A Review of Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of Diets: Plant-Based Solutions Are Truly Sustainable, even in the Form of Fast Foods

被引:16
作者
Kustar, Anna [1 ]
Patino-Echeverri, Dalia [1 ]
机构
[1] Duke Univ, Nicholas Sch Environm, Durham, NC 27708 USA
关键词
diet; life cycle assessment; carbon footprint; land use; water use; GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS; WATER FOOTPRINT; CARBON FOOTPRINT; PATTERNS; CONSUMPTION; GUIDELINES; HEALTH; IMPACT; MEAT; RESOURCES;
D O I
10.3390/su13179926
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This paper's purpose is to shed light on the current understanding of the environmental benefits of vegetarian and vegan diets, considering the inclusion of a significant share of processed foods, such as plant-based burgers. We review recent Environmental Life Cycle Assessments of the three main diet types, omnivore, vegetarian, and vegan, and then assesses the environmental impacts of adding two commercial brands of plant-based burgers to vegetarian and vegan diets. The recent literature confirms that compared to omnivore diets adhering to the same dietary guidelines, vegan diets reduce land-use impacts by 50-86%, water use by 22-70%, and greenhouse gas emissions by 21-70%, while vegetarian diets achieve reductions of 27-84% in land use, 15-69% in water use, and 24-56% in greenhouse emissions. The environmental benefits of vegan and vegetarian diets are not affected by the consumption of highly processed plant-based burgers. Consumers reduce land use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions between 87% and 96% by choosing a Beyond or Impossible burger instead of a regular beef patty. These results are robust to the uncertainties associated with a variety of beef production systems; there is no indication that a situation or condition may make beef burgers more environmentally friendly than these two plant-based alternatives, or that the addition of plant-based meats to vegan and vegetarian diets may reduce their environmental benefits.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 73 条
  • [1] The Impacts of Dietary Change on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use, Water Use, and Health: A Systematic Review
    Aleksandrowicz, Lukasz
    Green, Rosemary
    Joy, Edward J. M.
    Smith, Pete
    Haines, Andy
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (11):
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2015, 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines-health.gov
  • [3] Impact of current, National Dietary Guidelines and alternative diets on Check for greenhouse gas emissions in Argentina
    Arrieta, E. M.
    Gonzalez, A. D.
    [J]. FOOD POLICY, 2018, 79 : 58 - 66
  • [4] Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems
    Baroni, L.
    Cenci, L.
    Tettamanti, M.
    Berati, M.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2007, 61 (02) : 279 - 286
  • [5] The Spanish Dietary Guidelines: A potential tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of current dietary patterns
    Batlle-Bayer, Laura
    Bala, Alba
    Garcia-Herrero, Isabel
    Lemaire, Elodie
    Song, Guobao
    Aldaco, Ruben
    Fullana-i-Palmer, Pere
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2019, 213 : 588 - 598
  • [6] Bauer A., 2018, GREENHOUSE GAS IS ON
  • [7] Environmental Impacts of Foods in the Adventist Health Study-2 Dietary Questionnaire
    Berardy, Andrew
    Fresan, Ujue
    Matos, Rodrigo A.
    Clarke, Abigail
    Mejia, Alfredo
    Jaceldo-Siegl, Karen
    Sabate, Joan
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2020, 12 (24) : 1 - 14
  • [8] Bereznicka J., 2018, Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Oeconomia, V17, P17, DOI [10.22630/aspe.2018.17.2.17, DOI 10.22630/ASPE.2018.17.2.17]
  • [9] Linking sustainability to the healthy eating patterns of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a modelling study
    Blackstone, Nicole Tichenor
    El-Abbadi, Naglaa H.
    McCabe, Margaret S.
    Griffin, Timothy S.
    Nelson, Miriam E.
    [J]. LANCET PLANETARY HEALTH, 2018, 2 (08) : E344 - E352
  • [10] The carbon footprint of Danish diets
    Bruno, Morena
    Thomsen, Marianne
    Pulselli, Federico Maria
    Patrizi, Nicoletta
    Marini, Michele
    Caro, Dario
    [J]. CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2019, 156 (04) : 489 - 507