• Energy Research

While the production of food causes major environmental impacts and poses social risks, consumption of healthy and nutritious food is essential for human wellbeing. Against this background, action to make current diets more sustainable is needed, which in turn requires knowledge on possibilities for improvement. In this study, we investigated how sociodemographic and lifestyle factors relate to different sustainability impacts of diets in Switzerland using recent dietary recall data (n = 2057). Of each dietary recall, we assessed six impacts: global warming potential, cropland and grassland occupation, social risks, diet quality, and diet cost. We investigated the association between sociodemographic and lifestyle factors and food choices as well as between sociodemographic and lifestyle factors and environmental and socio-economic impacts, and combined these results in a qualitative approach. The median impacts of Swiss dietary recalls were 3.25 kg CO2eq for global warming potential, 4.92 m2 for cropland occupation, and 1.43 m2 for grassland occupation. Further, the median score for social risks was 1.64 e+08 points (Social Hotspots Index), for diet quality 43.65 points (Alternate Healthy Eating Index), and 9.27 CHF for diet cost. Moreover, our results showed that any action on food groups, be it for health, social, or environmental reasons, potentially affects societal groups differently. Nationalities, language regions, age groups, and smoking status seemed particularly distinctive, while income or educational groups seemed hardly relevant. Further, reductions of some food groups, especially different types of meat, offer large potentials for synergies on multiple impact categories. Others, such as fruits and vegetables as well as fish and seafood, result in trade-offs. On the one hand, these food groups contribute to an improved diet quality. On the other hand, these food groups are costly, and the production of fruits and vegetables additionally poses social risks. Our results contribute to target measures to support environmentally-friendly, healthy, and social diets more effectively. Journal of Cleaner Production, 300 ISSN:0959-6526

While the production of food causes major environmental impacts and poses social risks, consumption of healthy and nutritious food is essential for human wellbeing. Against this background, action to make current diets more sustainable is needed, which in turn requires knowledge on possibilities for improvement. In this study, we investigated how sociodemographic and lifestyle factors relate to different sustainability impacts of diets in Switzerland using recent dietary recall data (n = 2057). Of each dietary recall, we assessed six impacts: global warming potential, cropland and grassland occupation, social risks, diet quality, and diet cost. We investigated the association between sociodemographic and lifestyle factors and food choices as well as between sociodemographic and lifestyle factors and environmental and socio-economic impacts, and combined these results in a qualitative approach. The median impacts of Swiss dietary recalls were 3.25 kg CO2eq for global warming potential, 4.92 m2 for cropland occupation, and 1.43 m2 for grassland occupation. Further, the median score for social risks was 1.64 e+08 points (Social Hotspots Index), for diet quality 43.65 points (Alternate Healthy Eating Index), and 9.27 CHF for diet cost. Moreover, our results showed that any action on food groups, be it for health, social, or environmental reasons, potentially affects societal groups differently. Nationalities, language regions, age groups, and smoking status seemed particularly distinctive, while income or educational groups seemed hardly relevant. Further, reductions of some food groups, especially different types of meat, offer large potentials for synergies on multiple impact categories. Others, such as fruits and vegetables as well as fish and seafood, result in trade-offs. On the one hand, these food groups contribute to an improved diet quality. On the other hand, these food groups are costly, and the production of fruits and vegetables additionally poses social risks. Our results contribute to target measures to support environmentally-friendly, healthy, and social diets more effectively. Journal of Cleaner Production, 300 ISSN:0959-6526

Life in soil is a key driver of important ecosystem processes, such as the recycling of carbon and nutrients. In current intensive agricultural soils, however, richness and abundance of many groups of soil organisms are often reduced, which may threaten soil health and sustainable agriculture in the long run. Therefore, a switch to alternative agricultural practices (e.g., minimal tillage) that are less detrimental or even stimulate soil life has been suggested as a way to increase sustainable food production. Although we understand how some of these practices impact specific species or functional groups in soils, it is necessary to get a more complete overview to understand which practices can be used in agriculture to improve soil biodiversity. Here, we present a systematic literature review identifying which practices are studied as alternatives to current, intensive practices for four soil taxonomic groups encompassing a range of trophic groups and functions in the soil ecosystem: nematodes, earthworms, bacteria and fungi. Further, we review how these alternative practices impact the abundance and diversity of these four taxonomic groups, as well as for the 14 functional groups identified and retrieved from the review. We found that a total of 23 alternative agricultural practices, grouped into 10 groups of practices, were studied for the four target taxonomic groups. Three groups of practices, 'fertilization’, ‘soil cover’ and ‘tillage’ were studied for all taxa. In general, alternative agricultural practices had positive impacts on the species richness in the four taxonomic groups and on the abundance of organisms in the functional groups. However, there were some exceptions. For example, organic fertilizers reduced the abundance of epigeic earthworms, while enhancing the abundance of endogeic and anecic earthworms. There was only one alternative practice, i.e., the use of cover crops, that was neutral to positive for the abundance of all functional groups across all taxa. Our review revealed that there are gaps in the literature, as practices that are commonly studied for aboveground biodiversity, such as field margins or flower strips, are not studied well across taxonomic and functional groups and need to be further studied to improve our understanding of the impact of alternative practices on soil life. We conclude that alternative agricultural practices are promising to enhance soil biodiversity. However, as some practices have specific impacts on taxonomic groups in the soil, we may require careful application and combinations of alternative agricultural practices to stimulate multiple groups.

Life in soil is a key driver of important ecosystem processes, such as the recycling of carbon and nutrients. In current intensive agricultural soils, however, richness and abundance of many groups of soil organisms are often reduced, which may threaten soil health and sustainable agriculture in the long run. Therefore, a switch to alternative agricultural practices (e.g., minimal tillage) that are less detrimental or even stimulate soil life has been suggested as a way to increase sustainable food production. Although we understand how some of these practices impact specific species or functional groups in soils, it is necessary to get a more complete overview to understand which practices can be used in agriculture to improve soil biodiversity. Here, we present a systematic literature review identifying which practices are studied as alternatives to current, intensive practices for four soil taxonomic groups encompassing a range of trophic groups and functions in the soil ecosystem: nematodes, earthworms, bacteria and fungi. Further, we review how these alternative practices impact the abundance and diversity of these four taxonomic groups, as well as for the 14 functional groups identified and retrieved from the review. We found that a total of 23 alternative agricultural practices, grouped into 10 groups of practices, were studied for the four target taxonomic groups. Three groups of practices, 'fertilization’, ‘soil cover’ and ‘tillage’ were studied for all taxa. In general, alternative agricultural practices had positive impacts on the species richness in the four taxonomic groups and on the abundance of organisms in the functional groups. However, there were some exceptions. For example, organic fertilizers reduced the abundance of epigeic earthworms, while enhancing the abundance of endogeic and anecic earthworms. There was only one alternative practice, i.e., the use of cover crops, that was neutral to positive for the abundance of all functional groups across all taxa. Our review revealed that there are gaps in the literature, as practices that are commonly studied for aboveground biodiversity, such as field margins or flower strips, are not studied well across taxonomic and functional groups and need to be further studied to improve our understanding of the impact of alternative practices on soil life. We conclude that alternative agricultural practices are promising to enhance soil biodiversity. However, as some practices have specific impacts on taxonomic groups in the soil, we may require careful application and combinations of alternative agricultural practices to stimulate multiple groups.

Effective food policies in Europe require insight into the environmental impact of consumers’ diet to contribute to global nutrition security in an environmentally sustainable way. The present study therefore aimed to assess the environmental impact associated with dietary intake across four European countries, and to explain sources of variations in environmental impact by energy intake, demographics and diet composition. Individual-level dietary intake data were obtained from nationally-representative dietary surveys, by using two non-consecutive days of a 24-h recall or a diet record, from Denmark (DK, n = 1710), Czech Republic (CZ, n = 1666), Italy (IT, n = 2184), and France (FR, n = 2246). Dietary intake data were linked to a newly developed pan-European environmental sustainability indicator database that contains greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and land use (LU) values for ∼900 foods. To explain the variation in environmental impact of diets, multilevel regression models with random intercept and random slopes were fitted according to two levels: adults (level 1, n = 7806) and country (level 2, n = 4). In the models, diet-related GHGE or LU was the dependent variable, and the parameter of interest, i.e. either total energy intake or demographics or food groups, the exploratory variables. A 200-kcal higher total energy intake was associated with a 9% and a 10% higher daily GHGE and LU. Expressed per 2000 kcal, mean GHGE ranged from 4.4 (CZ) to 6.3 kgCO2eq/2000 kcal (FR), and LU ranged from 5.7 (CZ) to 8.0 m2*year/2000 kcal (FR). Dietary choices explained most of the variation between countries. A 5 energy percent (50 g/2000 kcal) higher meat intake was associated with a 10% and a 14% higher GHGE and LU density, with ruminant meat being the main contributor to environmental footprints. In conclusion, intake of energy, total meat and the proportion of ruminant meat explained most of the variation in GHGE and LU of European diets. Contributions of food groups to environmental footprints however varied between countries, suggesting that cultural preferences play an important role in environmental footprints of consumers. In particular, Findings from the present study will be relevant for national-specific food policy measures towards a more environmentally-friendly diet.

Effective food policies in Europe require insight into the environmental impact of consumers’ diet to contribute to global nutrition security in an environmentally sustainable way. The present study therefore aimed to assess the environmental impact associated with dietary intake across four European countries, and to explain sources of variations in environmental impact by energy intake, demographics and diet composition. Individual-level dietary intake data were obtained from nationally-representative dietary surveys, by using two non-consecutive days of a 24-h recall or a diet record, from Denmark (DK, n = 1710), Czech Republic (CZ, n = 1666), Italy (IT, n = 2184), and France (FR, n = 2246). Dietary intake data were linked to a newly developed pan-European environmental sustainability indicator database that contains greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and land use (LU) values for ∼900 foods. To explain the variation in environmental impact of diets, multilevel regression models with random intercept and random slopes were fitted according to two levels: adults (level 1, n = 7806) and country (level 2, n = 4). In the models, diet-related GHGE or LU was the dependent variable, and the parameter of interest, i.e. either total energy intake or demographics or food groups, the exploratory variables. A 200-kcal higher total energy intake was associated with a 9% and a 10% higher daily GHGE and LU. Expressed per 2000 kcal, mean GHGE ranged from 4.4 (CZ) to 6.3 kgCO2eq/2000 kcal (FR), and LU ranged from 5.7 (CZ) to 8.0 m2*year/2000 kcal (FR). Dietary choices explained most of the variation between countries. A 5 energy percent (50 g/2000 kcal) higher meat intake was associated with a 10% and a 14% higher GHGE and LU density, with ruminant meat being the main contributor to environmental footprints. In conclusion, intake of energy, total meat and the proportion of ruminant meat explained most of the variation in GHGE and LU of European diets. Contributions of food groups to environmental footprints however varied between countries, suggesting that cultural preferences play an important role in environmental footprints of consumers. In particular, Findings from the present study will be relevant for national-specific food policy measures towards a more environmentally-friendly diet.