Advances in the Environmental Nutrition

Research Program

Ujué Fresán, MPH, PhD

Loma Linda, June 26th 2019

My past…

Educational background

Educational background

Preventive Medicine and Public HealthUNIVERSITY OF NAVARRA

First postdoc

First postdoc

The Mediterranean diet

Sustainable diets

Sustainable Diets are those diets with low environmental impacts that contribute tofood and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations.Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems,culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionallyadequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources

FAO 2010

?

The Mediterranean diet:

an environmental-friendly optionFresán et al. (2018) Public Health Nutrition

Percentage of contribution of food groups to land use (a), water consumption (b), energy consumption (c) and greenhouse gas emission (d)

The Mediterranean diet:

an environmental-friendly optionFresán et al. (2018) Public Health Nutrition

Sustainable diets

Sustainable Diets are those diets with low environmental impacts that contribute tofood and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations.Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturallyacceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe andhealthy; while optimizing natural and human resources.

FAO 2010

Global sustainability

of three dietary patternsFresán et al. (2019) BMJ Open

My present…

Environmental Nutrition Research GroupLOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY

Second postdoc

PHASES OF THE FOOD SYSTEM

MEAT ANALOGS

MISCELLANEOUSRES

EAR

CH

Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2e/kg product) for 57 unique meat analog products by category and preparation, and by factory.

Category, PreparationTotal Factory A Factory B Factory C

N Mean SD Min Median Max N Mean N Mean N Mean

Burger/PattyCanned 3 2.27 0.35 1.87 2.45 2.50 3 2.27

-- -- -- --

Frozen 8 2.53 0.93 0.89 2.41 3.69 4 2.24 3 3.48 1 0.89

Total 11 2.46 0.81 0.89 2.44 3.69 7 2.25 3 3.48 1 0.89

Sausage/Link

Canned 5 2.79 0.85 1.93 2.61 4.19 3 3.21 1 2.37 1 1.93

Chilled 1 2.16 -- -- -- 1 2.16 -- --

Frozen 4 2.29 1.01 1.33 2.08 3.68 3 2.62 -- -- 1 1.33

Total 10 2.53 0.86 1.33 2.35 4.19 6 2.92 2 2.26 2 1.63

Chunks/Nuggets

Canned 10 2.24 0.66 1.17 2.28 3.40 7 2.39 2 2.28 1 1.17

Chilled 2 2.29 0.07 2.24 2.29 2.34 -- -- 2 2.29 -- --

Frozen 6 1.83 0.38 1.40 1.71 2.39 6 1.83 -- -- -- --

Total 18 2.11 0.56 1.17 2.22 3.4 13 2.13 4 2.29 1 1.17

Cold cuts Frozen 13 1.95 0.19 1.71 1.85 2.32 12 1.98-- -- 1 1.71

Total 13 1.95 0.19 1.71 1.85 2.32 12 1.98 -- -- 1 1.71

Minced/Ground

Canned 1 2.29-- -- --

1 2.29-- --

Frozen 3 1.86 0.50 1.45 1.72 2.42 2 1.93 -- -- 1 1.72

Dry 1 1.33 -- -- -- -- 1 1.33

Total 5 1.84 0.49 1.33 1.72 2.42 2 1.93 1 2.29 2 1.52

TOTAL 57 2.19 0.65 0.89 2.19 4.19 40 2.21 10 2.64 7 1.44

GHG emissions of meat analogsMejia et al. (2019) Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition

Proportion of total Greenhouse gas emissions related to ingredients, manufacturing and packaging across all 3 factories and meat analog products.

GHG emissions of meat analogsMejia et al. (2019) Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition

Mean (standard deviation) of water-related impacts attributable to different phases of meat analog production.

Per 1000 kg (metric ton) of Product

IMPACT INDICATOR UNITS INGREDIENTS TRANSPORTATION PROCESSING PACKAGING TOTAL

Water consumption Cubic meters 944 (449) 12.2 (6.86) 2410 (1004) 425 (472) 3800 (1240)

Freshwater

eutrophicationKg P eq .1 0.190 (0.058) 0.001 (0.001) 0.313 (0.130) 0.056 (0.061) 0.561 (0.183)

Marine eutrophication Kg N eq.2 2.20 (0.96) 0.000 (0.000) 0.021 (0.008) 0.012 (0.007) 2.23 (0.96)

Freshwater ecotoxicity Kg 1,4-DCB eq.3 10.9 (6.8) 0.183 (0.103) 0.656 (0.305) 0.184 (0.159) 11.9 (6.78)

Marine ecotoxicity Kg 1,4-DCB eq.3 4.80 (1.84) 0.258 (0.138) 1.13 (0.44) 0.654 (0.696) 6.84 (2.11)

Per Kg of Protein

IMPACT INDICATOR UNITS INGREDIENTS TRANSPORTATION PROCESSING PACKAGING TOTAL

Water consumption Cubic meters 4.64 (3.25) 0.057 (0.032) 11.4 (4.7) 2.09 (2.33) 18.2 (7.3)

Freshwater

eutrophicationKg P eq.1 0.010 (0.005) 1 × 10-6 (5 × 10-7) 1 × 10-4 (4 × 10-5) 6 × 10-5 (4 × 10-5) 0.010 (0.005)

Marine eutrophication Kg N eq.2 0.049 (0.029) 9 × 10-4 (5 × 10-4) 0.003 (0.002) 9 × 10-4 (8 × 10-4) 0.054 (0.029)

Freshwater ecotoxicity Kg 1,4-DCB eq.3 0.022 (0.008) 0.001 (7 × 10-4) 0.005 (0.002) 0.003 (0.004) 0.032 (0.009)

Marine ecotoxicity Kg 1,4-DCB eq.3 9 × 10-4 (3 × 10-4) 6 × 10-6 (4 × 10-6) 0.001 (6 × 10-4) 3 × 10-4 (3 × 10-4) 0.003 (9 × 10-4)

1Kg P eq.: kilograms of phosphorus equivalents; 2Kg N eq.: kilogram of nitrogen equivalents; 3Kg 1,4-DCB eq.: kilogram of 1,4-dichlorobenzene equivalents.

Water footprint of meat analogsFresán et al. (2019) Water

Proportional contribution of each phase of meat analog production to the five environmental impacts.

Water footprint of meat analogsFresán et al. (2019) Water

Meat Analogs from Different Protein Sources

Differences between means assessed through ANOVA, followed by Tukey adjustment *p < 0.05 was considered

statistically significant.

Nutritional value of different type of meat analogs products by source of protein, per 100 g (mean ± SD)

Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2e) of different types of meat analogs products according to their main source of protein

CO2e: CO2 equivalents.

Differences between means assessed through ANOVA, followed by Tukey adjustment.

*p

Differences between means assessed through 2-sample t-test. *p < 0.05 was considered

statistically significant.

Nutritional value of different type of meat analogs products by by containing animal-sourced ingredients, per 100 g (mean ± SD)

Greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO2e) of meat analog total plant-based products and containing eggs.

CO2e: CO2 equivalents.

Differences between means assessed through ANOVA. *p

PHASES OF THE FOOD SYSTEM

MEAT ANALOGS

MISCELLANEOUSRES

EAR

CH

ET = (EL + EE)Farm-Processing plant + (EL + EE)Processing plant-Distribution Center + (EL + EE)Distribution Centre-Retail

EL= g x ef/wcEE = ee x d x l x ef/wc

EL = g CO2 emissions per kg of commodity per loaded trip EE = g CO2 emissions per kg of commodity per empty trip

g = gallons of fuel used: e x d x wf x l e = gallons/ton-km (1/tons payload capacity x km per gallon)

d = trip distance (km) wf = load weight of commodity, tare and packaging (tons) (payload capacity x capacity utilization rate)

ef = emissions factor (10.15 kg CO2/gallon) for diesel fuell = weight loss factor due to spoilage/processing (%)

wc = load weight of commodity (tons) (payload capacity x capacity utilization rate) ee = gallons per km (1/km per gallon of empty truck)

Food transportationFresán et al. (2019) Journal of Sustainable Development

CommodityFarm to

processing plant (%)Processing plant to

distribution center (%)Distribution center to

store (%)Total g CO2/kg

Almonds 29 (37) 42 (54) 7 (9) 78

Apples 4 (5) 61 (84) 8 (11) 73

Dried beans 16 (21) 53 (71) 6 (8) 75

Grapes 4 (7) 38 (77) 8 (16) 50

Oranges 9 (20) 30 (63) 8 (17) 47

Peaches 9 (17) 35 (68) 8 (15) 52

Watermelons 8 (11) 60 (79) 8 (10) 76

Eggs 7 (10) 56 (76) 11 (15) 73

Chicken 13 (20) 42 (63) 11 (17) 66

Beef 18 (27) 38 (57) 11 (16) 68

g CO2 from transport at each stage to deliver 1kg of commodity at the store, with % of total

Food transportationFresán et al. (2019) Journal of Sustainable Development

Food packaging

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%Orange juice Milk

Instant

coffee

Breakfast

cereals Bread buns Peanut butter

Brand B

Brand C

Food packagingFresán et al. (2019) Science of the Total Environment

Relative difference in GHG emissions per serving of food

Orange juice MilkInstant

coffee

Breakfast

cerealsBread buns Peanut butter

-90%

-80%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

Small multi-serving product Big multi-serving product

Relative contribution of GHG emissions per serving of food production and packaging material

Food packagingFresán et al. (2019) Science of the Total Environment

Food production and processing

Food production and processing

PHASES OF THE FOOD SYSTEM

MEAT ANALOGS

MISCELLANEOUSRES

EAR

CH

Vegetarian diets:

sustainability and health-sustainability alignment

Relative difference in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, land use and water use shifting from

current dietary patterns to vegetarian diets

Vegetarian diets:

sustainability and health-sustainability alignmentFresán & Sabaté( 2019) Advances in Nutrition (In press)

CO

NFE

REN

CES

CO

NFE

REN

CES

CO

NFE

REN

CES

THANK YOU

Fresán U , Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Sabate J et al. (2018) The Mediterranean diet, an environmentally friendly option: evidence from the Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra (SUN) cohort. Public Health Nutr, 1-10.

Fresán U, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, Sabate J et al. (2019) Global sustainability (health, environment and monetary costs) of three dietary patterns: results from a Spanish cohort (the SUN project). BMJ Open 9, e021541.

Mejia MA, Fresán U, Harwatt H et al. (2019) Life Cycle Assessment of the Production of a Large Variety of Meat Analogs by Three Diverse Factories. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition

Fresán U, Marrin DL, Mejia MA et al. (2019) Water Footprint of Meat Analogs: Selected Indicators According to Life Cycle Assessment.Water 11, 728

Fresán U, Mejia MA, Craig WJ et al. (2019) Meat Analogs from Different Protein Sources: A Comparison of Their Sustainability and Nutritional Content. Sustainability 11, 3231

Fresán U, Harwatt H and Sabate J. (2018) Developing a Methodology for Estimating Transport-Related CO2 Emissions for Food Commodities. Journal of Sustainable Development 11

Fresán U, Errendal S, Craig WJ et al. (2019) Does the size matter? A comparative analysis of the environmental impact of several packaged foods. Science of the Total Environment 687, 369-379

Fresán U and Sabate J (2019) Vegetarian Diets: Planetary Health and its Alignment with Human Health. Advances in Nutrition 0, 1-0 (in press).

References

See you soon…