advances in the environmental nutrition research program€¦ · environmental nutrition research...

of 43/43
Advances in the Environmental Nutrition Research Program Ujué Fresán, MPH, PhD Loma Linda, June 26 th 2019

Post on 21-Oct-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 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…