Assessing the carbon footprint across the supply chain: Cow milk vs soy drink

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151200Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Carbon Footprint Assessment support the transition of diets towards sustainability.

  • From an environmental perspective, soy drink could be a valid substitute of cow milk.

  • Soy drink has a higher average consumer price and a lower nutritional level.

Abstract

Since livestock product consumption could have a significant effect on tackling climate change, in the few last years, there has been an increasing consumer demand for non-dairy alternatives. Despite plant-based beverages being considered crucial to foster the transition towards sustainable diet models, no studies have yet compared the level of emissions of plant-based beverages with animal-based ones. The present study aims at computing the carbon footprint of cow milk and that of soy drink and evaluating the carbon footprint results in the light of the substitutability of cow's milk with soy drink, analyzing the potential environmental, economic and nutritional trade-offs between the two products.

Results highlight that, considering the environmental perspective, soy drink could be a valid substitute of cow milk: its production has a lower carbon footprint, allowing for the achievement of food security objectives. However, focusing on the economic and nutritional perspectives, the high average consumer price of soy drink is associated with an overall lower nutritional level. In order to reach the same nutritional value as 1 L of cow milk in terms of protein intake, the consumption of soy drink should be increased by 13%. Furthermore, soy drink consumption implies paying 66% more than for cow milk, when considering the same protein content.

Introduction

Food production and consumption are responsible for environmental impacts and climate change (Palmieri et al., 2017). Livestock products play a significant role in human diet due to their uniqueness, desirability, economical and nutritional value (Miglietta et al., 2021). However, these products are often associated with high environmental impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) has concluded that the agricultural sector, particularly livestock, contributes 10–12% to the overall global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which are responsible for most of global warming (Cassandro, 2020). The challenge of meeting the dietary requirements of an increasing world population is stimulating a strong debate about the sustainability of current food supply chains, especially those related to the livestock production (Röös et al., 2017; Béné et al., 2019). Food choices have relevant impacts on the environment and the reduction of livestock product consumption could have a significant effect on tackling climate change (De Boer et al., 2013). In the few last years, there has been an increasing consumer demand for non-dairy alternatives, which nowadays represent a wide segment of the food market (Sethi et al., 2016). The market of plant-based beverages is constantly expanding and is projected to reach more than 38 billion USD revenues by 2024, with an annual growth rate of over 14% (Angelino et al., 2020). Plant-based beverages are typically designed to have a similar look, feel, taste, and shelf-life as cow's milk so that they can be used as perfect substitutes (McClements et al., 2019). Even if the European Union is the largest producer of milk in the world (Bórawski et al., 2021), between 2014 and 2019, it experienced a 3.14%, reduction in the per capita consumption of cow's milk, gradually replaced by plant-based alternatives. Among non-dairy beverages, soy drinks dominate the market in Europe with a global market size of 7.30 billion USD in 2018 (Arizton Advisory and Intelligence, 2020). This trend can be attributed both to its nutritional properties and its low environmental impacts (Grant and Hicks, 2018). The results of a comprehensive study on sustainable diets by the EAT-Lancet commission (Willett et al., 2019) suggest that there should be a major reduction in the amount of animal foods consumed globally, which is in accordance with the recommendations of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Italy is among the main milk producers in Europe and its dairy sector represents more than 12% of the total turnover of the agri-food sector (ISMEA, 2021). However, according to ISTAT data in 2016, the market of plant-based drinks was growing, particularly that of soy drinks. Considering them nutritionally similar to cow's milk, but with a limited impact on the environment, many consumers prefer these products (McCarthy et al., 2017). However, despite having a higher price and poorer nutritional characteristics, many studies showed that soy drink production also has significant environmental impacts (McClements, 2020).

Considering the important role played by plant-based beverages in driving the transition towards lower animal-based diets envisaged by the 2030 Agenda, the food industry needs to take a responsible approach towards sustainable production.

The remainder of the study is organized as follows. The background and the research question are described in Section 2. The materials and methods are explained in Section 3. In Section 4 and Section 5, results and discussions are presented. Finally, Section 6 concludes.

Section snippets

Background and scope

Numerous Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies have been carried out at both a global level (FAO, 2010; IDF, 2009; Sevenster and de Jong, 2008), European level (Cederberg and Stadig, 2003; Yan et al., 2011) and national levels (Fantin et al., 2012; Cecchini et al., 2018; Palmieri et al., 2017), to quantify the environmental impacts associated with dairy milk production. A substantial amount of research has been conducted to investigate the GHG impact of milk production in major milk producing

System boundaries, functional units, and allocation

The system boundaries represent the interface between the product system and the environment, and their definition determines which processes have to be included within the assessment (Gollnow et al., 2014). In order to estimate the carbon footprint of cow milk and soy drink, firstly the production systems consisting of sequential process steps were identified. An overview of the production systems for both cow milk and soy drink are shown respectively in Fig. 1 and in Fig. 2. All major

Results

The total GHG emissions for cow milk and soy drink are presented in Fig. 3. The CF of cow milk fell in the range 0.99–1.08 Kg CO2eq/L while that of soy drink in the range 0.51–0.52 Kg CO2eq/L both with 90% confidence interval. Considering the entire production chain, the production of one liter of soy drink has an environmental impact 50% lower than the production of one liter of cow milk. However, there are differences in the percentage contribution of each production phase to the total carbon

Discussions

The Sustainable Development Goal 12 of the 2030 Agenda intends to ensure sustainable dietary patterns, reducing the production and consumption of animal products, thus limiting the contribution of agriculture to climate vulnerability. The IPCC guidelines, used in this study, represent a good basis for estimating GHG emissions related to product supply chains on a national level, allowing for the comparisons of CF results, even with some uncertainties due to simplified models and systems'

Conclusions

Since food production and consumption represents the main driver of the pressure on worldwide ecosystems, ensuring stable supply and access to food over time, while also favoring a sustainable transition, is fundamental. Reversing the current food unsustainability and favoring a food transition requires the support of governance structures and specific policy interventions, at supra-national, national and local levels.

Easing a transition to sustainable food systems starting from those policies

CRediT authorship contribution statement

B. Coluccia: Data curation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft. G.P. Agnusdei: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. F. De Leo: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft. Y. Vecchio: Resources, Writing – original draft. C.M. La Fata: Validation, Writing – review & editing. P.P. Miglietta: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

Authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.

References (86)

  • P. Ertl et al.

    An approach to including protein quality when assessing the net contribution of livestock to human food supply

    Animal

    (2016)
  • V. Fantin et al.

    Life cycle assessment of italian high quality milk production. A comparison with an EPD study

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2012)
  • A. Galli et al.

    Sustainable food transition in Portugal: assessing the footprint of dietary choices and gaps in national and local food policies

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2020)
  • S. Gollnow et al.

    Carbon footprint of milk production from dairy cows in Australia

    Int. Dairy J.

    (2014)
  • A. Hospido et al.

    Simplified life cycle assessment of Galician milk production

    Int. Dairy J.

    (2003)
  • S. Jayasundara et al.

    Improving farm profitability also reduces the carbon footprint of milk production in intensive dairy production systems

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2019)
  • K.H. Lee

    Integrating carbon footprint into supply chain management: the case of hyundai motor company (HMC) in the automobile industry

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2011)
  • D. Lovarelli et al.

    Describing the trend of ammonia, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides: the role of livestock activities in northern Italy during Covid-19 quarantine

    Environ. Res.

    (2020)
  • A.M. Mazzetto et al.

    Comparing the environmental efficiency of milk and beef production through life cycle assessment of interconnected cattle systems

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2020)
  • K.S. McCarthy et al.

    Drivers of choice for fluid milk versus plant-based alternatives: what are consumer perceptions of fluid milk?

    J. Dairy Sci.

    (2017)
  • D. O’Brien et al.

    Relating the carbon footprint of milk from Irish dairy farms to economic performance

    J. Dairy Sci.

    (2015)
  • N. Palmieri et al.

    Environmental impacts of a dairy cheese chain including whey feeding: an Italian case study

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • G. Pirlo et al.

    Factors affecting life cycle assessment of milk produced on 6 Mediterranean buffalo farms

    J. Dairy Sci.

    (2014)
  • E. Röös et al.

    Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures

    Global Environ. Chang.

    (2017)
  • X. Shi et al.

    Flavor characteristic analysis of soymilk prepared by different soybean cultivars and establishment of evaluation method of soybean cultivars suitable for soymilk processing

    Food Chem.

    (2015)
  • G.W. Sonnemann et al.

    Uncertainty assessment by a Monte Carlo simulation in a life cycle inventory of electricity produced by a waste incinerator

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2003)
  • M.A. Thomassen et al.

    Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands

    Agric. Syst.

    (2008)
  • V. Vasilaki et al.

    Water and carbon footprint of selected dairy products: a case study in Catalonia

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • S.H. Vetter et al.

    Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural food production to supply indian diets: implications for climate change mitigation

    Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.

    (2017)
  • W. Willett et al.

    Food in the anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems

    Lancet

    (2019)
  • R.R. Wolfe et al.

    Factors contributing to the selection of dietary protein food sources

    Clin. Nutr.

    (2018)
  • X. Xu et al.

    A comparative study on carbon footprints between plant-and animal-based foods in China

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2016)
  • M.J. Yan et al.

    An evaluation of life cycle assessment of European milk production

    J. Environ. Manag.

    (2011)
  • D. Angelino et al.

    Nutritional quality of plant-based drinks sold in Italy: the Food Labelling of Italian Products (FLIP) study

    Foods

    (2020)
  • Arizton Advisory and Intelligence

    Non-dairy Milk market-global outlook and forecast 2019–2024

  • R. Baldoni et al.

    Coltivazioni erbacee

  • A. Berardy et al.

    Integrating protein quality and quantity with environmental impacts in life cycle assessment

    Sustainability

    (2019)
  • A. Bhat et al.

    Application of the crystal Ball® software for uncertainty and sensitivity analyses for predicted concentration and risk levels

    Environ. Prog.

    (2008)
  • P. Bórawski et al.

    Changes in the milk market in the United States on the background of the European Union and the World

    Eur. Res. Stud. J.

    (2021)
  • M. Cassandro

    Animal breeding and climate change, mitigation and adaptation

    J. Anim. Breed. Genet.

    (2020)
  • C. Cederberg et al.

    System expansion and allocation in life cycle assessment of milk and beef production

    Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.

    (2003)
  • CLAL
  • Cited by (19)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text