AJCN Cancer Health Disparities Conference
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reijnders, L.
Right arrow Articles by Soret, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reijnders, L.
Right arrow Articles by Soret, S.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Reijnders, L.
Right arrow Articles by Soret, S.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 78, No. 3, 664S-668S, September 2003
© 2003 American Society for Clinical Nutrition


Supplements

Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices1,2,3

Lucas Reijnders and Sam Soret

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







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by The American Society for Nutrition