EU-27 ecological footprint was primarily driven by food consumption and exceeded regional biocapacity from 2004 to 2014.
Journal
Nature food
ISSN: 2662-1355
Titre abrégé: Nat Food
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101761102
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2023
09 2023
Historique:
received:
11
02
2023
accepted:
14
08
2023
medline:
25
9
2023
pubmed:
15
9
2023
entrez:
14
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The European Union (EU) plans to decarbonize the region by 2050. As highlighted by the Green Deal and Farm to Fork Strategy, food systems are essential for this transition. Here we investigate the resource dependence and carbon emissions of the EU-27's food systems from 2004 to 2014 via an ecological footprint (EF)-extended multi-regional input-output approach, accounting for demand and supply (including trade), and considering multiple externalities. Food contributes towards almost a third of the region's EF, and appropriates over half of its biocapacity. Average reliance on biocapacity within national borders decreased, while reliance on intra-EU biocapacity increased; yet a quarter of the biocapacity for food consumption originates from non-EU countries. Despite a reduction in both total EF and food EF over the study period, EU-27 residents demand more from nature than the region's ecosystems can regenerate-highlighting the need for new or strengthened food and trade policies to enable a transformation to sustainable EU food systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37709937
doi: 10.1038/s43016-023-00843-5
pii: 10.1038/s43016-023-00843-5
pmc: PMC10513931
doi:
Substances chimiques
Carbon
7440-44-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
810-822Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Ingram, J. & Thornton, P. What does transforming food systems actually mean? Nat. Food 3, 881–882 (2022).
pubmed: 37118208
doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00620-w
Herrero, M. et al. Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the sustainable development goals. Lancet Planet. Health. 5, e50–e62 (2021).
pubmed: 33306994
doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30277-1
Loboguerrero, A. M. et al. Perspective article: actions to reconfigure food systems. Glob. Food Sec. 26, 100432 (2020).
pubmed: 33014702
pmcid: 7523551
doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100432
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
pubmed: 29853680
doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216
Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system, within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).
pubmed: 30305731
doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0
Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).
pubmed: 37117443
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
Arneth, A. et al. Framing and context. in Climate Change and Land: an IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 1 (IPCC, 2019).
Hallström, E. et al. Dietary environmental impacts relative to planetary boundaries for six environmental indicators—a population-based study. J. Clean. Prod. 373, 133949 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133949
Galli, A. et al. Mediterranean countries’ food consumption and sourcing patterns: an ecological footprint viewpoint. Sci. Total Environ. 578, 383–391 (2017).
pubmed: 27838057
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.191
How to feed the world in 2050. FAO http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf (2019).
van Dijk, M. et al. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nat. Food 2, 494–501 (2021).
pubmed: 37117684
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9
Davis, K. F. et al. Meeting future food demand with current agricultural resources. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 125–132 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.004
Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).
pubmed: 30660336
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
Nyström, M. et al. Anatomy and resilience of the global production ecosystem. Nature 575, 98–108 (2019).
pubmed: 31695208
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1712-3
A farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. EUR-Lex https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0381 (2020).
Fuchs, R., Brown, C. & Rounsevell, M. Europe’s green deal offshores environmental damage to other nations. Nature 586, 671–673 (2020).
pubmed: 33106645
doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-02991-1
Barreiro-Hurle, J. et al. Modelling transitions to sustainable food systems: are we missing the point? EuroChoices 20, 12–20 (2021).
doi: 10.1111/1746-692X.12339
Candel, J. EU food-system transition requires innovative policy analysis methods. Nat. Food 3, 296–298 (2022).
pubmed: 37117578
doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00518-7
Castaldi, S. et al. The positive climate impact of the Mediterranean diet and current divergence of Mediterranean countries towards less climate sustainable food consumption patterns. Sci. Rep. 12, 8847 (2022).
pubmed: 35614126
pmcid: 9132980
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12916-9
Giosué, A. et al. Good for the heart, good for the Earth: proposal of a dietary pattern able to optimize cardiovascular disease prevention and mitigate climate change. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 32, 2772–2781 (2022).
pubmed: 36323607
doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2022.08.001
Mazac, R. et al. Incorporation of novel foods in European diets can reduce global warming potential, water use and land use by over 80%. Nat. Food 3, 286–293 (2022).
pubmed: 37118200
doi: 10.1038/s43016-022-00489-9
Vanham, D. et al. The water footprint of the EU for different diets. Ecol. Indic. 32, 1–8 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.02.020
Mancini, L. et al. Social footprint of European food production and consumption. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 35, 287–299 (2023).
doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2022.11.005
Lin, D. et al. Ecological footprint accounting for countries: updates and results of the national footprint accounts, 2012–2018. Resources 7, 58 (2018).
doi: 10.3390/resources7030058
Mancini, M. S. et al. Exploring ecosystem services assessment through ecological footprint accounting. Ecosyst. Serv. 30, 228–235 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.010
Galli, A. et al. Sustainable food transition in Portugal: assessing the footprint of dietary choices and gaps in national and local food policies. Sci. Total Environ. 749, 141307 (2020).
pubmed: 32846345
pmcid: 7414783
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141307
Ivanova, D. et al. Mapping the carbon footprint of EU regions. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 054013 (2017).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6da9
Vanham, D., Guenther, S., Ros-Baró, M. & Bach-Faig, A. Which diet has the lower water footprint in Mediterranean countries? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 171, 105631 (2021).
pubmed: 34345116
pmcid: 8216694
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105631
Singh, B. et al. Enhancing science-policy interfaces for food system transformation: needs, options, and opportunities. Nat. Food 2, 838–842 (2021).
pubmed: 37117505
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00406-6
Hoekstra, H. & Mekonnen, M. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 3233–3237 (2012).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1109936109
Food balances (2010–). FAO https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS (accessed August 2022).
UNEP food waste index report 2021. UN Environment Programme https://www.unep.org/resources/report/unep-food-waste-index-report-2021 (2021).
Antonelli, M., Tamea, S. & Yang, H. Intra-EU agricultural trade, virtual water flows and policy implications. Sci. Total Environ. 587–588, 439–448 (2017).
pubmed: 28256314
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.105
Total greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe (8th EAP). European Environment Agency https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/total-greenhouse-gas-emission-trends (2022).
Popkin, B. M. & Ng, S. W. The nutrition transition to a stage of high obesity and noncommunicable disease prevalence dominated by ultra-processed foods is not inevitable. Obes. Rev. 23, e13366 (2022).
pubmed: 34632692
doi: 10.1111/obr.13366
Wackernagel, M. et al. The importance of resource security for poverty eradication. Nat. Sustain. 4, 731–738 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-021-00708-4
Wackernagel, M. How many people can the earth support? Ecol. Econ. 29, 485–488 (1999).
doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00023-3
Agriculture and rural development. European Commission https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/international/agricultural-trade/trade-and-international-policy-analysis_en#monitoringeuagrifoodtrade (accessed August 2022).
Belgacem, W., Mattas, K., Arampatzis, G. & Baourakis, G. Changing dietary behavior for better biodiversity preservation: a preliminary study. Nutrients 13, 2076 (2021).
pubmed: 34204478
pmcid: 8234216
doi: 10.3390/nu13062076
de Boer, J. & Aiking, H. How meat reduction differs from other personal climate actions: distinct concerns and cultural barriers among EU consumers. Food Qual. Preference 101, 104646 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104646
Springmann, M. et al. The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study. Brit. Med. J. 370, m2322 (2020).
pubmed: 32669369
pmcid: 7362232
doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2322
Anastasiou, K., Baker, P., Hadjikakou, M., Hendrie, G. A. & Lawrence, M. A conceptual framework for understanding the environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods and implications for sustainable food systems. J. Clean. Prod. 368, 133155 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133155
García, S. et al. Ultra-processed foods consumption as a promoting factor of greenhouse gas emissions, water, energy, and land use: a longitudinal assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 891, 164417 (2023).
pubmed: 37236477
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164417
Bach-Faig, A. et al. Consensus‑building around the conceptualisation and implementation of sustainable healthy diets: a foundation for policymakers. BMC Public Health 22, 1480 (2022).
pubmed: 35927688
pmcid: 9351147
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13756-y
Clune, S., Crossin, E. & Verghese, K. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different types of fresh food categories. J. Cleaner Prod. 140, 766e783 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082
Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).
pubmed: 25383533
doi: 10.1038/nature13959
Jayedi, A., Soltani, S., Abdolshahi, A. & Shab-Bidar, S. Healthy and unhealthy dietary patterns and the risk of chronic disease: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies. Br. J. Nutr. 124, 1133–1144 (2020).
pubmed: 32600500
doi: 10.1017/S0007114520002330
Leip, A. Halving nitrogen waste in the European Union food systems requires both dietary shifts and farm level actions. Glob. Food Sec. 35, 100648 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100648
Martini, D. et al. Principles of sustainable healthy diets in worldwide dietary guidelines: efforts so far and future perspectives. Nutrients 13, 1827 (2021).
pubmed: 34071933
pmcid: 8228140
doi: 10.3390/nu13061827
Food-based dietary guidelines in Europe—table 19. European Commission https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/health-promotion-knowledge-gateway/food-based-dietary-guidelines-europe-table-19_en#FR (2023).
Caro, D., Davis, S. J., Bastianoni, S. & Caldeira, K. Global and regional trends in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock. Clim. Change 126, 203–216 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1197-x
Sporchia, F., Galli, A., Kastner, T., Pulselli, F. M. & Caro, D. The environmental footprints of the feeds used by the EU chicken meat industry. Sci. Total Environ. 886, 163960 (2023).
pubmed: 37149183
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163960
Galli, A. On the rationale and policy usefulness of ecological footprint accounting: the case of Morocco. Environ. Sci. Pol. 48, 210–224 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.008
Andrew, R. M. & Peters, G. P. A multi-region input–output table based on the global trade analysis project database (GTAP-MRIO). Econ. Syst. Res. 25, 99–121 (2013).
doi: 10.1080/09535314.2012.761953
Central Product Classification (CPC) version 2.1. United Nations Statistics Division https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/Family/Detail/1074 (2015).
Crops and livestock products. FAO https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TCL (accessed August 2022).
Bjelle, E. L. et al. Adding country resolution to EXIOBASE: impacts on land use embodied in trade. J. Econ. Struct. 9, 14 (2020).
pubmed: 32117682
pmcid: 7021151
doi: 10.1186/s40008-020-0182-y
Vanham, D. et al. Multi-model assessment identifies livestock grazing as a major contributor to variation in European Union land and water footprints. Nat. Food 4, 575–584 (2023).
pubmed: 37460646
pmcid: 10365989
doi: 10.1038/s43016-023-00797-8