How much meat can we eat to sustain a healthy life and planet? The case of Swedish meat consumption Elinor, Hallström1*, Murat Sartas2,3, Elin Röös2, Deniz Koca4, Pål Börjesson1 Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University, PO Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden
1*
2
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
3
Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands 4Lund University, Lund, Sweden *
E-mail: Elinor.Hallströ
[email protected]
1. Abstract Sustainability of Swedish meat consumption is assessed from the perspectives of nutrition, health, climate and land use. Our results suggest that more sustainable food systems can be achieved via changes in Swedish meat consumption and that our multidimensional approach can be useful in identifying such changes. 2. Introduction Production and consumption of food have important impacts on the environment and human nutrition. Meat production, in particular, is identified as a major cause of environmental burden that puts high pressure on global natural resources (1). However, grazing on land non-suitable for cropping, and livestock production systems, such as those based on feed from food waste and/or other by-products, have been put forward as resource-efficient ways of producing food of high nutritional value. In some areas, grazing animals can also contribute to increased biodiversity by keeping landscapes open (2). Meat consumption also affects human health; it contributes with essential nutrients, but it is also associated with certain risk of disease (3). Meat production can be performed in different ways and nutritional needs can be met by different diets varying in quantity and quality of meat. Hence, multidimensional and interdisciplinary assessments of optimal meat production and consumption levels are necessary to achieve healthier and more resilient food systems. The objective of this paper is two-fold: 1) to estimate what intake levels of meat are compatible with targets for public health and environmental sustainability in Sweden; and 2) to test a methodology that can be further developed into a framework for assessing sustainability of food systems from a multi- and interdisciplinary perspective. 3. Methodology The approach used can be described by the following three steps: 1) key variables influencing the nutritional status, chance/risk of health/disease, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and land use demand of meat production and consumption, are identified; 2) a preliminary list of indicators and their (political) targets linked to the variables are identified in the literature and/or developed; 3) levels of sustainable meat consumption in Sweden are calculated, based on a joint assessment of nutritional, health, climate and land use perspectives. For the assessment, data from life cycle assessments and nutritional databases are used (4, 5). To estimate the intake levels from a nutrition and health perspective, consumption of purely red, white and processed meats are assessed, as well as mixed meat which refers to total meat consumption based on a mix of the different meat types.
29
To assess sustainability from the perspective of GHG emissions and land use, a distinction is made between consumption of beef and chicken from different production systems in Sweden and from other countries and regions which export meat to Sweden. A public health perspective is applied to assess the nutritional quality and health effects of meat consumption. Thus, the nutrition and health assessment is based on recommendations and guidelines that promote public health, i.e. health for the majority of the people within the studied population, rather than in specific individuals. Also, the focus is on health promotion and disease prevention, in contrast to clinical health assessments focusing on reducing or curing symptoms of disease. Effects of meat consumption are analyzed from a high-income country perspective. The majority of the population is assumed to eat an unrestricted diet, and sustainability indicators and targets are limited to those applicable to high income countries. A near-time perspective is applied, i.e. production systems correspond to today´s performance without any assumptions on technological development. A more detailed description of the methodology is provided in the complementary materials. 4. Results Table 1 provides an overview of key indicators, metrics and targets identified to be of importance for assessing sustainability of meat production and consumption in Sweden, from the perspectives of nutrition and health, GHG emissions, climate change, and land use. Identified indicators, metrics and targets are limited to those available for current usage. Table 2 provides an overview of estimated levels of sustainable meat consumption. These levels are compatible with sustainability targets in Table 1, and could thereby be interpreted as sustainable from these perspectives. Table 1: Impact categories, indicators, metrics, benchmarks and targets identified 1 IMPACT INDICATOR / METRIC Nutrition & Health Nutritional Nutrient content of food consumption quality, Health (e.g. nutrient intake capita-1 day-1) Nutritional Quantity and quality of meat consumption (e.g. quality, Health meat intake capita-1 day-1) Nutritional Quantity and quality of meat consumption quality, Health (e.g. meat intake capita-1 day-1) GHG emissions & Climate change GHG Quantity and carbon footprint for different meats emissions (e.g. CO2 eq. for meat intake capita-1 year-1). Land use Land use Quantity of land occupied by meat (livestock) production (e.g. ha of total land capita-1 year-1) Land use quality
Quantity and quality of land occupied by meat (livestock) production (e.g. ha of specific land capita-1 year-1)
BENCHMARK/TARGET Nutritional recommendations Food-based dietary guidelines Health recommendations guidelines
and
International climate targets
Global availability of land potentially suitable for agriculture Global availability of land potentially suitable for cropping
1
More details in Table A1 in complementary materials.
30
Table 2: Estimated levels of sustainable meat consumption from different perspectives1 TYPE OF MEAT
MEAT CONSUMPTION (g/d) Raw, bone-free Cooked, bone free
NUTRITION & HEALTH Mixed meat2 Protein Red unprocessed meat Iron Saturated fat Health recommendation Processed meat Saturated fat Dietary health recommendations White meat Iron GHG EMISSIONS & CLIMATE CHANGE Beef Chicken LAND USE Beef Global agriculture land Global cropland Chicken Global cropland
40-90
30-65
40-255 ˂ 370 ˂ 60
30-180 ˂ 260 ˂ 40
˂ 130 03
˂ 90 03
150-275
105-195
˂ 70 ˂ 525
˂ 50 ˂ 370
˂ 370 ˂ 110
˂ 260 ˂ 80
˂ 205
˂ 145
1
The calculation method is further described in Table A1 and Table A2 in complementary materials. 2Mixed meat from pork, beef, lamb, game, processed meat products, and chicken. 3None or as little as possible.
5. Discussion From a nutritional perspective, no general recommendations exist for how much meat is considered optimal for health. Nutritional recommendations are based on intake levels that ensure sufficient intake of critical nutrients (e.g. iron) without exceeding upper intake limits of nutrients associated with negative health effects (e.g. saturated fat). Meeting iron requirements in fertile women may require intake levels of 105- 195 g of cooked meat per day (under the assumption that white meat is the only meat consumed and that 22% total dietary iron is supplied by meat). However, to supply adequate protein, intake levels of 30-60 g of cooked meat per day are sufficient (under the assumption that maximum 25% of total protein is supplied by protein). Lower intake levels would be possible if a larger proportion of the nutrients were supplied by other food groups. Recommended intake levels of red and processed meat are more restricted compared to white meat, due to the association between red and processed meat and increased risk of colorectal cancer. Adequate nutrition could also be supplied by vegetarian diets, i.e. without meat. From an environmental and land use perspective, no policy guidance or recommendations exist for sustainable levels of meat production. Our results suggest that beef consumption needs to stay below 50 g of cooked meat per day to be deemed sustainable from a climate and land use perspective (under the assumption that beef is the only meat consumed), while for chicken intake levels below 145 g per day can be considered sustainable based on the included indicators (Table 1, A1).
31
It should be observed that the amounts in Table 1 are maximum intake levels, estimated based on GHG- and land use efficient meat production systems, and therefore may have to be further reduced to be compatible with the selected sustainability targets. From a nutrition and health perspective, sustainable levels of meat intake are largely dependent on the overall composition of the diet and the amount of nutrients supplied by different food groups. From a climate and land use perspective, sustainable levels of meat intake depend on, e.g. how much of total GHG emissions space and agriculture land is attributed to food or meat. Hence, to estimate intake levels of meat compatible with sustainability targets, several indicators, metrics, targets and assumptions need to be used and evaluated. As our methodology and its underlying calculations are hampered by many uncertainties, a thorough assessment and presentation of uncertainties in methods and results is essential. For a more complete assessment, additional perspectives and sustainability indicators, e.g. equity, animal welfare, economy, and other environmental and societal concerns, should be included. Hence, the set of parameters identified here can be interpreted as a proxy of sustainable meat consumption in Sweden, valid only for some perspectives. By including more indicators and perspectives, our methodological approach can be developed into a framework to map and model potential interlinkages and relationships between key variables. Such a methodological framework should ideally be applicable to different food groups and diets as well as to different regions and populations. 5. Conclusion Our results suggest that sustainability within the food system can be increased via changes in current Swedish meat consumption patterns, and that our approach can be useful in identifying alternative and more sustainable food consumption patterns. 6. References [1] Hallström, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Börjesson, P. ‘Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review’. J. Clean. Prod. 91 (2015) 1-11. [2] Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., et al.‘Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock – A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Options. FAO, Rome, 2013. [3] Tilman, D., Clark, M. ‘Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health’. Nature, 515 (2014) 518-
522. [4] ISO. ‘Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework’ in ‘Environmental management’. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2006. [5] National Food Agency, Sweden. ‘Livsmedelsdatabasen’ (‘The food database’) http://www.livsmedelsverket.se/en/food-and-content/naringsamnen/livsmedelsdatabasen/ (accessed 2015-06-22).
32
