Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T14:13:30.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The climatic impact of food consumption in a representative sample of Irish adults and implications for food and nutrition policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2016

John J Hyland
Affiliation:
Department of Agrifood Business and Spatial Analysis, Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Republic of Ireland
Maeve Henchion
Affiliation:
Department of Agrifood Business and Spatial Analysis, Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Republic of Ireland
Mary McCarthy
Affiliation:
Department of Food Business & Development, University College Cork, Cork, Republic of Ireland
Sinéad N McCarthy*
Affiliation:
Department of Agrifood Business and Spatial Analysis, Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Republic of Ireland
*
*Corresponding author: Email sinead.mccarthy@teagasc.ie
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) associated with the diet of Irish adults.

Design

GHGE were estimated by applying conversion factors to habitual food consumption data taken from the National Adult Nutrition Survey, which was representative of the population. Descriptive analyses were undertaken for GHGE for the total population, as well as accounting for energy misreporting and across categories of sociodemographic and socio-economic factors and tertiles of emissions.

Setting

Republic of Ireland.

Subjects

Adults aged 18–87 years (n 1500).

Results

The GHGE derived from daily dietary intakes was estimated as 6·5 kg of CO2 equivalents (CO2eq) per person. Males, younger consumers, those with secondary education and student employment status were associated with significantly higher GHGE. Red meat was the highest contributor to GHGE with 1646 g CO2eq arising from a mean intake of 47 g/d. Dairy and starchy staples were the next largest dietary GHGE sources, with mean daily emissions of 732 g CO2eq and 647 g CO2eq, respectively. The lowest emissions were associated with consumption of vegetables, fruits and legumes/pulses/nuts.

Conclusions

Based on profiling using actual food consumption data, it is evident that one single measure is not sufficient and a range of evidence-based mitigation measures with potential to lower emissions throughout the food chain should be considered. The research contributes towards an improved understanding of the climatic impact of the dietary intakes of Irish adults and can serve to inform a sustainability framework to guide action in food and nutrition policy development.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2016 

The production and consumption of food have direct impacts on both human health and the environment( Reference Joyce, Hallett and Hannelly 1 ). Agricultural production is ultimately driven by food consumption demands and represents a substantial source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases( Reference Buttriss 2 , Reference Macdiarmid 3 ). In Ireland, the agricultural sector is one of the largest indigenous industries, with approximately 90 % of the food produced exported to the UK, the EU and other markets. Thus, relative to many other European countries, Ireland is somewhat unusual in that the agricultural sector constitutes the largest proportion (32·3 %) of national greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE)( 4 ). Ireland has its own climate change legislation and is also subject to EU emission reduction targets( 5 7 ). Considering that food consumption strongly influences the climatic impact of the food system( Reference Röös, Karlsson and Witthöft 8 ), achieving mitigation targets may prove challenging without significant changes to diets( Reference Audsley, Brander and Chatterton 9 ). However, altering diet for climatic reasons may have implications from a public health and nutrition perspective. Unsurprisingly therefore, the FAO recommends giving due consideration to climatic impacts when developing dietary guidelines and policies( 10 ).

The climatic impact of food consumption is measured based on the global warming potential of greenhouse gases generated throughout the food chain. A global warming potential is a relative measure of how much heat, relative to CO2, a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere and is expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2eq)( Reference Röös, Sundberg and Hansson 11 ). Both activity data (i.e. food consumed) and emission factors (multipliers that convert quantity of foods consumed to GHGE) are required to calculate a carbon footprint of one’s diet. Generally, a carbon footprint is based on life cycle assessment (LCA), which reflects total CO2eq generated throughout each stage of the food system( Reference Liu, Wang and Su 12 ). Each stage is defined by a system boundary which indicates the point along the food chain at which emissions are assessed and aggregated( Reference Baumann and Tillman 13 ). From this, the final carbon footprint is expressed by a functional unit which can be used to reflect the way in which a product is consumed( 14 ). For instance, emissions associated with dietary patterns are typically expressed in terms of weight of food consumed (i.e. quantity of GHGE per quantity of food consumed)( Reference Auestad and Fulgoni 15 ).

The largest proportion of the GHGE from food products is generated on-farm, with markedly lower emissions from reprocessing, retail, preparation, consumption and waste( Reference Röös, Sundberg and Hansson 11 ). The contribution of ruminants towards anthropogenic-induced climate change is particularly relevant as methane, a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential twenty-five times that of CO2, is generated on-farm( Reference Garnett 16 18 ). For this reason, the carbon footprint of beef and lamb can be as much as forty times greater than that of many fruits and vegetables per gram of food eaten( Reference Röös, Karlsson and Witthöft 8 , Reference Berners-Lee, Hoolohan and Cammack 19 Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 ).

Dietary emissions

The concept of ‘sustainable diets’ was coined in light of recognition of the need for food to be both nutritious and environmentally considerate. The FAO has defined sustainable diets as ‘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’( 23 ). Therefore, diets should not only adhere to nutritional adequacy principles but also environmental and ethical concerns. This represents challenges all along the food chain and especially to those involved in formulating nutritional guidelines( Reference Friel, Dangour and Garnett 24 ). The concept of sustainable diets represents an opportunity to successfully advance commitments to achieving emissions targets by reducing dietary emissions( Reference Johnston, Fanzo and Cogill 25 ). To date a range of studies have been undertaken to quantify the GHGE associated with differing dietary patterns and propose recommendations for changes in consumption that are both nutritious and sustainable( Reference Joyce, Hallett and Hannelly 1 , Reference Auestad and Fulgoni 15 , Reference Heller, Keoleian and Willett 26 ).

Evidence points to many inherent contradictions which should be considered when developing and implementing sustainable dietary recommendations. In certain studies, modelling scenarios have been used which show that reducing dietary GHGE while ensuring nutritional adequacy is theoretically feasible( Reference van Dooren, Marinussen and Blonk 27 Reference Saxe, Larsen and Mogensen 29 ). Such studies are theoretical in nature and do not take into consideration the prevailing food consumption patterns of a population or inherent difficulties in changing consumer behaviour. Conversely, research derived from the French national food consumption data demonstrated that self-selecting diets which are lower in dietary emissions were also lower in nutritional quality when assessed on a nutrient density score rather than per gram of food consumed( Reference Vieux, Darmon and Touazi 30 Reference Masset, Vieux and Verger 32 ). Vieux et al. observed that those who consumed a healthy diet, defined by low energy density, and low intakes of saturated fat, sugar and salt but high nutrient density, had higher GHGE( Reference Vieux, Soler and Touazi 31 ). Meanwhile, Masset et al. also showed that diets with lower than average GHGE tended to be less healthy based on nutrient density scores( Reference Masset, Vieux and Verger 32 ). The relationship of higher intakes of fruits and vegetables with lower GHGE and better health outcomes has also been demonstrated. Scarborough et al. showed a positive relationship between GHGE and the quantity of animal-based foods in a standardised 8368 kJ (2000 kcal) diet( Reference Scarborough, Appleby and Mizdrak 33 ). Furthermore, that study found that as the quantity of animal-based foods decreased the intake of fruits and vegetables increased; this resulted in higher consumption of fibre and lower consumption of saturated fat( Reference Scarborough, Appleby and Mizdrak 33 ).

Internationally, there have been numerous assessments of GHGE based on consumption surveys( Reference Berners-Lee, Hoolohan and Cammack 19 , Reference Vieux, Darmon and Touazi 30 , Reference Hoolohan, Berners-Lee and McKinstry-West 34 , Reference Temme, Toxopeus and Kramer 35 ). Consumption surveys tend to be favoured as they are often more representative of food intake than other methods which use commodity data to derive consumption( Reference Heller, Keoleian and Willett 26 ). However, inherent shortcomings in these data can occur as respondents can be inclined to change their food habits when consumption is recorded or others may not report consumption of various foods( 36 ). ‘Energy misreporters’ refers to individuals whose food intake is insufficient to sustain their BMR( Reference Black 37 , Reference Goldberg, Black and Jebb 38 ). Only in some instances are outliers or misreporters in consumption data accounted for when reporting dietary emissions( Reference Vieux, Darmon and Touazi 30 ). However, interpreting dietary emissions using consumption data is not without other challenges. For example, per capita dietary emissions in the UK have been estimated to range between 5·7 and 8·8 kg CO2eq/d( Reference Berners-Lee, Hoolohan and Cammack 19 , Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 , Reference Hoolohan, Berners-Lee and McKinstry-West 34 ). Deviations between reported UK dietary emissions are primarily a result of methodological differences, most notably the distinct system boundaries adopted, emission factors used and food consumption data assessed by each respective study. Methodological issues can consequently make direct comparisons between studies difficult. It is therefore important that the methods used to attain dietary emissions are explicitly stated as contrasting approaches can greatly influence overall findings.

To date no detailed analysis has been undertaken to determine the GHGE associated with food consumption in a national representative sample of Irish adults. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to take account of the aforementioned methodological considerations to determine the levels of and contributors to GHGE in the Irish diet. This was achieved by identifying a range of previously estimated emission factors from the literature which were applicable to an Irish context. The study adds to the current literature in that it uses representative food consumption data, accounts for energy misreporters, while also adopting emission factors that include emissions induced post-retail. It is hoped that in doing so a best possible estimate of Irish dietary emissions can be calculated. Determining the GHGE of nationally representative dietary patterns can serve to inform a framework to guide action in public health nutrition towards sustainable diets. Thus, the findings of the present study can assist in developing policies and practices that address dietary factors contributing to climate change.

Methodology

Food consumption data

Food consumption data from the National Adult Nutrition Survey (NANS) of Ireland were used( 39 ). The survey has been described previously in detail by Naughton et al.( Reference Naughton, McCarthy and McCarthy 40 ). In brief, NANS was conducted from 2008 to 2010 on 1500 Irish adults ranging in age from 18 to 87 years and is representative of the Irish population with respect to age, gender, geographic location, marital status and social class when compared with the national census data from 2006, as illustrated in Table 1. The demographic features of the NANS have been shown to be representative of Irish adults with respect to age, gender, social class and geographical location when compared to census data( 39 ).

Table 1 The sociodemographic profile of National Adult Nutrition Survey (NANS) participants in comparison with national Irish census of population data (n 1500 denotes full NANS sample; n 960 denotes the NANS sample with energy misreporters removed)

* Irish Census data freely available from the Central Statistics Office, Ireland.

Ethical approval for the survey was granted by the University College Cork Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospitals and written informed consent was obtained from study participants. A semi-weighed food diary was used to collect data on food and beverage intake on four consecutive days. The days of data collection were different for each participant to ensure that all weekdays and weekend days were equally recorded. Participants were instructed to provide detailed information on the amount and types of all foods and beverages consumed over the recording period and where applicable, the cooking methods, brand names of the foods, and details of recipes and leftovers. The Weighted Intake Software Program (WISP; Tinuviel Software, Warrington, UK) was used to analyse the food intake data to generate nutrient intakes. Each of the 2552 different foods consumed during the survey was assigned to one of sixty-seven food groups.

Allocating emission factors

At the time of the present study a comprehensive GHGE profile of the foods consumed in Ireland was unavailable. Therefore, GHGE factors from multiple sources in the literature were reviewed and those most applicable to an Irish context were used as detailed in online ‘Supplementary material 1’. The emission factors assigned to the food groups from the NANS are drawn primarily from studies in the UK( Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 ) and the USA( Reference Heller and Keoleian 41 ), where both carried out extensive meta-analyses of GHGE associated with food consumption. The system boundary at which emission factors are assessed is defined to include emissions associated with food production, packing, distribution, storage/refrigeration, transportation, food handling/preparation and consumer waste( Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 , Reference Heller and Keoleian 41 , Reference Venkat 42 ). Emission factors related exclusively to Irish dairy produce were previously generated. These factors were used for the present study as the vast majority of dairy produce consumed in Ireland is produced domestically( Reference Finnegan, Goggins and Clifford 43 ). However, the available emission factors relating to Irish dairy did not include emissions associated with the LCA system boundaries from retail to waste. Therefore, the same approach as in Green et al. was adopted when accounting for these post-retail emissions( Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 ). Emissions to include these boundaries were subsequently estimated to be an additional 18 % for milk and milk products, and 14 % for butter; with 9 % added to all dairy products to account for travel and refrigeration( Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 , Reference Goldberg, Black and Jebb 38 ). For the purpose of the present study dietary emissions can be defined as the quantity of daily GHGE generated by the consumption of food by an individual.

Analyses

The conversion factors for emissions were applied to the disaggregated sixty-seven NANS food groups and these were then further aggregated into sixteen food groups of similar food type characteristics. For instance, the food group labelled ‘Red meat’ comprised ‘beef and veal’, ‘lamb’, ‘burgers’, ‘offal and offal dishes’ derived from ruminants, the ruminant proportion of ‘red meat dishes’, along with the ruminant proportion of ‘lamb, pork, and bacon dishes’ from the NANS. Details of how each of the groups was aggregated are presented in online ‘Supplementary material 1’. Of the 1500 participants, 540 were classified as energy misreporters as they had a ratio of energy intake to BMR that was either missing or did not fit into the recommended range of confidence limits of 1·02–2·35( Reference Black 37 , Reference Goldberg, Black and Jebb 38 ). To highlight the impact of energy misreporting on dietary emissions, some analyses focused on dietary emissions associated with food groups included the whole sample (n 1500) as well as some which only included representative energy reporters (n 960). Emissions intensity was calculated as the quantity of GHGE in kilograms generated per energy provided in megajoules (kg CO2eq/MJ)( Reference Pradhan, Reusser and Kropp 44 ). Three sensitivity analyses were carried out (see online ‘Supplementary material 2’). First, the proportion of the meat component of composite dishes was increased from 35 to 50 %. Second, US emission factors were favoured where possible over those adopted from the UK. Third, emission factors for animal products were reduced by 20 %.

Statistical analyses were carried out using the statistical software package PASW Statistics Version 18.0. The size of the data set was sufficiently large to apply the Central Limit Theorem so that normality could be assumed( Reference Lumley, Diehr and Emerson 45 ). Independent t tests and ANOVA tests were used to determine significant differences. Levene’s test of homogeneity was used to inspect equality of variance for parametric tests. If homogeneity was confirmed, ANOVA was carried out with Bonferroni corrections; otherwise ANOVA was performed using the Welch test followed by the Games–Howell post hoc test. An α level of <0·05 was used to determine statistical significance.

Sociodemographic profiles of food consumption, dietary emissions and emissions intensity patterns were first assessed. Subsequent analysis was carried out to determine the relationship between GHGE and food consumption for the total population and excluding energy misreporters. Thereafter, dietary emissions and energy for each of the food groups were evaluated based on their relative (percentage) daily contribution towards total daily GHGE and energy intake. Participants were also classified into gender-specific groups of low, moderate and high emitters in terms of total dietary emissions. To account for gender differences in food intake and associated GHGE, tertile values were calculated specifically for men and for women separately and then combined into the gender-specific tertiles. Hence each tertile contained an equal proportion of males and females.

Results

Sociodemographic and socio-economic profiles of food consumption and dietary emissions

Table 2 presents differences in dietary GHGE, food intake, energy intake and emissions intensity of food consumption across sociodemographic and socio-economic categories. With the exception of location, significant differences in dietary emissions were observed for all categories. Males, younger consumers, those with secondary education and student employment status were associated with significantly higher GHGE. Similar patterns were also observed for food and energy intakes, except for education where no significant differences were observed. However, when emissions were expressed as intensity (CO2eq/MJ per d), significant differences were observed only for gender whereby men had significantly higher emissions intensity compared with women. Many of these differences were explained by differences in food intakes; for example, men consumed significantly more meat than women, and younger groups consumed significantly more burgers and alcohol (data not shown).

Table 2 Mean daily greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), food intakes, energy intakes and emissions intensities, across sociodemographic and socio-economic categories, for the sample of nationally representative Irish adults excluding energy misreporters (n 960)

CO2eq, CO2 equivalents.

a,b,c,dMean values within a column (within sociodemographic and socio-economic categories) with unlike superscript letters were significantly different (P<0·05).

Relationship between food consumption and emissions

Food consumption and its associated dietary GHGE are shown in Table 3 for both the total population and a sample excluding misreporters (n 960). Mean daily GHGE associated with food consumption was 6532 g CO2eq for representative energy reporters and 5992 g CO2eq for the total population when energy misreporters were included in the analysis. The inclusion of energy misreporters in the sample resulted in lower daily emissions from all of the food groups. Representative energy reporters consumed a daily total mean food intake of 3005 g. The food group with the highest intake was starchy staples with 387 g consumed daily, which accounted for 647 g CO2eq. The highest beverage group intake was 1234 g/d for ‘other beverages’ which include tea, coffee, water, etc. and accounted for 402 g CO2eq/d. The highest daily contributor to GHGE at 1646 g CO2eq was red meat, arising from a mean intake of 47 g/d. Dairy (289 g/d) and starchy staples (387 g/d) were the next largest dietary GHGE sources, with mean daily emissions of 732 g CO2eq and 647 g CO2eq, respectively. The lowest emissions were associated with consumption of vegetables, fruits and legumes/pulses/nuts.

Table 3 Mean daily food intakes and associated dietary greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) for the total sample of nationally representative Irish adults (n 1500) and excluding energy misreporters (n 960)

CO2eq, CO2 equivalents.

Table 4 profiles the percentage contribution and ranking of each of the food groups in terms of contribution to both emissions and energy intake, as well as the ratio of emissions generated relative to the energy intake derived from the food group. Red meat was consumed by more than three-quarters of the population and was associated with 22·3 % of daily GHGE while providing just over 4 % of daily energy intake (Table 4). Therefore, the red meat food group generated high daily dietary emissions while providing a relatively low proportion of dietary energy, with a GHGE:MJ of 5·1:1. Dairy followed as being the next largest GHGE source but, unlike red meat, its GHGE:MJ was nearly proportionate (1·1:1). Starchy staples were the highest energy source, providing almost 30 % of overall energy intake; they were also the third highest contributor to GHGE at 10·6 %. High-sugar snacks were the second highest source of energy intake at 14·6 % but scored lowest in terms of their GHGE:MJ (0·3:1).

Table 4 Food groups’ ranking in terms of contribution to daily dietary greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), daily energy intake (MJ) and the ratio of daily emissions to energy provided by the food group (GHGE:MJ) for the nationally representative sample of Irish adults excluding energy misreporters (n 960)

Classification of low, moderate and high emitters

To further profile the differences in GHGE, tertile analysis was undertaken to determine low, moderate and high dietary emissions. Men and women were categorised separately to account for gender differences in food intake and subsequent dietary emissions. The total sample was then classified into three equal groups of low, moderate and high emitters in terms of their total dietary emissions. Table 5 presents the contribution of each food group in respect of GHGE and daily intake across the tertiles of low, medium and high GHGE emitters.

Table 5 Mean daily intake of each food group and associated greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) across tertiles of low, moderate and high emitters for the nationally representative sample of Irish adults excluding energy misreporters (n 960)

CO2eq, CO2 equivalents.

a,b.cMean values within a row (across food intake or GHGE tertiles) with unlike superscript letters were significantly different (P<0·05).

Total dietary emissions and total food intake increased significantly across increasing tertile (P<0·05). Those categorised as high emitters had almost twice the GHGE associated with food consumption than their low emitter peers. Dairy, followed by starchy staples, were the largest contributors to emissions for the low emitter tertile. Red meat followed by alcoholic beverages were the largest sources of GHGE for moderate and high emitters. Significant differences were observed across all three groups in both dietary emissions and intakes of red meat, carbonated beverages and alcoholic beverages. No significant differences in dietary emissions were observed between emitters for many food groups; namely, vegetables, legumes/pulses/nuts, eggs/poultry/pork, fish and fats/oils.

Discussion

Research concerning the deleterious climatic impact of the food system generally relies on typified diets or diets based on average food consumption patterns, thereby not capturing the diversity observed across a representative sample of the population( Reference Heller, Keoleian and Willett 26 ). In many studies, dietary emissions are based on consumption-level data from published data (food consumed)( Reference Macdiarmid, Kyle and Horgan 21 , Reference Saxe, Larsen and Mogensen 29 Reference Vieux, Soler and Touazi 31 , Reference Aston, Smith and Powles 46 Reference Wilson, Nghiem and Ni Mhurchu 48 ) or GHGE from agricultural commodities( Reference Risku-Norja, Kurppa and Helenius 49 Reference Popp, Lotze-Campen and Bodirsky 52 ). It has been argued that food consumption surveys provide a more realistic distribution of dietary intakes across societal demographics( Reference Heller, Keoleian and Willett 26 ). However, when possible, energy misreporters should be accounted for in analyses to allow for a more realistic interpretation of results( Reference Vieux, Darmon and Touazi 30 ). This is frequently overlooked in many studies and may result in less accurate and lower reported emission levels. The considerations outlined highlight the notable challenges in making direct and meaningful comparisons between studies as no agreed methodology exists to determine GHGE associated with food consumption. It also highlights the need for harmonisation of national population analysis of dietary GHGE outputs, with the need to be consistent in data type (commodity v. consumption), accounting for energy misreporting, as well as using conversion factors with the same system boundaries.

Dietary emissions were estimated in the present study to be 6·5 kg CO2eq/d for a representative sample of the Irish population. Every attempt has been made to calculate as accurately as possible the GHGE associated with food consumption by using full LCA while also accounting for misreporters. Tukker et al.( Reference Tukker, Goldbohm and de Koning 28 ) used food balance sheets from the FAO to estimate 7·1 kg CO2eq/d as the average GHGE associated with food consumption in the EU. Although the method used by Tukker et al. overestimates per capita consumption, it is an accurate procedure for calculating food-related environmental impacts such as dietary emissions( Reference Heller, Keoleian and Willett 26 ). Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that at the very least emissions related to food consumption in Ireland are comparable to those across the EU.

Comparability between international and national studies can be difficult due to the varying types of data source used and/or differences such as system boundaries in the emission factors adopted. Researchers from the UK( Reference Berners-Lee, Hoolohan and Cammack 19 , Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 , Reference Hoolohan, Berners-Lee and McKinstry-West 34 ) , France( Reference Vieux, Darmon and Touazi 30 ) and the Netherlands( Reference Temme, Toxopeus and Kramer 35 ) have obtained dietary data from similar national nutritional surveys as NANS and provide useful comparisons. What is more, Ireland, France, the Netherlands and the UK are comparable in that they share diets that are characterised by low ratio of vegetal to animal energy, high intake of animal fats, and relatively low intakes of cereals and vegetables( Reference Tukker, Goldbohm and de Koning 28 ). Various studies have approximated UK dietary emissions as 5·7( Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 ), 7·3( Reference Berners-Lee, Hoolohan and Cammack 19 ) and 8·8 kg CO2eq/d( Reference Hoolohan, Berners-Lee and McKinstry-West 34 ). Some of the differences in UK estimates can be attributed to the differences in system boundaries, the particular wave of the UK national consumption survey used, emission factors adopted, and whether the study includes children as well as adults. French and Dutch adult dietary emissions have been reported as 4·2 kg CO2eq/d( Reference Vieux, Darmon and Touazi 30 ) and 4·3 kg CO2eq/d( Reference Temme, Toxopeus and Kramer 35 ), respectively. The omission of post-retail emissions and emissions associated with waste may partially explain the higher emission profile of Ireland in comparison to France( Reference Vieux, Darmon and Touazi 30 ). Furthermore, meat consumption for adults in the French dietary survey used to derive food consumption was 35 % lower than that of the NANS, which would have greatly influenced overall GHGE( 53 ). Dutch dietary emissions were also lower than those observed in Ireland; although Dutch emission factors considered GHGE associated with food waste, energy misreporters were not accounted for in the analysis( Reference Temme, Toxopeus and Kramer 35 ). Indeed, the authors suggested that dietary emissions were underestimated by a similar order of magnitude (15 %) to the proportion of energy under-reporters observed the study( Reference Temme, Toxopeus and Kramer 35 ). Additionally, Dutch meat consumption was 44 % lower than observed in Ireland( Reference van Rossum, Fransen and Verkaik-Kloosterman 54 ). However, the emission factors applied to meat were lower for both the French and Dutch studies, which may further contribute to their lower overall dietary emissions compared with those of Ireland.

The majority of emission factors used in the present study were those used by Green et al.; in their study, UK dietary emissions for adults were estimated at 5·7 kg CO2eq/d( Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 ). However, the UK estimates did not account for energy misreporting; hence their findings were broadly similar to those observed herein of 6·0 kg CO2eq/d when the total population including energy misreporters was considered. Meat consumption was 10 % higher in Ireland than observed by Green et al. and may be one of the many factors which may explain why their reported GHGE were slightly lower. A smaller number of emission factors were obtained from Heller and Keoleian and they estimated daily average GHGE in the USA at 5·0 kg CO2eq/d using commodity data rather than habitual data( Reference Heller and Keoleian 41 ). A sensitivity analysis revealed that Irish dietary emissions were in line with US estimates when using as many of their emission factors as possible (see online ‘Supplementary material 2’, Table S1).

Differences in GHGE across sociodemographic and socio-economic groups were mostly influenced by the quantity of food consumed. With the exception of gender, the emission intensity of diets (GHGE/MJ) was not significantly different across the sociodemographic profiles. Previous research on adult Irish men has shown that they use dietary choices to express masculinity, which can influence a preference for certain foods such as meat( Reference Newcombe, McCarthy and Cronin 55 ). Women, on the other hand, often restrict food intake, therefore not eating as much and not consuming meat in the same quantities as men( Reference Cronin, McCarthy and Newcombe 56 ). Hence, male dietary preferences may explain the difference observed in both the emission intensity of diets and the variation in dietary emissions between genders. Significant differences in dietary emissions were also observed according to age. Those aged 18–35 years consumed higher quantities of unhealthy foods such as processed meats and alcohol, which leads to overall higher dietary emissions when compared with other age groups. Indeed, other studies have also noted the unhealthy eating patterns of young adults( Reference El Ansari, Sebena and Stock 57 , Reference El Ansari, Stock and Mikolajczyk 58 ). Therefore, those aged 18–35 years failed to adhere to both the environmental and nutritional aspects of a sustainable diet( 23 ). Foods of animal sources contributed most towards GHGE, with red meat responsible for the greatest proportion of Irish dietary emissions. Furthermore, red meat had the highest ratio of GHGE per MJ of energy provided. Higher intakes of animal-based foods were noted in high emitter tertiles. However, the tertiles were not indicative of the complexities and underlying structure of dietary patterns as only a single variable (total dietary emissions) was used for quantile classification.

Foods of animal origin provide many beneficial micronutrients and their high content of essential amino acids and micronutrients should not be overlooked when formulating dietary recommendations that consider both nutrition and GHGE( Reference Smith, Sones and Grace 59 ). Clearly, tensions exist in balancing the environmental and nutritional facets of food consumption. It is suggested that to achieve sustainability and public health objectives a transition to a less meat-based diet is required( Reference Friel, Dangour and Garnett 24 ). In an effort to address this issue many non-government organisations traditionally favoured climate change messages which ask for modest reductions of meat and encourage consumption of ruminant meat derived from grass-fed systems( Reference Laestadius, Neff and Barry 60 ). Recently non-government organisations such as the World Resource Institute and Chatham House have been more uncompromising and both have called for a reduction in consumption of animal-based foods( 61 , 62 ). Research from Tom et al.( Reference Tom, Fischbeck and Hendrickson 63 ) suggests that per kilojoule, production of vegetables requires more water than meat. Attention should therefore be paid to the potential swapping of one environmental concern for another when developing recommendations to reduce dietary emissions( Reference Tom, Fischbeck and Hendrickson 63 ). However, the European food system is very different to that which exists in the USA. While Meier and Christen identified that blue water needs were higher for vegan and vegetarian diets in Germany( Reference Meier and Christen 64 ), Vanham and co-workers found that the overall water footprint of vegetarian diets was lower than that of other dietary patterns in separate studies of the EU( Reference Vanham, Mekonnen and Hoekstra 65 ) and Austria( Reference Vanham 66 ). Consideration is consequently advised when assessing the sustainability of diets as the climatic impact is only one facet of wider environmental concerns.

While vegan and vegetarian diets can substantially reduce dietary emissions, partial replacement of meat could potentially induce higher climatic effects if the substituted food groups are higher in GHGE than those being displaced (i.e. if chicken was substituted for cheese)( Reference Hallström, Carlsson-Kanyama and Börjesson 67 ). Careful consideration is therefore required when formulating health recommendations based on environmental concerns. To provide more holistic assessments, it has been proposed that the sustainability of alternative diets is based upon nutrient and energy contents( Reference Masset, Vieux and Verger 32 ). Hypothetically meat can be replaced by plant-based substitutes but an appreciation of the nutritional equivalency of the replacement food is necessary( 68 ). Replacing the energy and protein attained from average beef consumption could be compensated by the consumption of bean varieties, which leads to GHGE reductions (see online ‘Supplementary material 2’, Table S2). However, the size of the reduction in GHGE is dependent on the quality of meat being replaced. Moreover, replacing the energy induced by beef by instead consuming vegetables such as broccoli is difficult and requires large intakes which yield similarly high GHGE as beef (see online ‘Supplementary material 2’, Table S3). Thus, there are inherent difficulties in implementing dietary guidelines which adhere to all the principles of sustainable diets.

Typically, diets which are in accordance with health and nutrition guidelines for fruit and vegetables often conflate in reducing dietary GHGE( Reference Macdiarmid, Kyle and Horgan 21 , Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 ). Evidently, low dietary emissions were generated through the consumption of fruits and vegetables in the present study. High-sugar snacks were the second highest contributor to energy intake in the diet while also providing the least amount of GHGE per unit of energy provided. Indeed, many of the food groups which had the lowest emission factors are not conducive to good health if consumed excessively. Minimising dietary GHGE by only consuming foods low in GHGE therefore does not necessarily conform to maximising human health outcomes( Reference Vieux, Soler and Touazi 31 ). For instance, from a public heath perspective, increased and overconsumption of high-sugar foods may lead to negative health outcomes while concurrently resulting in lower GHGE( Reference Yang, Zhang and Gregg 69 ). In addition, meat was the highest source of dietary emissions but had a low energy profile. Recommendations to reduce red meat will result in reductions in GHGE but consideration must also be given to its health properties. In contrast, high-sugar snacks were low in GHGE but high in energy content; they also lack nutritional quality. Therefore, when devising low-carbon diets a balance is warranted as to both the nutritional and environmental impacts of certain food groups( Reference Tilman and Clark 70 , Reference Briggs, Kehlbacher and Tiffin 71 ). Green et al.( Reference Green, Milner and Dangour 22 ) suggest that dietary emissions could be reduced by as much as 40 % through dietary changes. However, consumers are often unwilling or unsuccessful in altering dietary behaviour( Reference Chance, Gorlin and Dhar 72 ). Indeed, campaigns over numerous decades calling for increased intakes of fruits and vegetables have been largely unsuccessful despite active targeting by government and health organisations( Reference Rekhy and McConchie 73 ). The advocates of meat-free diets may therefore be met with resistance as consumers favour diets that contain some meat( Reference Schösler, de Boer and Boersema 74 , Reference Graça, Calheiros and Oliveira 75 ). ‘Less but better’ and ‘less and more varied’ meat consumption have been subsequently proposed as a dietary mitigation strategy which may appeal to consumers( Reference de Boer, Schösler and Aiking 76 ). Meat can be defined as ‘better’ if it achieves a spectrum of outcomes for climate change, the environment, animal welfare, human health, livelihoods, social justice and social values( Reference Sutton and Dibb 77 ). However, consumers often find ways of disengaging from many of the issues concerning meat consumption by ‘explaining away’ their behaviour through blame avoidance( Reference Graça, Calheiros and Oliveira 75 , Reference Rothgerber 78 ).

There are many alternative non-voluntary measures which could be enforced to lower dietary emissions. Decreasing dietary emissions can be achieved by using economic (e.g. Pigouvian tax), social (e.g. educational campaigns) and legal instruments. Many arguments have been made in favour of a meat consumption tax, rather than a meat production tax( Reference Edjabou and Smed 79 Reference Wirsenius, Hedenus and Mohlin 81 ). It has even been suggested by Chatham House that without government intervention consumers are unlikely to reduce their consumption of animal-based produce( 62 ). However, consumers generally respond unfavourably to such taxation measures and there is likely to be some public resistance to a meat tax( Reference Vanhonacker, Van Loo and Gellynck 82 ). Conversely, a Finnish Mandatory Vegetarian Day is an example of a legal instrument to stimulate reduced meat consumption. A weekly forced food restriction day is implemented in the Helsinki School District whereby meat and fish have been eliminated from the school menu. The effectiveness of the intervention is unclear however and may have unintended consequences such as increased food waste arising from a hedonic dislike of vegetarian food( Reference Lombardini and Lankoski 83 ).

Sustainability can be an important motivator of behaviour and may be adopted in future campaigns to change dietary patterns and promote health( Reference Clonan, Wilson and Swift 84 ). Hence, policy makers, nutritionists and health professionals need to increase the public’s awareness not only of health but also emphasise the environmental impact of dietary choices( Reference de Boer, de Witt and Aiking 85 ). This may however prove challenging, considering the limited success that health organisations have had in changing consumers’ behaviour towards fruit and vegetable consumption( Reference Rekhy and McConchie 73 ). Although some subsets of individuals are motivated to eat less meat as it appeals to their psychological desires to protect the environment and promote good health, this motivation is not shared by all( Reference Schösler, de Boer and Boersema 86 ). Nevertheless, de Boer et al.( Reference de Boer, de Witt and Aiking 85 ) found that consumers’ willingness to eat less meat increased with its perceived effectiveness in reducing dietary emissions. This highlights the importance of social instruments such as education and consumer awareness campaigns. Improving understanding is difficult when one considers consumers lack of awareness of GHGE generated through diet( Reference de Boer, de Witt and Aiking 85 ). Motivating people to change embedded and habitual food behaviour is compounded by a reluctance within government, industry and even non-government organisations to inform consumers of the climatic impact of diet( Reference Laestadius, Neff and Barry 87 ). Moreover, findings from a recent Eurobarometer study have shown that for consumers in Ireland climate change is not deemed as serious an issue as in other EU member states( 88 ). Asking individuals to trade perceived enjoyment and tradition for sustainability is challenging when the benefits of sustainability are poorly understood. Although 60 % of Irish adults perceive sustainability as being important in the food choices they make, only 34 % fully understand the concept( 89 ).

The climatic burden that accumulates throughout the food system could be potentially lowered not only by altering dietary patterns but also through changing other consumer behaviours. Towards the end of the food chain, consumers throw away food, let it spoil or engage in behaviours which contribute to unnecessary food waste. In Europe, this translates to between 95 and 115 kg of food waste per capita annually( 90 ). Food loss, on the other hand, occurs earlier in the food system. Lowering food waste and food loss represents a potentially effective method to reduce dietary GHGE( Reference Venkat 42 ). Approximately one-third of the food produced globally for human consumption is lost or wasted( 90 ), with as much as 40 % of food lost and wasted in the industrialised world occurring at retail and consumer levels( 91 ). If food waste can be reduced the climatic impact of dietary patterns could be considerably lowered. Furthermore, mitigation measures which address food waste, rather than consumption, may receive less resistance from consumers than other actions( Reference Vanhonacker, Van Loo and Gellynck 82 ).

Consumption of animal-based foods has been linked to both positive and negative health outcomes and there are many contrasting arguments both for and against the consumption of red meat( Reference McAfee, McSorley and Cuskelly 92 ). While research has associated red meat consumption with negative health impacts( Reference Boada, Henríquez-Hernández and Luzardo 93 ), other studies suggest it can have many beneficial health outcomes( Reference Binnie, Barlow and Johnson 94 , Reference De Smet and Vossen 95 ). Nevertheless, it is important to note that many of the micronutrients derived from meat can also be acquired from consumption of plant-based foods( Reference Temme, van der Voet and Thissen 96 , Reference McEvoy, Temple and Woodside 97 ). Yet consumers’ reluctance to alter their behaviour with regard to meat consumption may hinder the potential environmental benefits of a more plant-based diet. Therefore, placing the onus on the supply chain to reduce GHGE is of particular importance. Mitigation strategies that occur before the farm gate could theoretically lower emissions associated with consumption of animal products. Reductions in the carbon footprint of red meat at farm level can be as high as 30 % if all producers in any given system, region and climate adopt the efficiency practices implemented by those with the lowest GHGE per unit of production( Reference Gerber, Steinfeld and Henderson 17 , Reference Hyland, Styles and Jones 98 ). Moreover, other on-farm mitigation measures could lower emissions further( Reference Schader, Muller and Scialabba 99 ). Ireland has implemented a sustainable food programme which enables farmers and producers to set and achieve sustainability targets by providing a framework to deliver long-term improvements in areas such as emissions mitigation with the aim of reducing GHGE associated with food production( 100 ). However, some research suggests that these production mitigation options alone are unlikely to be sufficient; changes in diets are also required to meet EU emission targets( Reference Bryngelsson, Wirsenius and Hedenus 101 ).

Emission factors should ideally account for where food was produced, processed, distributed, etc. Thus a full understanding of the source and supply chain for each food consumed in NANS would be necessary to give an absolute and accurate estimate of dietary emissions. Nevertheless, the methods used in the present study provide a good indicator of GHGE associated with food consumption in Ireland. Indeed, the primary method to appraise dietary emissions in this research area is through sourcing emission factors from the literature rather than ones which are country specific. However, this may be limiting when assigning emission factors to foods with a high carbon footprint that may not be fully applicable in an Irish context. Globally, animal-based foods have considerable variations in emission factor estimates due to differences in methods applied and variation in agricultural production systems( Reference Röös, Sundberg and Hansson 11 ). This was highlighted in the dairy emission factors applied from Finnegan et al.( Reference Finnegan, Goggins and Clifford 43 ), which were lower than those used in other studies. Indeed, a sensitivity analysis revealed that a 20 % decrease in the emission factors used for animal-based products would lead to a 10 % overall decrease in the dietary emissions elicited in the present study (see online ‘Supplementary material 2’, Table S1). It would not be unreasonable to assume other emission factors could also be lower than the ones found in the literature when one considers the highly competitive Irish agricultural sector and low food miles associated with Ireland’s relatively small land area. Taking account of such factors in the future could result in lowering daily Irish dietary emissions.

Conclusion

Food consumption represents a substantial source of anthropogenic GHGE. Therefore it is important to quantify emissions associated with food consumption. Using detailed and reliable habitual food consumption data from a nationally representative sample of Irish adults and appropriate emission factors taken from the literature, the mean daily dietary emissions of the Irish population was calculated as 6·5 kg CO2eq. Availability of sociodemographic and socio-economic variables supported further analysis. With the exception of education, those who had significantly higher dietary emissions per unit of energy also had significantly higher food intakes than their counterparts of similar sociodemographic and socio-economic profiles. Thus they contributed to higher GHGE as a result of both the volume and type of food they consumed. This indicates that strategies that change food consumption patterns as well as reduce consumption could be leveraged to reduce GHGE. In Ireland, the main contributors to daily emissions were foods of animal origin; most notably foods derived from ruminant animals. Red meat provided the greatest proportion of GHGE per energy intake while high-sugar snacks provided the lowest. From a policy perspective, however, it is not a question of simply reducing meat consumption and increasing high-sugar snacks, as overconsumption of high-sugar snacks while both under- and overconsumption red meat can lead to negative health outcomes. This highlights the complex relationship between diet, health and the environment. In addition, considerable challenges are involved in altering dietary behaviour as consumers are often reluctant to voluntarily alter their diets and many are unaware of the relationship between diet and climate change( Reference Graça, Calheiros and Oliveira 75 , Reference de Boer, de Witt and Aiking 85 ). Policy interventions using economic, social and/or legal instruments targeted at consumers could however be considered in an effort to decrease dietary emissions( Reference Vranken, Avermaete and Petalios 102 ). A reduction in dietary emissions could also be realised through policy initiatives targeted at reducing food waste at the end of the chain and emissions at the start of the chain. Ireland thus has a range of voluntary, non-voluntary and alternative measures that it needs to evaluate in designing a sustainability framework to guide action in food and nutrition policy development while reducing dietary emissions from 6·5 kg CO2eq/d per capita.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the Irish Universities Nutritional Alliance for access to the original NANS data and all of those who took part in the survey. Financial support: This study was funded by the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine through the Food Institutional Research Measure (FIRM) funding instrument (grant number 13/F/527). The funder had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article. Conflict of interest: None. Authorship: J.J.H. undertook data analysis, reviewed the literature and contributed towards the writing of the manuscript. S.N.McC. advised on the objectives and design of the study and contributed towards the analysis, interpretation of the findings and writing of the manuscript. Both M.H. and M.McC. contributed towards the writing and reviewing of the manuscript. Ethics of human subject participation: This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving human subjects were approved by the University of Nottingham Medical School Ethics Committee. Ethical approval for the survey was granted by the University College Cork Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the Cork Teaching Hospitals and written informed consent was obtained from study participants.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980016002573

References

1. Joyce, A, Hallett, J, Hannelly, T et al. (2014) The impact of nutritional choices on global warming and policy implications: examining the link between dietary choices and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Emiss Control Technol issue 2, 3343.Google Scholar
2. Buttriss, JL (2011) Feeding the planet: an unprecedented confluence of pressures anticipated. Nutr Bull 36, 235241.Google Scholar
3. Macdiarmid, JI (2013) Is a healthy diet an environmentally sustainable diet? Proc Nutr Soc 72, 1320.Google Scholar
4. Environmental Protection Agency of Ireland (2014) Ireland’s Provisional Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2013. Wexford: EPA.Google Scholar
5. Department of Environment Community and Local Government (2015) Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2015. Dublin: DECLG.Google Scholar
6. European Commission (2011) Communication From the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050’. COM(2011) 112 Final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0112 (accessed September 2016).Google Scholar
7. European Council (2010) Conclusions of the European Council. EUCO 7/10. CO EUR 4. CONCL 1 (March). http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/113591.pdf (accessed September 2016).Google Scholar
8. Röös, E, Karlsson, H, Witthöft, C et al. (2015) Evaluating the sustainability of diets – combining environmental and nutritional aspects. Environ Sci Policy 47, 157166.Google Scholar
9. Audsley, E, Brander, M, Chatterton, J et al. (2010) How Low Can We Go? An Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the UK Food System and the Scope Reduction by 2050. London: Food Climate Research Network.Google Scholar
10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016) Plates, Pyramids, Planet. Developments in National Healthy and Sustainable Dietary Guidelines: A State of Play Assessment. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
11. Röös, E, Sundberg, C & Hansson, P-A (2014) Carbon footprint of food products. In Assessment of Carbon Footprint in Different Industrial Sectors , vol. 1, pp. 85112. [SS Muthu, editor]. Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Liu, T, Wang, Q & Su, B (2016) A review of carbon labeling: standards, implementation, and impact. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 53, 6879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Baumann, H & Tillman, A-M (2004) The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA. An Orientation in Life Cycle Assessment Methodology and Application. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
14. British Standards Institution (2008) PAS 2050:2008. Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. London: BSI.Google Scholar
15. Auestad, N & Fulgoni, VL (2015) What current literature tells us about sustainable diets: emerging research linking dietary patterns, environmental sustainability, and economics. Adv Nutr 6, 1936.Google Scholar
16. Garnett, T (2011) Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Policy 36, Suppl. 1, S23S32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Gerber, PJ, Steinfeld, H, Henderson, B et al. (2013) Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
19. Berners-Lee, M, Hoolohan, C, Cammack, H et al. (2012) The relative greenhouse gas impacts of realistic dietary choices. Energy Policy 43, 184190.Google Scholar
20. Carlsson-Kanyama, A & González, AD (2009) Potential contributions of food consumption patterns to climate change. Am J Clin Nutr 89, issue 5, 1704S1709S.Google Scholar
21. Macdiarmid, JI, Kyle, J, Horgan, GW et al. (2012) Sustainable diets for the future: can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eating a healthy diet? Am J Clin Nutr 96, 632639.Google Scholar
22. Green, R, Milner, J, Dangour, AD et al. (2015) The potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK through healthy and realistic dietary change. Clim Change 129, 253265.Google Scholar
23. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010) Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity: Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action . Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
24. Friel, S, Dangour, AD, Garnett, T et al. (2009) Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: food and agriculture. Lancet 374, 20162025.Google Scholar
25. Johnston, JL, Fanzo, JC & Cogill, B (2014) Understanding sustainable diets: a descriptive analysis of the determinants and processes that influence diets and their impact on health, food security, and environmental sustainability. Adv Nutr 5, 418429.Google Scholar
26. Heller, MC, Keoleian, GA & Willett, WC (2013) Toward a life cycle-based, diet-level framework for food environmental impact and nutritional quality assessment: a critical review. Environ Sci Technol 47, 1263212647.Google Scholar
27. van Dooren, C, Marinussen, M, Blonk, H et al. (2014) Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: a comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy 44, 3646.Google Scholar
28. Tukker, A, Goldbohm, RA, de Koning, A et al. (2011) Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in Europe. Ecol Econ 70, 17761788.Google Scholar
29. Saxe, H, Larsen, TM & Mogensen, L (2012) The global warming potential of two healthy Nordic diets compared with the average Danish diet. Clim Change 116, 249262.Google Scholar
30. Vieux, F, Darmon, N, Touazi, D et al. (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France: changing the diet structure or consuming less? Ecol Econ 75, 91101.Google Scholar
31. Vieux, F, Soler, L-G, Touazi, D et al. (2013) High nutritional quality is not associated with low greenhouse gas emissions in self-selected diets of French adults. Am J Clin Nutr 97, 569583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Masset, G, Vieux, F, Verger, EO et al. (2014) Reducing energy intake and energy density for a sustainable diet: a study based on self-selected diets in French adults. Am J Clin Nutr 99, 14601469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Scarborough, P, Appleby, PN, Mizdrak, A et al. (2014) Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Clim Change 125, 179192.Google Scholar
34. Hoolohan, C, Berners-Lee, M, McKinstry-West, J et al. (2013) Mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions embodied in food through realistic consumer choices. Energy Policy 63, 10651074.Google Scholar
35. Temme, EHM, Toxopeus, IB, Kramer, GFH et al. (2015) Greenhouse gas emission of diets in the Netherlands and associations with food, energy and macronutrient intakes. Public Health Nutr 18, 24332445.Google Scholar
36. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2002) Individual Food Intake Survey Methods. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
37. Black, AE (2000) Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake:basal metabolic rate. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 24, 11191130.Google Scholar
38. Goldberg, GR, Black, AE, Jebb, SA et al. (1991) Critical evaluation of energy intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology: 1. Derivation of cut-off limits to identify under-recording. Eur J Clin Nutr 45, 569581.Google Scholar
39. Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance (2011) National Adult Nutrition Survey: Summary Report. http://www.iuna.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/National-Adult-Nutrition-Survey-Summary-Report-March-2011.pdf (accessed May 2016).Google Scholar
40. Naughton, P, McCarthy, SN & McCarthy, MB (2015) The creation of a healthy eating motivation score and its association with food choice and physical activity in a cross sectional sample of Irish adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 12, 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Heller, MC & Keoleian, GA (2015) Greenhouse gas emission estimates of US dietary choices and food loss. J Ind Ecol 19, 391401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Venkat, K (2011) The climate change and economic impacts of food waste in the United States. Int J Food Syst Dyn 2, 431446.Google Scholar
43. Finnegan, W, Goggins, J, Clifford, E et al. (2015) Global warming potential associated with dairy products in the Republic of Ireland. J Clean Prod (Epublication ahead of print version).Google Scholar
44. Pradhan, P, Reusser, DE & Kropp, JP (2013) Embodied greenhouse gas emissions in diets. PLoS One 8, e62228.Google Scholar
45. Lumley, T, Diehr, P, Emerson, S et al. (2002) The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annu Rev Public Health 23, 151169.Google Scholar
46. Aston, LM, Smith, JN & Powles, JW (2012) Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study. BMJ Open 2, e001072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47. Macdiarmid, J, Kyle, J, Horgan, G et al. (2011) Livewell: A Balance of Healthy and Sustainable Food Choices. Woking: World Wildlife Fund.Google Scholar
48. Wilson, N, Nghiem, N, Ni Mhurchu, C et al. (2013) Foods and dietary patterns that are healthy, low-cost, and environmentally sustainable: a case study of optimization modeling for New Zealand. PLoS One 8, e59648.Google Scholar
49. Risku-Norja, H, Kurppa, S & Helenius, J (2010) Dietary choices and greenhouse gas emissions – assessment of impact of vegetarian and organic options at national scale. Prog Ind Ecol 6, 340354.Google Scholar
50. Fazeni, K & Steinmüller, H (2011) Impact of changes in diet on the availability of land, energy demand, and greenhouse gas emissions of agriculture. Energy Sustain Soc 1, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Eshel, G & Martin, PA (2006) Diet, energy, and global warming. Earth Interact 10, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Popp, A, Lotze-Campen, H & Bodirsky, B (2010) Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob Environ Change 20, 451462.Google Scholar
53. French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (2014) Detailed results of the INCA 2 study. https://www.anses.fr/en/content/detailed-results-inca-2-study (accessed June 2016).Google Scholar
54. van Rossum, CTM, Fransen, HP, Verkaik-Kloosterman, J et al. (2011) Dutch National Food Consumption Survey 2007-2010. Bilthoven: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).Google Scholar
55. Newcombe, MA, McCarthy, MB, Cronin, JM et al. (2012) ‘Eat like a man’. A social constructionist analysis of the role of food in men’s lives. Appetite 59, 391398.Google Scholar
56. Cronin, JM, McCarthy, MB, Newcombe, MA et al. (2014) Paradox, performance and food: managing difference in the construction of femininity. Consum Mark Cult 17, 367391.Google Scholar
57. El Ansari, W, Sebena, R & Stock, C (2013) Socio-demographic correlates of six indicators of alcohol consumption: survey findings of students across seven universities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Arch Public Health 71, 29.Google Scholar
58. El Ansari, W, Stock, C & Mikolajczyk, RT (2012) Relationships between food consumption and living arrangements among university students in four European countries – a cross-sectional study. Nutr J 11, 28.Google Scholar
59. Smith, J, Sones, K, Grace, D et al. (2012) Beyond milk, meat, and eggs: role of livestock in food and nutrition security. Anim Front 3, 613.Google Scholar
60. Laestadius, LI, Neff, RA, Barry, CL et al. (2014) No meat, less meat, or better meat: understanding NGO messaging choices intended to alter meat consumption in light of climate change. Environ Commun 10, 84103.Google Scholar
61. World Resourse Institute (2016) Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Future. London: WRI.Google Scholar
62. Chatham House (2015) Changing Climate, Changing Diets Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption. London: Chatham House.Google Scholar
63. Tom, MS, Fischbeck, PS & Hendrickson, CT (2015) Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions for current food consumption patterns and dietary recommendations in the US. Environ Syst Decis 36, 92103.Google Scholar
64. Meier, T & Christen, O (2013) Environmental impacts of dietary recommendations and dietary styles: Germany as an example. Environ Sci Technol 47, 877888.Google Scholar
65. Vanham, D, Mekonnen, MM & Hoekstra, AY (2013) The water footprint of the EU for different diets. Ecol Indic 32, 18.Google Scholar
66. Vanham, D (2013) The water footprint of Austria for different diets. Water Sci Technol 67, 824830.Google Scholar
67. Hallström, E, Carlsson-Kanyama, A & Börjesson, P (2015) Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. J Clean Prod 91, 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68. Food Standards Agency (2015) McCance and Widdowson’s The Composition of Foods, Seventh Summary Edition. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
69. Yang, Q, Zhang, Z, Gregg, EW et al. (2014) Added sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA Intern Med 174, 516524.Google Scholar
70. Tilman, D & Clark, M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518522.Google Scholar
71. Briggs, ADM, Kehlbacher, A, Tiffin, R et al. (2013) Assessing the impact on chronic disease of incorporating the societal cost of greenhouse gases into the price of food: an econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. BMJ Open 3, e003543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72. Chance, Z, Gorlin, M & Dhar, R (2014) Why choosing healthy foods is hard, and how to help: presenting the 4Ps framework for behavior change. Cust Needs Solut 1, 253262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73. Rekhy, R & McConchie, R (2014) Promoting consumption of fruit and vegetables for better health. Have campaigns delivered on the goals? Appetite 79, 113123.Google Scholar
74. Schösler, H, de Boer, J & Boersema, JJ (2012) Can we cut out the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways towards meat substitution. Appetite 58, 3947.Google Scholar
75. Graça, J, Calheiros, MM & Oliveira, A (2015) Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite 95, 113125.Google Scholar
76. de Boer, J, Schösler, H & Aiking, H (2014) ‘Meatless days’ or ‘less but better’? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite 76, 120128.Google Scholar
77. Sutton, C & Dibb, S (2013) Prime Cuts: Valuing the Meat We Eat. Woking: World Wildlife Fund.Google Scholar
78. Rothgerber, H (2014) Efforts to overcome vegetarian-induced dissonance among meat eaters. Appetite 79, 3241.Google Scholar
79. Edjabou, LD & Smed, S (2013) The effect of using consumption taxes on foods to promote climate friendly diets – the case of Denmark. Food Policy 39, 8496.Google Scholar
80. Nordgren, A (2011) Ethical issues in mitigation of climate change: the option of reduced meat production and consumption. J Agric Environ Ethics 25, 563584.Google Scholar
81. Wirsenius, S, Hedenus, F & Mohlin, K (2010) Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Clim Change 108, 159184.Google Scholar
82. Vanhonacker, F, Van Loo, EJ, Gellynck, X et al. (2013) Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 62, 716.Google Scholar
83. Lombardini, C & Lankoski, L (2013) Forced choice restriction in promoting sustainable food consumption: intended and unintended effects of the mandatory vegetarian day in Helsinki Schools. J Consum Policy 36, 159178.Google Scholar
84. Clonan, A, Wilson, P, Swift, JA et al. (2015) Red and processed meat consumption and purchasing behaviours and attitudes: impacts for human health, animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Public Health Nutr 18, 24462456.Google Scholar
85. de Boer, J, de Witt, A & Aiking, H (2015) Help the climate, change your diet: a cross-sectional study on how to involve consumers in a transition to a low-carbon society. Appetite 98, 1927.Google Scholar
86. Schösler, H, de Boer, J & Boersema, JJ (2014) Fostering more sustainable food choices: can self-determination theory help? Food Qual Prefer 35, 5969.Google Scholar
87. Laestadius, LI, Neff, RA, Barry, CL et al. (2014) ‘We don’t tell people what to do’: an examination of the factors influencing NGO decisions to campaign for reduced meat consumption in light of climate change. Glob Environ Change 29, 3240.Google Scholar
88. European Commission (2014) Special Eurobarometer 409: Climate Change. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
89. Periscope (2015) Irish & British Consumers & Their Food. Dublin: Bord Bia.Google Scholar
90. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016) Key facts on food loss and waste you should know! http://www.fao.org/save-food/resources/keyfindings/en/ (accessed February 2016).Google Scholar
91. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2011) Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention . Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
92. McAfee, AJ, McSorley, EM, Cuskelly, GJ et al. (2010) Red meat consumption: an overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Sci 84, 113.Google Scholar
93. Boada, LD, Henríquez-Hernández, LA & Luzardo, OP (2016) The impact of red and processed meat consumption on cancer and other health outcomes: epidemiological evidences. Food Chem Toxicol 92, 236244.Google Scholar
94. Binnie, MA, Barlow, K, Johnson, V et al. (2014) Red meats: time for a paradigm shift in dietary advice. Meat Sci 98, 445451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
95. De Smet, S & Vossen, E (2016) Meat: the balance between nutrition and health. A review. Meat Sci 120, 145156.Google Scholar
96. Temme, EHM, van der Voet, H, Thissen, JTNM et al. (2013) Replacement of meat and dairy by plant-derived foods: estimated effects on land use, iron and SFA intakes in young Dutch adult females. Public Health Nutr 16, 19001907.Google Scholar
97. McEvoy, CT, Temple, N & Woodside, JV (2012) Vegetarian diets, low-meat diets and health: a review. Public Health Nutr 15, 22872294.Google Scholar
98. Hyland, JJ, Styles, D, Jones, DL et al. (2016) Improving livestock production efficiencies presents a major opportunity to reduce sectoral greenhouse gas emissions. Agric Syst 147, 123131.Google Scholar
99. Schader, C, Muller, A, Scialabba, NE-H et al. (2015) Impacts of feeding less food-competing feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. J R Soc Interface 12, doi:10.1098/rsif.2015.0891.Google Scholar
100. Bord Bia (2015) Origin Green: Sustainability Report 2015. Dublin: Bord Bia.Google Scholar
101. Bryngelsson, D, Wirsenius, S, Hedenus, F et al. (2016) How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy 59, 152164.Google Scholar
102. Vranken, L, Avermaete, T, Petalios, D et al. (2014) Curbing global meat consumption: emerging evidence of a second nutrition transition. Environ Sci Policy 39, 95106.Google Scholar
103. Cosgrove, M, Flynn, A & Kiely, M (2007) Consumption of red meat, white meat and processed meat in Irish adults in relation to dietary quality. Br J Nutr 93, 933942.Google Scholar
104. Cosgrove, M, Flynn, A & Kiely, M (2007) Impact of disaggregation of composite foods on estimates of intakes of meat and meat products in Irish adults. Public Health Nutr 8, 327337.Google Scholar
105. Baghurst, K, Record, S & Leppard, P (2000) Red meat consumption in Australia: intakes, nutrient contribution and changes over time. Aust J Nutr Diet 57, Suppl. 4, S1S36.Google Scholar
106. Hendrie, GA, Ridoutt, BG, Wiedmann, TO et al. (2014) Greenhouse gas emissions and the Australian diet – comparing dietary recommendations with average intakes. Nutrients 6, 289303.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 The sociodemographic profile of National Adult Nutrition Survey (NANS) participants in comparison with national Irish census of population data (n 1500 denotes full NANS sample; n 960 denotes the NANS sample with energy misreporters removed)

Figure 1

Table 2 Mean daily greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), food intakes, energy intakes and emissions intensities, across sociodemographic and socio-economic categories, for the sample of nationally representative Irish adults excluding energy misreporters (n 960)

Figure 2

Table 3 Mean daily food intakes and associated dietary greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) for the total sample of nationally representative Irish adults (n 1500) and excluding energy misreporters (n 960)

Figure 3

Table 4 Food groups’ ranking in terms of contribution to daily dietary greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), daily energy intake (MJ) and the ratio of daily emissions to energy provided by the food group (GHGE:MJ) for the nationally representative sample of Irish adults excluding energy misreporters (n 960)

Figure 4

Table 5 Mean daily intake of each food group and associated greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) across tertiles of low, moderate and high emitters for the nationally representative sample of Irish adults excluding energy misreporters (n 960)

Supplementary material: File

Hyland supplementary material

Hyland supplementary material 1

Download Hyland supplementary material(File)
File 37.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Hyland supplementary material

Hyland supplementary material 2

Download Hyland supplementary material(File)
File 18.7 KB