The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: a case study of environmental and social aspects

  • Almudena HospidoEmail author
  • Llorenç Milà i Canals
  • Sarah McLaren
  • Monica Truninger
  • Gareth Edwards-Jones
  • Roland Clift


Background, aim and scope

Considerable debate surrounds the assessment of the environmental impacts and the ethical justification for providing a year-round supply of fresh produce to consumers in the developed countries of northern Europe. Society is seeking environmentally sustainable supply chains which maintain the variety of fresh food on offer throughout the year. This paper compares the environmental impacts of different supply chains providing lettuce all year round to the UK and considers consumers' meanings of—and attitudes to—available options. Lettuce has been selected as a case study as its consumption has grown steadily during the last two decades and the supply chains through cold months are protected cropping in the UK and field cropping in Spain; during warm months, lettuce is sourced from field cropping in the UK.

Materials and methods

Data were collected from farms supplying each of these supply chains, and life cycle assessment methodology was used to analyse a range of impacts associated with producing (from plant propagation to harvesting and post-harvest cooling) and delivering 1 kg of lettuce to a UK Regional Distribution Centre (RDC). The downstream stages (i.e. retailing, consumption and waste management) are the same regardless of the origin of the product and were omitted from the comparison. The impacts considered included potential to induce global warming and acidification as well as three inventory indicators (primary energy use, land use and water use). Qualitative data were collected in order to assess the consumer considerations of purchasing lettuce also during winter.


Importation of Spanish field-grown lettuce into the UK during winter produced fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than lettuce produced in UK-protected systems at that time (0.4–0.5 vs. 1.5–3.7 kg CO2-eq/kg lettuce in RDC). Refrigerated transport to the UK was an important element of the global warming potential associated with Spanish lettuce (42.5% of emissions), whilst energy for heating dominated the results in UK-protected cultivation (84.3% of emissions). Results for acidification were more variable and no overall trends are apparent. Results from qualitative social analysis revealed complex and multidimensional meanings of freshness and suggested that the most striking seasonal variation in vegetable/salad eating was a tendency to consume more salads in the summer and more cooked vegetables in the winter, thus suggesting that in-home consumption alone cannot explain the rise in winter imports of lettuce to the UK.


UK field-grown lettuce had the lowest overall environmental impact; however, those lettuces are only available in summer, so consumers therefore need to either accept the environmental impacts associated with eating lettuce in the winter or to switch consumption to another food product in the winter. When lettuces were field-grown in Spain and then transported by road to the UK, the overall impacts were similar to the UK field lettuces. The variation within farms of the same country employing different cultivation regimes and practices was bigger than between farms of different countries.


This paper has explored the environmental consequences of consuming lettuce year-round in the UK. Whilst recognising the small sample size, the comparative analysis of the different supply chains does suggest that seasonality can be an important variable when defining the best choice of lettuce from an environmental point of view.

Recommendations and perspectives

Further studies considering more production sites and product types are required to obtain conclusions whose general validity is clear and for different types of fresh produce. A clear distinction to be made in such studies is whether crops are produced in open fields or under protection. New characterisation methods are needed for environmental impacts derived from the use of key agricultural resources such as land and water. Social studies to investigate consumer preferences and the possibility of moving to more seasonal diets should be an integral part of these studies using samples composed of both urban and rural consumers and using a mixed methodology with both quantitative and qualitative components.


Consumers' meanings and attitudes Food miles Fresh produce LCA Life cycle assessment Lettuce Seasonality 



This work was part of a larger project entitled ‘Comparative assessment of environmental, community and nutritional impacts of consuming fruit and vegetable produced locally and overseas’ (RES-224-25-0044) which was funded under the UK Research Councils Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) Programme. We thank the RELU programme for all their support. We are also very grateful to the horticultural businesses which participated in the project and gave so freely of their time and expertise. Dr. Hospido acknowledges Caixa Galicia Foundation for financial support during her postdoctoral stay at CES; she is currently funded by the Isidro Parga Pondal programme (Xunta de Galicia). Dr. Milà i Canals acknowledges GIRO CT ( for its logistical support. Dr. McLaren’s recent involvement was funded through the New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science and Technology Programme ‘Building Capacity for Sustainable Development: the Enabling Research’ (CO9X0310). Preliminary results were presented in the 5th International Conference LCA in Foods ( Two anonymous reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improving this paper.


  1. Andersson K, Ohlsson T (1998) Life cycle assessment of bread produced on different scales. Chalmers Tekniska Hogskola, Göteborg (Sweden)Google Scholar
  2. Antón M.A, Castells F, Montero JI, Muñoz P (2003) Most significant substances of LCA to Mediterranean Greenhouse Horticulture. In: Halberg N (ed) Life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector. Proceedings from the 4th International Conference, October 6–8, 2003, Bygholm, Denmark. DIAS Report no. 61, Tjele (Denmark)Google Scholar
  3. Arrouays D, Balesdent J, Germon JC, Jayet PA, Soussana JF, Stengel P (2002) Contribution à la lutte contre l’effet de serre. Stocker du carbone dans les sols agricoles de France? Paris (France) INRA (in French)Google Scholar
  4. Audsley E (coord.), Alber S, Clift R, Cowell S, Crettaz P, Gaillard G, Hausheer J, Jolliet O, Kleijn R, Mortensen B, Pearce D, Roger E, Teulon H, Weidema B, Van Zeijts H (1997) Harmonisation of environmental life cycle assessment for agriculture. Final report, Concerted Action AIR3-CT94-2028, European Commission, DG VIGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanke MM, Burdick B (2005) Food (miles) for thought—energy balance for locally-grown versus imported apple fruit. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 12(3):125–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blythman J (2004) Shopped—the shocking power of British supermarkets. Fourth Estate, London (UK)Google Scholar
  7. Brosnan T, Sun DW (2001) Precooling techniques and applications for horticultural products - a review. Int J Refrig 24:154–170Google Scholar
  8. Cross PA, Edwards-Jones G (2006) Variation in pesticide hazard from vegetable production in Great Britain from 1991 to 2003. Pest Manag Sci 62:1058–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DEFRA (2006) Basic horticultural statistics. Available from
  10. DEFRA (2007) UK household purchased quantities of food and drink. Available from efs/datasets/UKHHcons.xls
  11. Edwards-Jones G, Milà i Canals L, Hounsome N, Truninger M, Koerber G, Hounsome B, Cross PA, York EH, Hospido A, Plassmann K, Harris IM, Edwards RT, Day GAS, Tomos AD, Cowell SJ, Jones DL (2008a) Testing the assertion that ‘local food is best’: the challenges of an evidence based approach. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edwards-Jones G, Plassmann K, York EH, Hounsome B, Jones DL, Milà i Canals L (2008b) Vulnerability of exporting nations to the development of a carbon label in the United Kingdom. Environ Sci Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.10.005 Google Scholar
  13. Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus HJ, Doka G, Heck T, Hellweg S, Hischier R, Nemecek T, Rebitzer G, Spielmann M (2004) Overview and methodology. Ecoinvent report no. 1. Dübendorf (Switzerland) Swiss Centre for Life Cycle InventoriesGoogle Scholar
  14. Fortescue, S. (2005) Long-distance dinners. Miles to market and price comparison. Farmers Weekly, 23 December 2005, p 20Google Scholar
  15. Guinée J (ed), Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ, Lindeijer E, Roorda AAH, van der Ven BL, Weidema BP (2002) Life cycle assessment. An operational guide to the ISO standards. Leiden University (The Netherlands). VROM & CMLGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamilton A (2006) Christmas lunch will fly 84,000 miles to your table. Article in The Times dated 20th November, 2006. Available from Accessed 26.06.07
  17. Hauschild MZ, Thyø K, Jensen KH (2007) Estimating pesticide emissions for life cycle assessment of agricultural products. SETAC Europe 17th Annual Meeting. Abstracts. Porto (Portugal), 20th–24th May 2007Google Scholar
  18. Holloway L, Kneafsey M (2000) Reading the space of farmers’ market: a preliminary investigation from the UK. Sociol Rural 40(3):285–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones A (2002) An environmental assessment of food supply chains: a case study on dessert apples. Environ Manage 30(4):560–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jungbluth N, Demmeler M (2005) ‘The ecology of scale: assessment of regional energy turnover and comparison with global food’ by Elmar Schlich and Ulla Fleissner. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):168–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Margni M, Rossier D, Crettaz P, Jolliet O (2002) Life cycle impact assessment of pesticides on human health and ecosystems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 93:379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milà i Canals L, Burnip GM, Cowell SJ (2006) Evaluation of the environmental impacts of apple production using life cycle assessment (LCA): case study in New Zealand. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:226–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Milà i Canals L, Cowell SJ, Sim S, Basson L (2007a) Comparing local versus imported apples: a focus on energy use. Environ Sci Pollut Res 14(5):338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Milà i Canals L, Romanyà J, Cowell SJ (2007b) Method for assessing impacts on life support functions (LSF) related to the use of ‘fertile land’ in life cycle assessment (LCA). J Clean Prod 15:1426–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milà i Canals L, Muñoz I, McLaren SJ, Brandão M (2007c) LCA methodology and modelling considerations for vegetable production and consumption. CES Working Paper 02/07. ISSN 1464-8083. Available from
  26. Milà i Canals L, Muñoz I, Hospido A, Plassmann K, McLaren SJ (2008) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of domestic vs. imported vegetables. Case studies on broccoli, salad crops and green beans. CES Working Paper 01/08. ISSN 1464-8083. Available from
  27. Milà i Canals L, Chenoweth J, Chapagain AK, Orr S, Antón A, Clift R (2009) Assessing freshwater use impacts in LCA Part I: inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathways. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(1):28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nemecek T, Heil A, Huguenin O, Meier S, Erzinger S, Blaser S, Dux D, Zimmermann A (2004) Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems. Ecoinvent report no. 15, Agroscope FAL Reckenholz and FAT Taenikon, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, Switzerland (for ecoinvent members only)Google Scholar
  29. Péneau S, Brockoff PB, Hoehn E, Escher F, Nuesli J (2007) Relating consumer evaluation of apple freshness to sensory and physico-chemical measurements. J Sens Stud 22(3):313–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schlich EH, Fleissner U (2005) The ecology of scale: assessment of regional energy turnover and comparison with global food. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saunders C, Barber A, Taylor G (2006) Food miles—comparative energy/emissions performance of New Zealand’s agriculture industry. AERU Research Report no. 285. Lincoln University, Lincoln, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  32. Sim S, Barry M, Clift R, Cowell SJ (2007) The relative importance of transport in determining an appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing. A case study of fresh produce supply chains. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):422–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith A, Watkiss P, Tweddle G, McKinnon A, Browne M, Hunt A, Treleven C, Nash C, Cross S (2005) The validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable development. ED50254-103. Oxon (UK)Google Scholar
  34. Sun DW, Zheng L (2006) Vacuum cooling technology for the agri-food industry: past, present and future. J Food Eng 77(2):203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sundkvist A, Jansson AM, Larsson P (2001) Strengths and limitations of localizing food production as a sustainability-building strategy—an analysis of bread production on the island of Gotland, Sweden. Ecol Econ 37:217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. The Carbon Trust (2004) Energy benchmarks and saving measures for protected greenhouse horticulture in the UK. Report ECG091. Available from
  37. Van Hauwermeiren A, Coene H, Engelen G, Mathijs E (2007) Energy lifecycle inputs in food systems: a comparison of local versus mainstream cases. J Environ Policy Plan 9(1):31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warde A (1997) Consumption, food and taste—culinary antinomies and commodity culture. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilkinson S (2004) Focus group research. In: Silverman D (ed) Qualitative research—theory, method and practice, 2nd edn. Sage, London, pp 177–199Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Almudena Hospido
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Llorenç Milà i Canals
    • 1
    • 3
  • Sarah McLaren
    • 1
    • 4
  • Monica Truninger
    • 5
  • Gareth Edwards-Jones
    • 6
  • Roland Clift
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Environmental StrategyUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  3. 3.UnileverSafety & Environmental Assurance CentreSharnbrookUK
  4. 4.Sustainability and SocietyLandcare ResearchLincolnNew Zealand
  5. 5.Institute of Social SciencesLisbon UniversityLisbonPortugal
  6. 6.School of the Environment and Natural ResourcesBangor UniversityBangorUK

Personalised recommendations