Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability

Improving diet quality while simultaneously reducing environmental impact is a critical focus globally. Metrics linking diet quality and sustainability have typically focused on a limited suite of indicators, and have not included food waste. To address this important research gap, we examine the relationship between food waste, diet quality, nutrient waste, and multiple measures of sustainability: use of cropland, irrigation water, pesticides, and fertilizers. Data on food intake, food waste, and application rates of agricultural amendments were collected from diverse US government sources. Diet quality was assessed using the Healthy Eating Index-2015. A biophysical simulation model was used to estimate the amount of cropland associated with wasted food. This analysis finds that US consumers wasted 422g of food per person daily, with 30 million acres of cropland used to produce this food every year. This accounts for 30% of daily calories available for consumption, one-quarter of daily food (by weight) available for consumption, and 7% of annual cropland acreage. Higher quality diets were associated with greater amounts of food waste and greater amounts of wasted irrigation water and pesticides, but less cropland waste. This is largely due to fruits and vegetables, which are health-promoting and require small amounts of cropland, but require substantial amounts of agricultural inputs. These results suggest that simultaneous efforts to improve diet quality and reduce food waste are necessary. Increasing consumers’ knowledge about how to prepare and store fruits and vegetables will be one of the practical solutions to reducing food waste

Land use efficiency of beef systems in the Northeastern USA from a food supply perspective

One widely recognized strategy to meet future food needs is reducing the amount of arable land used to produce livestock feed. Of all livestock products, beef is the largest land user per unit output. Whether beef production results in feed-food competition or a net positive contribution to the food supply, however, may depend largely on whether marginal land is used to grow forage. The land use ratio (LUR) was developed by van Zanten et al. (2016a) to identify livestock systems that produce more animal source food than would be produced by converting their associated feed land to food crop production – a perspective that is not addressed within life cycle assessment (LCA). van Zanten et al. (2016a) used country-specific and farm-level land suitability data, the latter of which is not available in many countries. To assess the LUR of beef systems in the USA, which may use large grassland areas of potentially varying quality across scales, an intermediate approach between farm and country-scale estimation is needed. In this paper, we enhanced the LUR by integrating geospatial data for crop suitability and yield estimation at multiple scales. By doing so, the LUR will also become more widely applicable for other studies. We applied our enhanced LUR for a grass-fed beef (GF) system and a dairy beef (DB) system in the Northeastern USA, including multiple scenarios limiting land conversion. All systems had LURs greater than one, indicating they produce less protein than conversion of their suitable feed land base to food cropping would. Because a large fraction of the forage land used in the GF system was suitable for crop production and moderately productive, its LUR was 3–6 times larger (less efficient land use from a food supply perspective) than the DB system. Future research should explore mechanisms to reduce the LUR and life cycle environmental burdens of both regional production systems.</p

Linking sustainability to the healthy eating patterns of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a modelling study

Summary: Background: Evidence-based nutrition policy is a key mechanism to promote planetary health. In the USA, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans are the foundation of nutrition policy and guide more than US$80 billion in federal spending. Recent attempts have been made to incorporate sustainability into the development of the Dietary Guidelines. However, the sustainability of the 2015–20 Dietary Guidelines remains unclear; research has not yet assessed the environmental impacts of the distinct healthy patterns recommended by the policy. Methods: In this modelling study done at the University of New Hampshire (Durham, NH, USA), we analysed the healthy US-style (US), healthy Mediterranean-style (MED), and healthy vegetarian (VEG) patterns recommended in the 2015–20 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Food groups and subgroups consisted of 321 commonly consumed foods, with group composition predetermined by the US Department of Agriculture. We compiled and used multiple datasets to assign environmental burdens to foods, focusing on six impact categories of policy importance: global warming potential, land use, water depletion, freshwater and marine eutrophication, and particulate matter or respiratory organics. We did life cycle impact assessments for each of the three diet patterns and compared the six impact categories between the patterns. We also analysed the proportion contribution of the food groups to each impact category in each of the diet patterns. Findings: The US and MED patterns had similar impacts, except for freshwater eutrophication. Freshwater eutrophication was 31% lower in the US pattern than the MED pattern, primarily due to increased seafood in the MED pattern. All three patterns had similar water depletion impacts, with fruits and vegetables as major contributors. For five of the six impacts, the VEG pattern had 42–84% lower burdens than both the US and MED patterns. Reliance on plant-based protein and eggs in the VEG pattern versus emphasis on animal-based protein in the other patterns was a key driver of differences, as was a lower overall protein foods recommendation in the VEG pattern. Interpretation: The recommended patterns in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans might have starkly different impacts on the environment and other dimensions of human health beyond nutrition. Given the scale of influence of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on food systems, incorporating sustainability into their development has the potential to have great benefit in terms of long-term food security. Funding: None

Total food waste by Healthy Eating Index-2015 quintile.

<p>HEI-2015, Healthy Eating Index-2015. Higher HEI-2015 quintiles indicate higher diet quality.</p

Data sources, compilation and output.

<p>LAFA, Loss-adjusted Food Availability data series; FCID, Food Commodity Intake Database; WWEIA, What We Eat In America ¹Grains, dark green vegetables, red and orange vegetables, legumes, starchy vegetables, other vegetables. fruit, milk and yogurt, cheese and other dairy, soy milk, nuts, tofu, beef, pork, chicken, turkey, eggs, fish, plant oils, dairy fats, lard and tallow, and sweeteners. ²All dishes; meat and mixed meat dishes (beef and beef mixed dishes; pork and pork mixed dishes; poultry and poultry mixed dishes; seafood and seafood mixed dishes; meat sandwiches, burgers, sausages, and hotdogs; bacon; and other meat dishes) eggs and egg dishes; dairy (milk and cream, cheese); soup; grains and mixed grain dishes (bread; breakfast cereal; pancakes, waffles, and French toast; pastas and grain mixtures; pizza and calzones; and grain-based desserts); nuts and seeds; fruits and vegetables in mixed dishes (whole fruit and mixed fruit dishes; fruit/vegetable juice; dark green vegetables; yellow and orange vegetables; tomatoes and tomato mixtures; legumes; other vegetables); potatoes and potato mixed dishes; margarine, table oils, and salad dressings; salty snacks; Mexican dishes; other foods and dishes. ³Calories; total protein; total carbohydrates; added sugars; fiber; total and individual saturated fatty acids; total and individual monounsaturated fatty acids; total and individual saturated fatty acids; cholesterol; vitamins (A, B₁, B₂, B₆, B₁₂ niacin, folate, choline, C, D, K, E); minerals (calcium, phosphorous, magnesium, iron, zinc, copper, sodium, potassium, selenium); and total and individual carotenoids. ⁴All cropland, grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, sweeteners, feed grains and oilseeds, hay, and cropland pasture. ⁵Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potash. ⁶Sum of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides.</p

Daily per capita food waste (n = 35,507).

<p>Daily per capita food waste (n = 35,507).</p