IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i14p8424-d859241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Analysis of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives Part 2: Environmental Impacts

Author

Listed:
  • Katrin Geburt

    (Division of Ecology of Livestock Production, Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Elke Herta Albrecht

    (Division of Ecology of Livestock Production, Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Marcel Pointke

    (Division of Quality of Plant Products, Department of Crop Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Elke Pawelzik

    (Division of Quality of Plant Products, Department of Crop Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Martina Gerken

    (Division of Ecology of Livestock Production, Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Imke Traulsen

    (Division Livestock Systems, Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Goettingen, 37075 Goettingen, Germany)

Abstract

Human food production is the largest cause of global environmental changes. Environmental benefits could be achieved by replacing diets with a high amount of animal-sourced foods with more plant-based foods, due to their smaller environmental impacts. The objective of this study was to assess the environmental impacts of the three most common plant-based milk alternatives (PBMAs)—oat, soy, and almond drink—in comparison with conventional and organic cow milk. Life cycle assessments (LCA) were calculated by the ReCiPe 2016 midpoint method, in addition to the single issue methods “Ecosystem damage potential” and “Water scarcity index”. PBMAs achieved lower impact values in almost all 12 of the calculated impact categories, with oat drink and the organic soy drink being the most environmentally friendly. However, when LCA results were expressed per energy and by the protein content of the beverages, the ranking of the beverages, in terms of their environmental impacts, changed greatly, and the results of PBMAs approached those of milk, particularly with regard to the protein index. The study highlights the importance of considering a broader range of impact categories when comparing the impacts of PBMAs and milk.

Suggested Citation

  • Katrin Geburt & Elke Herta Albrecht & Marcel Pointke & Elke Pawelzik & Martina Gerken & Imke Traulsen, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives Part 2: Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:14:p:8424-:d:859241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8424/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/14/8424/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nijdam, Durk & Rood, Trudy & Westhoek, Henk, 2012. "The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 760-770.
    2. Vergé, X.P.C. & Dyer, J.A. & Desjardins, R.L. & Worth, D., 2008. "Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian beef industry," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 126-134, September.
    3. David Tilman & Michael Clark, 2014. "Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7528), pages 518-522, November.
    4. Grunert, Klaus G. & Hieke, Sophie & Wills, Josephine, 2014. "Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 177-189.
    5. Tukker, Arnold & Goldbohm, R. Alexandra & de Koning, Arjan & Verheijden, Marieke & Kleijn, René & Wolf, Oliver & Pérez-Domínguez, Ignacio & Rueda-Cantuche, Jose M., 2011. "Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1776-1788, August.
    6. Basset-Mens, Claudine & Ledgard, Stewart & Boyes, Mark, 2009. "Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk production in New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1615-1625, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Susan L. Prescott & Christopher R. D’Adamo & Kathleen F. Holton & Selena Ortiz & Nina Overby & Alan C. Logan, 2023. "Beyond Plants: The Ultra-Processing of Global Diets Is Harming the Health of People, Places, and Planet," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(15), pages 1-21, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Goldstein, Benjamin & Hansen, Steffen Foss & Gjerris, Mickey & Laurent, Alexis & Birkved, Morten, 2016. "Ethical aspects of life cycle assessments of diets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 139-151.
    2. Johanna Ruett & Lena Hennes & Jens Teubler & Boris Braun, 2022. "How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-21, November.
    3. Adam A. Prag & Christian B. Henriksen, 2020. "Transition from Animal-Based to Plant-Based Food Production to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agriculture—The Case of Denmark," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Morena Bruno & Marianne Thomsen & Federico Maria Pulselli & Nicoletta Patrizi & Michele Marini & Dario Caro, 2019. "The carbon footprint of Danish diets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 489-507, October.
    5. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Réquillart, Vincent & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Chantal Le Mouël & Anna Birgit Milford & Benjamin L. Bodirsky & Susanne Rolinski, 2019. "Drivers of meat consumption," Post-Print hal-02175593, HAL.
    7. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Alberto Pardossi, 2020. "Improving Policy Evidence Base for Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security: A Content Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, February.
    8. Jennifer A. Jay & Raffaella D’Auria & J. Cully Nordby & David Andy Rice & David A. Cleveland & Anthony Friscia & Sophie Kissinger & Marc Levis & Hannah Malan & Deepak Rajagopal & Joel R. Reynolds & We, 2019. "Reduction of the carbon footprint of college freshman diets after a food-based environmental science course," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 547-564, June.
    9. Jayet, Pierre-Alain & Isbasoiu, Ancuta & De Cara, Stéphane, 2020. "Slaughter cattle to secure food calories and reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions? Some prospective estimates for France," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(1), July.
    10. Soler, Louis-Georges & Thomas, Alban, 2020. "Is there a win-win scenario with both limited beef production and reduced beef consumption?," TSE Working Papers 20-1067, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    11. Louis-Georges Soler & Alban Thomas, 2020. "Is there a win–win scenario with increased beef quality and reduced consumption?," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(1), pages 91-116, October.
    12. Gaspard Philis & Friederike Ziegler & Lars Christian Gansel & Mona Dverdal Jansen & Erik Olav Gracey & Anne Stene, 2019. "Comparing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Salmonid Aquaculture Production Systems: Status and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-27, April.
    13. de Ruiter, Henri & Kastner, Thomas & Nonhebel, Sanderine, 2014. "European dietary patterns and their associated land use: Variation between and within countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 158-166.
    14. Mario Herrero & Benjamin Henderson & Petr Havlík & Philip K. Thornton & Richard T. Conant & Pete Smith & Stefan Wirsenius & Alexander N. Hristov & Pierre Gerber & Margaret Gill & Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, 2016. "Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(5), pages 452-461, May.
    15. Louise Seconda & Julia Baudry & Benjamin Allès & Christine Boizot-Szantai & Louis-Georges Soler & Pilar Galan & Serge Hercberg & Brigitte Langevin & Denis Lairon & Philippe Pointereau & Emmanuelle Kes, 2018. "Comparing nutritional, economic, and environmental performances of diets according to their levels of greenhouse gas emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 155-172, May.
    16. Lívia Garcez de Oliveira Padilha & Lenka Malek & Wendy J. Umberger, 2021. "Sustainable Meat: Looking through the Eyes of Australian Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-24, May.
    17. Andrew Berardy & Carol S. Johnston & Alexandra Plukis & Maricarmen Vizcaino & Christopher Wharton, 2019. "Integrating Protein Quality and Quantity with Environmental Impacts in Life Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-11, May.
    18. Ziynet Boz & Virpi Korhonen & Claire Koelsch Sand, 2020. "Consumer Considerations for the Implementation of Sustainable Packaging: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-34, March.
    19. Arrieta, E.M. & González, A.D., 2018. "Impact of current, National Dietary Guidelines and alternative diets on greenhouse gas emissions in Argentina," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 58-66.
    20. Buckley, Kristy J. & Newton, Peter & Gibbs, Holly K. & McConnel, Ian & Ehrmann, John, 2019. "Pursuing sustainability through multi-stakeholder collaboration: A description of the governance, actions, and perceived impacts of the roundtables for sustainable beef," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 203-217.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:14:p:8424-:d:859241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.