Accepted Manuscript

Assessment of the nutritional quality and environmental impact of two food diets: A
Mediterranean and a vegan diet

Sílvia Castañé, Assumpció Antón

PII: S0959-6526(17)30848-X
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.121
Reference: JCLP 9485

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 27 October 2015

Revised Date: 20 January 2017
Accepted Date: 21 April 2017

Please cite this article as: Castañé Sí, Antón Assumpció, Assessment of the nutritional quality and
environmental impact of two food diets: A Mediterranean and a vegan diet, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.121.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
TITLE PAGE

Title: Assessment of the nutritional quality and environmental impact of two food diets:
a Mediterranean and a vegan diet

Author names and affiliations:

Sílvia Castañéa*1
a
University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, 1958 Frederiksberg (Denmark)

PT
silvia.castane@gmail.com

Assumpció Antónb
b

RI
IRTA, ctra. Cabrils, km 2, 08348 Cabrils, Barcelona (Spain)
assumpcio.anton@irta.cat

SC
*Corresponding author
silvia.castane@gmail.com

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

1 Present address: Lavola, Rambla de Catalunya, 6, 08018 Barcelona (Spain)

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Wordcount: 7263 words
1. INTRODUCTION
It has been estimated that diets, and the food chains which support them, are associated
with around one third of the human influence on climate change and land use (LU)
(Garnett 2011). Increasing world population and the associated global average increase
in food consumption, especially meat products (Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012), can
pose an even greater threat to climate change, ecosystems health, food security and the
overall population’s health and nutrition (EEA 2015). Although being able to better
supply nutrition at a reduced environmental cost appears to present a difficult challenge,

PT
there is in fact a considerable mitigation potential in the food sector. Therefore, it is
necessary to change the food system and work to find sustainable diets, which are
defined by FAO (2011) as those with low environmental impact and nutritionally

RI
healthy.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been an effective tool to evaluate the environmental
impact of food production (Heller et al 2013), which can vary significantly depending

SC
on the functional unit (FU) chosen (Cerutti et al 2013). The most commonly reported
FUs are mass and volume, which may be suitable when analysing individual foods, but
they are not always able to reproduce the consumption of different foods in diets and

U
their nutritional value, as foods are not usually consumed in isolation but aggregated in
meals (Heller et al 2013). Because foods do not only have a nutritional function, as
AN
satisfaction and other qualitative values are involved, some authors have used price-
based FUs (Cerutti et al 2013; Notarnicola et al 2016; Van der Werf and Salou 2015).
However, as the main function of food is the supply of nutrients, it therefore seems
more reasonable to use alternative nutrient-related FUs, which can provide a suitable
M

diet quality score and also incorporate assessments of associated environmental impacts.
Nutrient profiling is a new science that calculates the nutrient density of foods,
allocating a score for each individual food. By aggregating the individual scores, a diet
D

quality score can be obtained, as performed in Fulgoni et al (2009), to assess the overall
nutritional quality of the total diet.
TE

Considering the current patterns of consumption, mainly in the western world, the
Mediterranean diet (MD) (Figure 1) is regarded as very healthy and nutritious as it
EP

includes foods with components that promote health, like fruits, vegetables, nuts and
fish (Van Dooren and Aiking 2014) and it is associated with reduced appearance of
diabetes type II and some neurodegenerative diseases and cancers (Bach-Faig et al
2011). The MD has been recognized by the United Nations Educational Scientific and
C

Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as an intangible heritage of humanity (Ruini et al

2014), and among the many reasons for this recognition, including its connection with
AC

health, the MD stands out for its low environmental impact (Duchin 2005; Serra-Majem
et al 2011), mainly as it is a more plant-based diet.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 1. Mediterranean diet pyramid. The base of the pyramid contains foods that need to be
consumed in high amounts and every day. Conversely, the top of the pyramid contains foods
that are only recommended occasionally. Source: FDM (2015).

Similar to the MD, the vegan diet (VD) (Figure 2) is also regularly cited as one of the
more sustainable diet options (Baroni et al 2007; Van Dooren et al 2014), as it is a
plant-based diet and excludes foods of animal origin, such as eggs, milk and cheese
(Baroni et al 2007). Even though more data on the health outcomes of the VD is needed,
there is evidence that vegans tend to have lower levels of cholesterol in plasma and

PT
lower blood pressure, reducing the risk of heart disease (Craig 2009). The higher
consumption of nuts, seeds and wholegrains also tends to provide vegans high
cardioprotective effects (ibid.). On the other hand, foregoing all animal-origin foods
leads to deficiencies in some micronutrients, such as calcium, vitamin B12 and long-

RI
chain n-3 (omega-3) fatty acids (Craig 2009; Key et al 2006). The low intake of vitamin
B12 can result in anaemia, heart diseases and nerve damage if intakes are very low
(<0,3mg/day) (Key et al 2006; VeganSociety 2015).

U SC
AN
M
D

Figure 2. The Vegan Plate. The visualisation represents the amount (approximately by mass) of
TE

each food type that makes up a typical VD. For example, vegetables cover just over one quarter
of the diet, legumes slightly less than a quarter, etc. Source: VeganSociety (2015).

1.1 Objectives of the study

EP

The overall aim of this study is to highlight the importance of dietary choices in relation
to environmental impacts and nutritional value. In doing so, the analysis contributes
towards an evidence base that supports a shift towards a more sustainable diet. The
C

main objective is to assess, quantify and compare the nutritional quality and the
environmental impact of two different food diets, a MD and a VD. The specific
AC

objectives for both diets are (1) to design weekly menus, (2) to calculate an associated
nutritional quality/health score, which will also serve as the FU of the study, (3) to
calculate the total global warming potential impact (GWP) and (4) to calculate the
regional biodiversity impact (RBI) due to LU.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2. METHODS

2.1 Diet's design

For both the MD and the VD, a weekly diet composed of 7 daily menus (from Monday
to Sunday), including breakfast, lunch, snack and dinner, was designed for a moderately
active adult woman. The MD was designed taking into account the consumption
recommendations shown in Figure 1 (Mediterranean Diet Pyramid), described in Bach-
Faig et al (2011). Regarding the VD, as there were no official nutritional
recommendations developed specifically for the region, the recommendations from the

PT
Vegan Society were used, as they aim to represent the amount and type of foods that a
vegan should have in its plate during a meal and they were the most detailed found
(VeganSociety 2015). Current consumption recommendations (Table 1) were taken into

RI
account in the design, as well as food production and consumption in Catalonia
(northeast of Spain), where the study is geographically focused. More than 55 food
products were analysed and included in both diets.

SC
Table 1: Main recommendations for the MD and VD obtained from Bach-Faig et al (2011) and
VeganSociety (2015) respectively. For each food group, the recommended amount of servings
(s) per day or week is shown for each diet.

U
AN
DIET
VD (VeganSociety
FOOD GROUP MD (Bach-Faig et al 2011)
2015)
Cereals/Grains 1 or 2s/meal 3s or more/day
M

Vegetables 2s or more/meal 5s or more/day

Fruit 1 or 2s/meal 4s or more/day
Dairy products 2s/day None
D

Nuts and seeds 1 or 2s/day 1s or more/day

Legumes More than 2s/week 3s or more/day
TE

Fish 2s or more/week None

White meat 2s/week None
Eggs 2-4s/week None
EP

Red meat Less than 2s/week None

Sweets Occasionally Occasionally
C

2.2 Nutritional quality/Health impact

In order to assess the nutritional quality of the diets and obtain the health scores, the
AC

nutrient rich food index NRF9.3 was calculated according to Drewnowski (2009) and
Fulgoni et al (2009). The NRF9.3 was chosen as it has been shown to track diet quality
more effectively and has achieved the best validation results when compared to other
indices (Drewnowski 2009). It is based on 9 nutrients to encourage (protein, fibre,
vitamins A, C and E, minerals calcium, iron, magnesium and potassium) and 3 nutrients
to limit (saturated fat, added sugar and sodium). The NRF9.3 was calculated for each
food product as follows:

Nutrient Rich Food Index (NRF9.3) = ΣNR – ΣLIM

• NR: Nutrients to encourage (protein, fibre, vitamins A, C and E and minerals

Ca, Fe, Mg and K) = 100 x (consumed amount of nutrient i per day divided by
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the recommended daily value of nutrient i) x the amount of kcal consumed per
food amount/serving size each day, in 100-kcal units.
• LIM: Nutrients to limit (saturated fat, added sugar and Na) = 100 x
(consumed amount of nutrient i per day divided by the maximum recommended
daily value of nutrient i) x the amount of kcal consumed per food
amount/serving size each day, in 100-kcal units.

The recommended daily values of nutrients were obtained from Drewnowski (2009) and
the tolerable upper intake levels from USDA (2014).

PT
All the NRF9.3 food scores of each daily menu were summed up and then divided by
the total daily energy intake in 100kcal units to obtain a weighted averaged quality
score of that specific day. By summing up the 7 daily scores of the week (Monday to

RI
Sunday), and by dividing by the 7 days, the final diet quality score is obtained. This
procedure was performed for both diets, MD and VD.

SC
2.3 GWP impact
The GWP impact was assessed for the stages of food production (from cradle to gate),

U
transport to retailer and cooking (home consumption).
AN
An extensive literature research was carried out to obtain the GWP of food production,
including 38 studies using an LCA framework (see Supplementary Information S1.3).
Additional calculations were performed on some of the values found so that all would
be comparable (i.e, if a GWP value included transportation, it was withdrawn as
M

transportation is calculated separately in the present study).

Transportation inventory flows were calculated according to Ecoinvent (2013) in ton

D

per km (tkm) and average distances by ship and truck were considered from the
product’s country of origin to the Harbour of Barcelona. For food products produced in
TE

Spain (not Catalonia), distribution distances were assumed to be, on average, 400km by
truck, whereas for those produced in Catalonia, distances were 60 km by truck. These
distances were chosen as an approximation of the real distances that the food products
travel. The transport from retailer to the consumer's house is not included in this study,
EP

although it is assumed to be very small compared to the rest of the distances calculated.

Formulas from Sonesson et al (2003) were used to calculate the GWP due to cooking
C

(including boiling, frying and roasting/baking). It is assumed that each product is

cooked by only one type of method (i.e, none of the products are boiled and then fried
AC

or microwaved and then roasted, etc). The energy used for cooking is assumed to be
100% by electric appliances. Once the total energy use for the different types of cooking
is calculated for each day and menu, the value in Mega Joules (MJ) is converted to Kilo
Watt hour (kWh) and then to kg CO2eq by using the emission factor for electric
consumption (0,385 kg CO2eq/kWh, EACCEL 2012) so that the final GWP
corresponding to cooking is obtained. The final GWP value, corresponding to food
production, food transportation and food cooking, was adjusted by the NRF9.3 for both
diets.

2.4 RBI due to LU

Biodiversity impacts due to LU were assessed with the methodology developed by de
Baan et al (2013). In this analysis, only occupation and transformation impacts were
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
considered and fish products were excluded. The aggregated characterization factors
(CF) across five taxonomic groups (mammals, plants, reptiles, birds and amphibians)
were used.

The LU of all food products was calculated as the inverse of the annual yield, for which
values were obtained from statistical sources (e.g Spanish Ministry of Agriculture) and
from previously published LCA studies (see Supplementary Information S1.1). The LU
calculations of the livestock products were more elaborate and were calculated as the
sum of the space occupied by the animal/product at the farm, plus the land used to grow

PT
the feed necessary to rear the animal. In this study data from intensive rearing systems
was used.

RI
For the unprocessed products, such as most of the vegetables, fruits and nuts, the yield
used in this study was the one obtained directly from the literature, whereas for
processed products, such as pasta, bread, cereals, tofu, etc., additional calculations were

SC
performed in order to calculate the product's yield (see Supplementary Information
S1.1). In all cases, the country of origin of the product was taken into account to capture
site-specific traits.

U
In addition to the calculations described above, used to obtain the land use of each
product, a time adjustment was also performed. The climatic conditions in Spain allow
AN
for a shorter growing season than in more northern latitudes, so for some of the
products, mainly some vegetables, the cultivation period is not 1 year, but
approximately 6 months. Therefore, the LU was divided by the cultivation period (by 2
M

if the cultivation time was 6 months and by 1 if it was 1 year). It was assumed that the
remaining land not occupied by a product was used for the cultivation of another
product.
D

As with the GWP impact, the RBI was also adjusted by the NRF9.3.
TE

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Nutritional quality/Health impact

EP

The 14 daily menus designed (see Supplementary Information S1.2) ranged from 1927
to 2088 kcal/day in the MD and from 1967 to 2089 kcal/day in the VD, with a total
average of 2025,7 kcal/day. Full menus, with the specific intake amount of food and
with the specific nutrient composition can be found in Supplementary information S2.
C

The daily average nutrient composition of both diets is shown in Table 2.

AC

Table 2. Daily average nutrient composition of each diet, MD: Mediterranean diet and VD:
Vegan Diet. The values in the first row correspond to the recommended daily intakes for each
nutrient. Nutrients (from left to right): Protein, Fibre, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin E,
Calcium, Iron, Potassium, Magnesium (Nutrients to encourage) and Saturated fat, Added sugars
and Sodium (Nutrients to limit).

Nutrient Protein Fiber Vit A Vit C Calcium Iron Potassium Magnesium Sat. Ad. Sodium
Vit E
fat sug
Rec. 700- 60- 20- 1000- 18- 1500-
50g 25g 3500mg 400mg 20g 50g
values 3000µg 2000mg 1000mg 2500mg 45mg 2400mg
MD 96,1 36,4 1273,3 495,7 28,4 921,2 19,35 4052,3 526,1 24,5 14 1096,2
VD 80,1 43,7 1566,3 435,8 30,2 690,3 26,23 4566 709 12,6 10 878,7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

It can be seen that most of the nutrients to encourage are on average higher in the VD
than in the MD, except from protein and calcium, which is due to the meat and dairy
products consumed, and vitamin C. The slightly higher vitamin C content in the MD
could be due to two factors: the presence of cod, salmon and cow milk, which are
sources of vitamin C, and also the higher intake of red pepper, which was the food
product with the highest content of vitamin C per 100g in the diets and also consumed
in higher amounts than other vegetables. Regarding the nutrients to limit, namely
saturated fat, added sugars and sodium, these values were all higher in the MD, again as

PT
a result of the presence of meat products and fish, which are generally richer in these
nutrients.

RI
Both diets were designed to cover all the nutritional needs. The main sources of protein
and calcium in the VD were cereals (bread, rice, etc) and tofu. Although the protein
requirements were always covered, the VD was sometimes not enough to cover the

SC
daily requirements for calcium. In fact, it is suggested to take calcium fortified foods
such as soya milk and calcium-set tofu in vegan diets (VeganSociety 2015). However,
there are no calcium (or any other nutrient) fortified/enriched foods in the present study,
and that is why calcium values are slightly under the recommendations in the VD.

U
However, in this case, dietary supplements are not recommended by the WCRF for
concerns over heighten risk of cancer. Obtain the nutrients from a usual diet is
AN
recommended instead (WCRF 2007).

The final NRF9.3 scores were 90,6 and 103 for the MD and VD respectively; thus the
M

VD had a higher nutritional quality than the MD. The higher score in the VD is
explained by a higher consumption of nutrients to encourage and lower of nutrients to
limit compared to the MD, as seen in Table 2. These scores are higher than others found
D

in the literature (Kernebeek et al 2013; Streppel et al 2014) and the reason for this is the
particular type of diet analysed. The present scores correspond to a diet based on current
recommendations, whereas the mentioned papers are based on the actual consumption;
TE

thus, the amount of meat products, drinks, sugars and sweets here included are in
comparison much lower, leading to a lower ΣLIM and therefore a higher NRF9.3.
EP

3.2 GWP impact

The MD's GWP corresponding to food production was twice of the VD's (Figure 3).
This is mainly because the MD contained foods with the highest carbon footprints, such
C

as livestock products including beef, pork, cheese, butter, yogurt, eggs and fish. Of all
the food products analysed, vegetables, fruits and legumes had the lowest GWP values,
AC

whereas meat, fish, dairy products and eggs had the highest GWP values per kg of food
product by far (see specific values in Supplementary Information S1.3). The higher
carbon footprint of livestock products, highly reported in the literature (Baroni et al
2007; de Boer et al 2006; Duchin 2005; EEA 2010; González et al 2011; Heller et al
2013; Muñoz et al 2010; Pimentel and Pimentel 2003; Ruini et al 2014; Sáez-
Almendros et al 2013; Tilman and Clark 2014), is mainly due to the CH4 emissions
from the enteric fermentation in ruminant animals as well as the considerable amounts
of feed needed to raise the animals.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
Figure 3. Total GWP impact per diet, including the 3 stages analysed in this study (food
production, transport and cooking). Values are in kg CO2eq per person and week.

U
The final GWP of the MD was due to production (72%), cooking (24%) and transport
(4%), whereas the proportion of impacts in the VD was production (54%), cooking
AN
(40%) and transport (6%). Therefore, in both cases production was the dominant stage
in the overall GWP of the diet, which has also been reported in the literature (Muñoz et
al 2010).
M

Regarding the GWP from cooking, emissions from boiling were close to double those
from frying (around 30MJ and 15MJ respectively) for both diets. This follows, as
D

significant amount of energy is required to boil 1000 grams of water (the amount of
water used to cook all products) compared to the much smaller amount of energy
TE

required to heat up oil in a pan. In addition, the average boiling time was higher than
the average frying time in both diets, which also increased the final energy use and thus
CO2eq emissions for boiled products.
EP

Regarding the transport stage, it was found that those products produced in Catalonia
had the lowest GWP values, primarily due to the average transport considered within
Catalonia, which was only 60km by truck. On the other hand, the transport of 1kg of
C

salmon to Catalonia had the largest GWP value due to the long distance travelled by
truck (3683 km). Even though there are some products that come from even further
AC

away, such as Argentina, Brazil, etc., these products mainly travel by transoceanic
freight ship, which has a lower value of kg CO2eq per tkm than truck (0,01 vs 0,2
respectively). Ziegler et al (2013) also found that shipping in freights ships was the
most efficient mode of transport compared to truck and airfreight. That is why products
that travel further by truck tend to have higher emissions. However, products that travel
very long distances by ship also had quite higher GWP values compared to the average
GWP value, such as kiwi from New Zealand (around 20000 km by ship), margarine
from Malaysia (around 13000 km), sugar from Island of Mauritius (around 11500 km),
soybean products (around 10600, corresponding to the average of Argentina and Brazil)
and coffee from Brazil (around 9400km).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
As it can be seen, cooking and transport had very similar values in both diets, but were
slightly higher for the VD. In fact, some authors like Tukker et al (2011) argue that
cooking and the impact of other use phases will be very similar by final consumers, so
they do not include them in their analysis. They argue that there is no reason to assume
that transport from retailer to the household and cooling and cooking of food at home
will be different between different diets, as the amount of food transported by car,
cooled in the fridge and cooked by several ways will be similar. Heller et al (2013)
argue that this may be reasonable at national aggregate levels.

PT
The absolute values of the final GWP were 20 kg CO2eq per person per week for the
MD and 13 kg CO2eq per person per week for the VD (Figure 3). This equals a daily
GWP of almost 3 kg CO2eq per person and 2 kg CO2eq per person for the MD and VD

RI
respectively. These results are comparable to the values found in other studies
quantifying the carbon footprint of a Spanish diet, like in Muñoz et al (2010), who
obtained average carbon footprints of around 2 tonnes CO2eq per average Spanish

SC
citizen and year. This approximately equals to 6 kg CO2eq per person and day, which is
higher than the values obtained here. Their value is higher, firstly because their diets
were based on actual consumption, and not on recommended ones as used here, which

U
leads to higher GWP values. Secondly, the retail and home storage (including storage at
room temperature, cooling and frozen storage), solid waste management and excretion
AN
were included in their calculations, whereas in the present study they were not. Muñoz
et al (2010) found that 17% of the total GWP was due to human excretion, so it would
be interesting to include this phase in future studies as emissions from this phase can
vary significantly with dietary shifts, especially when there are variations in the balance
M

of macronutrients (Muñoz et al 2008).

Sáez-Almendros et al (2013), on the other hand, did analyse the environmental impacts
D

of the Mediterranean dietary pattern, also following the recommendations in Bach-Faig

et al (2011) as in the present study, and compared it with the actual current Spanish diet.
TE

They provide the GWP impact of the MD and of two different current Spanish diets,
based on food balance sheets and on consumption surveys. Whereas the GWP of the
current Spanish diet is around 61 kg CO2eq per person and day (average of the two actual
EP

Spanish diets provided), the GWP of the MD 2 kg CO2eq per person and day, which is
very similar to the GWP of this study's MD. Their results also show that if the Spanish
population switched from the current Spanish diet to a standard MD, GHG emissions
would be reduced between 52-72%. If these percentages are applied to the results in
C

Muñoz et al (2010), of 6 kg CO2eq per day and person, the resulting reduced GWP
values are around 2-3 kg CO2eq per day and person, which are in line with the results
AC

obtained in the present study.

When the GWP was adjusted by the NRF9.3, the difference in the GWP impact
between diets was even greater. This outcome is reasonable, as the VD's NRF9.3 is
higher than the MD's and thus the differences between the two divisions
(GWP/NRF9.3) corresponding to the two diets are greater. This emphasis of impacts in
meat-containing meals has also been found in other studies (Kagi et al 2012).

1
As GWP values provided in Sáez-Almendros et al (2013) are in Gg CO2eq per year, and not per
individual, it has been considered that Spain's population is 45 million people to obtain this value.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3.3 RBI due to LU
The highest LU values corresponded to livestock products, whereas vegetables and
fruits had the lowest (see specific LU values in Supplementary information S1.4). The
higher land requirement in diets with meat-based products is in agreement with other
studies in the literature (Gerbens-Leenes and Nonhebel 2002; Peters et al 2007; Sáez-
Almendros et al 2013; Stehfest et al 2009). The dominant factor in the LU was the feed
consumed by the livestock, which made up almost all the land requirements (>99%),
whereas the land occupied by the animal itself at the farm was insignificant (<1%). LU
results can vary significantly depending on the rearing system, as in extensive systems

PT
more land is required to produce the same amount of product, as there are less animals
per area and as the amount of feed needed is greater. It would be interesting to compare
the results of both types of systems in further studies.

RI
The MD's LU was 3 times greater than the VD’s. The absolute value of 6 m2 of average
LU per person per day obtained for the MD fits well with other results found in the
literature (Sáez-Almendros et al 2013). The absolute value for the VD was 2 m2. No

SC
similar studies were found to compare with this value.

The MD’s RBI was around 3 times greater than the VD’s (Figure 4). This is again

U
explained by the presence of meat products in the MD, which required a much greater
LU compared to plant-based foods. It can be seen that 2,2*10-8 and 6,1*10-9 species are
AN
lost per person and week for the MD and the VD respectively due to LUO, whereas due
to LUT 1,5*10-6 and 5,9*10-7 species are lost per person and week for the MD and the
VD respectively (Figure 4). Fish products were excluded from this analysis, and thus
M

the MD’s RBI is probably underestimated.

D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 4. Regional biodiversity impact (RBI) due to (above) land use occupation (LUO) and
(below) land use transformation (LUT), expressed as potential species loss per person and diet
(per 7 days or week). Note the different scale of the graphs.

Occupation impacts were two orders of magnitude lower than transformation impacts,

PT
which concurs with other studies in the literature (Anton et al 2014). The highest RBI
per kg of food product corresponded to three livestock products, butter, cheese and beef,
which is logical, as they had some of the highest LU values of all food products. As

RI
with the GWP impact, when the RBI was adjusted by the NRF9.3, the impact
differences of both diets increased.

SC
The overall impact will also depend on the quality of the land. Even though much of the
feed for livestock is cultivated in good quality arable land, it is important to distinguish
between this and feed cultivated in land with a lower production value. In addition, the
impact of livestock grazing on land with a higher production value will be greater than

U
livestock grazing on poorer quality land.
AN
As already mentioned, the main reason for the higher LU, and thus RBI, in the MD is
the high volume of feedcrops required to raise the livestock. In the present study, wheat,
barley, maize and ryegrass (four of the feedcrops considered) were assumed to be
M

produced in Spain. On the other hand, soya (the fifth feedcrop considered) was assumed
to be produced in Argentina and Brazil. Soybean production in Latin America,
especially in Brazil, is strongly associated to land use change (LUC) as a result of
D

agricultural expansion and deforestation of the Amazon basin, which causes a

significant reduction in biodiversity (Aiking 2011; Mogensen et al 2009; Nepstad et al
TE

2006). Some of the drivers directly associated with biodiversity loss are degradation,
fragmentation and loss of habitat through agriculture intensification, intensively
managed forests and urban sprawl (EEA 2015). These drivers can also be indirectly
associated to biodiversity loss through the reduction of the ecosystems' resilience, which
EP

makes them more vulnerable and enhances the chances of the spread of invasive species
(ibid.). It is worth mentioning that the approach of de Baan et al (2013) gives the same
ecological value for all species, and thus a deeper assessment could change some of the
C

results.
AC

Overall, it has been estimated that 700 million tonnes of CO2eq were emitted in 2007
mainly from livestock and crop production, mostly soybean, as a result of the average
deforestation rate of 19,400 km2 per year (Cuypers et al 2013; McAlpine et al 2009).
These levels of emissions and rates of deforestation, which are associated to
industrialising countries like Brazil and Argentina, have generated great concerns about
global warming, excessive LUC and biodiversity loss, mainly in developed countries.
However, the EU is a major importer of feedcrops from these industrialising countries
(Garnett 2009). As a consequence of the high consumption of beef and other meat
products of EU and other industrialised countries, industrialising countries have
increased their emissions through deforestation and agriculture expansion to meet these
countries' high demands (Santacana et al 2008). Therefore, demand originating from the
EU should also be considered as one of the drivers of deforestation and LUC and thus it
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
is partially responsible for the current emissions and ecosystems degradation taking
place in Latin America and other tropical regions.

Europe cleared forests massively in the past (Kaplan et al 2012; Kaplan et al 2009),
emitting a great amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which allowed achieving a certain
economic and development level. However, tropical regions are being asked to stop
deforesting and emitting, even though these regions also want to grow economically and
develop, as Europe did in the past. Perhaps, a fair move would be to reduce the
consumption of meat and meat products in more developed countries, as they require

PT
great amounts of land and feedcrops like soybeans, which are driving deforestation in
less developed countries and establish some kind of clean mechanism compensation to
preserve forests in order to pay off forest conservation.

RI
3.4 Limitations of the study and future research
The present NRF9.3 scores have been calculated without capping the nutrients to the

SC
recommended intake level. However, some authors recommend doing so as
overconsumption of nutrients does not benefit health (Kernebeek et al 2013). If
nutrients had been capped, the nutritional scores would have changed too.

U
In addition, the scores have been calculated without taking into account the higher
protein quality and iron bioavailability in animal source foods compared to plant source
AN
foods (Drewnowski and Fulgoni 2008). By weighing these factors, the NRF9.3 of some
individual food would increase and this would have an effect on the final NRF9.3
scores. In such a case, the NRF9.3 of the MD would likely increase due to the presence
M

of meat-based products, and therefore this should be looked into in future studies.

Finally, although the NRF9.3 scores obtained for the MD and VD are different, they do
D

not differ significantly, which is in part due to the low amount of meat included in the
MD. As the present diets follow the recommendations provided in Bach-Faig et al
TE

(2011), the amount of white and red meat per week is very limited, and thus greater
differences in the nutritional scores would be expected if more meat was included in the
diets. The comparison of actual consumption with the present study would show the
EP

considerable potential to improve environmental behaviour. Including more impact

categories is also suggested.

4. CONCLUSIONS
C

The MD, which includes meat-source foods, has a lower nutritional quality than the VD
AC

as it contains more disqualifying nutrients like saturated fat, added sugars and sodium
and lower qualifying nutrients like fibre, vitamin A, vitamin E, iron, potassium and
magnesium. However, the deficiencies of some micronutrients like vitamin B12, which
have not been assessed here, as well as the average lower calcium levels compared to
daily requirements (and consequent supplements intake), could decrease the nutritional
quality of the VD. On the other hand, the differences in the NRF9.3 scores would have
been significantly greater if the MD had been designed based on actual consumption
instead of a healthy standard MD based on current recommendations.

Food production is the most GHG intensive stage by far, whereas cooking and
especially transport have a lower contribution to the total GWP per diet. The GWP of
the MD is almost twice that of the VD GWP, mainly as it contains meat, dairy products
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and fish, which have some of the highest carbon footprints per kg of food produced,
especially goat cheese, mussels, beef and butter. Transport emissions are dominated by
long distances made by truck rather than by transoceanic freight ship. From the three
cooking methods assessed, boiling was found to be the most GHG intensive.

The MD's land requirements are three times greater than the VD's, which is mainly due
to the higher LU of livestock products, especially butter, cheese, beef and pork, which
showed the highest LU values per kg of food product obtained in this study.
Remarkably, the area of land required for producing livestock feed made up the vast

PT
majority (>99%) of the total LU, whereas a comparatively insignificant amount was
required at the farm for the animal itself (<1%).

RI
The MD's RBI is around three times greater than the RBI of the VD, which again is the
result of the higher LU values for livestock products. However, the RBI of the MD is

SC
likely underestimated, as fishing biodiversity impacts have not been considered in the
present work. In addition, further research will be necessary in order to distinguish
among different requirements of land quality for different products

U
The differences in environmental impacts between both diets become larger when
adjusted by the functional unit (NRF9.3). Based on the present results, it can be
AN
concluded that the nutritional quality of diets affects the comparison of the
environmental impacts of the two diets, whose main difference is the presence of
livestock products and fish.
M

Overall, the VD was found to be more sustainable, as it is healthier and has a lower
environmental impact. However, the nutritional quality of the MD is not considerably
different from the VD, which may have some additional deficiencies in other
D

micronutrients not assessed here. Maybe a shift towards a mix of these two diets, where
all nutrients are consumed in the recommended levels and where only the least
TE

environmental impacting livestock products are consumed, such as milk, yogurt, egg
and chicken, would help reducing GHG emissions, deforestation and biodiversity loss,
as well as preventing diet-related diseases like diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular diseases
EP

and cancer.

The present work has tried to assess and highlight the importance of the diet in relation
to its environmental impact and nutritional value, in an attempt to take a step towards a
C

more sustainable diet.

AC

5.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Assumpció Antón research is supported by the CERCA Programme / Generalitat de

Catalunya
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6. REFERENCES

Aiking, H. (2011). Future protein supply. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 22(2),
112-120.

Alexandratos, N. and J. Bruinsma (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the

2012 revision. ESA Working paper No. 12-03. Rome, FAO.

Antón, A., Núñez, M., Camps, F., Bonmatí, A., and Brandão, M. (2014). Assessing the

PT
land use impacts of agricultural practices on ecosystems.. In: Schenck, R., Huizenga,
D. (Eds.), 2014. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle
Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San
Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, WA, USA.

RI
Bach-Faig, A., Berry, E. M., Lairon, D., Reguant, J., Trichopoulou, A., Dernini, S.,
Medina, X., Battino, M., Belahsen, R., Miranda, G., and Serra-Majem, L. (2011).

SC
Mediterranean diet pyramid today. Science and cultural updates. Public health
nutrition, 14(12A), 2274-2284.

U
Baroni L., Cenci L., Tettamanti M. and Berati M. (2007). Evaluating the environmental
impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. Eur
AN
J Clin Nutr, 61:279–286.

Cerutti, A. K., Bruun, S., Donno, D., Beccaro, G. L., and Bounous, G. (2013).
Environmental sustainability of traditional foods: the case of ancient apple cultivars in
M

Northern Italy assessed by multifunctional LCA. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52,

245-252.
D

Craig, W. J. (2009). Health effects of vegan diets. The American journal of clinical
nutrition, 89(5), 1627S-1633S.
TE

Cuypers, D., Geerken, T., Gorissen, L., Lust, A., Peters, G., Karstensen, J., Prieler, S,
Fisher, G., Hizsnyik, E. and Van Velthuizen, H. (2013). The impact of EU consumption
EP

on deforestation: Comprehensive analysis of the impact of EU consumption on

deforestation.Brussels: European Union (Technical Report–2013–063).

De Baan, L., Mutel, C. L., Curran, M., Hellweg, S., and Koellner, T. (2013). Land use
C

in life cycle assessment: global characterization factors based on regional and global
potential species extinction. Environmental science & technology, 47(16), 9281-9290.
AC

De Boer, J., Helms, M., and Aiking, H. (2006). Protein consumption and sustainability:
Diet diversity in EU-15. Ecological Economics, 59(3), 267-274.

Drewnowski, A. (2009). Defining nutrient density: development and validation of the

nutrient rich foods index. Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 28(4), 421S-
426S.

Drewnowski, A., and Fulgoni, V. (2008). Nutrient profiling of foods: creating a

nutrient-rich food index. Nutrition Reviews, 66(1), 23-39.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Duchin, F. (2005). Sustainable consumption of food. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1-
2), 99-114.

EACCEL (2012). Guía para la elaboración de un Plan de Acción - Sistema de

Adhesión a la EACCEL. Estrategia Aragonesa Cambio Climático y Energías Limpias
[Online]. Available at:
http://www.aragon.es/estaticos/GobiernoAragon/Departamentos/AgriculturaGanaderia
MedioAmbiente/MedioAmbiente/Documentos/Areas/CambioClim%C3%A1tico/Estrate
giaAragonesaCambioClim%C3%A1ticoEnerg%C3%ADasLimpiasEACCEL/Sistema%

PT
20de%20adhesi%C3%B3n/702_GU%C3%8DAEACCEl.pdf. [Accessed: 23th May
2015].

RI
Ecoinvent (2013). Weidema, B.P., Bauer, Ch., Hischier, R., Mutel, Ch., Nemecek, T.,
Reinhard, J., Vadenbo, C.O. and Wernet, G. The ecoinvent database: Overview and
methodology, Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3.

SC
EEA (2015). The European environment — state and outlook 2015: synthesis report,
European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

U
EEA (2010). The European environment — state and outlook 2010: consumption and
the environment, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
AN
FAO (2011). Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger. International
Scientific Symposium, FAO Headquarters, Rome.
M

FDM (2015). [Online]. Fundació Dieta Mediterrània. [Online]. Available at:

http://dietamediterranea.com/ca/. [Accessed: 15th February 2015].
D

Fulgoni, V. L., Keast, D. R., and Drewnowski, A. (2009). Development and validation
of the nutrient-rich foods index: a tool to measure nutritional quality of foods. The
TE

Journal of nutrition, 139(8), 1549-1554.

Garnett, T. (2011) Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy, 36, S23−S32.
EP

Garnett, T. (2009). Livestock-related greenhouse gas emissions: impacts and options for
policy makers. Environmental science & policy, 12(4), 491-503.
C

Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. and Nonhebel, S. (2002). Consumption patterns and their effects
AC

on land required for food. Ecological Economics, 42(1), 185-199.

Heller, M. C., Keoleian, G. A., and Willett, W. C. (2013). Toward a life cycle-based,
diet-level framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality assessment:
A critical review. Environmental science & technology, 47(22), 12632-12647.

Kagi, T., Zschokke, M. and Dinkel, F. (2012). Nutrient based functional unit for meals.
In 8th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector, Saint-Malo, Saint-
Malo, France, 2012.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Kaplan, J. O., Krumhardt, K. M., and Zimmermann, N. E. (2012). The effects of land
use and climate change on the carbon cycle of Europe over the past 500 years. Global
Change Biology, 18(3), 902-914.

Kaplan, J. O., Krumhardt, K. M., & Zimmermann, N. (2009). The prehistoric and
preindustrial deforestation of Europe. Quaternary Science Reviews, 28(27), 3016-3034.

Kernebeek, H. R. J. v.; Oosting, S. J.; Boer, I. J. M. (2013). Comparing the

envrionmental impact of human diets varying in amount of animal source food - the

PT
impact of accounting for nutritional quality. In 8th International Conference on LCA in
the Agri-Food Sector, Saint-Malo, France; INRA: pp 395−400.

RI
Key, T. J., Appleby, P. N., and Rosell, M. S. (2006). Health effects of vegetarian and
vegan diets. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 65(01), 35-41.

SC
McAlpine, C.A., Etter, A., Fearnside, P.M., Seabrook, L. and Laurance, W.F. (2009).
Inreasing world consumption of beef as a driver of regional and global change: A call
for policy action based on evidence from Queensland (Australia), Colombia and Brazil.
Global Environmental Change, in press.

U
Mogensen, L., Hermansen, J. E., Halberg, N., Dalgaard, R., Vis, J. C., and Smith, B. G.
AN
(2009). Life cycle assessment across the food supply chain. Sustainability in the food
industry, 115-144
M

Muñoz, I., i Canals, L. M., and Fernández-Alba, A. R. (2010). Life cycle assessment of
the average Spanish diet including human excretion. The International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 15(8), 794-805.
D

Muñoz I, Milà i Canals L, Clift R (2008) Consider a spherical man: a simple model to
include human excretion in life cycle assessment of food products. J Ind Ecol
TE

12(4):521–538.

Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G., Renzulli, P.A., Monforti, F., (2016). Energy Flows and
EP

Greenhouses Gases of EU national breads using an LCA approach. Journal of Cleaner

Production. ISSN 0959-6526, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.150.

Nepstad, D.C., Stickler, C.M., and Almeida, O.T., 2006. Globalization of the Amazon
C

soy and beef industries: op portunities for conservation. Conservation Biology 20(6),
1595–1603.
AC

Peters, C.J., Wilkins, J.L. and Fick, G.W. (2007). Testing a complete-diet model for
estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural
carrying capacity: the New York State example. Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems, 22(02), 145-153.

Pimentel, D., and Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based

diets and the environment. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 78(3), 660S-
663S.

Ruini, L., Marino, M., Pratesi, C. A., Redavid, E., Principato, L. and Sessa, F. (2014).
LCA applied to sustainable diets: Double Pyramid and Tool Chef to promote healthy
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and environmentally sustainable consumption. In: Schenck, R., Huizenga, D. (Eds.),
2014. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the
Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San Francisco, USA. ACLCA,
Vashon, WA, USA.

Sáez-Almendros, S., Obrador, B., Bach-Faig, A., and Serra-Majem, L. (2013).

Environmental footprints of Mediterranean versus Western dietary patterns: beyond the
health benefits of the Mediterranean diet. Environ Health, 12(118.10), 1186


PT
Santacana, M., Pon, J., Pon., D., Arto, I. and Casanovas, S. (2008). Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from a Consumption Perspective in a Global Economy: Opportunities for the
Mediterranean Region. Regional Activity Centre for Cleaner Production, 2008.

RI
Serra-Majem, L., Bach-Faig, A., Miranda, G., and Clapes-Badrinas, C. (2011).
Foreword: Mediterranean diet and climatic change. Public health nutrition, 14(12A),
2271-2273.

SC
Sonesson, U., Janestad, H., and Raaholt, B. (2003). Energy for preparation and storing
of food—models for calculation of energy use for cooking and cold storage in

U
households. SIK-Rapport, 709, 1-56.
AN
Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D. P., den Elzen, M. G., Eickhout, B., and
Kabat, P. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic change, 95(1-2), 83-102.

Streppel, M. T., Sluik, D., van Yperen, J. F., Geelen, A., Hofman, A., Franco, O.
M

Witteman, JCM and Feskens, E. J. M. (2014). Nutrient-rich foods, cardiovascular

diseases and all-cause mortality: the Rotterdam study. European journal of clinical
nutrition, 68(6), 741-747.
D

Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and
TE

human health. Nature, 515(7528), 518-522.

Tukker, A.; Goldbohm, R. A.; de Koning, A.; Verheijden, M.; Kleijn, R.; Wolf, O. and
Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011). Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in
EP

Europe. Ecol. Econ., 70 (10), 1776− 1788.

USDA (2014). U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Code of Federal Regulations, Title
C

21-Food and Drugs (Vol. 2), Chapter I-Food and Drug Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services, Part 101-Food Labeling-Table of Contents, Subpart A-
AC

General Provisions, Sec. 101.9 Nutrition labeling of food. Revised as of April 1,


2014. 
 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.9.
[Accessed: 18th February 2015]

Van der Werf, H. M., and Salou, T. (2015). Economic value as a functional unit for
environmental labelling of food and other consumer products. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 94, 394-397.

Van Dooren, C., and Aiking, H. (2014). Defining a nutritionally healthy,

environmentally friendly, and culturally acceptable Low Lands Diet. In: Schenck, R.,
Huizenga, D. (Eds.), 2014. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San
Francisco, USA. ACLCA, Vashon, WA, USA.

Van Dooren, C., Marinussen, M., Blonk, H., Aiking, H., and Vellinga, P. (2014).
Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: A comparison
of six dietary patterns. Food Policy, 44, 36-46.

VeganSociety (2015). [Online]. Available at: https://www.vegansociety.com/.

[Accessed: 15th February 2015].

PT
WCRF (2007). World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research.
Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective.

RI
Washington, DC: AICR, 2007.

Ziegler, F., Winther, U., Hognes, E. S., Emanuelsson, A., Sund, V., and Ellingsen, H.

SC
(2013). The carbon footprint of Norwegian seafood products on the global seafood
market. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(1), 103-116.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC