Next Article in Journal
Carbon Asset of Electrification: Valuing the Transition from Fossil Fuel-Powered Buses to Battery Electric Buses in Beijing
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessing Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Novel Value-Added Products Made from Breadfruit in the Hawaiian Islands
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainability and Indicators of Newly Formed World-Class Universities (NFWCUs) between 2010 and 2018: Empirical Analysis from the Rankings of ARWU, QSWUR and THEWUR
Article Menu
Issue 10 (May-2) cover image

Export Article

Sustainability 2019, 11(10), 2747; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102747

Article
Integrating Protein Quality and Quantity with Environmental Impacts in Life Cycle Assessment
1
Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, Arizona State University, 800 Cady Mall, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
2
College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, 550 N 3rd St, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA
3
School of Computing, Informatics, and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, 699 S Mill Ave, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 30 March 2019 / Accepted: 9 May 2019 / Published: 14 May 2019

Abstract

:
Life cycle assessment (LCA) evaluates environmental impacts of a product from material extraction through disposal. Applications of LCA in evaluating diets and foods indicate that plant-based foods have lower environmental impacts than animal-based foods, whether on the basis of total weight or weight of the protein content. However, LCA comparisons do not differentiate the true biological value of protein bioavailability. This paper presents a methodology to incorporate protein quality and quantity using the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) when making comparisons using LCA data. The methodology also incorporates the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) reference amounts customarily consumed (RACCs) to best represent actual consumption patterns. Integration of these measures into LCA provides a mechanism to identify foods that offer balance between the true value of their protein and environmental impacts. To demonstrate, this approach is applied to LCA data regarding common protein foods’ global warming potential (GWP). The end result is a ratio-based score representing the biological value of protein on a GWP basis. Principal findings show that protein powders provide the best efficiency while cheeses, grains, and beef are the least efficient. This study demonstrates a new way to evaluate foods in terms of nutrition and sustainability.
Keywords:
life cycle assessment; protein; diet; sustainability; environmental impacts; plant-based diets

1. Introduction

As awareness of the environmental consequences of food choices grows, consumers’ demand for plant-based alternatives to meat and other animal-based foods has increased as well, in part due to a perception of plant foods’ lesser impact on the environment [1,2]. The Nielsen Company noted in 2017 that 23% of North American consumers wanted more plant-based proteins available and 39% of Americans were actively trying to incorporate more plant-based foods into their diets to improve health and nutrition, eat “clean,” save money, and protect the environment [2]. In 2018, another Nielsen study found 20% growth in sales of plant-based foods, up from 8% in 2017 and compared to 2% overall growth, which may be due to the large variety of high-quality plant-based foods now available to consumers [1].
Given this market trend, two primary issues arise in relation to non-animal-based protein foods, specifically their contribution to the quality of the diet and their implications for the environment. Separate methodologies currently exist to evaluate data regarding each. These include life cycle assessment (LCA), a common choice for assessing the environmental impacts of food, and the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS), an advanced evaluation of how amino acids are digested and assimilated by the body, providing a score related to “protein quality”.
Environmental impacts can be evaluated through LCA by quantifying resource usage, pollutant emissions, and other potential impacts of consumer products [3]. These measures represent flows between the biosphere and the technosphere associated with the creation, consumption, and disposal of one or more products, including food [4]. Although LCA was originally developed for application to industrial production systems, scholars applied its principles to agricultural production systems over two decades ago [5]. Nearly all LCAs of food include global warming potential (GWP) as an environmental impact of concern, while other common metrics considered include energy use, water use, and land use [4,6]. As an example, dietary LCA assessments of standardized plant-based diets (often constructed to represent one day’s worth of dietary intake using such a pattern) had lower environmental impacts across most environmental impact categories than diets including animal products [7,8,9,10,11].
LCA requires a functional unit that captures the obligatory properties of a product for use as a basis for comparison across products on environmental impact [12]. Obligatory properties are those properties that a product must have in order to be considered as an appropriate alternative when compared with other products [12]. However, functional units for LCAs of food are difficult to define due to variation in perceived obligatory properties. For example, a typical approach for food is to use a mass-based functional unit, such as tons or kilograms of product. In many cases, a weight-based comparison between two different foods is inadequate because it does not reflect the amount that a person would typically consume, nor does it capture the reasons a particular food would be eaten. For instance, comparing beef against broccoli on a per-kilogram basis would be inappropriate, given that both are usually eaten in different amounts and for different reasons.
For high protein foods, a protein-based functional unit is logical, but insufficient to represent the actual bioavailability of amino acids, which is the assumed purpose of protein intake. This issue can possibly be corrected with the consideration of other data. The calculation of DIAAS is the latest advance in comparing the protein qualities of foods, and this assessment has the potential to shift perceptions regarding what foods are good protein sources. DIAAS is a scoring system that compares the true ileal digestibility of the indispensable amino acids in a protein food source to that of a reference protein. This scoring system replaced the protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS), which was the reference standard of the United Nations for scoring protein quality from 1989 to 2011 [13]. PDCAAS used the digestibility of the protein for scoring (e.g., the digestibility of nitrogen), which is a less precise indicator of true amino acid assimilation in comparison to the DIAAS method [14]. To calculate the DIAAS percentage for any food, the milligrams of digestible dietary indispensable amino acids in one gram of the dietary protein is divided by the milligrams of the amino acids in one gram of the reference protein, then multiplied by 100 [13]. The DIAAS scoring system allows foods to have an amino acid quality score over 100%, while the PDCAAS method truncated scores at 100% [13]. As such, DIAAS scores provide the most accurate ranking of protein foods since the score depicts the actual, unabridged biological value of the protein’s amino acids. DIAAS can be used in the analysis of meal plans to determine the adequacy of protein sources to meet recommended intakes (0.8g/kg of body weight/day), which is particularly relevant for individuals following vegetarian and vegan diets [14,15].
Yet another issue that arises in comparing foods using LCA is how best to reflect results in terms of real-world serving sizes. Although LCA and DIAAS provide useful tools to compare foods on environmental impact and protein quality, it is less clear how meaningful these comparisons are in everyday settings given that customary serving sizes of foods can vary widely. This problem can potentially be solved using reference amounts customarily consumed (RACCs). In accordance with the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Food and Drug Administration’s final rule to establish RACCs provides a reference for identifying actual typical consumption amounts balanced with recommended portions [16,17,18]. RACCs defined by the FDA help manufacturers determine serving sizes for the Nutrition Facts label on foods based on a balance of the typical amount of food people eat and a recommended portion. The FDA continues to update RACCs to provide the most accurate and current information for serving sizes and improve the Nutrition Facts panel [19]. Utilizing RACCs as part of LCA assessments therefore can provide a clearer understanding of the environmental impact related to actual consumption of foods.
Previous LCA research has yet to provide a straightforward methodology for meaningful evaluation of foods in the realms of health and environmental impact simultaneously. Previous LCA work has expressed results using functional units based on a unit of mass (e.g., kilogram of a given food) or a unit of a certain nutrient (e.g., kilograms of protein) and expressed impacts in terms of estimated equivalent flows into the biosphere (e.g., kilograms of carbon dioxide) or aggregated multiple characteristics into a single score (e.g., Ecoindicator 99) [7,20]. Some papers also attempted to integrate multiple dimensions of sustainability in one assessment, such as combining LCA with cost-benefit analysis and social impacts as measured by quality adjusted life years (QALYs) [12]. No work yet exists employing an algorithm that adequately assesses environmental impact of protein-based foods in the context of protein quality. Further, few LCA analyses have developed methods to express results in ways that reflect consumer food choices and consumption patterns.
This paper presents a methodology to incorporate protein quality and quantity using DIAAS when making comparisons based on LCA results. Evaluations were further integrated with RACCs to better align estimates of environmental impacts with an understanding of how much is actually consumed and what amino acids are actually delivered in real-world servings of foods. Serving sizes provided by RACCs were specifically used as a basis for calculating a weighted protein score with associated environmental impacts. The intent was to align serving sizes with what is customarily consumed, providing more holistic information that could potentially be utilized in decision-making related to a healthy and sustainable diet simultaneously.

2. Materials and Methods

The metric chosen for this study to represent environmental impact of foods was carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents. This was done for three reasons: first, CO2 equivalents are a measure of primary concern included in nearly all LCA studies to express greenhouse gas emissions associated with global warming potential throughout a product’s lifecycle [4,6,20,21]. Second, global warming is used frequently as a justification when calling for dietary change [22,23]. Third, while other LCA studies include metrics other than CO2 equivalents such as land use, water use, eutrophication, and acidification, such metrics are less consistent in terms of methodology for their estimation and in their inclusion across articles [24,25,26].
Using data from the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System (FADS), we identified the most common protein sources for Americans [27]. Due to the importance of protein across dietary choices, we also included the most common sources of animal, dairy, and plant protein intake for adults in the US based on analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data [28]. We additionally included protein sources that are gaining popularity as potentially more sustainable alternative sources of proteins, including plant- and insect-based proteins [29,30]. Mixed dishes and foods with many ingredients were also excluded due to our focus on protein and lack of available LCA data. Lack of data regarding global warming potential or DIAAS values for certain foods resulted in a narrowed list of protein sources. Some of the protein sources that were excluded due to lack of data availability were mealworms, flies, and various beans, nuts, and breads. Finally, liquid protein sources, such as milk were not included due to concerns with comparing solid and liquid foods, such as liquid foods having a much higher weight per serving size. Figure 1 illustrates the process for determining the final list of foods included.
Data from the USDA ERS FADS regarding nutrient availability indicated that food groups contributing the highest percent to total protein availability include meat, poultry, and fish, grain products, dairy products, legumes, nuts, and soy, vegetables, and eggs [27].
Figure 2 displays the percentage of available protein across a variety of food groups from the USDA ERS FADS data. Among animal sources of protein, beef, pork, and chicken consistently have the highest availability for consumers in the US, with chicken overtaking beef as the most consumed meat in 2015, while fish and shellfish remain steady over time below the other three [31]. We additionally included foods providing 2% or more to total animal protein, dairy protein, or plant protein intake based on analysis of NHANES data by Pasiakos et al. [28]. Alternative protein sources including plant-based foods and insects are receiving increased attention as potentially more sustainable protein sources [29,30,32]. Based on these trends, we included foods representing each major protein source category as well as some niche but growing categories that represent alternative and potentially more sustainable protein sources, all subject to data availability.
Amino acid profiles of foods were obtained using Food Processor Nutrition Analysis software version 11.4, a searchable nutritional database that provides information on micro and macronutrients present in raw, cooked, and restaurant-prepared foods (ESHA Research, Salem, OR, USA). We utilized protein-specific data from individual food searches, prioritizing information provided by the USDA. We calculated a weighted protein score (PRO) as shown in Formula (1) based on the foods’ protein content and DIAAS. PRO equals the product of DIAAS (D) as a percentage, servings size in grams based on RACCs (R), and grams of protein weight in 100 grams of a given food (P), divided by 100.
P R O = D 100 × R × P 100
To represent GWP, CO2 emissions data were compiled from dozens of LCA sources including peer-reviewed published literature. Similar to previous reviews of food LCA, data availability restraints required the use of some LCA studies which included different assumptions regarding co-product allocation methodology and system boundaries, different geographic areas, and other factors that could result in disparities in estimates of environmental impacts [4,21,33,34]. While most studies report carbon footprints as point values, there can be significant uncertainty and variability surrounding such point values [35]. Variability can be a result of differences in farm features, soil type, and management practices [36]. Reviewing the parameters of LCA data sources included indicated that the most common attributes were a system boundary of cradle to gate, economic-based allocation, attributional LCA, and a European region. However, excluding studies with different parameters than these would restrict the analysis to only include beef, chicken, eggs, milk, and pork, as was the case in a 2010 review of livestock LCA [21]. All LCA data sources used for our analysis were subject to peer review and used system boundaries at least from cradle to gate. In addition, we only used studies that expressed results with at least a mass-based functional unit and global warming potential in a mass-based CO2 equivalent. The majority of references were from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries, although data availability necessitated the inclusion of some non-members (e.g., Thailand for grasshoppers and Iran for chickpeas, lentils and peanuts) [37,38,39,40]. Finally, where multiple LCA data sources for individual foods were available that met our requirements, we calculated mean and standard deviation for the food, which are shown in Figure 3. Items with an asterisk had fewer than three entries and therefore are based on the only reported value or an average of two reported values and do not include a standard deviation. Further details regarding our LCA data sources and calculations are available in the Supplementary Materials.
G W P R O = G W P P R O
Finally, we calculated a protein-mediated modified global warming potential ratio (GWPRO) as shown in Formula (2) to capture protein delivery across foods in our comparison through a single score metric to allow straightforward ranking of alternatives that includes consideration of both GWP and PRO.

3. Results

The GWP associated with 100 grams of a given food has a substantial range as shown in Figure 3, which represents GWP of foods on a mass basis using data from previously published LCA work. Where sufficient data was available, a mean and standard deviation was calculated. Foods with only two data points are presented as an average of those two while those with only one data point are reported as that value, and both are marked with an asterisk and do not include standard deviation.
It is clear from Figure 3 that GWP on a mass basis is highest by far for beef, and that in general, animal-based foods, including dairy products, are higher in GWP than plant-based foods. However, this representation of data does not capture the protein content in terms of quality and quantity and therefore is insufficient to make a determination for what foods to eat in order to strike the best balance between meeting protein needs and minimizing environmental impact. To better assess that balance, we use Formula 2 to capture the PRO score and GWP associated with a typical serving according to RACCs in a single score format. Figure 4 displays the resulting GWPRO ratios for the same foods as shown in Figure 3.
As seen in Figure 4, the ranking of foods changes when protein content and quality is taken into consideration. For example, spaghetti, despite having the second lowest GWP on a mass basis, has a fairly low EPE ratio and is outperformed by foods with much higher GWP that also have higher PRO scores. Using this algorithm, various protein powders are shown to be some of the most efficient foods considered, and plant-based foods have a broader spread across the list than in Figure 3 due to their wide variation in protein content and quality. It is also important to note that these impacts are partially a reflection of their disparate serving sizes, which result in lower impacts for lower servings when compared to a uniform weight across foods. However, it is this specific distinction that should help improve understanding of actual consumption decisions by providing a comparison based on amounts that are customarily consumed. The method demonstrated here is a potential way to include consideration of protein quality and serving size along with environmental performance in LCA. Consumers should understand that these are estimates meant for quick and efficient comparisons that are informative but not comprehensive and are subject to change. Environmental impacts of a food are influenced by many factors that vary across regions and over time, and many factors influence the nutritional quality and ultimate health impacts of a given food.

4. Discussion

Previous studies that examined the environmental and nutritional impacts of protein sources included a variety of animal and plant-based foods, but did not specify inclusion and exclusion criteria except in some cases to match dietary intake within data constraints [20,34,41,42,43]. Our study contributes to the advancement of LCA-based food comparisons by expanding and refining the methodology to account for variation in amounts of food typically consumed and differences in protein quality and quantity.
The use of serving size as a basis for comparison of environmental impacts means that the results can be made useful for consumers, but they may not be as readily applicable to large-scale estimates as strictly uniform weight-based comparisons normally are. The conversion between a mass basis and a serving size basis is simple when the serving size is known, but initial choice must take into account the intended audience. These data, for example, could be used to establish a consumer-facing scoring or rating system, allowing comparisons of possible food choices serving similar roles in the diet and at similar serving sizes (e.g., ground beef vs. tuna vs. tofu) along the lines of dietary impact related to protein quality and environmental impact at the same time.

5. Conclusions

As more consumers seek to change their eating habits to address concerns related to environmental impact, it is important to develop evidence-based tools that allow for consideration of, and distinguishing between, food choices across multiple relevant concerns. In the case of high-protein foods, often the most resource-intensive foods in the diet, integration of serving size and protein quality and quantity can enhance an LCA study by providing a more complete understanding of alternatives. This is especially important when comparing plant-based and animal-based foods, as protein is the primary nutrient of concern in such scenarios. The DIAAS provides the most accurate currently available information regarding protein quality through amino acid digestibility, and when combined with protein quantity through weight of protein in a food, a weighted protein score provides a method for quick and comprehensive comparison across foods. Integrating these concepts into LCA is demonstrated here to effectively differentiate between foods that have varying levels of protein content and environmental impacts and identify the best and worst performing foods for both metrics at once. The best performing foods include peanuts, whey, and soy protein isolate, while the worst performing foods include beef, white rice, and bread. Data constraints prevented a comprehensive analysis of alternatives, but such challenges are common in studies aggregating data from multiple LCA sources. Although multiple LCA data sources were used where available, regional and temporal variability as well as other factors including management practices and transportation distances all influence the environmental impact associated with any given food. In addition, food consumption patterns do not always match RACCs, recommended servings, or other nutritional guidance, so actual food consumption will vary with the potential for dramatic impacts on the environmental consequences of food choices. Further work to improve this methodology could include data related to macronutrients other than protein when they may also contribute to the obligatory property of a food and thus serve as a functional unit, the inclusion of environmental impacts besides greenhouse gasses, and the inclusion of economic considerations such as affordability and accessibility.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2747/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B. and C.W.; methodology, A.B., C.W., C.J. and M.V..; software, A.B., M.V. and A.P.; validation, A.B. and M.V.; formal analysis, A.B.; investigation, A.B., M.V., and A.P.; resources, C.W. and C.J.; data curation, A.B.; writing—original draft, A.B.; writing—review and editing, A.B., C.W., M.V., and C.J.; visualization, A.B., C.W., M.V., and C.J.; supervision, C.W.; project administration, C.W.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Blumenfeld, J. Plant-Based Product Sales Increase an Incredible 20 Percent. Supermarket News. 2018. Available online: https://www.supermarketnews.com/consumer-trends/plant-based-product-sales-increase-incredible-20-percent (accessed on 3 January 2019).
  2. The Nielsen Company. Plant-Based Proteins are Gaining Dollar Share among North Americans. Nielsen. 2017. Available online: https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2017/plant-based-proteins-are-gaining-dollar-share-among-north-americans.html (accessed on 3 January 2019).
  3. Hellweg, S.; Canals, L.M.I. Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 2014, 344, 1109–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Roy, P.; Nei, D.; Orikasa, T.; Xu, Q.; Okadome, H.; Nakamura, N.; Shiina, T. A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J. Food Eng. 2009, 90, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cowell, S.J.; Clift, R. Impact assessment for LCAs involving agricultural production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 1997, 2, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Heller, M.C.; Keoleian, G.A.; Willett, W.C. Toward a life cycle-based, diet-level framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality assessment: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 12632–12647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Baroni, L.; Cenci, L.; Tettamanti, M.; Berati, M. Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 61, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Risku-Norja, H.; Kurppa, S.; Helenius, J. Impact of Consumers’ Diet Choices on Green-house Gas Emissions. Available online: http://orgprints.org/16406/1/consumer2.pdf (accessed on 22 April 2019).
  9. Sanfilippo, S.; Raimondi, A.; Ruggeri, B.; Fino, D. Dietary vs. transport: An analysis of environmental burdens pertaining to a typical workday. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2012, 36, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Meier, T.; Christen, O. Environmental impacts of dietary recommendations and dietary styles: Germany as an example. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 877–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Donati, M.; Menozzi, D.; Zighetti, C.; Rosi, A.; Zinetti, A.; Scazzina, F. Towards a sustainable diet combining economic, environmental and nutritional objectives. Appetite 2016, 106, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Weidema, B.; Wenzel, H. The product, functional unit and reference flows in LCA. Dan. Environ. 2004, 70, 1–46. [Google Scholar]
  13. FAO Expert Consultation. Dietary Protein Quality Evaluation in Human Nutrition; FAO Expert Consultation: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  14. Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  15. Wolfe, R.R.; Baum, J.I.; Starck, C.; Moughan, P.J. Factors contributing to the selection of dietary protein food sources. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 37, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. H.R.3562—Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Available online: https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/3562/all-info (accessed on 22 April 2019).
  17. 21 U.S.C. 9—Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Available online: https://www.loc.gov/item/uscode1940-005021009/ (accessed on 22 April 2019).
  18. Food and Drug Administration. CFR—Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. 2018. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/medical-device-databases/code-federal-regulations-title-21-food-and-drugs (accessed on 22 April 2019). [Google Scholar]
  19. Food and Drug Administration. Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed At One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendmen. 2016. Available online: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/05/27/2016-11865/food-labeling-serving-sizes-of-foods-that-can-reasonably-be-consumed-at-one-eating-occasion (accessed on 3 January 2019). [Google Scholar]
  20. De Vries, M.; de Boer, I.J.M. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livest. Sci. 2010, 128, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hallstrom, E.; Carlsson-Kanyama, A.; Borjesson, P. Environmental impact of dietary change: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 91, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tilman, D.; Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 2014, 515, 518–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Springmann, M.; Godfray, H.C.J.; Rayner, M.; Scarborough, P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 4146–4151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  24. Mattsson, B.; Cederberg, C.; Blix, L. Agricultural land use in life cycle assessment (LCA): Case studies of three vegetable oil crops. J. Clean. Prod. 2000, 8, 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Koehler, A. Water use in LCA: Managing the planet’s freshwater resources. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2008, 13, 451–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Leinonen, I.; Williams, A.G.; Wiseman, J.; Guy, J.; Kyriazakis, I. Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: Broiler production systems. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 8–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bentley, J.; Kantor, L. Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System. In United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service; 2015. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-per-capita-data-system/ (accessed on 22 April 2019). [Google Scholar]
  28. Pasiakos, S.M.; Agarwal, S.; Lieberman, H.R.; Fulgoni, V.L. Sources and amounts of animal, dairy, and plant protein intake of US adults in 2007–2010. Nutrients 2015, 7, 7058–7069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Halloran, A.; Roos, N.; Eilenberg, J.; Cerutti, A.; Bruun, S. Life cycle assessment of edible insects for food protein: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ruini, L.F.; Ciati, R.; Pratesi, C.A.; Marino, M.; Principato, L.; Vannuzzi, E. Working toward healthy and sustainable diets: The ‘ Double Pyramid Model ’ developed by the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition to raise awareness about the environmental and nutritional impact of foods. Front. Nutr. 2015, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Bentley, J. Per Capita Availability of Chicken Higher than that of Beef. In USDA ERS; 2017. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=58312 (accessed on 22 April 2019). [Google Scholar]
  32. Pimentel, M. Sustainability of meat-based and plant based diets and the environment. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003, 78, 660–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Clune, S.; Crossin, E.; Verghese, K. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 766–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  34. Nijdam, D.; Rood, T.; Westhoek, H. The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy 2012, 37, 760–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Henriksson, P.J.G.; Heijungs, R.; Dao, H.M.; Phan, L.T.; de Snoo, G.R.; Guinée, J.B. Product carbon footprints and their uncertainties in comparative decision contexts. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ribal, J.; Estruch, V.; Clemente, G.; Fenollosa, M.L.; Sanjuán, N. Assessing variability in carbon footprint throughout the food supply chain: A case study of Valencian oranges. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Elhami, B.; Akram, A.; Khanali, M. Optimization of energy consumption and environmental impacts of chickpea production using data envelopment analysis (DEA) and multi objective genetic algorithm (MOGA) approaches. Inf. Process. Agric. 2016, 3, 190–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  38. Elhami, B.; Khanali, M.; Akram, A. Combined Application of Artificial Neural Networks and life cycle Assessment in Lentil Farming in Iran. Inf. Process. Agric. 2017, 4, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Halloran, A.; Hanboonsong, Y.; Roos, N.; Bruun, S. Life cycle assessment of cricket farming in north-eastern Thailand. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 156, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. ANikkhah; Khojastehpour, M.; Emadi, B.; Taheri-Rad, A.; Khorramdel, S. Environmental impacts of peanut production system using life cycle assessment methodology. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 92, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Reijnders, L.; Soret, S. Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003, 78, 664–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Scarborough, P.; Appleby, P.N.; Mizdrak, A.; Briggs, A.D.; Travis, R.C.; Bradbury, K.E.; Key, T.J. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Clim. Chang. 2014, 125, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  43. Sonesson, U.; Davis, J.; Flysjö, A.; Gustavsson, J.; Witthöft, C. Protein quality as functional unit—A methodological framework for inclusion in life cycle assessment of food. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 470–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The list of protein sources considered was based on common and alternative protein sources, but constrained by data availability.
Figure 1. The list of protein sources considered was based on common and alternative protein sources, but constrained by data availability.
Sustainability 11 02747 g001
Figure 2. Protein availability across food groups. Animal flesh, grains, and dairy provide most protein available for US consumers.
Figure 2. Protein availability across food groups. Animal flesh, grains, and dairy provide most protein available for US consumers.
Sustainability 11 02747 g002
Figure 3. Global Warming Potential (GWP) in kilograms of CO2 equivalents associated with 100 grams of each food. Values are the mean of three or more entries if there was sufficient data available. Error bars indicate standard deviation away from the mean across multiple LCA data points when three or more were available. Items marked with *asterisk had fewer than three data points and therefore do not include standard deviation and are either the average of two values or just reporting of one value, depending on data availability.
Figure 3. Global Warming Potential (GWP) in kilograms of CO2 equivalents associated with 100 grams of each food. Values are the mean of three or more entries if there was sufficient data available. Error bars indicate standard deviation away from the mean across multiple LCA data points when three or more were available. Items marked with *asterisk had fewer than three data points and therefore do not include standard deviation and are either the average of two values or just reporting of one value, depending on data availability.
Sustainability 11 02747 g003
Figure 4. GWPRO (Global Warming Potential Ratio) is GWP in kg CO2-eq per serving divided by PRO per serving to capture the protein content and quality in the environmental comparison of protein sources. Standard deviation is not reported here as values are the result of a ratio with PRO. However, data used for the GWP component are the same as that used for Figure 3.
Figure 4. GWPRO (Global Warming Potential Ratio) is GWP in kg CO2-eq per serving divided by PRO per serving to capture the protein content and quality in the environmental comparison of protein sources. Standard deviation is not reported here as values are the result of a ratio with PRO. However, data used for the GWP component are the same as that used for Figure 3.
Sustainability 11 02747 g004

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top