- Email: [email protected]
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
CHAPTER 9
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production Frans Silvenius*, Eirin Bar† *
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway †
9.1 INTRODUCTION 9.1.1 Global sustainability The world population today is rapidly increasing and is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050. Although the expected growth is outside Europe the need to produce enough food globally in a sustainable manner becomes evident (FAO, 2017). As all nations rely on the same basic life support system provided by the earth, sustainable food production becomes a global challenge. However, regional differences related to temperature, topography, yearly amount of sunlight, supply of rainwater, etc. all affect what products to produce and what are environmental impacts on production. Sustainable food production is a global challenge that needs to be solved across country borders from a common commitment by nations and translated in to action by local farmers. In short, sustainable food production is a global challenge that demands local solutions (FAO, 2017). In Fall 2015 the United Nations (UN) presented 17 sustainability goals, most of these were directly or indirectly linked to food production, human health, and climate change (FAO, 2015). The goals in particular are Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security, and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture; and Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. The well-known definition of sustainable development presented in the Brundtland report in 1987 (United Nations, 1987) stated: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. FAO has now developed this definition further and made a definition of a sustainable diet: “Sustainable diets are those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources” (FAO, 2012). The northern countries need to play a part in solving
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809416-7.00009-3
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
211
212
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
the global challenges. However, the natural conditions for farming in the northern countries differs from the highly productive farmland found in the southern regions of Europe. The topography and natural climate conditions have shaped the food production systems through centuries of cultivation in the Nordic countries. Sustainable food production is dependent on the efficient utilization of resources.
9.1.2 Circumstances in Nordic countries Finland is the most northern agricultural country in the world, with a high equity ratio for main agricultural products. Finland is also famous for its thousands of lakes, as well as its thousands of rivers, minor streams, and peatlands. Freshwater systems are very important for Finland. In addition, Finland has a long coastline along the Baltic Sea, which is one of the most sensitive and polluted seas in the world. Due to the location of Finland next to the Baltic Sea, it is geographically and ecologically rather isolated and distanced from the rest of Europe. These facts cause specific environmental concerns and even some specific benefits to Finnish food production and consumption. Sweden shares the same properties of its central and northern parts, but the southern parts of Sweden are low and fertile, as they also are in Denmark. Norway and Iceland are then also quite different from the other countries. Norway has a long coastline, which is a good habitat for aquaculture. In addition, Norway and Iceland are located ashore of the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Oceans, which gives good opportunities for fisheries. That possibility is also found in the Southwest parts of Sweden and in Denmark, but Finland lacks the possibilities of having fisheries from the oceans. As for geography, 90% of Norway’s area is mountainous, as are parts of Sweden, which reduce the potential for agriculture. However, the southern part of Sweden has farmland well suited for crop production. In Norway, because of a topography with steep mountains, small continuous patches of farmable land, and a shallow layer of top soil in many areas, only 3.3% of the land area is used for farming (Agri.Analyse. Landbruksbarometeret, 2017). The main environmental concerns related to Finnish food production and consumption are eutrophication, climate impact, biodiversity loss, and dependence on fossil fuel and other unrenewable resources. Specific environmental benefits, in turn, are lower potential ecotoxicity related to agricultural chemicals and abundant renewable natural resources including particularly water resources and forestry biomass. This is the case for most Nordic countries; however, Denmark has been working hard to reduce the loss of nitrogen and phosphorus from Danish crop farming to the aquatic environment in later years, and it has now improved significantly (Danish Agriculture and Food Council, 2012). Finnish environmental research has been active in a field of agricultural and food studies covering studies on emissions from agriculture and animal husbandry, best practices to prevent environmental impacts, biowaste issues in food system, and life cycle
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
environmental impacts of food products. It is crucial for the country to have its own research on these issues, as Finland has its own specific features as a food producer. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been applied to a wide range of products including mainstream and local products as well as conventional (i.e., technical-chemical) and organic products. In addition, there has been a contribution to methodological issues in LCA concentrated mainly on data quality and acquisition issues and an inclusion of nutrition to food LCA.
9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CATEGORIES IN NORDIC FOOD PRODUCTION 9.2.1 Eutrophication Eutrophication is caused by increased nitrogen and phosphorus leaching into the water body. In addition to algae blooming, increased nutrient leaching and eutrophication lead to a decreased biodiversity in the water ecosystems and oxygen loss particularly in the deep basin of the Baltic Sea. In Finland both inland water systems and the Baltic Sea are sensitive to eutrophication. In Sweden, inland lakes and Baltic Sea areas are also sensitive to eutrophication, but for Norway and Denmark, only inland water systems are sensitive. In the Baltic Sea and inland water systems, summertime blue-green algae blooming is a growing problem, causing both inconvenience and societal costs. The nutrient dynamic in water systems are different, because phosphorus is in general a limiting factor for inland water systems and nitrogen for the seawater systems. The Baltic Sea is in some areas an exception of that because phosphorus can be a limiting factor in some areas as well. Most of Finnish lakes are naturally oligotrofic and clean, although many of the lakes are also dystrophic with abundant humic acid. These kinds of lakes are sensitive to nutrient load and acid deposition. While acidification was the main concern in 1980s and 1990s, today eutrophication is the most crucial issue. The environmental problems of the Baltic Sea also have a basis in its natural geography and hydrology, which makes it sensitive to human-based loads. The drainage area (i.e., catchment basin) of the Baltic Sea is four times larger than the sea itself, which is low and changes very slowly. This means that the nutrient load from the drainage area easily exceeds the buffer capacity of the sea. In addition to small lakes, Sweden also has freshwater lakes, which are deeper in average and not so sensitive to eutrophication. All of the Finnish cultivated areas situated in the Baltic Sea drainage area contribute 2.1% of the total nitrogen load and 2.6% of the total phosphorous load to the Baltic Sea of Finland, while the total part of Finland of the nitrogen emissions is 3.7% and for phosphorus emissions 3.8%. Cultivation areas are largely concentrated in southwestern and western Finland near the coast and typically border the waterfront of rivers. The nutrient content of river waters is significantly increased and loads directly into the Baltic Sea.
213
214
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
More than half of the nutrient loads of agriculture come from animal-related production, like field cultivation and manure treatment. The reason for nutrient leaches is related to the difficulties to optimize fertilizer consumption: yield, weather, and other circumstances cannot be foreseen precisely, which is why overfertilization occurs quite often. Despite the development of the cultivation methods and the decreased amount of fertilizers used, there have been no signs for the reduction of nutrient loads to the Baltic Sea. The very special conditions of the Finnish freshwaters and the Baltic Sea have impact on the calculation of eutrophication potential in seafood products. By using the Baltic Sea fish raw material for fish meal and fish oil to rainbow trout feed, it is possible to compensate totally the eutrophication impact caused by fish farming at the Baltic Sea level, but further calculations are needed to assess the eutrophication impacts for smaller specific areas near the fish farms. The numbers are based on calculations for phosphorus and nitrogen balances, taking into account the nitrogen and phosphorus removed from the water systems of fish-based feed ingredients and the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus caused by fish feces, exhalation, and surplus feed. The part of fish farming in nutrient loads of Finland is, however, quite small: less than 2%.
9.2.2 Climate impact Within the European Union the food and drink value chain alone causes 17% of direct greenhouse gas emissions; food production alone accounts for 25% of the total CO2 emission in Europe (EU, 2011; Sonnesson & Ziegler, 2010). Food production chain accounts for approximately 24% of climate impacts from Finnish national economy (i.e., production located in Finland). Of the 20% related to Finnish food production, about 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, 30% of them comes from dinitrogen monoxide emissions from soil, 40% from carbon dioxide emissions of organic soils, and over 10% from methane emissions of enteric fermentation. About 10% comes from energy use and 5% from manure management and storing. The part of animal production is remarkable because about 70% of the field areas are used for animal feed production. The greenhouse gas emissions from Finnish agriculture have been the same the last 20 years. In addition to the primary production, food-related greenhouse gas emissions come from processing, transports, packaging, trade, and consumers. The plants need nitrogen to grow, so nitrogen is added in almost all the field cultivation. The exceptions are nitrogen-fixating plants, such as peas, beans, and clovers, which can take nitrogen straight from the air. Especially in the organic fields the dinitrogen monoxide emissions are high, because the nitrogen, which is bonded to the soil over hundreds of years, evaporates. In addition, part of the plant residues and organic fertilizers degrade to carbon dioxide as well as lime, which is added to a large part of Finnish fields. Especially high degradation rate occurs when new fields are developed from woodlands and the surface floor is
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
Table 9.1 Overview of emissions in kg CO2 eq/kg product for some common foods in the Nordic diet Product Nordic West-Europe Global
Meat Beef Dairy cows Sheep, lamb, goat Pork Chicken Dairy Fish
9.66 24.00 18.93 – 4.48 2.54 1.05 6.70
20.41 26.34 11.27 57.00 6.12 4.77 1.17 4.65
25.22 32.83 – 21.50 3.49 2.06 1.10 16.27
The emission values have been obtained from the report Climate Footprints of Norwegian Dairy and Meat—a Synthesis by Van Oort & Andrew, 2016. The emission is calculated and compared within the system boundary of cradle to farm gate.
exposed to degradation processes of microbes. According to field experiments, the field areas in Finland evaporate carbon, thus causing carbon dioxide emissions. The fields in Finland are quite young and therefore still cause carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon evaporates faster in fields of annual crops than in the fields of multiyear crops. Climate change can also increase the carbon dioxide emissions from the soil (Heikkinen, Ketoja, Nuutinen, & Regina, 2013). The cultivation of organic peatlands in particular can cause multiple dinitrogen and carbon dioxide emissions compared to mineral soils because the soil degradation continues over decades. In Table 9.1 an overview of emissions related to climate impact in kg CO2 eq/kg product is presented, showing some of the common food products used in the Nordic diet. Any comparisons between regions, however, should be done with caution, and a closer examination of system boundaries within the underlying studies is needed to understand the origin of the differences. For further information about the data, please refer to the full report, Climate footprints of Norwegian Dairy and Meat—a synthesis (by Van Oort & Andrew, 2016). However, the studies give an overview of the situation today.
9.2.3 Biodiversity Nature with a wide biodiversity enables the functionality of the ecosystems and provides many-sided indispensable ecosystem services to human life like clean water, food, and air. The biodiversity increases the possibilities of the ecosystems to recover from disturbances. Different functionalities of agriculture can strengthen or weaken the functionality of ecosystems. The large-scale changing of the primary forest and other natural areas to fields and pastures is a great danger to biodiversity, especially in South America. This is connected to the Nordic food production chain, because South American soybeans are imported to Nordic countries for animal feed. Other disadvantages of meat production is the risk of making cultivation more one-sided; that is, to make soils poorer and bring more harmful
215
216
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
compounds to nature. The increasing meat production is considered a threat to biodiversity, because on a global scale 70% of agriculture production is used as input to meat production. Contrary to the threats of agriculture production the traditional agriculture surroundings can increase biodiversity. About one-fourth of endangered species demands pastures or other traditional surroundings. The traditional pasturing of cattle and sheep has a positive impact on biodiversity; for example, increasing breeding and feeding possibilities for many bird species. In Finland especially, traditional archipelago and coastal pastures have a high value of biodiversity. The existence of manure beetles is a good indicator of biodiversity. In addition, when organic material can return back to the soil as manure or other organic fertilizers, it has a positive influence on the functionality of the microbes and structure in soil; in that way, it affects the growth properties of the soil. Unfortunately the production of meat products is now more intensive, and areas used for traditional farming have been declining, which is a threat for many endangered species in agriculture areas. In Norway, however, of the farmable land area in use, approximately two-thirds is used to grow fodder. Depending on the year, only a limited amount of corn produced ends up as food for human consumption, around 10%–30% depending on the quality of the crop (Nasjonalt Ra˚d for Ernæring, 2017). There is a great potential for using more of Norway’s less favorable land areas as grazing pastures for animals, which will contribute positively to biodiversity by maintaining traditional landscapes and preventing overgrowth. However, keeping a larger amount of grazing animals requires additional feed to cover the yearly feed consumption for these animals, as the seasonal changes limits the grazing time. Norway has a low level of self-sufficiency ranging between 30% and 50% (Helsedirektoratet, 2015).
9.2.4 Energy use and energy sources in agriculture As energy consumption and other input necessary for food production is related to environmental impact, it is of utmost importance that the natural energy carriers within a region are used efficiently in food production. The strong currents along the Norwegian fjords is a good example. They provide oxygen-rich saltwater flowing through the salmon farming cages. Placing the salmon farming cages appropriately provides good conditions for salmon farming without additional energy input. In the same manner, cultivating crops and farming animals that are adapted to the temperatures and conditions such as soil conditions or available grazing areas in the mountains within the regions requires less input to the production system. Several traditional foods in the Nordic region, such as the Swedish surstr€ omming, the Danish rye bread, pickled herring, Norwegian dried cod, and Finnish cured meat are all food traditions that uses natural energy systems to preserve the food. These old preservation methods helps achieve a longer shelf life of the food product without the need for
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
excess energy in order to cool or freeze the product during storage. Natural conditions for drying cod outdoors in northern Norway is highly energy efficient and reduces the environmental impact associated with both processing and storage of the food product.
9.2.5 Water resources In the Nordic countries, there is plenty of freshwater to use for consumption and production; in general the water footprint is not essential for that reason. Still, the consumption of imported products can come from areas with poor water resources. For animal-based products, water is used many times more than plant-based products—especially in irrigation of feed plants, drinking water for the animals and hygiene in production buildings. It has been assumed that 70% of the water used comes from agriculture and very big part of it from the meat production chain. The production place and its water resources have the main impact on whether the water consumption has harmful impacts.
9.3 SUSTAINABILITY ASPECTS OF DIFFERENT FOOD CATEGORIES 9.3.1 Seafood According to the Natural Resource Institute the consumption of seafood in Finland was 13 kg per person in 2016. The part of imported seafood product was 9 kg and domestic products 4 kg (Natural Resource Institute, 2018). In Norway, the population eats on average 22 kg fish per person a year (Helsedirektoratet, 2016). There is no generic description for Nordic countries as a whole concerning seafood production and sustainability. In Norway, Denmark, and Iceland, much of the produced seafood comes from the ocean, and the capturing and processing units are large. When talking about sustainability, these areas are not as sensitive for eutrophication as the areas in the Baltic Sea and the inland lakes of Finland and Sweden. Critical points can be the impacts on fish stock (e.g., cod). In addition, industrial fish used as raw materials for fish meal and oil are captured by Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. In Finland the main fish species in domestic human consumption is cultivated rainbow trout, 1.2 kg per person. However, almost all fish used in domestic consumption in Finland was captured fish (Natural Resource Institute, 2018; Table 9.2). The main part of Baltic herring catch is by trawl; for the other species, nets and fish traps are used. The environmental climate impact and eutrophication impact has been calculated for of rainbow trout fillet, Baltic Herring fillet, and average fillets of perch, pike, pikeperch, and European whitefish, shown in Table 9.2. The climate impact of Finnish products made from captured fish is generally rather low because of the short distances in fishing according to existing studies. This is mainly the same for Finnish seafood production and inland catch of other Nordic countries as well. Nevertheless, except for Baltic herring, more data is needed to make
217
218
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
Table 9.2 The consumption of different fish species in Finland 2016 and results of some life-cycle assessment investigations GWP/kgCO2-eq/kg EP gPO4-eq/kg fillet kg/person/year (Natural fillet (Silvenius et al., (M€ akinen, 2008; Resource 2012; Silvenius Silvenius et al., 2012; Institute, 2018) et al., 2017) Silvenius et al., 2017) Fish species
Rainbow trout Rainbow trout BS feed Baltic herring Pike Perch Vendace European whitefish Pikeperch Others
1.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5
5.4 5.4 0.8 2.7 2.7
38.3 0 52 83 110
2.7 2.7
59 86
more accurate values for fuel consumption for other Finnish fish species. Table 9.2 also presents the eutrophication impact on different fish species. It is assumed that the nutrients in fish, which are omitted from waste systems, prevents eutrophication impacts as much as the corresponding amount of nutrients accelerate it. An important factor is that when using Baltic Sea-based (BS) feed in rainbow trout farming, the eutrophication impact reduces to zero. That does not, however, prevent all regional eutrophication impacts. That impact is not relevant in most part of the Nordic Countries because the main part of the catch does not take place in areas that are sensitive to eutrophication. Inland catches and Swedish catches of Baltic Sea have the same benefits concerning nitrogen and phosphorus uptake caused by fisheries. The significance of the different parts of the life cycle differ concerning climate impact. Processing and slaughtering are together only 2.5% of the climate impact of rainbow trout fillet and 3% for the smoked roach, but for perch steak, the part is 42%. The part of logistics was for the roach product 46% of the total climate impact, for perch steak 12%, but for the rainbow trout fillet 6%. Recent studies of small-scaled fisheries have pointed out the significance of periodically catch of perch and roach (Silvenius, 2014; Silvenius, Hietala, & Kurppa, 2015; Silvenius, Kurppa, Tauriainen, Nousiainen, & Hietala, 2015) concluding that utilization of seasonality is a critical aspect in seafood production. The climate impact of roach can be as low as 0.7 kg CO2-eq/kg including logistics, which was 46% of the total climate impact. The seasonal climate impact of captured perch can also be as low as 1.2 kg CO2-eq/kg including logistics. When comparing the LCA investigations for different fish species of other Nordic countries, it can be found that investigations concerning cultivated salmon and rainbow trout have the same kind of climate and eutrophication impact in CO2 and PO4equivalents as in Finnish rainbow trout production. Table 9.3 shows the results of life
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
Table 9.3 Climate impact for different seafood species from life cycle assessment investigations from Denmark (LCA Food Database, 2007) and Norway (Van Oort & Andrew, 2016) Fish species Denmark (GWP/ Norway (GWP/ Denmark (EP kgCO2-eq/kg fillet) kgCO2-eq/kg fillet) gNO3-eq/kg fillet)
Fresh cod fillet Flat fish Herring Mackerel Industrial fish Lobster Shrimp Mussels Saithe Farmed salmon
3.6 7.4 1.3 0.51 0.22 20.2 3 0.09
2.8–5.7 0.89–1.1 0.95 86.2
55 153 25 9.2 4.5 420 65 1.4
2.6 3.23
cycle assessment investigations from Denmark and Norway. The Danish studies also include eutrophication. In the Danish calculations the omitted amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus have not been taken into account because of different circumstances in the water areas. One of the main sustainability aspects is the sustainable utilization of fish stocks, taking into account those that are endangered. The endangered fish stocks include Baltic Salmon, some European whitefish subspecies, sea trout, lake trout, and arctic charr. The Nordic countries have a governmental management of the fish stocks, and the stocks are monitored closely before the catch quotas are decided for each species.
9.3.2 Meat and dairy products The consumption of unprocessed meat in Finland was according to Ravintotase 2015 as much as 79.4 kg per person. When the bones and preparation losses are removed the value is 40 kg per person per year. The 79.4 kg is divided as follows: pork 35.1 kg, beef 19.2 kg, sheep 0.7 kg, chicken 21.6 kg, horse 0.4 kg, reindeer 0.5 kg, and elk and other game 1.4 kg. The consumption of Norway was 76 kg unprocessed meat per person in 2016 (Helsedirektoratet, 2016). The main environmental impacts come from gaseous emissions in animal production and greenhouse gas emissions of soil (Katajajuuri & Pulkkinen, 2015). The main meat products in Finland are beef, pork, and chicken, and separate life cycle assessments have been made for all of them. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation are one reason that climate impact of the beef production chain is higher than pork and chicken as well as high feed consumption (Katajajuuri & Pulkkinen, 2015). Over 40% of the methane emissions of Finland come from beef production. Methane is the most remarkable single factor in climate impacts of beef, lamb, and milk products. Methane evaporates naturally,
219
220
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
when microbes within the grass-eating cattle and lambs melt in the rumen the carbohydrates comes from the feed. Methane is a 30-times more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, which makes the emissions very substantial in regards to global warming. Animals needs much more feed than the amount of meat they produce. Chicken and pork needs several kilos of feed for each kilo of product, and beef even uses 10 kilos of feed per kilo beef produced. In addition, the size of the area needed to produce one kilo of meat is much larger compared to producing a kilo of vegetables. This is so even when nutritional differences of the products have been taken into account, which explains the multiple higher environmental impacts of meat products compared with vegetable products (Katajajuuri & Pulkkinen, 2015). Considering the field cultivation, the use of pastures as feed gives lower environmental impacts than the use of annual crops, which is typical for Finnish production. In addition, pasturing is important, because it gives added value to biodiversity, especially when talking about traditional biotype pastures (Katajajuuri & Pulkkinen, 2015). When considering the production of beef, combined dairy and beef production is expected to have lower climate impact than suckler cow production as emissions are shared between milk and meat. In Finland the majority of consumed beef is still from dairy breeds: 25% of beef is coming from dairy cows, 53% from dairy heifer and bulls, 4% from suckler cows, 12% from beef breed heifers and bulls, and 6% of mixed breeds. The characterized values for eutrophication impacts differ between the countries, but this is mainly caused by differences in calculation methods. In the following table the eutrophication impacts of Nordic meat and dairy products are equalized in relation to each other. One part of the nutrient loss in the meat production value chain is the low capability of the animals to utilize the nutrients in feed. Only half of the nitrogen and phosphorous consumed by animals ends up in meat, and the rest end up as a part of the manure and are then spread into the fields near the animal production places, which causes phosphorus and nitrogen leaches to the water systems. Many decades of surplus amounts of phosphorus have been spread into the fields. In addition, increases in ammonia emissions of manure spreading and storage increase the eutrophication effect of animal products. The eutrophication impact from meat production can be reduced significantly, if the farms would co-operate in the utilization of the manure. This would lead to a significant reduction in the use of artificial fertilizer in plant production farms, perhaps down to zero. About 20% of the feed used in pork and chicken production is soy based. Soy-based feed causes emissions because of land use changes, when savannah and tropical forest are removed to soya fields. However, in beef production, only little soya is used in Finland. In addition to traditional feed products, a life cycle assessment has also been made for reindeer meat (Silvenius, Hietala, & Kurppa, 2015; Silvenius, Kurppa, et al., 2015) and
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
elk meat (R€as€anen et al., 2015). The calculations have been made differently, when compared to LCA of other meat products. No enteric fermentation was included in the calculations in elk meat products, and for reindeer meat only the enteric fermentation of additional feeding was included. Emissions from using natural feeds such as lichen were classified as natural and were not included. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation were calculated using feed recipes obtained from producers. The largest contributions in reindeer meat production to climate impact originated from enteric fermentation as methane and as N2O from feed production field practices and manure management. So-called game fields and greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient leaches of them were also taken into account in the elk-meat product chain. For elk meat, 78% of climate impact was caused by primary production, and the main part of that was from dinitrogen monoxide emissions from game fields. In comparison, for reindeer meat the part of enteric fermentation and dinitrogen monoxide was 59% and feed production was 10%. One of the special contributors in elk meat production is the fuel consumption for driving distances when hunting. Further investigations are still needed for reindeer to assess parts of the surplus feed in additional feeding and the estimations for nutrient leaches from manure. Research concerning game products still needs to be developed.
9.3.3 Greenhouse production Climate impact investigation of some tomato cucumber and lettuce products produced in greenhouses has been conducted by MTT Agrifood Reseach Finland (Yrj€an€ainen et al., 2013). Based on these calculations a greenhouse gas calculator was developed for greenhouse cultivators. The calculator is available on the Internet. The system boundaries include plant growing, manufacturing of lime, fertilizers and pesticides, manufacturing and disposal of pots, carbon dioxide production, irrigation, lighting, thermal curtains and cooling systems, the production and use of electricity and heat energy, distribution of products by the growers, other transportation, endof-life, and recycling. According to the results of the study, the use of energy is the most significant source of climate impact of greenhouse products. In the tomato farms the predominant source of greenhouse gas emissions was heat energy production, which was 75%–96% of the total emissions. Concerning cucumber growing, more electricity is used than in tomato production because cucumber cultivation needs more light. In total, energy production was 75%– 96% of the emissions, but the proportion of heat energy and electricity varied between the greenhouses. The amount of energy used growing salad crops was 52%–95%. Another notable result from the study was that the climate impact of the products grown in Finnish greenhouses varied significantly between the farms. In the pilot cases the variation between the tomato cultivation was 1360–3680 kg CO2-equivelents per
221
222
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
ton of tomatoes; for cucumber, it was 540–3260 kg CO2-eq/ton of cucumbers, and for salad crops 107–829 kg CO2-eq/1000 units of salad plant. When only renewable energy was used the result for tomato production was 370 kgCO2-eq/t of tomatoes, 335 kg CO2-eq/ton of cucumbers, and 59 kg/1000 units of salad plant. Since the climate impact varies significantly between the greenhouse farms, the greenhouse gas calculator developed in this project will prove a very useful tool for cultivators. The seasonal variation in greenhouse cultivation is also substantial. It was observed in the investigation that the climate impact of production in the summer months could be as little as one quarter of the climate impact of production in midwinter because the need for heating and lighting is significantly reduced during summertime. Most of greenhouses have closed circulation in their irrigation system and low use of pesticides because they use biological prevention. Therefore climate impact was assumed to be the main environmental impact class in Finnish greenhouse production.
9.3.4 Cereals The environmental impacts of grain and vegetables are highly dependent on obtained yields during cultivation. Other important factors are the role of organic soil in the cultivation and cultivation methodology. In organic farming the obtained yields can be lower than conventional farming, but attention should be paid to possible carbon sequestration. These facts mean that it is impossible to produce one value describing environmental impact for a single product category for the Nordic countries. It is therefore more appropriate to announce minimum and maximum values for production in each country.
9.3.5 Local food The local food production is an important part of Nordic food production. According to Finnish results many locally produced products used in case studies showed lower impact on climate compared to mainstream average production, however some locally produced products were also found to have higher impacts. Further, any stage of the local value chain can be a hotspot for climate impact, depending on the product. Primary production can be either a strength or a weakness for local products. Crucial issues are soil type (e.g., organic/mineral), yield rate, and manner and efficiency of production, including beef production. Energy use is critical in a greenhouse production as well as in a manufacturing phase in some cases (e.g., bakeries and beverage drinks). Large differences were found between the environmental impacts of local food products when compared to volume products. According to the Finnish results, environmental impacts of local food in relation to corresponding volume food products are case-specific due to low settlement intensities and long transportation distances of Finland. Also in other Nordic countries, especially in Norway and Northern Sweden generalizing the results must be done carefully.
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
Food amounts to more than a third of the environmental impact of Finnish overall consumption. When examining the impact on climate alone, food chain amounts to approximately one quarter of the climate impact of consumption, whereas the eutrophication impact on water system is even more pronounced (Sepp€al€a et al., 2009). It is both ecologically and economically unsustainable to waste edible food instead of consuming it because the environmental impacts of producing the raw materials and processing them into food have been pointless.
9.4 FOOD WASTE In Finland the amount of avoidable food waste per household each year has been observed to vary from 0 to 23.4 kg. The average annual avoidable food waste from 0 to 160 kg per person, with an average of 23 kg per person. Together it was estimated to be 120–160 million kilograms per year. The majority of discarded food is either fresh and perishable or leftovers from cooking and dining. The main discarded food categories were vegetables, home-cooked food, milk products, baked goods and grains, and fruits and berries. For meat, fish, and eggs the amount of discarded food was 7% and for convenience food 6%. For the total food waste of Finnish wholesale and retail business has been estimated to 65–75 million kilograms; 12–14 kg per Finnish citizen per year. The main product groups causing food waste in stores were fruits, vegetables, and bread. Other products resulting in waste were dairy products, fresh meat and fish, and convenience food. It has been estimated also that 75–140 million kilograms of edible food is wasted annually in the Finnish food industry. Moreover, every year consumers, food services, retailers, and food industry combined waste over 335–460 million kilograms of food in Finland, which is 62–86 kg per Finnish citizen. In Norway, consumers throw away per household on average 42.1 kg food per person per year. If we include the total Norwegian food supply chain, this amounts to 68.7 kg per person per year, which constitutes a total of 13% of Norway’s total food consumption. In CO2 equivalents, this means that the food wasted in Norway is contributing as much as one quarter of the total emissions from private cars in the country (Schrøder, Haugen, Stensga˚rd, & Hanssen, 2016).
REFERENCES Agri.Analyse. Landbruksbarometeret. (2017). Oslo 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.agrianalyse.no/ landbruksbarometeret/landbruksbarometeret-2017-article295-858.html. Accessed 6 February 2018. Danish Agriculture and Food Council. (2012). Økonomisk analyse, further reductions in agricultural environmental impact. Retrieved from: http://agricultureandfood.dk/danish-agriculture-and-food/environment. Accessed 12 January 2018. EU (2011). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions roadmap to a resource efficient Europe/* com/2011/0571 final */. FAO. (2012). FAO sustainable diets and biodiversity. Rome. E-ISBN 978-92-5-107288-2 (PDF). Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3004e/i3004e.pdf. Accessed 6 February 2018.
223
224
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
FAO. (2015). FAO and the 17sustainable development goals. Available from: http://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/. Accessed 6 February 2018. FAO. (2017). The future of food and agriculture—Trends and challenges. Rome. 978-92-5-109551-5. Heikkinen, J., Ketoja, E., Nuutinen, V., & Regina, K. (2013). Declining trend of carbon in Finnish cropland soils in 1974–2009. Global Change Biology, 19, 1456–1469. Helsedirektoratet. (2015). Utviklingen I norsk kosthold 2015. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet. Helsedirektoratet. (2016). Utviklingen I norsk kosthold 2016. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet. Katajajuuri, J. M., & Pulkkinen, H. (2015). Liha ja Ymp€arist€ o. In H. Mattila (Ed.), V€ ahemm€ an lihaa. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. LCA Food Database. (2007). Fish. Retrieved from: http://www.lcafood.dk/. Accessed 12 January 2018. M€akinen, T. (Ed.). (2008). Voidaankokalastuksella v€ ahent€ aa€ kalankasvaatuksen ravinnekuormaa. kalankasvatuksen nettokuormitusj€ arjestelm€ an esiselvitys. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute 2/2008. http://www. rktl.fi/julkaisut. ISBN 978-951-776-603-6. Nasjonalt Ra˚d for Ernæring (2017). Bærekraftig kosthold–Vurdering av de norske kostholdsra˚dene i et bærekraftsperspektiv 11/2017 IS-2678. Natural Resource Institute. (2018). Fish consumption 2016. Retrieved from: http://stat.luke.fi/en/fishconsumption-2016_en. Accessed 12 January 2018. R€as€anen, K., Silvenius, F., Riipi, I., Saarinen, M., Kurppa, S., Nousiainen, R., et al. (2015). L€ ahiruoan ekologisten vaikutusten selvitys. MTT raportti 145, 98p. Schrøder A.M., Haugen A.G., Stensga˚rd A., and Hanssen O.J. (2016) ForMat-prosjektet. Forebygging av Matsvinn, sluttrapport 2010–2015. Sepp€al€a, J., M€aenp€a€a, I., Koskela, S., Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., H€arm€a, T., Korhonen, M.-R., Saarinen, M. and Virtanen, Y. (2009). SY20/2009 Suomen kansantalouden materiaalivirtojen ymp€arist€ ovaikutusten arviointi ENVIMAT-mallilla. Suomen ymp€arist€ o 20/2009, 134 s. Suomen ymp€arist€ okeskus (SYKE). Silvenius, F. (2014). Pohjois-P€aij€anteelt€a kalastetun s€arkituotteen ymp€arist€ ovaikutukset. In L. P€ olkki, H. Heikkil€a, & A. Raulo (Eds.), L€ ahiruokaa resurssiviisaasti julkisiin keitti€ oihin (pp. 17–24). Sitra: JAMK. Silvenius, F., Gr€ onroos, J., Kankainen, M., Kurppa, S., M€akinen, T., & Vielma, J. (2017). Impact of feed raw material to climate and eutrophication impacts of Finnish rainbow trout farming and comparisons on climate impact and eutrophication between farmed and wild fish. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 1467–1473. Silvenius, F., Hietala, S., & Kurppa, S. (2015). Environmental impacts of reindeer meat—LCA analysis of Finnish production. In the spirit of the Rovaniemi process 2015 (pp. 30–31). 2nd international conference, local and global arctic, 24–26 November 2015, Rovaniemi, Lapland, Finland: conference programme & session abstracts (pp.30 31). Silvenius, F., Kurppa, S., Tauriainen, J., Nousiainen, J. and Hietala, S. (2015). L€ahiruoat julkisissa hankinnoissa – ymp€arist€ ovaikutukset hankintakriteereina Luonnonvarakeskus, luonnonvara- ja biotalouden ja tutkimus 19/2015. Silvenius, F., M€akinen, T., Gr€ onroos, J., Kurppa, S., Tahvonen, R., Kankainen, M., et al. (2012). Kirjolohen ymp€ arist€ ovaikutukset Suomessa. MTT Raportti 48: 48 s.Verkkojulkaisu p€aivitetty. Sonnesson, U., & Ziegler, F. (2010). Environmental assessment and management in the food industry: Life cycle assessment and related approaches. Woodhead Publishing series in food science, technology and nutrition. Woodehead. ISBN 978-1-84569-552-1. United Nations (1987). Our common future–Brundtland report (p. 204). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Oort, B., & Andrew, R. (2016). Climate foodprints of Norwegian dairy and meat–a synthesis. CICERO report 2016:06. Yrj€an€ainen, H., Silvenius, F., Kaukoranta, T., N€akkil€a, J., S€arkk€a, L., & Tuhkanen, E.-M. (2013). Kasvihuonetuotteiden ilmastovaikutuslaskenta: loppuraportti. MTT Raportti, 83, 43 s.
FURTHER READING Hartikainen, H., Timonen, K., Jokinen, S., Korhonen, V., Katajajuuri, J.-K., & Silvennoinen, K. (2014). Ruokah€ avikki ja pakkausvalinnat kotitalouksissa. –Kuluttajan matassa kaupasta kotiin. ECOPAH 20112013-hankkeen loppuraportti. MTT Raporti 106 MTT Jokioinen. ISBN 978-952-487-472-4.
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
Jaakko, H., Ketoja, E., Nuutinen, V., & Regina, K. (2013). Declining trend of carbon in Finnish cropland soils in 1974–2009. Global Change Biology, 19, 1456–1469. Luke. (2016). Luke Statistics database. Fish used for human consumption (kg/person/year). Retrieved from: http:// statdb.luke.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/LUKE/LUKE__06%20Kala%20ja%20riista__06%20Muut__02% 20Kalan%20kulutus/2_Kalankulutus.px/?rxid¼32211a35-c522-4d08-aa92-8da000d08c91. Accessed 21 June 2016. Luke Statistics database. (2016). Fish used for human consumption. Retrieved from: http://statdb.luke.fi/ PXWeb/pxweb/fi/LUKE/LUKE__06%20Kala%20ja%20riista__06%20Muut__02%20Kalan% 20kulutus/2_Kalankulutus.px/?rxid¼b6206e72-1acf-4344-b113-f9aa41b0ecf2. Accessed 7 June 2016. LUKE Stt info (2017). Maatalouden p€ aa€st€ ot pysyiv€ at ennallaan – maank€ ayt€ on ja mets€ atalouden nielu kattaa 47 prosenttia Suomen kokonaisp€ aa€st€ oist€ a. Retrieved from: https://www.sttinfo.fi/tiedote/maatalouden-paastotpysyivat-ennallaan-maankayton-ja-metsatalouden-nielu-kattaa-47-prosenttia-suomen-kokonaispaastoista? publisherId¼21085384&releaseId¼58833436. Accessed 2 June 2018. Saarinen, M., Sinkko, T., Joensuu, K., Silvenius, F., & Ratilainen, A. (2014). Nutrition and soil quality impacts in life cycle assessment of food. MTT Raportti 146 Jokioinen: MTT, ISBN: 978-952-487-540-0. Silvennoinen, K., Koivupuro, H. -K., Katajajuuri, J. -M., Jalkanen, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2012). Food waste volume and composition of Finnish food chain. MTT Raporti 41MTT Agrifood Research Finland. Usva, K., Nousiainen, J., Hyv€arinen, H., & Virtanen (2012). M. S. Corson & H. M. G. van der Werf (Eds.), LCAs for animal products pork, beef, milk and eggs in Finland (pp. 845–846). 8th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector. France Saint-Malo: proceedings (pp.845 846).
225
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production Frans Silvenius*, Eirin Bar† *
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland Department of Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway †
9.1 INTRODUCTION 9.1.1 Global sustainability The world population today is rapidly increasing and is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050. Although the expected growth is outside Europe the need to produce enough food globally in a sustainable manner becomes evident (FAO, 2017). As all nations rely on the same basic life support system provided by the earth, sustainable food production becomes a global challenge. However, regional differences related to temperature, topography, yearly amount of sunlight, supply of rainwater, etc. all affect what products to produce and what are environmental impacts on production. Sustainable food production is a global challenge that needs to be solved across country borders from a common commitment by nations and translated in to action by local farmers. In short, sustainable food production is a global challenge that demands local solutions (FAO, 2017). In Fall 2015 the United Nations (UN) presented 17 sustainability goals, most of these were directly or indirectly linked to food production, human health, and climate change (FAO, 2015). The goals in particular are Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security, and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture; and Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. The well-known definition of sustainable development presented in the Brundtland report in 1987 (United Nations, 1987) stated: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. FAO has now developed this definition further and made a definition of a sustainable diet: “Sustainable diets are those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources” (FAO, 2012). The northern countries need to play a part in solving
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809416-7.00009-3
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
211
212
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
the global challenges. However, the natural conditions for farming in the northern countries differs from the highly productive farmland found in the southern regions of Europe. The topography and natural climate conditions have shaped the food production systems through centuries of cultivation in the Nordic countries. Sustainable food production is dependent on the efficient utilization of resources.
9.1.2 Circumstances in Nordic countries Finland is the most northern agricultural country in the world, with a high equity ratio for main agricultural products. Finland is also famous for its thousands of lakes, as well as its thousands of rivers, minor streams, and peatlands. Freshwater systems are very important for Finland. In addition, Finland has a long coastline along the Baltic Sea, which is one of the most sensitive and polluted seas in the world. Due to the location of Finland next to the Baltic Sea, it is geographically and ecologically rather isolated and distanced from the rest of Europe. These facts cause specific environmental concerns and even some specific benefits to Finnish food production and consumption. Sweden shares the same properties of its central and northern parts, but the southern parts of Sweden are low and fertile, as they also are in Denmark. Norway and Iceland are then also quite different from the other countries. Norway has a long coastline, which is a good habitat for aquaculture. In addition, Norway and Iceland are located ashore of the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Oceans, which gives good opportunities for fisheries. That possibility is also found in the Southwest parts of Sweden and in Denmark, but Finland lacks the possibilities of having fisheries from the oceans. As for geography, 90% of Norway’s area is mountainous, as are parts of Sweden, which reduce the potential for agriculture. However, the southern part of Sweden has farmland well suited for crop production. In Norway, because of a topography with steep mountains, small continuous patches of farmable land, and a shallow layer of top soil in many areas, only 3.3% of the land area is used for farming (Agri.Analyse. Landbruksbarometeret, 2017). The main environmental concerns related to Finnish food production and consumption are eutrophication, climate impact, biodiversity loss, and dependence on fossil fuel and other unrenewable resources. Specific environmental benefits, in turn, are lower potential ecotoxicity related to agricultural chemicals and abundant renewable natural resources including particularly water resources and forestry biomass. This is the case for most Nordic countries; however, Denmark has been working hard to reduce the loss of nitrogen and phosphorus from Danish crop farming to the aquatic environment in later years, and it has now improved significantly (Danish Agriculture and Food Council, 2012). Finnish environmental research has been active in a field of agricultural and food studies covering studies on emissions from agriculture and animal husbandry, best practices to prevent environmental impacts, biowaste issues in food system, and life cycle
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
environmental impacts of food products. It is crucial for the country to have its own research on these issues, as Finland has its own specific features as a food producer. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been applied to a wide range of products including mainstream and local products as well as conventional (i.e., technical-chemical) and organic products. In addition, there has been a contribution to methodological issues in LCA concentrated mainly on data quality and acquisition issues and an inclusion of nutrition to food LCA.
9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CATEGORIES IN NORDIC FOOD PRODUCTION 9.2.1 Eutrophication Eutrophication is caused by increased nitrogen and phosphorus leaching into the water body. In addition to algae blooming, increased nutrient leaching and eutrophication lead to a decreased biodiversity in the water ecosystems and oxygen loss particularly in the deep basin of the Baltic Sea. In Finland both inland water systems and the Baltic Sea are sensitive to eutrophication. In Sweden, inland lakes and Baltic Sea areas are also sensitive to eutrophication, but for Norway and Denmark, only inland water systems are sensitive. In the Baltic Sea and inland water systems, summertime blue-green algae blooming is a growing problem, causing both inconvenience and societal costs. The nutrient dynamic in water systems are different, because phosphorus is in general a limiting factor for inland water systems and nitrogen for the seawater systems. The Baltic Sea is in some areas an exception of that because phosphorus can be a limiting factor in some areas as well. Most of Finnish lakes are naturally oligotrofic and clean, although many of the lakes are also dystrophic with abundant humic acid. These kinds of lakes are sensitive to nutrient load and acid deposition. While acidification was the main concern in 1980s and 1990s, today eutrophication is the most crucial issue. The environmental problems of the Baltic Sea also have a basis in its natural geography and hydrology, which makes it sensitive to human-based loads. The drainage area (i.e., catchment basin) of the Baltic Sea is four times larger than the sea itself, which is low and changes very slowly. This means that the nutrient load from the drainage area easily exceeds the buffer capacity of the sea. In addition to small lakes, Sweden also has freshwater lakes, which are deeper in average and not so sensitive to eutrophication. All of the Finnish cultivated areas situated in the Baltic Sea drainage area contribute 2.1% of the total nitrogen load and 2.6% of the total phosphorous load to the Baltic Sea of Finland, while the total part of Finland of the nitrogen emissions is 3.7% and for phosphorus emissions 3.8%. Cultivation areas are largely concentrated in southwestern and western Finland near the coast and typically border the waterfront of rivers. The nutrient content of river waters is significantly increased and loads directly into the Baltic Sea.
213
214
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
More than half of the nutrient loads of agriculture come from animal-related production, like field cultivation and manure treatment. The reason for nutrient leaches is related to the difficulties to optimize fertilizer consumption: yield, weather, and other circumstances cannot be foreseen precisely, which is why overfertilization occurs quite often. Despite the development of the cultivation methods and the decreased amount of fertilizers used, there have been no signs for the reduction of nutrient loads to the Baltic Sea. The very special conditions of the Finnish freshwaters and the Baltic Sea have impact on the calculation of eutrophication potential in seafood products. By using the Baltic Sea fish raw material for fish meal and fish oil to rainbow trout feed, it is possible to compensate totally the eutrophication impact caused by fish farming at the Baltic Sea level, but further calculations are needed to assess the eutrophication impacts for smaller specific areas near the fish farms. The numbers are based on calculations for phosphorus and nitrogen balances, taking into account the nitrogen and phosphorus removed from the water systems of fish-based feed ingredients and the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus caused by fish feces, exhalation, and surplus feed. The part of fish farming in nutrient loads of Finland is, however, quite small: less than 2%.
9.2.2 Climate impact Within the European Union the food and drink value chain alone causes 17% of direct greenhouse gas emissions; food production alone accounts for 25% of the total CO2 emission in Europe (EU, 2011; Sonnesson & Ziegler, 2010). Food production chain accounts for approximately 24% of climate impacts from Finnish national economy (i.e., production located in Finland). Of the 20% related to Finnish food production, about 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, 30% of them comes from dinitrogen monoxide emissions from soil, 40% from carbon dioxide emissions of organic soils, and over 10% from methane emissions of enteric fermentation. About 10% comes from energy use and 5% from manure management and storing. The part of animal production is remarkable because about 70% of the field areas are used for animal feed production. The greenhouse gas emissions from Finnish agriculture have been the same the last 20 years. In addition to the primary production, food-related greenhouse gas emissions come from processing, transports, packaging, trade, and consumers. The plants need nitrogen to grow, so nitrogen is added in almost all the field cultivation. The exceptions are nitrogen-fixating plants, such as peas, beans, and clovers, which can take nitrogen straight from the air. Especially in the organic fields the dinitrogen monoxide emissions are high, because the nitrogen, which is bonded to the soil over hundreds of years, evaporates. In addition, part of the plant residues and organic fertilizers degrade to carbon dioxide as well as lime, which is added to a large part of Finnish fields. Especially high degradation rate occurs when new fields are developed from woodlands and the surface floor is
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
Table 9.1 Overview of emissions in kg CO2 eq/kg product for some common foods in the Nordic diet Product Nordic West-Europe Global
Meat Beef Dairy cows Sheep, lamb, goat Pork Chicken Dairy Fish
9.66 24.00 18.93 – 4.48 2.54 1.05 6.70
20.41 26.34 11.27 57.00 6.12 4.77 1.17 4.65
25.22 32.83 – 21.50 3.49 2.06 1.10 16.27
The emission values have been obtained from the report Climate Footprints of Norwegian Dairy and Meat—a Synthesis by Van Oort & Andrew, 2016. The emission is calculated and compared within the system boundary of cradle to farm gate.
exposed to degradation processes of microbes. According to field experiments, the field areas in Finland evaporate carbon, thus causing carbon dioxide emissions. The fields in Finland are quite young and therefore still cause carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon evaporates faster in fields of annual crops than in the fields of multiyear crops. Climate change can also increase the carbon dioxide emissions from the soil (Heikkinen, Ketoja, Nuutinen, & Regina, 2013). The cultivation of organic peatlands in particular can cause multiple dinitrogen and carbon dioxide emissions compared to mineral soils because the soil degradation continues over decades. In Table 9.1 an overview of emissions related to climate impact in kg CO2 eq/kg product is presented, showing some of the common food products used in the Nordic diet. Any comparisons between regions, however, should be done with caution, and a closer examination of system boundaries within the underlying studies is needed to understand the origin of the differences. For further information about the data, please refer to the full report, Climate footprints of Norwegian Dairy and Meat—a synthesis (by Van Oort & Andrew, 2016). However, the studies give an overview of the situation today.
9.2.3 Biodiversity Nature with a wide biodiversity enables the functionality of the ecosystems and provides many-sided indispensable ecosystem services to human life like clean water, food, and air. The biodiversity increases the possibilities of the ecosystems to recover from disturbances. Different functionalities of agriculture can strengthen or weaken the functionality of ecosystems. The large-scale changing of the primary forest and other natural areas to fields and pastures is a great danger to biodiversity, especially in South America. This is connected to the Nordic food production chain, because South American soybeans are imported to Nordic countries for animal feed. Other disadvantages of meat production is the risk of making cultivation more one-sided; that is, to make soils poorer and bring more harmful
215
216
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
compounds to nature. The increasing meat production is considered a threat to biodiversity, because on a global scale 70% of agriculture production is used as input to meat production. Contrary to the threats of agriculture production the traditional agriculture surroundings can increase biodiversity. About one-fourth of endangered species demands pastures or other traditional surroundings. The traditional pasturing of cattle and sheep has a positive impact on biodiversity; for example, increasing breeding and feeding possibilities for many bird species. In Finland especially, traditional archipelago and coastal pastures have a high value of biodiversity. The existence of manure beetles is a good indicator of biodiversity. In addition, when organic material can return back to the soil as manure or other organic fertilizers, it has a positive influence on the functionality of the microbes and structure in soil; in that way, it affects the growth properties of the soil. Unfortunately the production of meat products is now more intensive, and areas used for traditional farming have been declining, which is a threat for many endangered species in agriculture areas. In Norway, however, of the farmable land area in use, approximately two-thirds is used to grow fodder. Depending on the year, only a limited amount of corn produced ends up as food for human consumption, around 10%–30% depending on the quality of the crop (Nasjonalt Ra˚d for Ernæring, 2017). There is a great potential for using more of Norway’s less favorable land areas as grazing pastures for animals, which will contribute positively to biodiversity by maintaining traditional landscapes and preventing overgrowth. However, keeping a larger amount of grazing animals requires additional feed to cover the yearly feed consumption for these animals, as the seasonal changes limits the grazing time. Norway has a low level of self-sufficiency ranging between 30% and 50% (Helsedirektoratet, 2015).
9.2.4 Energy use and energy sources in agriculture As energy consumption and other input necessary for food production is related to environmental impact, it is of utmost importance that the natural energy carriers within a region are used efficiently in food production. The strong currents along the Norwegian fjords is a good example. They provide oxygen-rich saltwater flowing through the salmon farming cages. Placing the salmon farming cages appropriately provides good conditions for salmon farming without additional energy input. In the same manner, cultivating crops and farming animals that are adapted to the temperatures and conditions such as soil conditions or available grazing areas in the mountains within the regions requires less input to the production system. Several traditional foods in the Nordic region, such as the Swedish surstr€ omming, the Danish rye bread, pickled herring, Norwegian dried cod, and Finnish cured meat are all food traditions that uses natural energy systems to preserve the food. These old preservation methods helps achieve a longer shelf life of the food product without the need for
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
excess energy in order to cool or freeze the product during storage. Natural conditions for drying cod outdoors in northern Norway is highly energy efficient and reduces the environmental impact associated with both processing and storage of the food product.
9.2.5 Water resources In the Nordic countries, there is plenty of freshwater to use for consumption and production; in general the water footprint is not essential for that reason. Still, the consumption of imported products can come from areas with poor water resources. For animal-based products, water is used many times more than plant-based products—especially in irrigation of feed plants, drinking water for the animals and hygiene in production buildings. It has been assumed that 70% of the water used comes from agriculture and very big part of it from the meat production chain. The production place and its water resources have the main impact on whether the water consumption has harmful impacts.
9.3 SUSTAINABILITY ASPECTS OF DIFFERENT FOOD CATEGORIES 9.3.1 Seafood According to the Natural Resource Institute the consumption of seafood in Finland was 13 kg per person in 2016. The part of imported seafood product was 9 kg and domestic products 4 kg (Natural Resource Institute, 2018). In Norway, the population eats on average 22 kg fish per person a year (Helsedirektoratet, 2016). There is no generic description for Nordic countries as a whole concerning seafood production and sustainability. In Norway, Denmark, and Iceland, much of the produced seafood comes from the ocean, and the capturing and processing units are large. When talking about sustainability, these areas are not as sensitive for eutrophication as the areas in the Baltic Sea and the inland lakes of Finland and Sweden. Critical points can be the impacts on fish stock (e.g., cod). In addition, industrial fish used as raw materials for fish meal and oil are captured by Norway, Denmark, and Iceland. In Finland the main fish species in domestic human consumption is cultivated rainbow trout, 1.2 kg per person. However, almost all fish used in domestic consumption in Finland was captured fish (Natural Resource Institute, 2018; Table 9.2). The main part of Baltic herring catch is by trawl; for the other species, nets and fish traps are used. The environmental climate impact and eutrophication impact has been calculated for of rainbow trout fillet, Baltic Herring fillet, and average fillets of perch, pike, pikeperch, and European whitefish, shown in Table 9.2. The climate impact of Finnish products made from captured fish is generally rather low because of the short distances in fishing according to existing studies. This is mainly the same for Finnish seafood production and inland catch of other Nordic countries as well. Nevertheless, except for Baltic herring, more data is needed to make
217
218
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
Table 9.2 The consumption of different fish species in Finland 2016 and results of some life-cycle assessment investigations GWP/kgCO2-eq/kg EP gPO4-eq/kg fillet kg/person/year (Natural fillet (Silvenius et al., (M€ akinen, 2008; Resource 2012; Silvenius Silvenius et al., 2012; Institute, 2018) et al., 2017) Silvenius et al., 2017) Fish species
Rainbow trout Rainbow trout BS feed Baltic herring Pike Perch Vendace European whitefish Pikeperch Others
1.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5
5.4 5.4 0.8 2.7 2.7
38.3 0 52 83 110
2.7 2.7
59 86
more accurate values for fuel consumption for other Finnish fish species. Table 9.2 also presents the eutrophication impact on different fish species. It is assumed that the nutrients in fish, which are omitted from waste systems, prevents eutrophication impacts as much as the corresponding amount of nutrients accelerate it. An important factor is that when using Baltic Sea-based (BS) feed in rainbow trout farming, the eutrophication impact reduces to zero. That does not, however, prevent all regional eutrophication impacts. That impact is not relevant in most part of the Nordic Countries because the main part of the catch does not take place in areas that are sensitive to eutrophication. Inland catches and Swedish catches of Baltic Sea have the same benefits concerning nitrogen and phosphorus uptake caused by fisheries. The significance of the different parts of the life cycle differ concerning climate impact. Processing and slaughtering are together only 2.5% of the climate impact of rainbow trout fillet and 3% for the smoked roach, but for perch steak, the part is 42%. The part of logistics was for the roach product 46% of the total climate impact, for perch steak 12%, but for the rainbow trout fillet 6%. Recent studies of small-scaled fisheries have pointed out the significance of periodically catch of perch and roach (Silvenius, 2014; Silvenius, Hietala, & Kurppa, 2015; Silvenius, Kurppa, Tauriainen, Nousiainen, & Hietala, 2015) concluding that utilization of seasonality is a critical aspect in seafood production. The climate impact of roach can be as low as 0.7 kg CO2-eq/kg including logistics, which was 46% of the total climate impact. The seasonal climate impact of captured perch can also be as low as 1.2 kg CO2-eq/kg including logistics. When comparing the LCA investigations for different fish species of other Nordic countries, it can be found that investigations concerning cultivated salmon and rainbow trout have the same kind of climate and eutrophication impact in CO2 and PO4equivalents as in Finnish rainbow trout production. Table 9.3 shows the results of life
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
Table 9.3 Climate impact for different seafood species from life cycle assessment investigations from Denmark (LCA Food Database, 2007) and Norway (Van Oort & Andrew, 2016) Fish species Denmark (GWP/ Norway (GWP/ Denmark (EP kgCO2-eq/kg fillet) kgCO2-eq/kg fillet) gNO3-eq/kg fillet)
Fresh cod fillet Flat fish Herring Mackerel Industrial fish Lobster Shrimp Mussels Saithe Farmed salmon
3.6 7.4 1.3 0.51 0.22 20.2 3 0.09
2.8–5.7 0.89–1.1 0.95 86.2
55 153 25 9.2 4.5 420 65 1.4
2.6 3.23
cycle assessment investigations from Denmark and Norway. The Danish studies also include eutrophication. In the Danish calculations the omitted amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus have not been taken into account because of different circumstances in the water areas. One of the main sustainability aspects is the sustainable utilization of fish stocks, taking into account those that are endangered. The endangered fish stocks include Baltic Salmon, some European whitefish subspecies, sea trout, lake trout, and arctic charr. The Nordic countries have a governmental management of the fish stocks, and the stocks are monitored closely before the catch quotas are decided for each species.
9.3.2 Meat and dairy products The consumption of unprocessed meat in Finland was according to Ravintotase 2015 as much as 79.4 kg per person. When the bones and preparation losses are removed the value is 40 kg per person per year. The 79.4 kg is divided as follows: pork 35.1 kg, beef 19.2 kg, sheep 0.7 kg, chicken 21.6 kg, horse 0.4 kg, reindeer 0.5 kg, and elk and other game 1.4 kg. The consumption of Norway was 76 kg unprocessed meat per person in 2016 (Helsedirektoratet, 2016). The main environmental impacts come from gaseous emissions in animal production and greenhouse gas emissions of soil (Katajajuuri & Pulkkinen, 2015). The main meat products in Finland are beef, pork, and chicken, and separate life cycle assessments have been made for all of them. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation are one reason that climate impact of the beef production chain is higher than pork and chicken as well as high feed consumption (Katajajuuri & Pulkkinen, 2015). Over 40% of the methane emissions of Finland come from beef production. Methane is the most remarkable single factor in climate impacts of beef, lamb, and milk products. Methane evaporates naturally,
219
220
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
when microbes within the grass-eating cattle and lambs melt in the rumen the carbohydrates comes from the feed. Methane is a 30-times more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, which makes the emissions very substantial in regards to global warming. Animals needs much more feed than the amount of meat they produce. Chicken and pork needs several kilos of feed for each kilo of product, and beef even uses 10 kilos of feed per kilo beef produced. In addition, the size of the area needed to produce one kilo of meat is much larger compared to producing a kilo of vegetables. This is so even when nutritional differences of the products have been taken into account, which explains the multiple higher environmental impacts of meat products compared with vegetable products (Katajajuuri & Pulkkinen, 2015). Considering the field cultivation, the use of pastures as feed gives lower environmental impacts than the use of annual crops, which is typical for Finnish production. In addition, pasturing is important, because it gives added value to biodiversity, especially when talking about traditional biotype pastures (Katajajuuri & Pulkkinen, 2015). When considering the production of beef, combined dairy and beef production is expected to have lower climate impact than suckler cow production as emissions are shared between milk and meat. In Finland the majority of consumed beef is still from dairy breeds: 25% of beef is coming from dairy cows, 53% from dairy heifer and bulls, 4% from suckler cows, 12% from beef breed heifers and bulls, and 6% of mixed breeds. The characterized values for eutrophication impacts differ between the countries, but this is mainly caused by differences in calculation methods. In the following table the eutrophication impacts of Nordic meat and dairy products are equalized in relation to each other. One part of the nutrient loss in the meat production value chain is the low capability of the animals to utilize the nutrients in feed. Only half of the nitrogen and phosphorous consumed by animals ends up in meat, and the rest end up as a part of the manure and are then spread into the fields near the animal production places, which causes phosphorus and nitrogen leaches to the water systems. Many decades of surplus amounts of phosphorus have been spread into the fields. In addition, increases in ammonia emissions of manure spreading and storage increase the eutrophication effect of animal products. The eutrophication impact from meat production can be reduced significantly, if the farms would co-operate in the utilization of the manure. This would lead to a significant reduction in the use of artificial fertilizer in plant production farms, perhaps down to zero. About 20% of the feed used in pork and chicken production is soy based. Soy-based feed causes emissions because of land use changes, when savannah and tropical forest are removed to soya fields. However, in beef production, only little soya is used in Finland. In addition to traditional feed products, a life cycle assessment has also been made for reindeer meat (Silvenius, Hietala, & Kurppa, 2015; Silvenius, Kurppa, et al., 2015) and
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
elk meat (R€as€anen et al., 2015). The calculations have been made differently, when compared to LCA of other meat products. No enteric fermentation was included in the calculations in elk meat products, and for reindeer meat only the enteric fermentation of additional feeding was included. Emissions from using natural feeds such as lichen were classified as natural and were not included. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation were calculated using feed recipes obtained from producers. The largest contributions in reindeer meat production to climate impact originated from enteric fermentation as methane and as N2O from feed production field practices and manure management. So-called game fields and greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient leaches of them were also taken into account in the elk-meat product chain. For elk meat, 78% of climate impact was caused by primary production, and the main part of that was from dinitrogen monoxide emissions from game fields. In comparison, for reindeer meat the part of enteric fermentation and dinitrogen monoxide was 59% and feed production was 10%. One of the special contributors in elk meat production is the fuel consumption for driving distances when hunting. Further investigations are still needed for reindeer to assess parts of the surplus feed in additional feeding and the estimations for nutrient leaches from manure. Research concerning game products still needs to be developed.
9.3.3 Greenhouse production Climate impact investigation of some tomato cucumber and lettuce products produced in greenhouses has been conducted by MTT Agrifood Reseach Finland (Yrj€an€ainen et al., 2013). Based on these calculations a greenhouse gas calculator was developed for greenhouse cultivators. The calculator is available on the Internet. The system boundaries include plant growing, manufacturing of lime, fertilizers and pesticides, manufacturing and disposal of pots, carbon dioxide production, irrigation, lighting, thermal curtains and cooling systems, the production and use of electricity and heat energy, distribution of products by the growers, other transportation, endof-life, and recycling. According to the results of the study, the use of energy is the most significant source of climate impact of greenhouse products. In the tomato farms the predominant source of greenhouse gas emissions was heat energy production, which was 75%–96% of the total emissions. Concerning cucumber growing, more electricity is used than in tomato production because cucumber cultivation needs more light. In total, energy production was 75%– 96% of the emissions, but the proportion of heat energy and electricity varied between the greenhouses. The amount of energy used growing salad crops was 52%–95%. Another notable result from the study was that the climate impact of the products grown in Finnish greenhouses varied significantly between the farms. In the pilot cases the variation between the tomato cultivation was 1360–3680 kg CO2-equivelents per
221
222
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
ton of tomatoes; for cucumber, it was 540–3260 kg CO2-eq/ton of cucumbers, and for salad crops 107–829 kg CO2-eq/1000 units of salad plant. When only renewable energy was used the result for tomato production was 370 kgCO2-eq/t of tomatoes, 335 kg CO2-eq/ton of cucumbers, and 59 kg/1000 units of salad plant. Since the climate impact varies significantly between the greenhouse farms, the greenhouse gas calculator developed in this project will prove a very useful tool for cultivators. The seasonal variation in greenhouse cultivation is also substantial. It was observed in the investigation that the climate impact of production in the summer months could be as little as one quarter of the climate impact of production in midwinter because the need for heating and lighting is significantly reduced during summertime. Most of greenhouses have closed circulation in their irrigation system and low use of pesticides because they use biological prevention. Therefore climate impact was assumed to be the main environmental impact class in Finnish greenhouse production.
9.3.4 Cereals The environmental impacts of grain and vegetables are highly dependent on obtained yields during cultivation. Other important factors are the role of organic soil in the cultivation and cultivation methodology. In organic farming the obtained yields can be lower than conventional farming, but attention should be paid to possible carbon sequestration. These facts mean that it is impossible to produce one value describing environmental impact for a single product category for the Nordic countries. It is therefore more appropriate to announce minimum and maximum values for production in each country.
9.3.5 Local food The local food production is an important part of Nordic food production. According to Finnish results many locally produced products used in case studies showed lower impact on climate compared to mainstream average production, however some locally produced products were also found to have higher impacts. Further, any stage of the local value chain can be a hotspot for climate impact, depending on the product. Primary production can be either a strength or a weakness for local products. Crucial issues are soil type (e.g., organic/mineral), yield rate, and manner and efficiency of production, including beef production. Energy use is critical in a greenhouse production as well as in a manufacturing phase in some cases (e.g., bakeries and beverage drinks). Large differences were found between the environmental impacts of local food products when compared to volume products. According to the Finnish results, environmental impacts of local food in relation to corresponding volume food products are case-specific due to low settlement intensities and long transportation distances of Finland. Also in other Nordic countries, especially in Norway and Northern Sweden generalizing the results must be done carefully.
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
Food amounts to more than a third of the environmental impact of Finnish overall consumption. When examining the impact on climate alone, food chain amounts to approximately one quarter of the climate impact of consumption, whereas the eutrophication impact on water system is even more pronounced (Sepp€al€a et al., 2009). It is both ecologically and economically unsustainable to waste edible food instead of consuming it because the environmental impacts of producing the raw materials and processing them into food have been pointless.
9.4 FOOD WASTE In Finland the amount of avoidable food waste per household each year has been observed to vary from 0 to 23.4 kg. The average annual avoidable food waste from 0 to 160 kg per person, with an average of 23 kg per person. Together it was estimated to be 120–160 million kilograms per year. The majority of discarded food is either fresh and perishable or leftovers from cooking and dining. The main discarded food categories were vegetables, home-cooked food, milk products, baked goods and grains, and fruits and berries. For meat, fish, and eggs the amount of discarded food was 7% and for convenience food 6%. For the total food waste of Finnish wholesale and retail business has been estimated to 65–75 million kilograms; 12–14 kg per Finnish citizen per year. The main product groups causing food waste in stores were fruits, vegetables, and bread. Other products resulting in waste were dairy products, fresh meat and fish, and convenience food. It has been estimated also that 75–140 million kilograms of edible food is wasted annually in the Finnish food industry. Moreover, every year consumers, food services, retailers, and food industry combined waste over 335–460 million kilograms of food in Finland, which is 62–86 kg per Finnish citizen. In Norway, consumers throw away per household on average 42.1 kg food per person per year. If we include the total Norwegian food supply chain, this amounts to 68.7 kg per person per year, which constitutes a total of 13% of Norway’s total food consumption. In CO2 equivalents, this means that the food wasted in Norway is contributing as much as one quarter of the total emissions from private cars in the country (Schrøder, Haugen, Stensga˚rd, & Hanssen, 2016).
REFERENCES Agri.Analyse. Landbruksbarometeret. (2017). Oslo 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.agrianalyse.no/ landbruksbarometeret/landbruksbarometeret-2017-article295-858.html. Accessed 6 February 2018. Danish Agriculture and Food Council. (2012). Økonomisk analyse, further reductions in agricultural environmental impact. Retrieved from: http://agricultureandfood.dk/danish-agriculture-and-food/environment. Accessed 12 January 2018. EU (2011). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions roadmap to a resource efficient Europe/* com/2011/0571 final */. FAO. (2012). FAO sustainable diets and biodiversity. Rome. E-ISBN 978-92-5-107288-2 (PDF). Retrieved from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3004e/i3004e.pdf. Accessed 6 February 2018.
223
224
Nutritional and Health Aspects of Food in Nordic Countries
FAO. (2015). FAO and the 17sustainable development goals. Available from: http://www.un.org/ sustainabledevelopment/. Accessed 6 February 2018. FAO. (2017). The future of food and agriculture—Trends and challenges. Rome. 978-92-5-109551-5. Heikkinen, J., Ketoja, E., Nuutinen, V., & Regina, K. (2013). Declining trend of carbon in Finnish cropland soils in 1974–2009. Global Change Biology, 19, 1456–1469. Helsedirektoratet. (2015). Utviklingen I norsk kosthold 2015. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet. Helsedirektoratet. (2016). Utviklingen I norsk kosthold 2016. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet. Katajajuuri, J. M., & Pulkkinen, H. (2015). Liha ja Ymp€arist€ o. In H. Mattila (Ed.), V€ ahemm€ an lihaa. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. LCA Food Database. (2007). Fish. Retrieved from: http://www.lcafood.dk/. Accessed 12 January 2018. M€akinen, T. (Ed.). (2008). Voidaankokalastuksella v€ ahent€ aa€ kalankasvaatuksen ravinnekuormaa. kalankasvatuksen nettokuormitusj€ arjestelm€ an esiselvitys. Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute 2/2008. http://www. rktl.fi/julkaisut. ISBN 978-951-776-603-6. Nasjonalt Ra˚d for Ernæring (2017). Bærekraftig kosthold–Vurdering av de norske kostholdsra˚dene i et bærekraftsperspektiv 11/2017 IS-2678. Natural Resource Institute. (2018). Fish consumption 2016. Retrieved from: http://stat.luke.fi/en/fishconsumption-2016_en. Accessed 12 January 2018. R€as€anen, K., Silvenius, F., Riipi, I., Saarinen, M., Kurppa, S., Nousiainen, R., et al. (2015). L€ ahiruoan ekologisten vaikutusten selvitys. MTT raportti 145, 98p. Schrøder A.M., Haugen A.G., Stensga˚rd A., and Hanssen O.J. (2016) ForMat-prosjektet. Forebygging av Matsvinn, sluttrapport 2010–2015. Sepp€al€a, J., M€aenp€a€a, I., Koskela, S., Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., H€arm€a, T., Korhonen, M.-R., Saarinen, M. and Virtanen, Y. (2009). SY20/2009 Suomen kansantalouden materiaalivirtojen ymp€arist€ ovaikutusten arviointi ENVIMAT-mallilla. Suomen ymp€arist€ o 20/2009, 134 s. Suomen ymp€arist€ okeskus (SYKE). Silvenius, F. (2014). Pohjois-P€aij€anteelt€a kalastetun s€arkituotteen ymp€arist€ ovaikutukset. In L. P€ olkki, H. Heikkil€a, & A. Raulo (Eds.), L€ ahiruokaa resurssiviisaasti julkisiin keitti€ oihin (pp. 17–24). Sitra: JAMK. Silvenius, F., Gr€ onroos, J., Kankainen, M., Kurppa, S., M€akinen, T., & Vielma, J. (2017). Impact of feed raw material to climate and eutrophication impacts of Finnish rainbow trout farming and comparisons on climate impact and eutrophication between farmed and wild fish. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 1467–1473. Silvenius, F., Hietala, S., & Kurppa, S. (2015). Environmental impacts of reindeer meat—LCA analysis of Finnish production. In the spirit of the Rovaniemi process 2015 (pp. 30–31). 2nd international conference, local and global arctic, 24–26 November 2015, Rovaniemi, Lapland, Finland: conference programme & session abstracts (pp.30 31). Silvenius, F., Kurppa, S., Tauriainen, J., Nousiainen, J. and Hietala, S. (2015). L€ahiruoat julkisissa hankinnoissa – ymp€arist€ ovaikutukset hankintakriteereina Luonnonvarakeskus, luonnonvara- ja biotalouden ja tutkimus 19/2015. Silvenius, F., M€akinen, T., Gr€ onroos, J., Kurppa, S., Tahvonen, R., Kankainen, M., et al. (2012). Kirjolohen ymp€ arist€ ovaikutukset Suomessa. MTT Raportti 48: 48 s.Verkkojulkaisu p€aivitetty. Sonnesson, U., & Ziegler, F. (2010). Environmental assessment and management in the food industry: Life cycle assessment and related approaches. Woodhead Publishing series in food science, technology and nutrition. Woodehead. ISBN 978-1-84569-552-1. United Nations (1987). Our common future–Brundtland report (p. 204). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Oort, B., & Andrew, R. (2016). Climate foodprints of Norwegian dairy and meat–a synthesis. CICERO report 2016:06. Yrj€an€ainen, H., Silvenius, F., Kaukoranta, T., N€akkil€a, J., S€arkk€a, L., & Tuhkanen, E.-M. (2013). Kasvihuonetuotteiden ilmastovaikutuslaskenta: loppuraportti. MTT Raportti, 83, 43 s.
FURTHER READING Hartikainen, H., Timonen, K., Jokinen, S., Korhonen, V., Katajajuuri, J.-K., & Silvennoinen, K. (2014). Ruokah€ avikki ja pakkausvalinnat kotitalouksissa. –Kuluttajan matassa kaupasta kotiin. ECOPAH 20112013-hankkeen loppuraportti. MTT Raporti 106 MTT Jokioinen. ISBN 978-952-487-472-4.
Environmental Sustainability Issues Regarding Nordic Food Production
Jaakko, H., Ketoja, E., Nuutinen, V., & Regina, K. (2013). Declining trend of carbon in Finnish cropland soils in 1974–2009. Global Change Biology, 19, 1456–1469. Luke. (2016). Luke Statistics database. Fish used for human consumption (kg/person/year). Retrieved from: http:// statdb.luke.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/LUKE/LUKE__06%20Kala%20ja%20riista__06%20Muut__02% 20Kalan%20kulutus/2_Kalankulutus.px/?rxid¼32211a35-c522-4d08-aa92-8da000d08c91. Accessed 21 June 2016. Luke Statistics database. (2016). Fish used for human consumption. Retrieved from: http://statdb.luke.fi/ PXWeb/pxweb/fi/LUKE/LUKE__06%20Kala%20ja%20riista__06%20Muut__02%20Kalan% 20kulutus/2_Kalankulutus.px/?rxid¼b6206e72-1acf-4344-b113-f9aa41b0ecf2. Accessed 7 June 2016. LUKE Stt info (2017). Maatalouden p€ aa€st€ ot pysyiv€ at ennallaan – maank€ ayt€ on ja mets€ atalouden nielu kattaa 47 prosenttia Suomen kokonaisp€ aa€st€ oist€ a. Retrieved from: https://www.sttinfo.fi/tiedote/maatalouden-paastotpysyivat-ennallaan-maankayton-ja-metsatalouden-nielu-kattaa-47-prosenttia-suomen-kokonaispaastoista? publisherId¼21085384&releaseId¼58833436. Accessed 2 June 2018. Saarinen, M., Sinkko, T., Joensuu, K., Silvenius, F., & Ratilainen, A. (2014). Nutrition and soil quality impacts in life cycle assessment of food. MTT Raportti 146 Jokioinen: MTT, ISBN: 978-952-487-540-0. Silvennoinen, K., Koivupuro, H. -K., Katajajuuri, J. -M., Jalkanen, L., & Reinikainen, A. (2012). Food waste volume and composition of Finnish food chain. MTT Raporti 41MTT Agrifood Research Finland. Usva, K., Nousiainen, J., Hyv€arinen, H., & Virtanen (2012). M. S. Corson & H. M. G. van der Werf (Eds.), LCAs for animal products pork, beef, milk and eggs in Finland (pp. 845–846). 8th international conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector. France Saint-Malo: proceedings (pp.845 846).
225