultivated plant species;n yield is dependent on the plant species under consideration and the climate charac-

teristics of where it is cultivated.

The Water Footprint is a specific indicator for the use of freshwater and has been designed to express both the amount of water resources actually consumed, as well as the way in which the water is utilized.

Green waterET 0 [mm] * Kc * 10l

kgyield

t

ha


TheEcologicalFootprint isanindicatorusedtoestimatetheimpactontheenviron-mentofagivenpopulationduetoitsconsumption;itquantifiesthetotalareaofterres-trialandaquaticecosystemsrequiredtoprovideinasustainablemanneralltheresourc-esutilizedandtoabsorb(onceagaininasustainableway)alltheemissionsproduced.

The Ecological Footprint measures the quantity of biologically productive land andwaterrequiredtobothprovidetheresourcesconsumedandabsorbthewasteproduced.

The calculation methodology is identified by the Global Footprint Network4 and in-cludesthefollowingcomponentsinthecalculation.n Energy Land,representsthelandrequiredtoabsorbtheCO2emissionsgeneratedby

theproductionofagoodorservice;n Cropland,representsthelandrequiredtocultivatefarmproductsandfeedforlive-

stock;n Grazing Land, represents the land required to support the grazing of the livestock

underexamination;n Forest Land, represents the land uti-

lized for the production of wood re-quiredtocreaterawmaterials;

n Built-up Land,representsthelandoc-cupied by structures assigned to pro-ductiveactivity;

n Fishing Ground, represents the landrequired for the natural developmentorfarmingoffishproducts.

TheEcologicalFootprintisthusacompositeindicatorwhich,throughconversionandspecific equivalences, measures the various ways in which environmental resourcesareutilizedthroughasingleunitofmeasure,theglobalhectare(gha).

Global Footprint Network

In 2004 Mathis Wackernagel and his associates founded the Global Footprint Network, a network of research institutes, scientists and users of this indicator which aims to further improve its calculation method and bring it to higher standards, while at the same time guarantee enhanced scientific “robustness” for the indicator as well as promoting its spread.

Together with the Living Planet Index it represents one of the two indicators through which, on a two-yearly basis, the WWF in collaboration with the Global Footprint Network and the Zoological Society of London, assesses the conservation status of the planet: the results are presented in the Living Plant Report.

4 Source: Global Footprint Network, www.globalfootprint.org

3.3Ecological Footprint

The Ecological Footprint quantifies the total area of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems required to provide in a sustainable manner all the resources utilized and to absorb (once again in a sustainable way) all the emissions produced.


The approach used in calculating the Ecological Footprint is completely analogoustoaLifeCycleAssessmentstudy. Itcallsforconvertingtheenvironmentalaspectsofthe productive process – specifically CO2 emissions and land use – into surface (globalhectare)“equivalents”.AsinthecaseoftheCarbonFootprint,thismeansthatthefinalvalue does not indicate the actual amount of land occupied, but rather a theoreticalrepresentationwhichtakesintoconsiderationtheweighteddifferencesofthevariouscategories.

Specifically,thecalculationismadeinarelativelysimplewaybymultiplyingthevalueof the environmental aspect under examination (for example, agricultural land use)by the correct conversion factor defined by the calculation protocol. The table belowprovidesacompletelistoftheconversionfactors.

Table3.3.1-EquivalenceFactorsutilizedtocalculatetheEcologicalFootprint5

Category Unit of measure Equivalence factor

Energy land gha/tCO2 0.2775

Cropland gha/ha 2.64

Grazing Land gha/ha 0.50

Forest gha/ha 1.33

Built-up Land gha/ha 2.64

Fishing Ground gha/ha 0.40

Althoughtheindicatortakesintoconsiderationthesixlandcategories,inactuality,inthefoodchainstudy,ForestandBuilt-upLandarenegligible,theformerbecausewoodisnotpartoffoodchains,andthelatterbecausefactoriesoccupyverylittlespacecom-paredwiththeothercategories,especiallyif“dividedup”betweentheamountoffoodproduced.

5 Calculated taking into consideration: 0.208 tha/CO2 and 1.33 gha/ha. Note that in calculating energy land, only CO2 and not CO2-equivalent emissions are considered


Ecological Footprint:some points of criticism

The Ecological Footprint is an indicator with solid scientific basis. This is shown by the widespread use made of it by the scientific community, as well as the recent decision of the European Union to invest in the development and improvement of the methodology on which it is based.

Despite this, the Ecological Footprint is not exempt from criticism6. In particular, some observers note that the basic assumptions behind the methodology for calculating the indicator result in a measure of sustainability that is not fully correct. For example, in high- and medium-income Countries, energy consumption has a significant impact on the calculation method (it is estimated that the influence is at least 50%), resulting in a fairly substantial impact on the final result.

Along the same lines, some experts also believe that there are serious problems of comparison between indicator results and the actual physical dimension of the geographical area under examination, thus leading to problems of comparison between different Countries and cities. Often the boundaries of the cities examined do not correspond to their actual ones because the indicator does not take into consideration the mobility of inhabitants in surrounding areas.

A further potential problem area would seem to involve the technological level considered in the indicator to estimate the impact of production of goods and services. According to some experts, the myriad production and trade connections between different Countries and areas render the current method less than fully-effective since measurement is not made at the source of production, but rather utilizing the characteristics of the area of consumption. Generally stated, it is felt that sudden technological changes in production and consumption could reduce the utility and reliability of this indicator.

In conclusion, the calculation methodology utilized for the Ecological Footprint does not take into consideration such phenomena as destruction and impossibility to utilize certain land areas (so-called land degradation). According to some experts, this is an important aspect that absolutely must be considered in assessing environmental sustainability.

6 For a more detailed discussion of this point, please refer to: Fiala N., “Measuring Sustainability: Why the Ecological Footprint is Bad Economics and Bad Environmental Science”, University of California, 2008; Van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., Harmen Verbruggen, “Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the ‘Ecological Footprint”, 1999.


Jon

ath

an

Bla

ir /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

4. Measuring the impact of foods:the three Environmental Pyramids

1.Titolo capitolo - 49

Foods with the lowest environmental impact are also those for which, in accordance with the international nutritional guidelines, the most frequent consumption is recommended.


Tin

o S

ori

an

o /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

The beneficial aspects of the Mediterranean Diet are backed by increasing evidence in terms of both prevention and clinical improvement.



This section will present the conceptual process leading from the mass of informa-tionavailabletotheconstructionoftheEnvironmentalPyramid,thefoundationofthisstudy.

Putsuccinctly,thebasicstepswereasfollows:n analysisoftheinformationledtothecreationofasufficiently-largedatabaseand,

foreachfood,itsimpactwascalculatedfromtheaverageofthedataavailable;n thedataobtainedwereusedtoconstructthespecificpyramidsoftheindividualen-

vironmentalindicatorsusedasareference;n from the three Environmental Pyramids constructed, one was selected (Ecological

Footprint)andusedtoconstructtheDoublePyramidmodel.

Eachofthesestepsisexaminedinmoredetailinthefollowingparagraphs.The choice to use only scientific documents and public information derived from

themostauthoritativeandknowndatabases,permittedtoreachanadequatelevelofknowledge of the food chains under investigation. Nevertheless, not always the as-sumptionsbehindtheconstructionofthegivendataarehomogeneousorthedatasta-tisticalcoverageiscomplete,suchasformeat.Sometimes,forvegetablesforexample,itcanbeimproved.

Itisbelievedthatthepublicationofthisdocument–asithappenedwithrecentstud-iespublishedbytheEuropeanCommission–willbeanincentiveforthepublication,inthe near future, of further studies and publications related to the environmental im-pactsoffoods,thatwillbeusedandcitedinthenextrevisionofthisdocument.

Details of the data analyzed are given below, subdividing the foods into categoriesbasedonsimilarityofproductionprocesses.Beforeenteringintothespecifics(present-edinsubsequentchapters),theseinitialtablesprovidethevaluesanddatarangesforeachfoodexamined.

Includedinthetablesisalsotheaveragevalueutilizedtoconstructthedifferentenvi-ronmentalimpactPyramids.Thisvaluewascalculatedasthearithmeticaverageofthedatafoundinliterature,excludingclearlyanomalousdata.

Thefirst categoryisfoods from agriculture.Thespecialnatureofvegetablesshouldbenotedandthedataforthemaredividedbetweengreenhouseandnon-greenhouse(seasonal)production;forlegumes,acookingprocessbasedonboilingwhichincreasesimpactby420gofCO2equivalentand5globalm2,onthebasisoftheassumptionsde-scribedbelow.

Table4.1.1-Foodsfromagriculture

Foods from agriculture Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint

Ecological Footprint

Data per kg [gCO2 equivalent/kg] [Liters of water] [global m2/kg]

FruitDatarange 40-100 500-700 2.3-3.8

Average value 70 600 3

Greenhouse vegetables

Datarange 3,000-5,000 106 9

Averagevalue 4,000 106 9

Cooking(boiling) 420 Negligible 5

Average value with cooking 4,420 106 14

4. Measuring the impact foods: the three Environmental Pyramids

4.1Summary of environmental data

4. Measuring the impact of foods: the three Environmental Pyramids - 53

Foods from agriculture Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Seasonal vegetables

Datarange 100-500 106 2.6-5.3

Averagevalue 302 106 4


Average value with cooking 722 106 9

Potatoes

Datarange 98-220 900 1.7-2.1


Cooking 420 Negligible 5


Legumes

Datarange 890÷1,500 1,800 13÷18

Averagevalue 1,130 1,800 16


Average value with cooking 1,550 1,800 21

Withinthecategoryoffoods derived from processing of agricultural productswereincludedproductsfollowingindustrialprocessingoftherawmaterials.Onceagainhere,somefoodswereconsideredtohavebeenboiled.

Table4.1.2-Foodsfromprocessingofagriculturalproducts

Foods from processing of agricultural products

Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Pasta

Rawpasta 1,564 1,390 12



Rice

Rawrice 1,800-3,000 3,400 7÷11




BreadDatarange 630-1,000 1,300 6.7

Average value 983 1,300 6.7

SugarDatarange 200-1,000 1,500 3÷6

Average value 470 1,500 4

OilDatarange 2,500-3,900 4,900 14.6

Average value 3,897 4,900 14.6

Sweets Average value 3,700 3,140 30

Biscuits Average value 2,300 1,800 16


Thecategoryoffoods derived from animal husbandryincludesmeat,milkanddairyproductsandeggs.Formeatandeggs,thecookingprocessesassumedweregrillingformeat (increasing impact to 1,000 g of CO2 equivalent and 13 global m2) and boiling foreggs.

Table4.1.3-Foodsderivedfromanimalhusbandry

Foods from animal husbandry Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Beef

Datarange 6,000-44,800 15,500 85-94


Cooking(grilling) 1,000 Negligible 13


Pork

Datarange 2,300-8,000 4,800 36




Poultry

Datarange 1,500-7,300 3,900 33




Cheese Average value 8,784 5,000 75

Butter Average value 8,800 5,000 75

MilkDatarange 1,050-1,303 1,000 11-19

Average value 1,138 1,000 15

Yoghurt Average value 1,138 1,000 15

Eggs

Datarange 4,038-5,800 3,300 9





Thecategoryoffoods from fishing includesbothfishandshellfish.Theoretically,theenvironmentalimpactrangewouldbeverywide,butitshouldbenotedthatthemini-mumvalue(40gofCO2equivalentperkg)andmaximumvalue(20,000gofCO2equiva-lentperkg)referrespectivelytomusselsandlobster.Forthisreason,theaveragevaluewasbasedontheimpactoffishmostcommonlyusedinrecipes(e.g.,soleandcod).

Furtherdetailsaboutthisinformation,aswellasthecookingmethod(grillinginthiscase),aregiveninsubsequentchapters.

Table4.1.4-Foodsfromfishing

Foods from fishing Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Fish

Datarange 220-10,500 N.A. 45-66

Averagevalue 3,273 N.A. 56

Cooking 1,000 Negligible 13

Average value with cooking 4,273 N.A. 69

Thefinalcategorypresentedisthatofbeverages,inwhichmineralwaterandwinehavebeenincluded.

Table4.1.5-Foodsfrombeverages

Beverages Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Mineral water Averagevalue 200 - <1

Wine Averagevalue 2,300 1,000 20


Cattle meat

Cheese

Fish

Pork meat

Chicken meat

Sweets

Legumes

Pasta

Biscuits

Milk

Yogurt

Oil

Rice

Egg

Vegetables

Potato

Bread

Fruit

100

50

25

10

5

15

15

7

105

75

69

49

46

30

21

17

16

15

14

14

3

7

9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Legend:

cooking min max

average value + cooking

Ecological Footprintglobal m2 - kg or litre of food

Graphic representation of the numeric values for the environmental impact of indi-vidualfoodsresultsinconstructionofbandswhosedimensionareindirectrelationshipwiththesizeoftherangeof informationavailable.ThesebandsareshownbelowforeachindicatorandtheiranalysisprovidesthevaluethatisthentransformedintothecorrespondingEnvironmentalPyramid.

Despitethefactthatdataacquiredforsomefoodsvaryquitesignificantly,“theclas-sification” of the impact of individual foods is nonetheless sufficiently clear: red meatis the food with greatest impact, while fruit and vegetables have a decidedly limitedimpacts.

Table4.2.1-Ecological Footprint

Table4.2.2- Carbon Footprint

4.2Three possible Environmental Pyramids

20,000

8,000

4,000

1,000

2,000

8,784

5,359

5,233

4,830

4,273

3,897

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 / 45,000

Cattle meat

Cheese

Pork meat

Egg

Chicken meat

Fish

Oil

Sweets

Rice

Biscuits

Pasta

Legumes

Milk

Yogurt

Bread

Vegetable

Potato

Fruit

31,415

3,700

3,170

1,984

1,550

2,300

1,138

1,138

70

722

983

584

Legend:

cooking min max

average value + cooking

Carbon FootprintgCO2-eq - kg or litre of food


Table4.2.3-Water Footprint

By using the Life Cycle Assessment methodology, all environmental indicators con-sidered for the entire analysis period were maintained on the same level. However,when making these results public, the need for conciseness and clarity dictates thatastraightforwardmethodforcommunicatingtheinformationobtainedshouldbeuti-lized.

Twodifferentapproachesarepossibleinthesephase:thefirstbasedontheconstruc-tionofanaggregateindicatortotalingallthevariousenvironmentalinformationintoasinglevalue;thesecondbasedonselectinganimpactindicatorrepresentativeofalltheresults.

In constructing the Double Pyramid,wehavechosenthesecondapproach,takingasthesolereference indicatorthatofthe Ecological Footprint.

Thischoicewasbasedonthefollowing:n ofthethreeindicatorsexaminedinthisstudy,theEcologicalFootprintis the most

complete,becauseittakesintoconsiderationbothlanduseandCO2emissions;n theEcologicalFootprintisthe simplest indicator to communicatebecausetheunit

ofmeasure(globalhectare)iseasyto“visualize”;n theEcologicalFootprintis the environmental indicatorthat,inarecentstudiedcon-

ductedfor the European Commission1,hasbeenidentifiedasoneoftheonesthatshould be promoted.

1 Best, Aaron, et al; 2008

Cattle meat

Cheese

Oil

Pork meat

Chicken meat

Rice

Egg

Sweets

Biscuits

Legumes

Pasta

Bread

Milk

Yogurt

Potato

Fruit

Vegetables

1,800

1,390

900

15,500

5,000

4,900

4,800

3,900

3,400

3,300

1,300

3,140

1,800

1,000

100

600

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 / 15,000

Legend: average value

Water Footprintlitre - kg or litre of food1,000

5.000

4.000

1.500

2.000

1.000

0

cooking value not presented because not considered

4.3The Environmental Pyramids based on the Ecological Footprint



HIGH

LOW

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L IM

PAC

T

ECO

LOG

ICA

L FO

OTP

RIN

T gl

obal

m2 p

er k

g/l

> 100

50

25

10

5

FOOD PYRAMID

LOW

HIGH

SUG

GES

TED

AM

OU

NTS

SWEETS, RED MEAT

MILK, YOGHURT

OLIVE OIL

BREAD, PASTA, RICE, POTATO, LEGUMES

CHEESE, EGG, WHITE MEAT, FISH, BISCUITS

FRUIT, VEGETABLES

RED MEAT

WHITE MEAT, SWEETS

LEGUMES, PASTA, BISCUITS, OLIVE OIL, MILK, YOGHURT, RICE, EGG

VEGETABLES, BREAD, POTATO

FRUIT

CHEESE, FISH



HIGH

LOW

ENV

IRO

NM

ENTA

L IM

PAC

T

ECO

LOG

ICA

L FO

OTP

RIN

T gl

obal

m2 p

er k

g/l

> 100

50

25

10

5

FOOD PYRAMID

LOW

HIGH

SUG

GES

TED

AM

OU

NTS

SWEETS, RED MEAT

MILK, YOGHURT

OLIVE OIL

BREAD, PASTA, RICE, POTATO, LEGUMES

CHEESE, EGG, WHITE MEAT, FISH, BISCUITS

FRUIT, VEGETABLES

RED MEAT

WHITE MEAT, SWEETS

LEGUMES, PASTA, BISCUITS, OLIVE OIL, MILK, YOGHURT, RICE, EGG

VEGETABLES, BREAD, POTATO

FRUIT

CHEESE, FISH


Me

liss

a F

arl

ow /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

5. Details of environmental data gathered


Process assessment underscores the extent to which the main environmental impacts are seen in the generation of greenhouse gas, consumption of water resources and land use.


To

dd

Gip

ste

in /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

Another aspect which can certainly be considered relevant in calculating the environmental impacts in some foods is the influence of the geographical area in which they are produced.



The information is presented grouping foods according to the following categoriesthatreflectthedetailedprocessdescription:n Foodsderivedfromagriculture(fruit,vegetables,grains,etc.);n Foodsderivedfromcultivationagriculturalproducts(sugar,oil,pasta,etc.);n Foodsderivedfromanimalhusbandry(dairyproducts,meat,etc.);n Foodsfromfishing;n Beverages.

Foreverycategoryexamined,thevaluesconnectedwitheachenvironmentalindica-tor are given, taken from data banks and scientific studies and, when possible, thesehavebeencomparedwithdataprocessedwithintheworkinggroup.

The results for each of the environmental indicators examined (for both scientificstudies and processed data) are expressed as a range of values since a specific valuewould not be representative of the category as a whole. For example, fruit includes anumberofvarietieswithdifferentcultivationprocessesand,asaresult,asinglevalueforthecategory“fruit”cannotbegivenforeachindicator.

Forthemajorityoffoodsexamined,theresultsgivendonotincludethecookingphaseand, therefore, it was decided to make certain assumptions about this, the details ofwhichcanbefoundinasectiondedicatedtothisaspect(5.2).

Thedecisiontouseonly“publiclyavailable”dataandinformationisduetothefactthatinthisfirsteditionofthestudyitwasdecidedtoorganizethepresentationofresultsinsuchawayinordertoallowapotentialreaderdesirousofexaminingtheanalysisinamorein-depthandanalyticalmannertoreconstructthedatainarelativelysimpleway.

Inactuality,theworkinggroupwhichpreparedthisdocumenthasfurtherinformationcompletingthedatabankconstructedwithdatatakendirectlyfromproducersinvolvedinthevarioussupplychainsandprocessingofthisdata.Atthistime,thisinformationhavebeenutilizedforcomparativepurposesaswellasguidingresearchandselectionofthebibliographicalsourcesutilizedinconstructingthePyramid.Forsubsequentver-sionsofthisdocument,thepossibilityofformally involvingproducers, inordertoex-pandthedatabaseutilizedasmuchaspossible,couldbetakenintoconsideration.

Returning to the bibliographical sources, the information utilized to complete thisworkwastakenfrompublishedliteratureorfromthosedatabanksnormallyconsultedinlifecycleanalysisstudies.Thebibliographyappendedtothisdocumentcitesalltheindividual sources drawn on from scientific literature, but it should be noted that, ingeneral,themainsourcesofinformationwere:n theEcoinventdatabase;n EnvironmentalProductDeclarations(EPD)1;n LCAfooddatabase(www.LCAfood.dk);n WaterFootprintNetworkdatabase;n EcologicalFootprintNetworkdatabase.

1 Source : Environmental Product Declarations, www.environdec.com

5. Details of environmental data gathered

5.1Main data sources

5. Details of environmental data gathered - 65

Source type Source list Description

LCAdatabanks

Ecoinvent

Informationispublicandutilizedbysectorprofessionals.Itsqualityvariesand,generally,theinformationisnot

specifictoagivenproducerandthereforegenerallyapplicabletotheproduct.

LCAfood

WaterFootprintNetwork

EcologicalFootprintNetwork

Certifiedpublications EPD™ Informationvalidatedbythirdparties.

Canbehighly-specifictoasingleproducer.

Scientificpublications

Completelistisgiveninthebibliography

Informationpertainingtoascientificstudyandvalidatedbyaqualifiedcommittee.Product-specific,butgenerally

qualitativelyreliable.

Generatedin-house -

Dataprocessedspecificallyforthisstudy.Becauseitwasdecidedtokeepthisdatatoaminimumanduseonly

publicly-availabledata,thisinformationareless-reliablethanothersourcescited.

Main data sources utilized

The LCA approach, born over the 1970s and 1980s, spread significantly during the 1990s, especially following the 1997 publication of ISO standard 14040. Since then, this approach has gradually spread, starting from the manufacturing sector, to cover many production supply chains and resulting in the creation of a number of public data banks.

One of the data banks most utilized by those in this sector is that of ECOINVENT. Created by the Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, ECOINVENT is a data base available on line2 that supplies much information and data about virtually all production supply chains. Another data base specific to the food sector is that created as part of a project financed by the Danish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fishing. This information is also available on line, free of charge3.

Recent applications of the LCA methodological approach increasingly involve the desire of producers to communicate in a clear, accurate manner the environmental performance of the goods and services they place on the market. Starting in 2000, this has led to the development of the international EPD™ (environmental product declaration) system, the goal of which is to promote the spread of product environmental declarations assessed on the basis of ISO standards. These declarations (also public), are gradually creating a data bank of validated information useful in assessing environmental impact: some of these relate to food products and have been taken into consideration in this study.

In evaluating the sources utilized, it should be noted that the validated product environmental declarations refer to the creation of a good by a specific producer and, therefore, do not necessarily reflect the average environmental performance associated with the processes under examination.

2 Source: ECOINVEN database, www.ecoinvent.ch3 Source : LCA database, http://www.LCAfood.dk/


Foods derived from agriculture

This category includes those foods produced directly from agricultural activity or,moreprecisely,thoseinwhichindustrialprocessesareeitherinexistentorlimited.Forthepresentationofenvironmentalimpacts,thecategoryhasbeenfurthersubdividedinto:n fruit;n legumes;n vegetables;n potatoes.

Thesystemboundariesforthedataprovidedinthissectionincludethemainprocessphases,whichare:n theactualagriculturalproductionphaseincluding,specifically,fuelconsumptionand

fertilizeruse;n anypost-harvestcleaningandtreatmentphases;n transportoftheproductsfromthefieldtothedistributioncenter.

FruitThethreeindicatorscalculatedforthe“fruit”category,whichit isassumediseaten

raw,aresummarizedinTable5.1.1,givingboththedatarangeandthevalueutilizedinconstructingtheEnvironmentalPyramid(averagedata).

Table5.1.1–Indicatorsfor1kgoffruit

FRUIT

Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint


gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg global m2/kg

Data range 40-100 500-700 2.3–6


NUMBER AND TYPE OF SOURCES UTILIZED

Source Type LCA Data Banks

Certified publications

Scientific publications

Generated in-house

Carbon Footprint - 1 - -

Water Footprint 1 - - -

Ecological Footprint 1 1 - -

ThefirstinformationprovidedinvolvestheCarbonFootprintwhich,asshowninTable5.1.2,hasvaluesrangingfrom40to100gramsofCO2equivalentperkgoffruit.

4 Average of the published data range


Table5.1.2–CarbonFootprintofanumberoffruitsfromtheliterature

ProductCarbon Footprint

SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Apples 40÷100 MilàiCanalset al.(2006)

Fordatainvolvingwaterconsumption,theinformationfoundintheWaterFootprintNetworkdatabase(creatorsofthemethodandrelativecalculationprotocol)wasutilized(Table5.1.3).

Table5.1.3–WaterFootprintofanumberoffruitsfromthedatabase–Source:datafromwww.waterfootprint.org

ProductWater Footprint

liters/kg

Oranges 500

Apples 700

TheEcologicalFootprintvaluesforsomefruitsaresummarizedinTable5.1.4. Inthecalculation,contributionsfromCropland(orchardlanduse)andEnergy Landweretakenintoconsideration.

Table5.1.4–EcologicalFootprintofanumberoffruits

ProductEcological Footprint

Sourceglobal m2/kg

Oranges and tangerines 2.4

GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItalian

situationin2001(GFN–Italy2001)

Lemons and limes 2.3

Bananas 2.9

Apples 3.6

Grapes 3.8

Fruit 5÷6 Chamberset al. (2007)


LegumesThethree indicatorscalculatedforthe“legumes”categoryaresummarized inTable

5.1.5.

Table5.1.5–Indicatorsfor1kgoflegumes

LEGUMES

Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Data range 890-1,500 1,800 13-18


Cooking (boiling) 420 Negligible 5






Generated in-house

Carbon Footprint 1 - - -


Ecological Footprint 2 - - -

Thelegumesanalyzedincludefavabeans,haricotbeans,peasandsoybeans.Thedatafound inthe literaturedonottake intoaccountthecookingphasefor legumeswhichhasbeenaddedaccordingtotheassumptionsgiveninthesectiononcookingmethod.

CarbonFootprintdataweretakenfromtheEcoinventdatabaseandaregiveninTable5.1.6.

Table5.1.6–CarbonFootprintfor1kgoflegumesSource:www.ecoinvent.ch


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Fava beans 1,000 Ecoinvent2004(FavabeanIP,atfarm,CH,[kg])

Peas 890 Ecoinvent2004(Proteinpea,organic,atfarm,CH,[kg])

Soybeans 1,500 Ecoinvent2004(soybeans,atfarm,BR,[kg])

In terms of water consumption, the only available data was for soybeans from thedatabankoftheWaterFootprintNetworkdatabase.


Table5.1.7–WaterFootprintfor1kgoflegumes.Source:www.waterfooptrint.org


liters/kg

Soybeans 1,800

Finally,Table5.1.8providesthedatafortheEcologicalFootprint,takeninpartfromtheEcoinventdatabase,andinpartfrominformationgleanedfromthedatabankoftheGlobalFootprintNetwork.

Table5.1.8– EcologicalFootprintfor1kgoflegumes


Sourceglobal m2/kg

Fava beans 13.6 Ecoinvent2004(FavabeanIP,atfarm,CH,[kg])

Peas18.2 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank

17 Ecoinvent2004(Proteinpea,organic,atfarm,CH,[kg])

Soybeans 15 Ecoinvent2004(soybeans,atfarm,BR,[kg])

VegetablesThethreeindicatorscalculatedforthe“vegetables”categoryaregiveninTable5.1.9.

Table5.1.9–Indicatorsfor1kgofvegetables

Foods from agriculture

per kg

Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Greenhouse vegetables

Datarange 3,000–5,000 106 9

Averagevalue 4,000 106 9

Cookingpotatoes(boiling) 420 Negligible 5

Average value with cooking 4,420 106 14

Seasonal vegetables

Datarange 100-500 106 1.7–5.3









Generated in-house

Carbon Footprint 1 2 - -

Water Footprint - - - 1

Ecological Footprint 1 - - 1

Thevegetablesanalyzedincludelettuceandtomatoes.InconstructingthePyramid,itwasassumedthatvegetablesareeatencooked.Formoredetailedinformationonthispoint,pleaserefertothesectiondedicatedtocookingmethods.

Thevaluesforthethreeindicatorsaregiveninthetablesbelow.TheCarbonFootprinttable(Tab.5.1.10)distinguishesbetweenseasonalvegetables

and greenhouse vegetables (lettuce and tomatoes) because greenhouse gasemissionsregardingthelatterarehigherduetosignificantenergyuseforheatingthegreenhouses.

Table5.1.10–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofvegetables


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Lettuce400–500

Hospidoet al. (2009)4,000(greenhouse)

Tomatoes154 Andersson(2000)

3,000-5,000(greenhouse) LCAfooddk

Mic

hae

l Mel

ford

/ N

atio

nal

Geo

grap

hic

Imag

e Co

llect

ion


Given that Water Footprint data are not available for seasonal vegetables, ad hocelaboration were made, calculating green water and blue water for the cultivation oftomatoesinItaly(datausedfortheelaborationaresynthesizedinTab.5.1.11).

Regardinggreenhousevegetables,itisassumedthattheamountofvirtualwaterisequaltotheseasonalvegetablesone.

Table5.1.11–WaterFootprintfor1kgoftomatoes

Parameter Data Source

Green water

Et0[mm/growingperiod] 601 UCEAObservatory5

Growingperiod:May-September

Kc[-] 0.86ElaboratedbytheworkinggrouptakingintoaccountthemethodologydescribedinAllen

et al.,1998

Yield[t/ha] 60 Dataabouttobepublished

Ete[l/kg] 86 Takingintoaccountthemethodologydescribedinparagraph3.2

Blue water [litri/kg] 20 Dataabouttobepublished

Water Footprint [litri/kg] 106Takingintoaccountthemethodology

describedinparagraph3.2Value utilized for the pyramid [litri/kg] 106

Given that out-of-season vegetables require a high level of energy for greenhouseheating and cooling, an assessment of the Energy Land associated solely with green-houseconditioningwasmade,andthiswasaddedtotheaveragevalueoftheEcologicalFootprintofseasonalvegetables.

The Energy Land assessment was made using the data reported by Hospido as thebase (greenhouse gas emissions tied to conditioning: 2.3 kg CO2 equivalent per kg ofgreenhouselettuce).

MultiplyingtheemissionsbytheequivalencefactorproducesanEnergy Landvalueof6globalm2/kg.Thisvaluereferstoallgreenhousegasemissionsand,consequently,couldbeanoverestimate.

AddingtheEnergy Land(6globalm2/kg)valuetotheEcologicalFootprintaverageval-ueforseasonalvegetables(3gm2/kg)producesanestimateoftheEcologicalFootprintforgreenhousevegetables(9globalm2/kg),asshowninTable5.1.12.

Table5.1.12–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofvegetables


Sourcegm2/kg

Onions 2.6 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank

Tomatoes 5.3 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank

Greenhouse vegetables 9 Elaboratedbyworkinggroup

5 Source: http://www.politicheagricole.it/ucea/Osservatorio/miekfyi01_index_zon.htm


PotatoesThethreeindicatorscalculatedforpotatoesaregiveninthefollowingtables.

Table5.1.13–Indicatorsfor1kgofpotatoes

POTATOES

Carbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint


Data range 98÷220 900 1,7÷2,1




Jim

Ric

har

dso

n /

Nat

ion

al G

eogr

aph

ic Im

age

Colle

ctio

n






Generated in-house

Carbon Footprint 2 - - -



Datagiveninliteraturedonotincludequantificationofcoking-relatedimpactsofpo-tatoesthat,itisaddedbasedontheassumptionsdiscussedinthededicatedsection.

CarbonFootprintdataarereportedinTable5.1.14.

Table5.1.14– CarbonFootprintfor1kgofpotatoes


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Potatoes

160(atfield)LCAfooddk

220(atretail)

98-116 Ecoinvent2004(PotatoIP,atfarm,CH,[kg])

DataforvirtualwaterconsumptionsaretakenfromtheWaterFooptrintNetworkda-tabaseandpresentedinTable5.1.15.

Table5.1.15–WaterFootprintfor1kgofpotatoes


Sourceliters/kg

Potatoes 900 www.waterfootprint.org

Finally, Tables 5.1.16 shows the Ecological Footprint data which were taken in partfromtheEcoinventdatabase,andinpartfromtheGlobalFooptrintNetworkdatabase.

Table5.1.16– EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofpotatoes


Sourceglobal m2/kg

Potatoes2.1 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank

1.7 Ecoinvent2004(PotatoIP,atfarm,CH,[kg])


Foods derived from processing of agricultural products

This category includes those foods produced following industrial processing (ofvariedcomplexity)ofagriculturalrawmaterials.Forthepresentationofenvironmentalcharacteristics,thefoodshavebeendividedinto:n Pasta;n Rice;n Bread;n Sugar;n Condiments(oils);n Sweets(cakes);n Biscuits.

Thesystemboundariesforthedatapresentedinthissectionincludethemainprocessphases,whichare:n theagriculturalproductionphase;n theindustrialprocessingphase;n productionofanypackingmaterials;n transportfromthefieldtothedistributioncenter.

PastaTheindicatorsforhardwheatpastaarederivedfromtheenvironmentaldeclaration

ofthepastacertifiedonthebasisoftheEPD™internationalsystem6andsummarizedinTable5.1.17.Intermsofcooking,althoughtheenvironmentaldeclarationincludesanestimateoftheimpacts, itwasdecidedtofollowthesameapproachutilizedforotherfoods as referenced in the information presented in the section dedicated to cookingmethod.

IntermsoftheWaterFootprint,adocumentprepareddirectlybytheWaterFootprintNetwork, shows values in line with those presented in the pasta EPD declaration(Haldaya,2009).

Because pasta is a food that is never consumed on its own, in constructing theEnvironmental Pyramid it was assumed that it would be cooked, but without theadditionofanytypeofcondiment.Giventheseassumptions,theenvironmentalimpactstakenintoconsiderationareshowninthetablebelow.

6 http://www.environdec.com/pageID.asp?id=130&menu=4,14,0&epdId=195

Kee

np

ress

/ N

atio

nal

Geo

grap

hic

Imag

e Co

llect

ion


Table5.1.17–Indicatorsfor1kgofpasta

PASTA

Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint


Source


Raw pasta 1,564 1,390 12 BarillapastaEPD

Cooking (boiling) 420 Negligible 5 Seespecificsection

Cooked pasta 1,984 1,390 17 -





Generated in-house

Carbon Footprint - - 1 -

Water Footprint - - 1 -

Ecological Footprint - - 1 -

RiceAswithpasta,itwasalsoassumedthatricewouldbecookedwithouttheadditionof

anytypeofcondiment.Thethreeindicatorscalculatedforricearegiveninthetablesbelow.

InfindingtheaverageofthedatafortheCarbonFootprint,itwasdecidedtoleaveoutthedatafromtheEcoinventdatabasesinceitisreferredtotheproductionofpaddyriceandnottotherefinedone.

Table5.1.18–Indicatorsfor1kgofvegetablerice

RICE

Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Raw rice 1,800–3,000 3,400 7–11








Generated in-house





ThevaluesforthethreeindicatorsaresummarizedinTables5.1.19.,5.1.20and5.1.21.Thesefiguresdonotincludethecookingphase;forthisaspect,pleaserefertothespe-cificsectiondedicatedtocookingmethod.

Table5.1.19–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofrice


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Rice2,500–3,000 Blengini,Busto(2008)

1,8007 Ecoinvent2004(Rice,atfarm,1kg,US)

Table5.1.20–WaterFootprintfor1kgofrice


Sourceliters/kg

Rice 3,400 www.waterfootprint.org

Table5.1.21–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofrice


Sourcegm2/kg

Rice7,8 ElaboratedfromGFNdatabase–Italy2001

11 Ecoinvent2004(Rice,atfarm,1kg,US)

BreadTheenvironmentalindicatorsforbreadproductionaresummarizedinTable5.1.22.TheaveragevaluefortheCarbonFootprintwascalculatedbyfindingtheaverageof

allavailabledata,takingintoconsideration:n theaveragedataoftherangeasperAndersson&Ohlsson(1999);n dataforretailsaleaspertheDanishdatabase.

Table5.1.22–Indicatorsfor1kgofbread

BREADCarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint


Data range 630–1,000 1,300 6.7

Average value 983 1,300 6.7

7 Value not included in the calculation of average values since the data base does not take into consideration methane emission during rice cultivation






Generated in-house



Ecological Footprint - - - 1

Theenvironmentalvaluesfortheindicatorsforbreadproductionaregivenintheta-blesbelow.

Table5.1.23–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofbread


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Fresh loaf880(atplant)

LCAfooddk930(atretail)

Frozen loaf890(atplant)

LCAfooddk1,260(atretail)

Wheat bread (fresh)

780(atplant)LCAfooddk

840(atretail)

Wheat bread (frozen)


1,260(atretail)

Rye bread720(atplant)

LCAfooddk790(atretail)

Bread 630-1,000 Andersson&Ohlsson(1999)

Mic

hae

l Mel

ford

/ N

atio

nal

Geo

grap

hic

Imag

e Co

llect

ion


Table5.1.24– WaterFootprintfor1kgofbread


Sourceliters/kg

Bread 1,333 www.waterfootprint.org

Table5.1.25– EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofbread


Sourceglobal m2/kg

Bread 6.7 Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup

CalculationsfortheEcologicalFootprintweremadeonthebasisofdatatakenfromthescientificstudybyAndersson&Ohlsson,calculatingonlythecontributionsofCroplandandEnergy Land,asshowninthetablebelow:

Cropland Energy land Ecological Footprint

Landuse[m2/kg]

Equivalencefactor

[globalm2/m2]

Cropland[gm2/kg]

CO2emissions[gCO2/kg]

Equivalencefactor

[gha/tCO2]

Energyland[globalm2/

kg]global m2/kg

2 2.64 5.3 500 0.277 1.4 6.7

SugarTheindicatorsaresummarizedinTable5.1.26.

Table5.1.26–Indicatorsfor1kgofsugar

SUGAR

Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Data range 200–1,000 1,500 3-6

Average value 470 1,500 4





Generated in-house





Forthe“sugar”category,beetsugarandcanesugarwereconsideredandtheirenvi-ronmentalimpactvaluesareshowninthetablesbelow.

Table5.1.27–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofsugar


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Beet sugar


960(atretail)

500 Ecoinvent2004(sugar,fromsugarbeet,atsugarrefinery,CH,[kg])

Cane sugar233 Ramjeawon(2004)

190 Ecoinvent2004(sugar,fromsugarcane,atsugarrefinery,BR,[kg])

Table5.1.28–WaterFootprintfor1kgofcanesugar


Sourceliters/kg

Cane sugar 1,500 www.waterfootprint.org

IncalculatingtheEcologicalFootprint,thecontributionsfromCrop LandandEnergy LandweretakenintoconsiderationandtheinformationwastakenfromtheEcoinventandGlobalFootprintNetworkdatabase.

Table5.1.29– EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofsugar


Sourceglobal m2/kg

Beet sugar3.5 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank

6 Ecoinvent2004(sugar,fromsugarbeet,atsugarrefinery,CH,[kg])

Cane sugar3.2 ElaborazionebancadatiGFN–Italy2001

4.9 Ecoinvent2004(sugar,fromsugarcane,atsugarrefinery,BR,[kg])


OilThethreeindicatorscalculatedforthe“oil”categoryaregiveninTable5.1.30.

Table5.1.30–Indicatorsfor1literofoil

OIL

Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Data range 2,500-3,900 4,900 14.6

Average value 3,897 4,900 14.6





Generated in-house




Forcondiments,fourdifferenttypesofvegetableoilswereconsidered:oliveoil,palmoil,soybeanoilandrapeseedoil.Thevaluesforthethree indicatorsareshowninthetablesbelow.TorealizethethreePyramidswasconsideredonlyoliveoil.

Siss

e B

rim

berg

/ N

atio

nal

Geo

grap

hic

Imag

e Co

llect

ion


Table5.1.31–CarbonFootprintfor1literofoil


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Olive oil 3,897 Avraamides,Fatta(2008)

Palm oil 2,5148 Yusoff,Hansen(2007)

Soybean and rapeseed oil

3,510(atplant)LCAfooddk9

3,630(atretail)

Figures for the Water Footprint were developed by calculating the contribution ofgreen waterandblue water.CalculationdataaresummarizedinTable5.1.32.

Table5.1.32– WaterFootprintfor1literofoil

Parameter Value Source

Green water

Et0[mm/month] 908 UCEAObservatory10

Kc[-] 0,65Dataelaboratedbytheworkinggrouptakingintoaccountthemethodology

describedinAllenet al.,1998

Yield[t/ha] 7 HoepliManualofAgriculture

Ete[l/kg] 843Dataelaboratedbytheworkinggrouptakingintoaccountthemethodology

describedinparagraph3.2

Blue water [liters/kg] 4,000 Avraamides,Fatta(2008)

Water Footprint [liters/kg] 4,843 Dataelaboratedbytheworkinggrouptakingintoaccountthemethodology

describedinparagraph3.2Value utilized for the pyramid [liters/kg] 4,900

Calculations for the Ecological Footprint were made exclusively on the basis ofCroplandandEnergy Landcontributions,asshowninthetablebelow:

Table5.1.33–EcologicalFootprintassessmentfor1literofoil

Crop land Energy land Ecological Footprint

Landuse[m2/kg]

Equivalencefactor

[globalm2/m2]

Cropland[globalm2/

kg]


Equivalencefactor

[gha/tCO2]


kg]global m2/kg

1.4311 2.64 3.8 3,90012 0.277 10.8 14.6

8 The final refining phase for palm oil was not included within the boundaries of the study9 Soybean and rapeseed oil10 http://www.politicheagricole.it/ucea/Osservatorio/miekfyi01_index_zon.htm11 Hoepli, Manual of Agriculture12 Avreemides, Fata (2008)


Table5.1.34–EcologicalFootprintfor1literofoil


Sourceglobal m2/kg

Oil 14,6 Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup

SweetsForthiscategory,nopublicly-availableinformationwasfound,andforthisreasonthe

resultsofalifecycleassessmentforTortadelParadiso-atraditionalItalian-stylecake(Veronelli,“IlCarnacina”,Garzanti)-areprovided.Thedatawaspreparedbytheworkinggroupinordertohaveageneralideaoftheimpactassociatedwith1kgofsweet.

Thiscakewasusedasaproxyofthe“sweets”category.TherecipeanddatailsaboutthelifecycleassessmentevaluationaregiveninAppendixA1.

Theindicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofsweetsaregiveninTable5.1.35.

Table5.1.35–Indicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofsweets

SWEETS

Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Data range 3,700 3,140 30






Generated in-house

Carbon Footprint - - - 1


Ecological Footprint - - - 1Jo

el S

arto

re /

Nat

ion

al G

eogr

aph

ic Im

age

Colle

ctio

n


BiscuitsForthiscategory,nopublicly-availableinformationwasfound,andforthisreasonthe

results of a life cycle assessment for biscuits are provided. The data was prepared bytheworkinggroupinordertohaveageneralideaoftheimpactassociatedwith1kgofcookies.

Asrepresentativeofthiscategory,“healthycookies”(Artusi,recipeno.573)wereana-lyzed,thedetailedrecipeforwhichisgiveninAppendixA1.

Theindicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofcookiesaregiveninTable5.1.36.

Table5.1.36–Indicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofcookies

COOKIES

Carbon Footprint

Water Footprint



Data range 2,300 1,800 16






Generated in-house



Ecological Footprint - - - -

Foods derived from animal husbandry

This category includes those foods involving livestock husbandry, both for animal-basedproducts(milk,eggs)andmeatitself.Thesubcategoriesutilizedare:n beef(redmeat);n pork(whitemeat);n poultry(whitemeat);n cheese;n butter;n milk;n yoghurt;n eggs.

Thesystemboundariesfortheseproductsinclude:n thelivestockhusbandryphaseincludinggrowingoffeed;n butcheringphase(formeatproduction);n processingofproducts(formilkandeggs).

Aswiththeotherfoodsalreadypresented,theindicatorsgivendonotincludeimpactsassociatedwithcooking.Forthisreason,theimpactsconnectedwiththisphasewerecalculated on the basis of the assumptions given in the section dedicated to cookingmethod,assumingthatonlycheeseisconsumeduncooked.


White meat and red meatThe decision was made to construct the Double Pyramid dividing meat into white

and red. While continuing to maintain basic information and data in a clear, straight-forward manner, the two categories have been designed in order to facilitate commu-nication: red meat is represented by beef while white meat by pork and poultry.

Beef (red meat)Theindicatorscalculatedforthe“beef”categoryaregiveninTable5.1.37.

Table5.1.37–Indicatorsfor1kgofmeat

BEEF



Data range 6,000–44,800 15,500 89–94


Cooking 1,000 Negligible 13






Generated in-house



Ecological Footprint - 1 - -

Dataforenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithbeefproductionaretakenfrompub-licsourcesandareshowninthetableswhichfollow.

In particular, Tables 5.1.38 and 5.1.39 provide Carbon Footprint values from, respec-tively,theDanishLCAfooddatabaseandthe“Food Production and Emission of Green-house Gases”report issuedbySIK–theSwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnologyandtheInternationalJournalofLCA.

TheaveragevaluefortheCarbonFootprintwascalculatedbyfindingtheaverageofallavailabledata:n takingintoconsiderationdataforretailsaleaspertheDanishdatabase;n takingintoconsiderationtheaveragedata,thenmediatedwithotherdata;n excludingoverboardcategory(68,000andvaluesbetween2,220and4,370).


Table5.1.38– CarbonFootprintfor1kgofbeef–Source:LCAfoodDK


gCO2-eq/kg

Tenderloin67,900(atslaughterhouse)

68,000(atretail)

Fillet 44,800

Top round 42,300

Steak 42,400

Fore-end 24,600

Outside 2,230

Flank steak 2,240

Round2,210(atslaughterhouse)

2,220(atretail)

Minced meat4,320(atslaughterhouse)

4,370(atretail)

Knuckle shank4,040(atslaughterhouse)

4,080(atretail)

Table5.1.39– CarbonFootprintfor1kgofbeef


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Beef

32,000 Oginoetal.(2007),Japan(SIKreport)

28,000–32,000 Casey&Holden(2006a,b),Suckler,Ireland(SIKreport)

16,000 Williamsetal.(2006),”AverageUKbeef”(SIKreport)

25,000 Williamsetal.(2006),”100%suckler”,UK(SIKreport)

30,000 Verge,etal.(2008),”AverageCanadianbeef”(SIKreport)

40,000 Cederbergetal.(2009a),”AverageBrazilianbeef”(SIKreport)

28,000 Cederbergetal.(2009b),”AverageSwedishbeef2005”(SIKreport)

17,000–19,000 Cederberg&Darelius(2000),”Swedishbeeffromcombinedsystemsdairy-beef”(SIKreport)

22,300 Cederberg&Stadig(2003)


Intermsofwaterconsumption,theWaterFootprintdatawastakenfromthedatabaseavailableontheNet(Tables5.1.40),whilefortheEcologicalFootprint,astudyrecentlypresented by the Piedmont Region that specifically examines beef production wasutilized(Tables5.1.41).

Table5.1.40–WaterFootprintfor1kgofmeat


Sourceliters/kg

Beef 15,500 www.waterfootprint.org

Table5.1.41–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofmeat

ProductEcological Footptint

Sourceglobal m2/kg

Beef 89–94RegionePiemonte(AssessoratoAmbiente),la

contabilitàambientaleapplicataallaproduzionezootecnica.Collanaambiente29

Pork (white meat)Dataforenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwithporkproductionaretakenfrompublic

sourcesandareshowninTable5.1.42.

Table5.1.42–Indicatorsfor1kgofporkmeat

PORK



Data range 2,300–8,000 4,800 36


Cooking (broiling) 1 Negligible 13






Generated in-house





Tables5.1.43and5.1.44provideCarbonFootprintvaluestakenfrom,respectively,theDanishLCAfooddatabaseandthe“Food Production and Emission of Greenhouse Gases”reportissuedbySIK–theSwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnology.

Table5.1.43–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofpork–Source:LCAfoodDK


gCO2-eq/kg

Tenderloin4,520(atslaughterhouse)

4,560(atretail)

Ham, pork neck, streaky bacon2,900(atslaughterhouse)

2,950(atretail)

Minced meat2,660(atslaughterhouse)

2,310(atretail)

Table5.1.44–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofpork


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Pork

5,600–6,400 Williamsetal.,2006

5,300–8,000 BassetMens&vanderWerf(2003)

4,100–3,600 Cederberg&Flysjö(2004)

3,200–3,500 StridErikssonet al.(2005)

5,200 Cederbergm.fl.(2009)

Intermsofwaterconsumption,theWaterFootprintdatawastakenfromthedatabaseavailableontheNet(Tables5.1.45),whilefortheEcologicalFootprint,thedataavailableontheNetworkdatabasewereelaborated(Tables5.1.46).

Table5.1.45–WaterFootprintfor1kgofpork


Sourceliters/kg

Pork 4,800 www.waterfootprint.org

Table5.1.46–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofpork


Sourceglobal m2/kg

Pork 36 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank


Poultry (white meat)Theindicatorscalculatedforthe“poultry”categoryaregiveninTable5.1.47.

Table5.1.47–Indicatorsfor1kgofpoultrymeat

POULTRY



Data range 1,500–7,300 3,900 33


Cooking (broiling) 1 Negligible 13






Generated in-house




Data for environmental impacts associated with poultry production are taken frompublicsourcesandareshowninthetableswhichfollow.

In particular, Tables 5.1.48 and 5.1.49 provide Carbon Footprint values from, respec-tively,theDanishLCAfooddatabankandthe“Food Production and Emission of Green-house Gases”reportissuedbySIK–theSwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnology.

Jam

es L

. Am

os /

Nat

ion

al G

eogr

aph

ic Im

age

Colle

ctio

n


Table5.1.48–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofpoultry–Sourcewww.LCAfood.dk


gCO2-eq/kg

Fresh chicken3,110(atslaughterhouse)

3,160(atretail)

Frozen chicken3,280(atslaughterhouse)

3,650(atretail)

Table5.1.49–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofpoultry


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Chicken

1,500 Thynelius(2008)

2,600 Pelletier(2008)

2,500 Cederberget al. (2009b)

6,100 Williamsetal.(2006),conventional

7,300 Williamsetal.(2006),free-range

Data for virtual water consumption come from official data banks of the respectivenetwork.

Table5.1.50– WaterFootprintfor1kgofpoultry


Sourceliters/kg

Chicken 3,900 www.waterfootprint.org

Table5.1.51–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofpoultry


Sourceglobal m2/kg

Chicken 33 ElaboratedfromGFN–Italy2001databank


CheeseThe indicators utilized in creating the Environmental Pyramid are summarized in

Table5.1.52.

Table5.1.52–Indicatorsfor1kgofcheese

CHEESECarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint


Data range 8,784 5,000 75






Generated in-house




Theenvironmentalindicatorvaluesforcheesearetakenfrompublishedsourcesandaregiveninthetablesbelow.

Cott

on C

ouls

on /

Nat

ion

al G

eogr

aph

ic Im

age

Colle

ctio

n


Table5.1.53–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofcheese


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Cheese 8,784 Berlin(2002)

Table5.1.54–WaterFootprintfor1kgofcheese


Sourceliters/kg

Cheese 5,000 www.waterfootprint.org

Table5.1.55–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofcheese


Sourceglobal m2/kg

Cheese 75 Elaborationconsidering5litersofmilk(15globalm2/liter)consumedperkgofcheese

ButterNopublicly-available informationwasfoundforthiscategory,andforthisreasonit

wasconservativelydecidedtoassimilatetheimpactsofbutterwiththecheeseones.Inthenexteditionofthisdocumentthisassumptionwillhavetobefurtheranalyzed.

Theenvironmentalimpactsofbutterwereconsideredforthecalculationofthesweetsones.

Table5.1.56–Indicatorsfor1kgofbutter

ButterCarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint


Data range 8,800 5,000 75

MilkFormilk,productionoffreshpasteurizedmilkwasexamined.Theenvironmentalindi-

catorvaluesformilkaretakenfrompublishedsourcesandaregiveninthetablesbelow.

Table5.1.57–Indicatorsfor1literofmilk

MILKCarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint

gCO2-eq/liter liters/liter global m2/liter

Data range 1,050-1,303 1,000 11-19




Source Type LCA Data Banks Certified publications


Generated in-house

Carbon Footprint - 2 1 -



Table5.1.58–CarbonFootprintfor1literofmilk


SourcegCO2-eq/liter

Milk

1,303 EPDforhigh-qualityGranarolomilk13

1,050 Cederberg&Stadig(2003)

1,060 Williametal.(2006)

Table5.1.59–WaterFootprintfor1literofmilk


Sourceliters/liter

Milk 1,000 www.waterfootprint.org

Tabella5.1.60–EcologicalFootprintfor1literofmilk


Sourceglobal m2/liter

Milk 11-19 Chambersetal(2007)

YoghurtNopublicly-availableinformationwasfoundforthiscategory,andforthisreasonthe

datawaselaboratedbytheworkinggroupitself.The indicators pertaining to the production of 1 liter of yoghurt are given in Table

5.1.61.Theyhavebeencalculatedonthebasisoftheratioofmilktoyoghurtwhich,onaverage, is 1:1 (Temine & Robertson, 1999; Fetiz et al., 2005). In essence, the averageindicatorscalculatedforaliterofmilkwereutilizedforyoghurt.

13 Environmental Product Declaration for pasteurized fresh milk packed in PET bottle, EPD, Granarolo, http://www.environdec.com/reg/epd118it.pdf

Table5.1.61–Indicatorsfortheproductionof1literofyoghurt

YOGHURT



Data range 1,138 1,000 15






Generated in-house




Reb

ecca

Hal

e /

Nat

ion

al G

eogr

aph

ic Im

age

Colle

ctio

n



EggsTheenvironmentalindicatorvaluesforeggsaretakenfrompublishedsourcesandare

giveninthetablesbelow.

Table5.1.62–Indicatorsfor1kgofeggs

EGGCarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint


Data range 4,038–5,800 3,300 9








Generated in-house




Table5.1.63–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofeggs


SourcegCO2-eq/kg

Organic eggs 4,038 Dekkeret al.

Organic eggs 5,80014 Williamset al.

Non-organic eggs 4,60015 Williamset al.

Table5.1.64–WaterFootprintfor1kgofeggs


Sourceliters/kg

Eggs 3,333 www.waterfootprint.org

Calculations for the Ecological Footprint were made exclusively on the basis ofCroplandandEnergy Landcontributions,asshowninthetablesbelow.

14 This value was elaborated per kg of eggs produced; the study by Williams provides an emission value of CO2 equivalent for 20,000 eggs equal to 7,000 kg. The weight of each egg was assumed to be 60 grams (http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=eggs)

15 This value was elaborated per kg of eggs produced; the study by Williams provides an emission value of CO2 equivalent for 20,000 eggs equal to 5,530 kg. The weight of each egg was assumed to be 60 grams (http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=eggs)


Table5.1.65–EcologicalFootprintassessmentfor1kgofeggs

Cropland Energy land Ecological Footprint

Landuse[m2/kg]

Equivalencefactor

[globalm2/m2]

Cropland[globalm2/

kg]


Equivalencefactor

[gha/tCO2]


kg]global m2/kg

2.516 2.64 6.6 80017 0.277 2.22 8.88

Table5.1.66– EcologicalFootprintfor1kgofeggs


Sourceglobal m2/kg

Eggs 9 Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup

Food from fishing

TheindicatorscalculatedforthiscategoryaregiveninTable5.1.67.Theaverageofthevaluesfoundintheliterature(fortheCarbonFootprint)wascalcu-

latedtakingintoconsiderationtheretailsalesdataandexcluding,respectively,dataformusselsandlobsterbecauseoftheirextremevariation.

Table5.1.67–Indicatorsfor1kgoffish

FISH



Data range 220–10,500 N.A. 45-66

Average value 3,273 N.A. 56

Cooking (broiling) 1,000 Negligible 13

Average value with cooking 4,273 N.A. 69

16 Calculated taking into consideration that approx. 2 kg of corn per kg of eggs are required and that corn yield is 8 t/ha

17 Dekker et al.






Generated in-house


Water Footprint - - - -


ThedataforthefishsupplychainavailableinliteraturepertaintotheCarbonFoot-printandEcologicalFootprint.

Data pertaining to the Carbon Footprint derive primarily from the Danish LCA fooddatabase.

Thisdatabasedifferentiatesthesupplychainsintotwogroups:n wildfish;n farmedtrout.

TheresultsforthefirstcategoryaregiveninTable5.1.68,whilethoseforthesecondcategoryarefoundinTable5.1.69.

The data provided do not take into consideration impacts connected to the cookingphaseforthefish;forthisaspect,pleaserefertotheassumptionsoutlinedinspecificsectiondedicatedtocookingmethod.

DatafortheEcologicalFootprintaregiveninTable5.1.70.

Ran

dy O

lson

/ N

atio

nal

Geo

grap

hic

Imag

e Co

llect

ion


Table5.1.68–CarbonFootprintfor1kgofwildfish–Sourcewww.LCAfood.dk

Product Carbon Footprint gCO2-eq/kg

Type of fish Supply chain phase At harbor At retail

Cod

Fresh 1,200 1,200

Fillet 2,700 2,800

Frozen 2,800 3,200

Sole

Fresh 3,300 3,300

Fillet 7,400 7,400

Frozen 7,500 7,800

Herring

Fresh 580 630

Fillet 1,300 1,300

Frozen 1,400 1,800

Mackerel

Fresh 170 220

Fillet 460 510

Frozen 620 960

Industrial fish 220 -

Lobster 20,200 20,200

ShrimpFresh 2,940 3,000

Peeled/frozen 1,010 10,500

Mussels 40 90

Table5.1.69–CarbonFootprintfor1kgoffarmedtrout–Sourcewww.LCAfood.dk


gCO2-eq/kgType of fish Supply chain phase

Trout

Fresh(atfarm) 1,800

Frozenfillet(atslaughterhouse) 4,090

Frozenfillet(atretail) 4,470

Table5.1.70–EcologicalFootprintfor1kgoffish


Sourceglobal m2/kg

Fish 45-66 Chamberset al(2007)

NoinformationiscurrentlyavailableregardingwaterconsumptiononthebasisoftheWaterFootprintapproach.


Beverages

Thebeveragesexaminedweremineralwaterandwine.

Mineral waterTheWaterFootprintandEcologicalFootprintvaluescanbeconsiderednegligible.Ta-

ble5.1.71summarizestheenvironmentalindicatorsutilizedfortheenvironmentalsec-tionoftheDoublePyramid.

Table5.1.71–Indicatorsfor1literofwater

MINERAL WATERSCarbon Footprint Water Footprint Ecological Footprint


Data range 158 - -

Average value 20018 - -

Because mineral water processing is extremely simple (only bottling and distribu-tionareinvolved),themainenvironmentalimpactsinvolvedarethoseofproducingthepackagingandtransportphase.Forthisreason,theonlyenvironmentalindicatorwithsignificantvaluesistheCarbonFootprint,thedataforwhichisgiveninTable5.1.72.

Table5.1.72–CarbonFootprintfor1literofwater

Product Carbon Footprint gCO2-eq/liter Source

Mineral water in disposable glass bottles 651 EPDCerelia19

Mineral water in disposable PET bottles 157 EPDCerelia20

WineThevaluesforthethreeindicatorsforwinearefromtheliteratureandaregivenin

Table5.1.73.

Table5.1.73–Indicatorsfor1literofwine

Indicator Unit of measure Value Source

Carbon Footprint gCO2-eq/liter 2,240 EPDGasparossa21

Water Footprint liters/liter 960 www.waterfooptrint.org

Ecological Footprint globalm2/liter 19 LivingPlanetNetworkfor2006(from2001data)

18 Data for water in PET was utilized because it is the most commonly available19 Environmental Product Declaration, mineral water Cerelia packed in PET and glass bottles, http://www.envi-

rondec.com/reg/epd123it.pdf20 Environmental Product Declaration, mineral water Cerelia packed in PET and glass bottles, http://www.envi-

rondec.com/reg/epd123it.pdf21 Environmental Product Declaration, “Vino Frizzante Rosso imbottigliato Gambarossa Respighi’”, Rev, March

2008, http://www.environdec.com/reg/epd109it.pdf


Theenvironmentalimpactdatapresentedtothispointhavealwaysreferredtofoodsonleavingindustrialprocesses.Theimpactsrelatedtothecookingrequiredofthecon-sumer(e.g.,pasta,rice,meat)mustthereforebeaddedtothevaluespresented.

Manyofthefoodsanalyzedmaybeeateneitherraworcooked.Inaddition,cookingcan vary, depending on the recipe and personal tastes of the consumer. Given this, itwasdecided,ontheonehand,tocompleteimpactanalysisbyprovidinginformationre-gardingcooking,whileontheother–giventhevirtualimpossibilityofprovidingdataforeverypossiblemethod–toutilizesimplifiedassumptionsforevaluationwhich,liketherestoftheinformationprovidedinthisreport,havebeenbasedoneasily-verifiablepublicly-availabledata.

Clearly,thismustbeconsideredaspreliminaryinformationusefulinquantifyingim-pactordersofmagnitude.Analysisofavailableliteratureledtotheidentificationoftwomainsources,asgiveninTable5.2.1.

Table5.2.1–Mainsourcesforfoodcookingmethods

Source Type of information provided Reference table Utilization of data

Danish LCA food

Dataforboiling,bakingandbroilingofsomefoods 5.2.2 Notutilizedinthe

Pyramid

Forster et al., 2006

Dataforboiling,broiling,fryingandmicrowavecookingperkg

offoodproduct5.2.3 Utilizedinthe

Pyramid

5.2Assumptions utilized for the cooking of foods

Ed

Kas

hi /

Nat

ion

al G

eogr

aph

ic Im

age

Colle

ctio

n


Table5.2.2–Environmentalaspectsassociatedwithvarioustypesofcooking–Source:LCAfooddk

Cooking method QuantityEnergy

consumed (kWh)

Comments

Boiling

Water 1kg 0.18 Panandelectricburner

Water 1kg 0.12 Electrickettle

Vegetables 1kg 0.12–0.22 Panandelectricburner

Pasta 250g 0.24–0.5Pre-cookedquantity.

Cookedinpanonelectricburner

Rice 4dl 0.24–0.5Pre-cookedquantity.

Cookedinpanonelectricburner

Frozenpeas 500gpeas+2tbspwater 0.25 Cookedinmicrowave

Frozenpeas 500gpeas+200mlwater 0.15 Cookedinpanonelectric

burner

Freshcarrots 350gcarrots+2tbspwater 0.2 Cookedinmicrowave

Baking

Pizza 1pc 0.1 200°C,40mins

Cake 3,450gbatter 0.7–1.1 170°C,60mins

Pre-heatingoven - 0.5 Conventionalovento

200°CPre-heating

oven - 0.3 Convectionovento200°C

Maintaintemperatureat200°Cfor1hr

- 0.5 Conventionaloven

Maintaintemperatureat200°Cfor1hr

- 0.9 Convectionoven

Potatoes 4lgpotatoes 0.75 Combinationoftraditional/microwaveovens

Potatoes 4lgpotatoes 0.27 Microwaveovenwithbroiler

Roasting Meatballs 700g 0.008

Fromthetwoapproachesidentified,itwasdecidedtoutilizetheonecontainedinthescientificpaperofForsteretal.(Table5.2.3)thatconsidersthemostwidespreadtypescookingmethods(boiling,frying,roasting,microwave)forkgoffoods.DatacontainedintheDanishdatabasearepartialandreferredonlytosomefoods.


Tale5.2.3–Energyconsumptionforvariouscookingmethodsutilizedinthisstudy–Elaborationofpublicly-

availabledata:Forsteretal.(2006).Thevaluesshownreferto1kgoffood

Cooking method Energy consumed (MJ)22

Carbon Footprint23

[grams of CO2 eq]Ecological Footprint24

[global m2]

Boiling 3.5 420 5

Frying 7.5 900 12

Roasting 8.5 1,020 13

Microwave 0.34 59 1

Finally,Table5.2.4showsforwhichfoodsitwasdecidedtoconsidercooking,togetherwiththecookingmethodselected.Forreasonsofsimplification,microwaveandfryingwerenotappliedtoanyofthefoods.

22 It is assumed that 50% of the energy required is supplied by natural gas, and 50% by electrical power; the only exception is microwave cooking which is 100% electrical energy

23 This calculation utilized the Italian energy mix, the conversion factors for which were estimated at 174 g di CO2 equivalent per MJ of electrical energy (620 g/kWh) and 66 g di CO2 equivalent per MJ of natural gas

24 This calculation utilized data for the Italian energy mix, estimating CO2 emissions to be 157 g per MJ of electrical energy and 54 per MJ of methane; these factors were transformed into Energy land using the conversion factors cited (2.77 global m2 per kg of CO2)

Making two cups of tea using a saucepan, a kettle and a microwave oven Analysing processes using “extended” as opposed to normal logical thinking –

thusassessingtheentirelifecycle–sometimesproducesresultsthatarequitetheoppositetowhatwemightexpect.

A typical example of this involves the preparation of food with microwavetechnology,whichisoneofthesystemsthatconsumeslessenergy,thusproducingloweremissionsofCO2.

To better illustrate this statement, let’s take a simple example involving themakingoftwocupsoftea,heatingthewaterinasaucepan,inanelectrickettleandinamicrowaveoven.

SaucepanTheboilingofhalfalitreofwaterinasaucepanusinggasconsumesapprox.0.49

kWh(1.75MJ),obtainedbyprocessingthedatasuppliedbyForsteret al. (2006).

KettleA 2400 Watt electric kettle takes around a minute and a half (i.e. 0.025 h) to

bringhalfalitreofwatertotheboil(roughlytwocupsoftea).Therelativeenergyconsumption is obtained by multiplying the power consumed by the time forwhichthekettleisused:2400W*0.025h=60Wh=0.06 kWh(0.216MJ).

MicrowaveThe boiling of half a litre of water using a 1000 Watt microwave oven takes

approx. one minute (i.e. 0.0167 h); using the same calculation method an energyconsumptionofapprox.0.02 kWh(0,072MJ)isobtained.

The resulting impact on the environment, in terms, for example, of Carbon Footprint, is roughly 116, 38 and 13 g of CO2 for the saucepan, kettle and microwave oven, respectively. In contrast with what we might normally think, the microwave oven generates a smaller impact than the other two technologies.


Table5.2.4–Foodsanalyzedinthisstudyandthecookingmethodapplied

Food category Food

Food cooked by consumer Comments/

Cooking method

NO YES

Agricultural products

Fruits Alltypes X -

Vegetables

Lettuce X Boiling

Potatoes X Boiling

Tomatoes X Boiling

Legumes Alltypes X Boiling

Foods from processing of agricultural

products

Pasta X Boiling

Rice X Boiling

Bread X -

Sugar X -

Sweets X -

Condiments(oils) X -

Wine X -

Foods derived from livestock

Poultry Alltypes X Roasting

Beef Alltypes X Roasting

Pork Alltypes X Roasting

Cheese X -

Milk X -

Yoghurt X -

Butter X -

Eggs X Boiling

Foods from fishing

Wildfish Alltypes X Roasting

Farmedfish Alltypes X Roasting

Beverages Mineralwater X -


Inthisstudy,transportwasincludedinthedatawhenalreadypresentinthesystemboundariesanalyzed,withoutmakingfurtherspecificelaboration.

Regardingthis, itwasfeltnecessarythatamore in-depthlookfromthestandpointoftheLifeCycleAssessmentbemade;transporthasasignificantimpactonlywhenacertaindistanceisexceededandonlyforproductswitharelativelylowspecificimpact.

Forexample,thechartsbelowoffertheimpactofroad,seaandairtransportforsomefoods.

Ascanbeseen,therelevanceoftransportdependsgreatlyonthemeansoftransportutilizedand,naturally,thespecificimpactofthefoodunderconsideration.

Forhardwheatpasta,theoverallimpactontheproductisonlyrelevantifitistrans-ported by air, while for fruit, road transport for over 500 km has a greater than 20%impactoverallongreenhousegasemissions.

Analogously, in products with greater environmental impacts (meat, for example),transporthasamuchmorelimitedeffectonoverallimpacts.

5.3When the impact of transport is relevant

Jaso

n E

dwar

ds

/ N

atio

nal

Geo

grap

hic

Imag

e Co

llect

ion


Relationship between the impacts for the production (and cooking) and transportation of pasta

Relationship between the impacts for the production (and cooking) and transportation of beef

1,000

100

10

1

gCO

2 p

er k

g of

foo

d

Distance covered (km)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000

Production

Truck

Ship

Airplane

Train

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

gCO

2 p

er k

g of

foo

d


0 200 400 600 800 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000

Production

Truck

Ship

Airplane

Train


Relationship between the impacts for the production and transportation of fruits

1,000

100

10

1

gCO

2 p

er k

g of

foo

d


0 200 400 600 800 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000

Production

Truck

Ship

Airplane

Train

Relationship between the impacts for the production (and cooking) and transportation of pasta

Relationship between the impacts for the production (and cooking) and transportation of beef

1,000

100

10

1

gCO

2 p

er k

g of

foo

d


0 200 400 600 800 1,000 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 15,000

Production

Truck

Ship

Airplane

Train


Jam

es

P. B

lair

/ N

atio

na

l Ge

og

rap

hic

Ima

ge

Co

lle

ctio

n

6. Areas for further investigation in the subsequent edition


For every category examined, the values connected with each environmental indicator are given, taken from data banks and scientific studies.


Gin

a M

art

in /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

High consumption of vegetables, legumes, fruits and nuts, olive oil and grains; moderate consumption of fish and dairy products (especially cheese and yoghurt) and wine; low consumption of meat provide a protective factor against the most widespread chronic diseases.



The first edition of this study has been based on information currently-available tothe public and elaborations made on the basis of simple and easily-verifiable assump-tions.

Giventhelivelyinterestdevelopingaroundtheseissueswhichwehopetoencouragethroughthisstudy,itisexpectedthatnewpublicationsandtheupdatingofdatabankswillcreatetheneedtoupdatethispaperinthefuture.

Forthisreason,inthesectionswhichfollow,itwasdecidedtopresentguidelinesforfurtherstudywhichwebelievenecessarytoimprovethequalityoftheworkdoneto-date.

Forthenextrevisionofthisstudy,furtheranalysesmustbedoneonthedatainorderto improve the qualitative value of the information presented, especially in terms ofstatisticalcoverageofthedata–thatiscurrentlyunevenforsomefoods–andimprovethehomogeneityofLCAboundariesandofthelifecycleassessmentassumptions.

Theworktobedevelopedwillthereforebetoincreasethesamplingofavailabledataexaminingindetailthosesupplychainsforwhichinformationiscurrentlymorelimited.

Forcondiments,itshouldbenotedthatitinvolvesawiderangeofextremelyvariedproductsextendingfromvinegar(andallitsvarieties)tomayonnaise–productswhichareobviouslyverydifferentfromeachother,bothfromanutritionalstandpointaswellastheenvironmentalaspectsconnectedwiththem.

Atthetimewerenot includedcoldcutsandcondiments(exceptafew)becauseofthescarcityorabsenceofpublishedstud-iesinthisregard.

Alsoondairyproductssuchasyoghurtand butter, studies are not available, sothat when these foods were used in thisworkasaningredientinsomerecipeshad

tomakesomeassumptionssetoutclearlyinthetext.

Anotheraspectwhichcancertainlybeconsideredrelevantincalculatingtheenviron-mentalimpactsinsomefoodsistheinfluenceofthegeographicalareainwhichtheyareproduced.Thegeographicalareaaffectsenergy-relatedaspects,aswellasthecalcula-tionoftheWaterFootprintintermsofthecomponenttiedtoevapotranspiration.

Influence of energy mixes

Intermsofenergymixes,themostoverwhelmingaspectisconnectedtotheproductionand use of electrical energy. The aspects to be taken into consideration are basicallytwo:n onthebasisoftheproductionenergymixforeachCountry,someindustrialprocesses

canbesuppliedwithelectricalenergyfromenergymixesthatareverydifferentfromeachother.Anexampleofthisarebakedgoods(bread,cookies),whichinNorthernEuropearenormallysuppliedwithelectricalenergy,whileinItalynaturalgasisused;

n thereferenceenergymix–inwhichrenewablesourceshaveanimpacttoagreaterorlesserextent–hasaninfluenceonthecalculationofgreenhousegasemissionsand,consequently,agreaterorlesserimpactintermsoftheCarbonFootprintandEcologi-calFootprint,withregardtothepartconnectedwithEnergy Land,processesbeingequal.

6. Areas for further investigation in the subsequent edition

6.1Broaden the statistical coverage of data and render LCA boundaries homogeneous

6.2Take into consideration geographical origin in evaluating impact

Another aspect which can certainly be consid-ered relevant in calculating the environmental impacts in some foods is the influence of the ge-ographical area in which they are produced.

6. Areas for further investigation in the subsequent edition - 111

Thisinformationshouldbetakenintoconsiderationinanin-depthsupplychaineval-uationinordernottoconfusethecomparisonbetweentheimpactsoftwomanufactur-ers(forexample,oneinSwedenandoneinItaly)withthecomparisonbetweentwofoodproductsingeneral.

Figure6.1.providesCarbonFootprintdatafor1kWhofelectricalenergyproducedinsomeEuropeanandnon-EuropeanCountries.

Figure6.1–Greenhousegasemissionsconnectedwiththeproductionof1kWhofelectricalenergy,includingall

phasesfromfuelextractiontoenergydistributiontotheend-user.

Source: Data was elaborated by the working group on the basis of Ecoinvent and IEA information and refer to the 2008

energy mix.

Theinfluenceofthisinformationcouldbegreaterforthosefoodsinwhichtheuseofelectricalenergycouldbeasignificantenvironmentalaspectwithintheoverallsupplychain, for example, pasta, baked goods or food products with a significant cold chaincomponent.

Geographical influence on Water Footprint data

In calculating the Water Footprint, one of its components – green water – is closelydependentongeographicalfactorsbecauseitiscalculatedtakingintoconsiderationtheEt0factorthatdependsontheRegionoftheWorldinwhichthegrainorplantthatisthebaseofthefoodproductiscultivated.

Inthiscase,theinfluenceofthisvariableisgreaterforcropsthatdonotcallformas-sive irrigation and in which, therefore, green water is the preponderant factor in cal-culatingoverallwaterconsumption.Toillustratethis,Figure6.2providesinformationregardingEt0indifferentpartsoftheworldwheredurumwheatiscultivated.

Greece

USA

Turkey

Mexico

Germany

Italy

Russian Federation

Sweden

France

Norway

g CO2 equivalent per kWh

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200


Figure 6.2 – Variations in Et0. Data are from Italy by: http://www.politicheagricole.it/ucea/Osservatorio/miek-

fyi01_index_zon.htmandotherpartsoftheworld:http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/gis/index3.stm

Source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/W007 3E/p389.jpg; Note: data for Italy was taken from: http://www.politicheagri-

cole.it/ucea/Osservatorio/miekfyi01_index_zon.htm, and for other parts of the world

Thefoodsupplychainhastwocollateralprocessesinvolvingproducttransport,pres-ervationandconsumption:thecoldchainandcooking.

Cold chain

By cold chain is meant all those processes aimed at maintaining a product at a lowtemperature(4°Corevenunder0°C)fromthetimeitisproduceduntilitisconsumed.

Theestimateoftheimpactsforthisphase,basicallytiedtoenergyconsumptionandthereforecapableofinfluencingtheCarbonFootprintandpartiallytheEcologicalFoot-print,isactuallyverycomplexbecauseitdependsonmanyfactors,themostsignificantofwhichare:n thenatureofthefoodproduct;n thedistancebetweenwheretheproductismadeandwhereitisconsumed.

Inthefirsteditionofthisstudy,thecoldchainwasalmostalwaysignoredand,forthisreason,theimpactassociatedwithsomefoodsexaminedcouldrepresentanunderesti-mateoftheactualimpact.

Without entering here into details of calculation for which it was felt opportune towaitforlaterinvestigation,thefollowingpointsshouldbenoted:n cold-relatedprocessesareobviouslymoresignificantwhenfoodsrequiringtempera-

turesofunder0°Careinvolved,suchasfrozenfoods,forexample,whichcanhaverelativelylongstoragetimesatlowtemperatures;

n somefoodswhichrequirethecoldchain,forexamplemilkandfreshproducts,havean expiration date very close to the date of production (just a few days), by whichdatetheproductmustbeconsumed;

n fish, especially that caught in saltwater (i.e., caught on the open sea), could have arelativelylongcoldchainiftheintervaloftimebetweenthemomentitiscaught,itsarrivalinport,anyprocessingrequired,transport,saleandconsumptionistakenintoconsideration.

Table6.3.1providesaqualitativeestimateoftheextenttowhichthecoldchaincouldhaveaninfluenceonthefoodsanalyzedinthisstudy.

France

North Italy

Center Italy

Canada

Turkey

Spain

South Italy

North USA

Greece

Mexico

Australia

South West USA

Rainfall - Et0

mm/month

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

6.3Evaluating the influence of food refrigeration and completing analysis of cooking methods

Table6.3.1–Qualitativeanalysisofthe influenceofthecoldchainon impacts (CarbonFootprintandEcological

Footprint)offoodsanalyzed

Cooking

Intermsofcooking,requiredforconsumptionofsomefoods,thisstudytookintocon-sideration a number of very simplified assumptions involving only boiling or broiling.However,itshouldbenotedthatsomefoodscouldbesubjectedtomorecomplexcookingmethods,oratdifferent levels,dependingonindividualconsumerpreferences.This isespeciallytrueformeatorfish.

Milk may be consumed cold or hot, and this could—to a limited extent—influence theCarbonandEcologicalFootprintindicatorsrelatedtoCO2emissions.

Againhere,furtherworkforthisstudycouldincludeamorerigorousexaminationoftheimpactsassociatedwiththecookingofdifferentrecipesinfoodproduction

Thisstudyoffersapreliminarylookattheissueofseasonalityofagriculturalprod-ucts,inessencefruitandvegetables.

Regarding this, an area for further impact analysis could be more rigorous study ofthe production chain of fruit and vegetable products, including comparing this withtheir actual seasonality, evaluating this and making consumers aware of how and towhatextenttheimpactscanvaryonthebasisoftheirfoodchoices.

6.4Studying the question of the seasonal nature of agricultural products as a variable influencing impact

6. Areas for further investigation in the subsequent edition - 113

Food Influence of the cold chain Comments

Fruit and vegetables Low Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorage

Legumes None -

Pasta None -

Rice None -

Bread None -

Sugar None -

Oil None -

Desserts and Sweets None -

Cookies None -

Meat Medium Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorageandtransport.Distancesmightnotbeshort.

Eggs Low Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorage

Cheese Low Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorage

Yoghurt Medium Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorageandtransport.Distancesandtimeperiodsnormallyshort.

Butter Medium Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorageandtransport.Distancesandtimeperiodsnormallyshort.

Milk Medium Couldrequirerefrigeratedstorageandtransport.Distancesandtimeperiodsnormallyshort.

Fish High Storageandtransportunderrefrigerationorfreezingtemperaturescouldberequired,includingforlongdistancesandforextendedperiods.


B. A

nth

on

y S

tew

art

/ N

atio

na

l Ge

og

rap

hic

Ima

ge

Co

lle

ctio

n

Bibliographyby food product



To

ma

sz T

om

asz

ewsk

i / N

atio

na

l Ge

og

rap

hic

Ima

ge

Co

lle

ctio

n



Foods derived from agriculture

Apples

Indicator Reference Type Unit of System boundaries

Carbon Footprint

L.MilàiCanals,G.M.Burnip,S.J.Cowell,Evaluationoftheenvironmentalimpactsof

appleproductionusingLifeCycleAssessment(LCA):CasestudyinNewZealand,

Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment114(2006)226–238


1tonofcultivated

apples,readyforstorage

and/orpacking

Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),

fieldphase(applecultivation)

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=apple Database 1apple

(weight=100 InformationN.A.


GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001)

Certifiedpublication 1kgofapples InformationN.A.

Oranges and tangerines


Carbon Footprint InformationN.A.

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=orange Database

1orange(weight=100

grams)InformationN.A.


GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgoforanges

ortangerines InformationN.A.

Lemons and limes



Water Footprint InformationN.A.


GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgoflemons

orlimes InformationN.A.

Bananas





GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgof

bananas InformationN.A.

Bibliography by food product - 119

Grapes

Indicator Reference Type Unit of analysis System boundaries




GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofgrapes InformationN.A.

Fava beans


Carbon Footprint Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgoffava

beans


fieldphase(favabeancultivation)


Ecological Footprint Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgoffava

beans


fieldphase(favabeancultivation)

Peas


Carbon Footprint Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofpeas


fieldphase(peacultivation)andtransporttoregional

processingcenters(distance10km)



GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofpeas InformationN.A.

Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofpeas


fieldphase(peacultivation)andtransporttoregional

processingcenters(distance10km)


Soybeans


Carbon Footprint Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofsoybeans

CultivationofsoybeansinBrazil,includingdieselconsumptionanduseof

equipment,fertilizersandpesticides

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=soybeans Database 1kgofsoybeans InformationN.A.

Ecological Footprint Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofsoybeans

CultivationofsoybeansinBrazil,includingdieselconsumptionanduseof

equipment,fertilizersandpesticides

Lettuce


Carbon Footprint

HospidoA.,MilàiCanals,McLaren,Truninger,Edwards-Jones,Clift,2009,Theroleof

seasonalityinlettuceconsumption:acasestudyofenvironmentalandsocialaspects,

InternationalJournalofLCA(14)pp.381–391

Scientificpublications 1kgoflettuce


fieldphase(lettucecultivation)andtransporttoregional

distributioncenter

Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),fieldphase(lettucecultivationfromseed)andtransporttoregional

distributioncenter


Ecological Footprint InformationN.A.


Tomatoes


Carbon Footprint

AnderssonK.,2000,LCAofFoodProductsandProductionSystems,InternationalJournal

ofLCA5(4)pp.239–248


1000kgofketchupconsumed

Fieldphase(tomatocultivation),transportandprocessing,consumption

phase

LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database 1kgoftomatoes


fieldphase(tomatocultivation)




tomatoes InformationN.A.

Onions





GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofonions InformationN.A.

Potatoes


Carbon Footprint LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database

1kgofpotatoesat

field


fieldphase(potatocultivation)

1kgofpotatoesat

retail


fieldphase(potatocultivation)transporttoretail

point-of-sale

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=potato Database 1kgof

potatoes InformationN.A.



potatoes InformationN.A.

Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofpotatoes


fieldphase(potatocultivation)andtransportto

farm(distance1km)


Foods derived from processing of agricultural products

Pasta


Carbon Footprint

Barilla,ProductEnvironmentalDeclarationappliedtodrieddurumwheatpastaproduced

inItalyandpackedinacardboardbox.Revision:1–Validonyearfromapproval,Pre-certifiedProductEnvironmentalDeclaration–RegisteredNumber:S-EP-00039,Dataof

approval:19/08/2009

Certifiedpublication

1kgdrieddurumwheat

pasta

Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,pastaproduction,

transportofrawmaterialandproductstodistribution

centers

Water Footprint


Rice


Carbon Footprint

BlenginiGA,BustoM.,2008,Thelifecycleofrice:LCAofalternativeagri-foodchainmanagementsystemsinVercelli(Italy),

JournalofEnvironmentalManagementpp.1512-1522,Vol.90(3)

Scientificpublications 1kgofrice

Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),fieldphase(ricecultivation),milling,transporttoretailpoint-of-sale

Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofrice

Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),field

phase(ricecultivationandharvest)

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=rice Database 1kgofrice InformationN.A.


GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofrice InformationN.A.

Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofrice

Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),field

phase(ricecultivationandharvest)


Bread


Carbon Footprint

LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database

1kgfreshloaf

Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction

Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,breadproduction,transporttoretailpoint-of-sale

1kgfrozenloaf



1kgwheatbread(fresh)



1kgwheatbread(fresh)



1kgwheatbread(frozen)



AnderssonK.,OhlssonT.,1999,LifeCycleAssessment

ofBreadProducedonDifferentScales,International

JournalofLCA,4(1)25–40

Scientificpublications 1kgofbread Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,bread

production(industrial,localandhomemade)

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/ Database 1kgofbread InformationN.A.


Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1kgofbread Wheatcultivation,flourproduction,bread

production

Beet sugar


Carbon Footprint

LCAFood(http://www.LCAfood.dk/products/crops/

sugar.htm)Database

1kgofbeetsugar

InformationN.A.

Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database

Cultivationandtransportofbeetstorefineryforprocessingintosugar(packagingnot

included)



GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItalian

situationin2001(GFN–Italy2001)

Database

1kgofbeetsugar

InformationN.A.

Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database

Cultivationandtransportofbeetstorefineryforprocessingintosugar(packagingnot

included)


Cane sugar


Carbon Footprint

RamjeawonT.,2004,LifeCycleAssessmentofCane-SugarontheIslandofMauritius,

InternationalJournalofLCA9(4)pp.254–260


1tofcanesugar,

exported

Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),fieldphase(sugarcanecultivationandharvest),refiningandproductionofsugar

Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch) Database 1kgofcane

sugar

Cultivationandtransportofsugarcanetorefineryforprocessingintosugar(packaging

notincluded)

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/

productgallery&product=sugarDatabase 1kgofcane

sugar InformationN.A.


GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituation

in2001(GFN–Italy2001)Database 1kgofcane

sugar

InformationN.A.

Ecoinvent2004(www.ecoinvent.ch)

Cultivationandtransportofsugarcanetorefineryforprocessingintosugar(packaging

notincluded)

Olive oil


Carbon Footprint

AvraamidesM.,FattaD.,2008,Resourceconsumption

andemissionsfromoliveoilproduction:alifecycle

inventorycasestudyinCyprus,JournalofCleanerProduction

16pp.809-821


1lofextravirginoliveoil

Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),fieldphase(olivecultivationandharvest),oilproductionandwaste

management

Water Footprint

Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1lofoliveoil Olivecultivationandoilproduction


Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1lofoliveoil Olivecultivationandoilproduction

Palm oil


Carbon Footprint

YusoffS.andHansenSB.,2007,FeasibilityStudyofPerforming

anLifeCycleAssessmentonCrudePalmOilProductionin

Malaysia,InternationalJournalofLCA12(1)pp50–58


1,000kgofrawpalmoil

Productionofrawmaterial(fertilizersandpesticides),fieldphase(cultivationand

harvest),transport(finaloilrefiningnotincluded)




Vegetable oil (soybean and rapeseed oil)


Carbon Footprint LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk) Database 1lofvegetable

oil



Sweets


Carbon Footprint

Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1kgofcakeFieldphase(forraw

materials),batterpreparationandcooking(homemade)

Water Footprint


Biscuits


Carbon Footprint

Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1kgofcookiesFieldphase(forraw

materials),doughpreparationandcooking

Water Footprint



Foods derived from animal husbandry

Beef (red meat)


Carbon Footprint

LCAFood(www.LCAfood.dk)

Database

1kgoftenderloin

Raisingandbutchering

Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale

1kgoffillet Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale

1kgoftopround*


1kgofsteak* Raising,butchering,transportandretailsale

1kgoffore-end*


1kgofoutside*


1kgofflanksteak*


1kgofroundRaisingandbutchering


1kgofmincedmeat



Database 1kgofknuckleshank



Ogino,Aetal.,2007,EvaluatingEnvironmentalImpactsoftheJapanesebeefcow-calfsystembythelifecycleassessmentmethod,AnimalScienceJournal78,pp.424-

432


1beefcalf(ready for

butchering)

Birthofcalf,fattening,raising(cradletogate)



Casey,J.W.&Holden,N.M.,2006a,QuantificationofGHGemissionsfromsuckler-

beefproductioninIreland,AgriculturalSystems90,79-98

Casey,J.W.&Holden,N.M.,2006b,GHGemissionsfromconventional,agri-

environmentalandorganicIrishsucklerbeefunits,JournalofEnvironmentalQuality35,

231-239

Scientificpublications 1kgofmeat Birthofcalf,fattening,raising

(cradletogate)

Williams,A.G.,Audsley,E&Sanders,D.L.,2006,Determiningtheenvironmental

burdensandresourceuseintheproductionofagriculturalandhorticulturalcommodities,MainReport,DefraResearchprojectIS0205,

Bedford:CranfieldUniversityandDefra,availableatwww.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk

UniversityandDefra,availableatwww.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk


1tofmeat(dead weight)


Birthofcalf(100%suckledbycow),fattening,raising

(cradletogate)

Verge,XCPetal.,2008,GreenhousegasemissionsfromtheCanadianbeefindustry,

AgriculturalSystems98,126-134


1kgofmeat

Birthofcalf,fattening,raising

CederbergC.,Meyer,D.&Flysjö,A.,2009a,LifeCycleInventoryofgreenhousegasemissions

anduseoflandandenergyofBrazilianbeefexportedtoEurope,SIK-Rapport792,

SIK–InstitutetförLivsmedelochBioteknik,Göteborg,ISBN978-91-7290-283-1

Fattening,raising(butcheringnotincluded)

CederbergC.,Sonesson,U.,Davis,J.&Sund,V.,2009b,Greenhousegasemissions

fromproductionofmeat,milkandeggsinSweden1990and2005,SIK-Rapport793,


Birthofcalf,fattening,raising,butchering,transportandretail

sale

CederbergC.&Darelius,K.,2000,Livscykelanalys(LCA)avnötkött-en

studieavolikaproduktionsformer(LifeCycleAssessment(LCA)ofbeef–astudy

ofdifferentproductionforms,inSwedish),Naturresursforum,LandstingetHalland,

Halmstad

Fattening,raising(togate)

CederbergC.andStadigM.,2003,SystemExpansionandAllocationinLifeCycle

AssessmentofMilkandBeefProduction,InternationalJournalofLCA8(6)pp.350-356


Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=beef Database 1kgofmeat InformationN.A.


BaglianiM.,CarechinoM.,MartiniF.,2009,Lacontabilitàambientaleapplicataalla

produzionezootecnica,l’improntaecologicadell’allevamentodibovinidirazzapiemontese,

IRES(IstitutoRicercheEconomicoSocialidelPiemonte),RegionePiemonte,Collana

ambiente29

Scientificpublications 1kgofmeat Birthofcalf,fattening,raising

* The CF value for 1 kg of this type of meat is the same ex-slaughterhouse and ex-retail


Pork (red meat)


Carbon Footprint


1kgoftenderloin



1kgofhamandbacon



1kgofmincedmeat







1tofmeat(dead weight)

Birthofpig,fattening,raising(cradletogate)

Basset-Mens,C.&vanderWerf,H.,2003,Scenario-basedenvironmentalassessmentoffarmingsystems–thecaseofpigproduction

inFrance,Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment(105),pp.127-144

1kgofmeat

Birthofcalf,fattening,raising

CederbergC.&FlysjöA.,2004,Environmentalassessmentoffuturepigfarmingsystems

–quantificationofthreescenariosfromtheFOOD21synthesiswork,SIKReport723,SIK–TheSwedishInstituteforFoodand

Biotechnology,Göteborg,ISBN91-7290-236-1

Birthofpig,fattening,raisingandbutchering

ErikssonS.,ElmquistH.,SternS.&NybrantT.,2005,Environmentalsystemsanalysisofpigproduction–Theimpactoffeedchoice,

InternationalJournalofLCA10(2)pp.143-154

Scientificpublications 1kgofmeat

Birthofpig,fattening,raising




Birthofpig,fattening,raising,butchering,transport

andretailsale

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=pork Database 1kgofmeat InformationN.A.


GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofmeat InformationN.A.


Poultry (white meat)


Carbon Footprint


1kgoffreshchicken



1kgoffrozenchicken



Tynelius,G.,2008,KlimatpåverkanochförbättringsåtgärderförLantmännens

livsmedel–fallstudieKronfågelsslaktkyckling(ClimateImpactandImprovementpotentials

forLantmännen’schicken,inSwedish),MastersThesis2008,Dept.ofTechnologyand

Society,EnvironmentalandEnergySystemsStudies,LundUniversity,Lund,Sweden

Scientificpublications 1kgofmeat Raising,fatteningand

butchering

PelletierN.,2008,EnvironmentalperformanceintheUSpoultrysector:Life

cycleenergyuseandgreenhousegas,ozonedepleting,acidifyingandeutrophying

emissions,AgriculturalSystems98,pp.67-73


1tofchicken(liveweight)

Chickenhatching,fattening,raising(cradletogate)





Chickenhatching,fattening,raising,butchering,transport

andretailsale




Chickenhatching,fattening,raising(traditionalraising)

Chickenhatching,fattening,raising(free-range)

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=chicken Database 1kgofmeat InformationN.A.


GlobalFootprintNetworkinreferencetotheItaliansituationin2001(GFN–Italy2001) Database 1kgofmeat InformationN.A.


Cheese


Carbon Footprint

BerlinJ.,Environmentallifecycleassessment(LCA)ofSwedishsemi-hardcheese,

InternationalDairyJournal12(2002)pp.939–953

-

1kgofsemi-hardcheese

(plastic-wrapped)

Extractionofrawmaterialsandingredientsrequiredtoproductcheese,upthrough

wastemanagement

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=cheese - 1kgofcheese InformationN.A.

Ecological Footprint Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1kgofcheese Boundariessameasthose

formilk

Milk


Carbon Footprint

Granarolo,Dichiarazioneambientalediprodottoperillattefrescopastorizzatodi

altaqualitàconfezionatoinbottigliadiPET,revisione0del9/3/2007,CertificazioneN.

S-EP00118


1lofmilk

Milkproductiononthefarm,packagingproduction,

pasteurization/packagingandtransporttoend-sites

CederbergC.andStadigM.,2003,SystemExpansionandAllocationinLifeCycle

AssessmentofMilkandBeefProduction,InternationalJournalofLCA8(6)pp.350-356

Scientificpublications Raisingofmilkcows,milking





10,000lofmilk Raisingofmilkcows,milking

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=milk Database 1lofmilk InformationN.A.


ChambersN.,SimmonsC.,WackernagelM.,SharingNature’sInterest,Ecological

Footprintsasanindicatorofsustainability,Earthscan,2007,chapter5,pp.79–105

Scientificpublications 1lofmilk

Milkproductiononthefarm,productprocessingand

transport


Eggs


Carbon Footprint

DekkerS.E.M.,deBoerI.J.M.,AarninkA.J.A.andP.W.G.GrootKoerkamp,Environmentalhotspot

identificationoforganiceggproduction,FarmTechnologyEngineeringGroup,AnimalProductionSystemsGroup,AnimalSciences

Group,[email protected]

(from:“Proceedingsofthe6thInt.Conf.onLCAintheAgri-FoodSector,Zurich,November

12–14,2008”,pp371-380)


1kgoforganiceggs

Fieldphase(rawmaterialsrequiredforrations),raising

ofhens(includingbroodingofeggsforreproduction)

Williams,A.G.,Audsley,E&Sanders,D.L.,2006,Determiningtheenvironmentalburdensandresourceuseintheproductionofagriculturalandhorticulturalcommodities,MainReport,

DefraResearchprojectIS0205,Bedford:CranfieldUniversityandDefra,availableat

www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk

Scientificpublications 20,000eggs

Fieldphase(rawmaterialsrequiredforrations),non-

organicraisingofhens

Fieldphase(rawmaterialsrequiredforrations),organic

raisingofhens

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=eggs Database 1kgofeggs InformationN.A.

Ecological Footprint Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup - 1kgofeggs

Fieldphase(rawmaterialsrequiredforrations),non-

organicraisingofhens

Foods from fishing



1kgoffreshcod

Fishingonly(atharbor)

Fishingandretailsale

1kgofcodfillet



1kgoffrozencod



1kgoffreshsole



1kgofsolefillet



1kgoffrozensole






1kgoffreshherring



1kgofherringfillet



1kgoffrozenherring



1kgoffreshmackerel



1kgofmackerelfillet



1kgoffrozenmackerel



1kgofindustrialfish Fishingonly(atharbor)

1kgoflobsterFishingonly(atharbor)


1kgoffreshshrimp



1kgofpeeled/frozenshrimp



1kgofmusselsFishingonly(atharbor)


1kgoffreshtrout(farmed) Fishingonly(atfarm)

1kgoftroutfillet(farmed)

Fishing,slaughter(atslaughterhouse)

1kgoffrozentrout(farmed)

Fishing,slaughterandretailsale



ChambersN.,SimmonsC.,WackernagelM.,SharingNature’sInterest,Ecological

Footprintsasanindicatorofsustainability,Earthscan,2007,chapter5,pp.79–105

Scientificpublications 1kgoffish InformationN.A.

Fish


Beverages

Water


Carbon Footprint

Cerelia,EPDCerelianaturalmineralwater,bottledin:PETda1,5landglass-1l,Rev.0–

Data:30/07/2008,RegistrationN°:S-P-00123


1000lofwater

Productionphase(waterextraction,bottle

preparation,packagingandwarehousing)andutilization

phase(distributionandconsumption)



Wine


Carbon Footprint

ConsorzioInterprovincialevini(C.I.V),EPD,SparklingredwinebiologicalLambrusco

Grasparossa“FratelloSole”,Rev.Marzo2008,N°Registration:S-P-00119


1lofsparklingredwine

Productionphase(vineyardactivities,pressing,1st/2nd

vinification,bottling)andutilizationphase

(distributionandproductuse)

Water Footprint

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/productgallery&product=wine Database 1lofwine InformationN.A.


WWF,GlobalFootprintNetwork,ZoologicalSocietyofLondon,“LivingPlanetReport

2008”,WWF(2008)Database 1lofwine InformationN.A.


Jam

es

A. S

ug

ar

/ N

atio

na

l Ge

og

rap

hic

Ima

ge

Co

lle

ctio

n

Appendix



Ma

rc M

ori

tsch

/ N

atio

na

l Ge

og

rap

hic

Ima

ge

Co

lle

ctio

n



Thisappendixprovidesthedetailedassumptionspertainingtotheanalysisofthelifecycleoftwotypesofbakedgoods:n ParadiseCake;n Healthycookies.

Paradise Cake

Therecipeforthiscakewastakenfromthecookbookentitled“IlCarnacina”,publishedbyGarzanti(edition1961),editedbyLuigiVeronelli:ParadiseCakeno.2176.

Unit of analysisTheunitofreferenceis1kgoffinishedcake(afterbaking).

System boundaries and main assumptionsThesystemboundariesincludethefollowingphases:

n productionofrawmaterials;n preparationandbakingofthecakeinanoven(typicalhouseholdoven).

Thephaseofcreatingthebatterhasnotbeenincludedbecauseitwaspresumedtobedonebyhandwithoutinvolvingtheconsumptionofrawmaterialsandenergy.Moreo-ver,itisassumedthatthebatterundergoesa15%moisturelossfollowingovenbaking.

Analysis of ingredients Theingredientsthat, intherecipeshownintableA.1,amounttolessthan1%have

notbeenincluded.Thesetablesalsoprovidethesourceofthedataforeachingredientusedforthecal-

culationoftheCarbonFootprint.Used, respectively, for the Water Footprint and Ecological Footprint, was the infor-

mation found on the website www.waterfootprint.org and information derived fromelaborationoftheGlobalFootprintNetwork(Italy2001)database.

A.1Calculation of the environmental impacts associated with the production of baked goods

2176. PARADISE CAKEServes for 6 persons250 gr. softened butter, kneaded by hand inside a cloth 240 gr. powdered sugar and 15 gr. vanilla-flavored sugar, mixed 110 gr. potato starchThe grated peel of ½ lemon5 yolks and 3 whole eggs125 gr. sifted flour 10 gr. baking powderExtra butter, flour and vanilla-flavored sugar

Place the softened butter in a heated and thoroughly dried bowl, beat with a whisk until creamy and add the sugar mixed with vanilla-flavored sugar. As soon as it is creamy, add 10 gr. starch and the lemon peel and whisk to obtain a smooth, uniform batter. Beat in the yolks, then, still beating, add the whole eggs and continue beating energeti-cally for about ten minutes. Sift the flour with the 100 gr. of starch remaining, add the baking powder, blend and sift again. Still beating, add the flour to the batter, sprinkling it slowly in so that it does not form any lumps. Butter a low, wide cake pan and dust with flour. Pour in the batter and bake in a moderate oven. Remove the cake from the oven when done and cool in the pan. Before serving the cake, sprinkle with the vanilla-flavored sugar.

Appendix - 139

TableA.1–Ingredientsassociatedwiththeproducitonof1kgofParadiseCake

Ingredient Unit of Value Percentage

of recipe (%) Data source Assumptions

Butter kg 0,28 24% Busser&Jungbluth(2009)

Consideredtohaveanimpact

analogoustothatofcheese

Sugar kg 0,269 23% Ecoinvent2004 -

Vanilla-flavored sugar kg 0,017 1% Ecoinvent2004

Consideredequivalenttobeet

sugar

potato starch kg 0,123 10% Paragraph5.1Considered

equivalenttopotatoes

Eggs kg 0,336 29% Dekkeretal. Weightof1egg=60grams

Flour kg 0,14 12% confidentialprimarydata

Workinggroupelaborations

Baking powder kg 0,011 1% - Negligible

DataforovenbakingweretakenfromtheDanishdatabank(LCAfoodDK)andaregiveninTableA.2.

TableA.2–Energyconsumptionassociatedwith1kgofcakebatter(cookfor1hourat170°C)

Energy source Unit of

Q.ty for batter Source Assumptions

Electrical power kWh 0,261 Elaborationsintable5.2.2ofthisdocument -

ResultsTheresultsfor1kgofcakearegiveninTableA.3.

TableA.3–Indicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofcake

"Sweet: Paradise Cake (“Il Carnacina” Cookbook

recipe no. 2176)”


gCO2-eq/kg Liters/kg global m2/Kg

Data range 3.700 3.100 30

Healthy biscuits

Therecipeforthiscakewastakenfromthe“PellegrinoArtusi”recipebook:healthybuiscuitsno.573downloablefromthewww.pellegrinoartusi.itwebsite

Unit of analysisThereferencequantityis1kgofbuiscuits(afterbaking).

System boundaries and main assumptionsThesystemboundariesincludethefollowingphases:

n Productionofrawmaterials;n Preparationandbakingofthecookiesinanoven(typicalhouseholdoven).


Thephaseofcreatingthedoughhasnotbeenincludedbecauseitwasassumedthatitwasdonebyhandwithoutinvolvingconsumptionofrawmaterialsandenergy.Ingredi-entsweighinglessthan3%oftherecipehavenotbeenincluded.

Itisassumedthatthedoughundergoesa15%moisturelossfollowingovenbaking.Cookiebrowningwasnotincludedinanalysisboundaries.

Ingredient analysisTheingredientsandassumptionsforeacharegiveninTableA.4.Thetablesalsoprovidethesourceofthedataforeachingredientforthecalculation

oftheCarbonFootprint.Used, respectively, for the Water Footprint and Ecological Footprint, was the infor-

mation found on the website www.waterfootprint.org and information derived fromelaborationoftheGlobalFootprintNetwork(Italy2001)database.

TableA.4–Ingredientsfor1kgofbakedbiscuits

Ingredient Unit of Measure Value Percentage

of recipe (%) Data source Assumptions

Wheat flour kg 0,56 48 Confidentialprimarydata

Elaboratedbytheworkinggroup

Brown sugar kg 0,169 14 Ecoinvent2004Considered

comparabletobeetsugar

Butter kg 0,08 7 Busser&Jungbluth(2009)

Itwasassumedanimpactequaltothe

cheeseone

Eggs kg 0,192 16 Dekkeretal. Weightofegg=60grams

Milk kg 0,16 14 EPDGranaroloMilkItwasassumedtouse100gramsof

milk

Cream of tartar kg 0,016 1 - Notincluded

Bicarbonate of soda kg 0,008 1 - Notincluded

573. HEALTHY BISCUITSBe happy, because, with these cookies you will never die or you will live to be as old as Methuselah.In fact I eat them often and if someone, seeing me more sprightly than my heavy burden of years would allow, indiscreetly asks me my age, I reply that I am as old as Methuselah, son of Enoch.

Flour, 350 gramsUnrefined cane sugar, 100 gramsButter, 50 gramsCream of tartar, 10 gramsBicarbonate of soda, 5 grams2 eggsA pinch of vanilla-flavoured sugarMilk, as required.

Mix the sugar and the flour together, make a mound and then make a hole in the centre of the mound in which to place the rest of the ingredients. Moisten with a little milk and mix until you have obtained a soft dough. Work into a flattish cylindrical shape half a metre long. To bake it in the oven or in a “country oven”, grease a baking tin with butter, and cut the dough into two pieces, placing them well apart as they swell considerably. The next day, cut them into the shape of biscuits – this amount of dough makes about thirty – and toast them.

Appendix - 141

Data for oven baking were taken from the Danish data bank (LCA food DK) and aregiveninTableA.5.

TableA.5–Energyconsumptionforovenuse

Type of cooking Energy source Unit of Measure Dough data Source

Heating convection oven to 200° C Electricalenergy kWh 0,3 Table5.2.2in

presentdocument

Maintain temperature

at 200° C for 1 hrElectricalenergy kWh 0,9 Table5.2.2in

presentdocument

Itwasassumedthatthecookieswerebakedintheoveninfourbatchesfor15minuteseach,usingtwotraysforeachbatch.

Theweightofthedoughbakedinanhouris3660grams,onthebasisofthefollowingassumptions:n Traysize:40cmX35cmn Sizeofbakedbiscuit:5cmX5cmn Numberofcookiespertray:39n Weightofbakedcookie:10gramsn Weightofunbakedbiscuit:11.76grams.

Theenergyconsumptionvaluesshowninthetablearethoserequiredtobake1kgofbiscuits.

TableA.6–Energyconsumptiontobake1kgofbiscuits

Procedure Energy source Unit of Measure Value for dough/finished biscuit

Heating convection oven to 200°C Electricalenergy kWh 0,3

Maintain temperature at

200°C for 1 hr (for 1 kg of cookies)

Electricalenergy kWh 0,289

Total consumption (for 1 kg of cookies) Electricalenergy kWh 0,589

Results

Theresultsfor1kgofbookiesaregiveninTableA.7.

TableA.7–Indicatorsfortheproductionof1kgofbiscuits

Healthy Buiscuits (P. Artusi recipe books n. 573)


gCO2-eq/kg liters/kg gm2/kg

Data range 2.300 1.800 16


Tra

vis

Dov

e /

Nat

ion

al G

eo

gra

ph

ic Im

ag

e C

oll

ect

ion

Bibliogaphy



Allen,Pereira,Raes,Smith(1998),CropEvapotranspiration-Guidelinesforcomputingcropwaterrequirements-FaoirrigationandDrainagePaper56.

AnderssonK.,2000,LCAofFoodProductsandProductionSystems,InternationalJournalofLCA5(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;

AvraamidesM.,FattaD.,2008Resourceconsumptionandemissionsfromoliveoilproduction:alifecycleinventorycasestudyinCyprus,JournalofCleanerProduction16pp.809-821;

BaglianiM.,CarechinoM.,MartiniF.,2009,Lacontabilitàambientaleapplicataallaproduzionezootecnica, l’improntaecologicadell’allevamentodibovinidirazzapiemontese,IRES(IstitutoRicercheEconomicoSocialidelPiemonte,RegionePiemonte,Collanaambiente29;

BaglianiM.,ContuS.,CosciaI.,TiezziE.,“TheevaluationoftheEcologicalFootprintoftheProvinceofSiena(Italy)”,inTiezziE.,BrebbiaC.A.,UsoJ.L.(eds.),“EcosystemsandSustainableDevelopment:Volume1”,pp.387-396,WessexInstituteofTechnologyPress,Southampton(2003)

Baldo,Marino,Rossi,AnalisidelCiclodiVitaLCA,nuovaedizioneaggiornata,EdizioneAmbiente;

Barilla,DichiarazioneambientalediprodottoapplicataallapastaseccadisemoladigranoduroprodottainItaliaeconfezionatainastucciodicartoncino,Revisione:1-Validaunannodall’approvazione,DichiarazioneAmbientalediProdottoPre-Certificata-NumerodiRegistrazione:S-EP-00039,DatadiApprovazione:19/08/2009;

Baroni L., Cenci L., Tettamanti M., Berati M., Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined withdifferentfoodproductionsystems,EuropeanJournalofClinicalNutrition(2006),1–8;

Basset-Mens, C. & van der Werf, H., 2003, Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems – the case of pigproductioninFrance,Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment1005,pp.127-144;

BeccaliM.,CelluraM.,LudicelloM.,MistrettaM.,ResourceConsumptionandEnvironmentalImpactsoftheAgrofoodSector:LifeCycleAssessmentofItalianCitrus-BasedProducts,EnvironmentalManagement(2009)43:707–724

Berlin,EnvironmentalLifeCycleAssessment(LCA)ofSwedishsemi-hardcheese-InternationalDairyJournal12(2002)pp.939–953;

Best,Aaron,StefanGiljum,CraigSimmons,DanielBlobel,KevinLewis,MarkHammer,SandraCavalieri,StephanLutterandCathyMaguire.2008.PotentialoftheEcologicalFootprintformonitoringenvironmentalimpactsfromnaturalresourceuse:AnalysisofthepotentialoftheEcologicalFootprintandrelatedassessmenttoolsforuseintheEU’sThematicStrategyontheSustainableUseofNaturalResources.ReporttotheEuropeanCommission,DGEnvironment

BlenginiGA,BustoM.,Thelifecycleofrice:LCAofalternativeagri-foodchainmanagementsystemsinVercelli(Italy),Journalofenvironmentalmanagement(2008);

BusserS.,JungbluthN.,2009,Theroleofflexiblepackaginginthelifecycleofcoffeeandbutter,InternationalJournalofLCA14(Suppl1)pp.S80–S91

Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2006, GHG emissions from conventional, agri-environmental and organic Irish suckler beef units,JournalofEnvironmentalQuality35,231-239;

Casey,J.W.&Holden,N.M.,2006a,QuantificationofGHGemissionsfromsucker-beefproductioninIreland.AgriculturalSystems90,79-98;

CederbergC.&Darelius,K.,2000,Livscykelanalys(LCA)avnötkött-enstudieavolikaproduktionsformer(LifeCycleAssessment(LCA)ofbeef–astudyofdifferentproductionforms,inSwedish),Naturresursforum,LandstingetHalland,Halmstad;

Cederberg C. & Darelius, K., 2001, Livscykelanalys (LCA) av griskött (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of pork, in Swedish),NaturresursforumHalland,Halmstad,Sweden;

CederbergC.&FlysjöA.,2004,Environmentalassessmentoffuturepigfarmingsystems–quantificationofthreescenariosfromtheFOOD21synthesiswork,SIKReport723,SIK–TheSwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnology,Göteborg,ISBN91-7290-236-1;

Bibliography - 145

Cederberg C. and Stadig M., 2003, System Expansion and Allocation in Life Cycle Assessment of Milk and Beef Production,InternationalJournalofLCA8(6)pp.350-356;

CederbergC.,Berlinj.,HenrikssonM.&Davis,Jennifer,2008,UtsläppavväxthusgaserIettlivscykelperspektivförverksamhetenvid livsmedelsföretagetBerteQvarn(Emissionsofgreenhousegases ina lifecycleperspectivefromthefoodcompanyBerteQuarn,inSwedih),SIK-Report777,ISBN978-91-7290-270-1,SIK–TheSwedishInstituteforFoodandBiotechnology,Göteborg,SwedenReferences22;

Cederberg C., Meyer, D. & Flysjö, A., 2009a, Life Cycle Inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and use of land and energy ofBrazilianbeefexportedtoEurope,SIK-Rapport792,SIK–InstitutetförLivsmedelochBioteknik,Göteborg,ISBN978-91-7290-283-1;

Cederberg C., Sonesson, U., Davis, J. & Sund, V., 2009b, Greenhouse gas emissions from production of meat, milk and eggs inSweden1990and2005,SIK-Rapport793,SIK–InstitutetförLivsmedelochBioteknik,Göteborg,ISBN978-91-7290-284-8;

Cerelia,Dichiarazioneambientalediprodottodell’acquamineralenaturaleCereliaimbottigliatain:PETda1,5levetroda1l,Rev.0–Data:30/07/2008,RegistrazioneN°:S-P-00123;

Chambers N., Simmons C., Wackernagel M., Sharing Nature’s Interest, Ecological Footprints as an indicator of sustainability,Earthscan,2007,chapter5,pp.79–105;

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

Consorzio Interprovinciale vini (C.I.V), Dichiarazione ambientale di prodotto, Vino frizzante rosso imbottigliato LambruscoGrasparossaBiologico“FratelloSole”,Rev.Marzo2008,N°Registrazione:S-P-00119;

De Lorgeril M, Salen P, Martin JL, Monjaud I, Delaye J, Mamelle N, Mediterranean diet, traditional risk factors, and the rate ofcardiovascularcomplicationsaftermyocardialinfarction:finalreportoftheLyonDietHeartStudy,Circulation,1999;

Dekker S.E.M., de Boer I.J.M., Aarnink A.J.A. and P.W.G. Groot Koerkamp, Environmental hotspot identification of organic eggproduction; Farm Technology Engineering Group, Animal Production Systems Group, Animal Sciences Group, [email protected]

DepartmentforEnvironmentFoodandRuralAffairs(DEFRA),PAS2050:2008,Specificationfortheassessmentofthelifecyclegreenhousegasemissionsofgoodsandservices,BritishStandards

Eriksson S., Elmquist H., Stern S. & Nybrant T., 2005, Environmental systems analysis of pig production – The impact of feedchoice,InternationalJournalofLCA10(2)pp.143-154;

EwingB.,GoldfingerS.,WackernagelM.,StechbartM.,RizkS.,ReedA.,Kitzes J., “TheEcologicalFootprint–Atlas2008”,GlobalFootprintNetwork(2008);

FarchiG,FidanzaF,GrossiP,LanciaA,MariottiS,MenottiA,Relationshipbetweeneatingpatternsmeetingrecommendationsandsubsequentmortalityin20years,JournalClinicalNutrition1995;

FinkbeinerM.(2009)-CarbonFootprinting,opportunitiesandthreats–TheInternationalJournalofLCA,14;pp.91-94;

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

FungTT,McCulloughML,NewbyPK,MansonJE,MeigsJB,RifaiN,WillettWC,HuFB,Diet-qualityscoresandplasmaconcentrationsofmarkersofinflammationandendothelialdysfunction.AmericanJournalofClinicalNutrition,2005;

Granarolo,Dichiarazioneambientalediprodottoper il lattefrescopastorizzatodialtaqualitàconfezionato inbottigliadiPET,revisione0del9/3/2007,CertificazioneN.S-EP00118;

Haldaya,Hoekstra;“ThewaterneededtohaveItalianseatPastaandPizza”;May2009;WaterfootprintNetwork

HospidoA.,MilàiCanals,McLaren,Truninger,Edwards-Jones,Clift,2009,Theroleofseasonalityinlettuceconsumption:acasestudyofenvironmentalandsocialaspects,InternationalJournalofLCA(14)pp.381–391;


HuijbregtsP,FeskensE,RasanenL,Dietarypatternand20yearmortalityinelderlymeninFinland,Italy,andtheNetherlands:longitudinalcohortstudy,BMJ1997;

KantAK,SchatzkinA,GraubardBI,SchairerC,Aprospectivestudyofdietqualityandmortalityinwomen,JAMA2000;

KantAK,SchatzkinA,HarrisTB,ZieglerRG,BlockG,DietarydiversityandsubsequentmortalityintheFirstNationalHealthandNutritionExaminationSurveyEpidemiologicFollow-upStudy,AmericanJournalofClinicalNutritional1993;

KeysA,AravanisC,BlackburnHW,VanBuchemFSP,BuzinaR,DjordjevicBS,DontasAS,FidanzaF,KarvonenMJ,KimuraN,LekosD,MontiM,PudduV,TaylorHL,Epidemiologicstudiesrelatedtocoronaryheartdisease:characteristicsofmenaged40-59insevencountries.ActaMedScand1967(Suppltovol.460)1-392;

KeysA,AravanisC,Blackburn,H,BuzinaR,DjordjevicBS,DontasAS,FidanzaF,arvonen,MJ,KimuraN,MenottiA,Mohacek I,NedeljkovicS,PudduV,PunsarS,TaylorHL,VanBuchemFSP,SevenCountries.AMultivariateAnalysisofDeathandCoronaryHeartDisease.1980.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MAandLondon.1-381;

KeysA,Coronaryheartdiseaseinsevencountries.Circulation1970(Suppltovol.41)1-211

Kouris-BlazosA,GnardellisC,WahlqvistML,TrichopoulosD,LukitoW,TrichopoulouA,AretheadvantagesoftheMediterraneandiettransferabletootherpopulations?AcohortstudyinMelbourne,Australia,BrJNutr1999;

Kromhout D, Menotti A, The Seven Countries Study: A Scientific Adventure in Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology. 1994.Brouwer.Utrecht;

Kumagai S, Shibata H, Watanabe S, Suzuki T, Haga H, Effect of food intake pattern on all-cause mortality in the communityelderly:a7-yearlongitudinalstudy,JournalNutritionHealthAging1999;

Lasheras C, Fernandez S, Patterson AM, Mediterranean diet and age with respect to overall survival in institutionalized,nonsmokingelderlypeople,AmericanJournalClinicalNutrition2000;

Manualediagricoltura,2aedizione,manualiHOEPLI;

MichelsKB,WolkA,Aprospectivestudyofvarietyofhealthyfoodsandmortalityinwomen,InternationalJournalofEpidemiol2002;

MilàiCanalsL.,BurnipG.M.,CowellS.J.,EvaluationoftheenvironmentalimpactsofappleproductionusingLifeCycleAssessment(LCA):CasestudyinNewZealand,Agriculture,EcosystemsandEnvironment114(2006)226–238

Mitrou PN, Kipnis V, Thiebaut Ac, Reedy J, Subar AF, Wirfalt E, Flood A, Mouw T,Hollenbeck AR, Letizmann M, Schatzkin A,Mediterranean dietary pattern and prediction ofall-cause mortality in a U.S. population: results from the NIH-AARP Diet andHealthStudy,ArchivesofInternalMedicine,2007;

NubeM,KokFJ,VandenbrouckeJP,vanderHeide-WesselC,vanderHeideRM,Scoringofprudentdietaryhabitsanditsrelationto25-yearsurvival,JournalofAmericanDietAssociation1987;

Ogino, A et al., 2007, Evaluating Environmental Impacts of the Japanese beef cow-calf system by the life cycle assessmentmethod,AnimalScienceJournal78,pp.424-432;

OslerM,HeitmannBL,GerdesLU,JørgensenLM,SchrollM,DietarypatternsandmortalityinDanishmenandwomen:aprospectiveobservationalstudy,JournalofNutrition2001;

Osler M, Schroll M, Diet and mortality in a cohort of elderly people in a north European community, International Journal ofEpidemiologic1997;

PanagiotakosaD.,PitsavosbC.,ArvaniticF,AdherencetotheMediterraneanfoodpatternpredictstheprevalenceofhypertension,hypercholesterolemia, diabetes and obesity, among healthy adults; the accuracy of the MedDietScore, Preventive Medicine,Volume44,Issue4,April2007;

Pelletier N., 2008, Environmental performance in the US poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozonedepleting,acidifyingandeutrophyingemissions,AgriculturalSystems98,pp.67-73;

Bibliography - 147

PlasticsEurope(2008)-The‘CarbonFootprint’,anunreliableindicatorofenvironmentalsustainability–PositionPaper,Brussels,18Feb.2008;

RamjeawonT.,2004,LifeCycleAssessmentofCane-SugarontheIslandofMauritius,InternationalJournalofLCA9(4)pp.254–260;

SofiF.,CesariF.,AbbateR.,GensiniG.,CasiniA,AdherencetoMediterraneandietandhealth,BMJ,luglio,2008;

TassinariG.,Manualedell’agronomo,Redaedizioniperl’agricoltura,Vedizione(5°Ristampa:aprile1998)

ToshimaH,KogaY,andBlackburnH,LessonsforSciencefromtheSevenCountriesStudy.1995.SpringerVerlag,Tokyo;

TrichopoulouA,Kouris-BlazosA,WahlqvistML,Dietandoverallsurvivalintheelderly,BMJ1995;

TrichopoulouA.,CostacouT.,BamiaC.,TrichopoulosD,AdherencetoaMediterraneanDietandSurvivalinaGreekPopulation,TheNewEnglandJournalofMedicine,Volume348,N°26,2003;

TukkerA.,Bausch–GoldbohmS.,VerheijdenM.,ArjandeKonig,KleijnRenè,WolfOliver,IgnazioPérezDomìnguez,EnvironmentalimpactsofdietchangesintheEU,JRCScientificandTechnicalReports,2009

Verge,XCPetal.,2008,GreenhousegasemissionsfromtheCanadianbeefindustry,AgriculturalSystems98,126-134;

WackernagelM.,ReesW.,“L’improntaecologica”,EdizioniAmbiente,Milano(1996);

WeidemaB.P.,WesnaesM.,HermansenJ.,KristensenT.andHalbergN.,EnvironmentalImprovementPotentialsofMeatandDairyProducts,JRCScientificandTechnicalReports,2008;

WillettWC,Dietandcoronaryheartdisease. In:WillettWC,ed.Nutritionalepidemiology.2nded.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1998;

WillettWC,SacksF,TrichopoulouA,Mediterraneandietpyramid:aculturalmodelforhealthyeating.AmericanJournalofClinicalNutrition,1995;

Williams,A.G.,Audsley,E&Sanders,D.L.,2006,Determiningtheenvironmentalburdensandresourceuseintheproductionofagriculturalandhorticulturalcommodities,MainReport,DefraResearchprojectIS0205,Bedford:CranfieldUniversityandDefra,Availableatwww.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk;

World Cancer Research Fund. Food, nutrition and the prevention of cancer: a global perspective. Washington, D.C.: AmericanInstituteforCancerPrevention,1997;

WorldResourcesInstitute,theGreenhousegasprotocol,ACorporateAccountingandReportingStandard;

WWF,GlobalFootprintNetwork,ZoologicalSocietyofLondon,“LivingPlanetReport2008”,WWF(2008);

WWF,GlobalFootprintNetwork,ZoologicalSocietyofLondon,“LivingPlanetReport2006”,WWF(2006);

www.environdec.com;

www.ipcc.org;

www.LCAfood.dk;

www.piramidealimentare.it;

www.piramidealimentaretoscana.it;

www.waterfootprint.org.

Yusoff S. and Hansen SB,. 2007, Feasibility Study of Performing an Life Cycle Assessment on Crude Palm Oil Production inMalaysia,InternationalJournalofLCA12(1)pp50–58

Double Pyramid:healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planet


Contact Details

Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition

Via Mantova, 166

43122 Parma ITALY

[email protected]

www.barillacfn.com

Photo by

Do

ub

le P

yra

mid

: he

alth

y fo

od

for p

eo

ple

, susta

ina

ble

foo

d fo

r the

pla

net

Education

Position paper Double Pyramid: healty food for people, sustainable food for the planet