HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reijnders, L. Articles by Soret, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Reijnders, L. Articles by Soret, S. Agricola Articles by Reijnders, L. Articles by Soret, S.

Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices^1,2,3

¹ From the Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics: Center for Sustainable Development, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands (LR), and the Department of Environmental & Occupational Health, Loma Linda University School of Public Health, Loma Linda, CA (SS).

Quantitative environmental evaluations of meat, fresh vegetables, and processed protein based on soybeans suggest that the environmental burden of vegetarian foods is usually relatively low when production and processing are considered. The environmental comparison of cheese varieties made from cow milk and directly from lupine and the evaluation of energy inputs in fish protein and vegetable protein also suggest an environmental advantage for vegetarian food.

In the evaluation of processed protein food based on soybeans and meat protein, a variety of environmental impacts associated with primary production and processing are a factor 4.4–> 100 to the disadvantage of meat. The comparison of cheese varieties gives differences in specific environmental impacts ranging between a factor 5 and 21. And energy use for fish protein may be up to a factor 14 more than for protein of vegetable origin. Assessment suggests that on average the complete life cycle environmental impact of nonvegetarian meals may be roughly a factor 1.5–2 higher than the effect of vegetarian meals in which meat has been replaced by vegetable protein. Although on average vegetarian diets may well have an environmental advantage, exceptions may also occur. Long-distance air transport, deep-freezing, and some horticultural practices may lead to environmental burdens for vegetarian foods exceeding those for locally produced organic meat.

Key Words: Life cycle impact assessment • environmental impact • meat • cheese • fish • soybeans • processed protein • vegetables • vegetarian meals

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Powles Commentary: Why diets need to change to avert harm from global warming Int. J. Epidemiol., June 26, 2009; (2009) dyp247v1. [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R Jacobs Jr, E. H Haddad, A. J. Lanou, and M. J Messina Food, plant food, and vegetarian diets in the US dietary guidelines: conclusions of an expert panel Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, May 1, 2009; 89(5): 1549S - 1552S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Carlsson-Kanyama and A. D Gonzalez Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, May 1, 2009; 89(5): 1704S - 1709S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. J Marlow, W. K Hayes, S. Soret, R. L Carter, E. R Schwab, and J. Sabate Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter? Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, May 1, 2009; 89(5): 1699S - 1703S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]