A new study shows that the environmental footprint of certain foods, calculated per unit of protein produced, risks misinforming food stakeholders and consumers.
Instead, when scientists try to calculate the environmental impact of producing different foods, they need to take full account of the food’s full nutritional value, the authors say.
This study measured protein quality, called the digestible essential amino acid score, and used it to create an ‘adjusted’ environmental footprint index for different foods. The environmental impact of animal-derived products has almost halved (eg beef in dairy products), and the impact associated with wheat bread, for example, has increased by almost 60%.
“This study highlights the need to consider both nutritional and environmental sciences to fully understand the impact of food production on human and environmental health,” says Graham McAuliffe of Rothamsted. Mr. and the lead author said.
Protein is a highly complex nutrient containing amino acids, nine of which are known as essential or essential amino acids, which cannot be produced directly by humans and must be obtained from the diet. Furthermore, the digestibility of various amino acids in the human intestine is highly variable. In other words, the amount of protein in a product does not necessarily represent its quality, and some foods (usually plant-based products) contain other factors that can inhibit or limit nutrient intake. It is influenced by many factors, including the fact that it contains
The team used the DIAAS score to represent the digestibility of amino acids in foods. Applying this to four animal products (dairy beef, cheese, eggs, pork) and four plant protein sources (nuts, peas, tofu, wheat), all animal products have over 100% His DIAAS score of . Due to its highly digestible structure and lack of inhibitory compounds. His DIAAS for tofu was 105%, but his three other vegetable protein sources scored less than 100%, with wheat scoring particularly low (43%).
The average healthy human would need to consume far more of a low DIAAS product to achieve the same protein benefits compared to a high DIAAS product.
“A simple ‘mass-based’ (nutrient content rather than quality) comparison of food sustainability would provide policy makers and stakeholders with transparency on how to reduce environmental impact across the agri-food supply chain.” insufficient to provide useful information in McAuliffe. “Since food is rarely consumed in isolation, one of the main recommendations for consideration by future sustainability assessors focused on nutrition is, for example, at the dietary level or multiple dietary levels. Food complementation.
According to McAuliffe, this is a very important factor to consider, as a low DIAAS value for one item may be offset by a high score for another food, so there may be a shortage of certain foods. allows for targeted assessment of protein delivery to different regions, countries, or populations of interest. IAA.
The team also warns that environmental impacts should only form part of the sustainability picture. Future work should incorporate socioeconomic factors (rural economy, animal welfare, fair trade, etc.) to truly assess the sustainability of food production. This is especially important when considering international food trade and potential market shocks such as war or economic collapse that can affect deliveries. of food security.
Source: Rothamstead Research
