Skip to main content

A Rapid Review of the Environmental Impacts Associated with Food Consumption in Australia and New Zealand

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) have been criticised for making only brief reference to sustainability considerations. With the ADG currently under review, the purpose of this rapid review was to determine the environmental impacts associated with food consumption in Australia and New Zealand.

Recent Findings

Of the 20 articles included, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) were the most common environmental indicator (n = 12), followed by water use and water footprint (n = 7), and carbon footprint (n = 3). Whilst there are commonalities between different environmental indicators such as the large impact of discretionary food consumption on GHGe, cropland scarcity footprint, and water scarcity footprint, there is wide variation in these indicators for other food groups. Furthermore, modelling of current food consumption data to the recommended diet does not necessarily result in improvement of all indicators.

Summary

The next iteration of the ADG should promote consumption of foods and dietary patterns that are associated with positive health and environmental outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.

    United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Foreward In: Human development report 2020: the next frontier: human development and the anthropocene. New York, USA: UNDP. 2020. http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-report-2020. Accessed 20 April 2021.

  2. 2.

    •• Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. Comprehensive review of the environmental impacts of diets on human and planetary health, with a recommended dietary pattern required to feed a future population of 10 billion people within planetary boundaries.

  3. 3.

    • Ritchie H, Reay DS, Higgins P. The impact of global dietary guidelines on climate change. Glob Environ Chang. 2018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.005. A quantitative review comparing the greenhouse gas emissions of the dietary guidelines of multiple countries including Australia and highlighting the importance of not only a shift in recommendations but current eating patterns to reach current emission targets.

  4. 4.

    Sachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, Lafortune G, Fuller G, Woelm F. The sustainable development goals and COVID-19. Sustainable development report 2020. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020.

  5. 5.

    •• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for policymakers. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. In press: 2019. Compliation of evidence of the effects of food production on climate change.

  6. 6.

    Ritchie H, Roser M. Environmental impacts of food production. Our World in Data. 2020.

  7. 7.

    Westhoek H, Ingram J, Van Berkum S, Ozay L, Hajer M. Food systems and natural resources. A Report of the Working Group on Food Systems of the International Resource Panel. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); 2016.

  8. 8.

    Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Sci. 2018;360(6392):987–92. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Porter J, Xie L, Challinor A, Cochrane K, SM. H, Igbal M, et al. Food security and food production systems. In: Field C, Barros V, Dokken D, Mach K, Mastrandrea M, Bilir T, et al., editors. Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability intergovernmetal panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.: Cambridge University Press. 2014. p. 485–533.

  10. 10.

    Verschuuren J. The paris agreement on climate change: agriculture and food security. Eur J Risk Regul. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1867299X00005389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    •• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Summary for policymakers. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis contribution of working group i to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In press: Cambridge University Press; 2021. The most comprehensive scientific assessment to date of the current state of the global climate, including how it is changing and the role of human influence, the state of knowledge about possible climate futures, climate information relevant to regions and sectors, and limiting human-induced climate change.

  12. 12.

    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Food-based dietary guidelines. http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guidelines/home/en/ (2021). Accessed 20 April 2021.

  13. 13.

    Selvey LA, Carey MG. Australia’s dietary guidelines and the environmental impact of food “from paddock to plate.” Med J Aust. 2013;198(1):18–9. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja12.10528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ministry of Health. Eating and activity guidelines for New Zealand adults: updated 2020. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Health; 2020.

  15. 15.

    Jones R, Wham C, Burlingame B. New Zealand’s food system is unsustainable: a survey of the divergent attitudes of agriculture, environment, and health sector professionals towards eating guidelines. Front Nutr. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00099.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    • Goulding T, Lindberg R, Russell CG. The affordability of a healthy and sustainable diet: an Australian case study. Nutr J. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-020-00606-z. A recent study considering the economic impact of a household of two adults and two children adjusting from a modelled 'typical Australian' grocery basket and an 'Australian-specific' grocery basket.

  17. 17.

    National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). A review of the evidence to address targeted questions to inform the revision of the Australian Dietary Guidelines. Canberra, ACT: NHMRC; 2011.

  18. 18.

    Candy S, Turner GM, Sheridan J, Carey R. Quantifying Melbourne’s ‘Foodprint’: a scenario modelling methodology to determine the environmental impact of feeding a city. Econ Agro-Aliment. 2018;20(3):371–99. https://doi.org/10.3280/ECAG2018-003007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    • Turner GM, Larsen KA, Candy S, Ogilvy S, Ananthapavan J, Moodie M, et al. Squandering Australia's food security—the environmental and economic costs of our unhealthy diet and the policy Path We're On. J Clean Prod. 2018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.072. A modelling study that quantifies the near-term environmental and economic ramifications of the "The Path We're On" based on current consumption patters. The modelled diet and data from this study has been utilised in multiple future studies including Candy, 2018.

  20. 20.

    •• Candy S, Turner G, Larsen K, Wingrove K, Steenkamp J, Friel S, et al. Modelling the food availability and environmental impacts of a shift towards consumption of healthy dietary patterns in Australia. Sustain. 2019;11(24). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247124. Presents a quantitative modelling analysis of food availability and environmental implications of shifting the current average Australian dietary pattern to one of two alternatives, a ‘healthy mixed diet’ (both animal and plant foods), and a ‘healthy plant-based diet’.

  21. 21.

    Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment. ACT State of the Environment. Canberra: Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment; 2019.

  22. 22.

    • Drew J, Cleghorn C, Macmillan A, Mizdrak A. Healthy and climate-friendly eating patterns in the New Zealand context. Environ Health Perspect. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5996. Develops a New Zealand specific life-cycle assessment (LCA) database in order to estimate the environmental impacts of New Zealand's food consumption at a food group level and the impact of changes to a healther and more susrtainable diet on the country's health and enconomic outcomes.

  23. 23.

    Farmery A, Gardner C, Green B, Jennings S, Watson R. Domestic or imported? An assessment of carbon footprints and sustainability of seafood consumed in Australia. Environ Sci Policy. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Froemelt A, Wiedmann T. A two-stage clustering approach to investigate lifestyle carbon footprints in two Australian cities. Environ Res Lett. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hadjikakou M. Trimming the excess: environmental impacts of discretionary food consumption in Australia. Ecol Econ. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Han M, Zhang B, Zhang Y, Guan C. Agricultural CH4 and N2O emissions of major economies: Consumption-vs. production-based perspectives. J Clean Prod. 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.018.

  27. 27.

    Hendrie GA, Ridoutt BG, Wiedmann TO, Noakes M. Greenhouse gas emissions and the Australian Diet-Comparing dietary recommendations with average intakes. Nutr. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu6010289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hendrie GA, Baird D, Ridoutt B, Hadjikakou M, Noakes M. Overconsumption of energy and excessive discretionary food intake inflates dietary greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. Nutr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu8110690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY. A global and high-resolution assessment of the green, blue and grey water footprint of wheat. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2010;14(7):1259–76. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-1259-2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Reutter B, Lant P, Lane J, Reynolds C. Food waste consequences: environmentally extended input-output as a framework for analysis. J Clean Prod. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Reynolds CJ, Piantadosi J, Buckley JD, Weinstein P, Boland J. Evaluation of the environmental impact of weekly food consumption in different socio-economic households in Australia using environmentally extended input-output analysis. Ecol Econ. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Ridoutt BG, Juliano P, Sanguansri P, Sellahewa J. The water footprint of food waste: case study of fresh mango in Australia. J Clean Prod. 2010;18(16–17):1714–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.011.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    • Ridoutt BG, Baird D, Anastasiou K, Hendrie GA. Diet quality and water scarcity: evidence from a large Australian population health survey. Nutr. 2019 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11081846. First study to quantify the water scarcity footprint (WSF) and diet quality score of diets of the Australian population. Excessive consumption of discretionary foods contributes up to 36% of the water-scarcity impacts and is the primary factor differentiating healthier diets with lower WSF from poorer quality diets with higher WSF.

  34. 34.

    • Ridoutt BG, Baird D, Hendrie GA. The role of dairy foods in lower greenhouse gas emission and higher diet quality dietary patterns. Eur J Nutr. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-020-02245-w. A recent review study that looks at cropland footptints of dietary food groups at their current consumption levels and provides recommendations for changes to dietary patterns to reduce the enironmental impacts.

  35. 35.

    Ridoutt B, Anastasiou K, Baird D, Garcia JN, Hendrie G. Cropland footprints of australian dietary choices. Nutr. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12051212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wilson N, Nghiem N, Ni Mhurchu C, Eyles H, Baker MG, Blakely T. Foods and dietary patterns that are healthy, low-cost, and environmentally sustainable: a case study of optimization modeling for New Zealand. PLoS ONE. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059648.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Weidmann S, Murphy C, McGahan E, Renouf M, Prasad P, Bonner S, et al. Northern Australian beef supply chain life cycle assessment - final report. North Syndey, NSW: Meat and Livestock Australia Limited,; 2013.

  38. 38.

    Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources. Quarterly Update of Australia's National Greenhouse Inventory: September 2020. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources; 2020.

  39. 39.

    Department of Agriculture Water and The Environment: Water for food. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/water/water-for-food (2020). Accessed 26 April 2021.

  40. 40.

    Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS): Water use on Australian farms. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/agriculture/water-use-australian-farms/latest-release (2020). Accessed 21 April 2021.

  41. 41.

    Australian Bureau of Agriculutral and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES). Australian food security and the Covid-19 pandemic. Canberra: ABARES; Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment; 2020. https://doi.org/10.25814/5e953830cb003.

  42. 42.

    •• Aldaya MM, Ibañez FC, Domínguez-Lacueva P, Murillo-Arbizu MT, Rubio-Varas M, Soret B, et al. Indicators and recommendations for assessing sustainable healthy diets. Foods. 2021;10(5):999. 10.3390/foods10050999. Comprehensive review that analyzes indicators and approaches to "sustainable healthy diets" published in the literature since this discipline's emergence a few years ago, identifying robust gauges and highlighting the flaws of the most commonly used models.

  43. 43.

    Beef and Lamb New Zealand. The role of red meat in healthy and sustainable New Zealand Diets. New Zealand: Beef and Lamb New Zealand; 2020.

  44. 44.

    Global Footprint Network: Ecological Footprint. https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/ (2021). Accessed 26 April 2021.

  45. 45.

    Ridoutt B, Huang J. Environmental relevance—the key to understanding water footprints. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(22):E1424-E. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203809109.

  46. 46.

    • van der Werf HMG, Knudsen MT, Cederberg C. Towards better representation of organic agriculture in life cycle assessment. Nat Sustain. 2020;3(6):419–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0489-6. Current LCA methodology tends to favour high-input intensive agricultural systems and misrepresent less intensive agroecological systems such as organic agriculture. This paper discusses key considerations for better assessment of alternative farming methods.

  47. 47.

    Peter N, Nicole C, Lee F-G, Katharine B, Colleen J. What is regenerative agriculture? A review of scholar and practitioner definitions based on processes and outcomes. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020;4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.577723.

  48. 48.

    National Health and Medical Research Council. A modelling system to inform the revision of the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. Canberra, ACT: NHMRC; 2011.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions made by members of the Dietitians Australia Food and Environment Interest Group throughout the review process and Lorien Delany for assistance with the literature search.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara Forbes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Sara Forbes contributed to this article as part of the leadership team of the Food and Environment Interest Group of Dietitians Australia, and is also Co-convenor of the Food Service Interest Group of Dietitians Australia. Both roles are unpaid. Ellyn Bicknell is a current member of Dietitians Australia Food and Environment Interest Group and is a previous board member/volunteer of the Southern Harvest Association. Ligia Guilovica declares that she has no conflict of interest. Kate Wingrove was partially supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, administered by Deakin University, and was employed by Deakin University as a Casual Research Fellow. Payments were unrelated to this article. She also contributed to this article as part of the leadership team of the Food and Environment Interest Group of Dietitians Australia and is a member of the Dietitians Australia Australian Dietary Guidelines Review Working Group. Both roles are unpaid. Karen Charlton is a member of the leadership team of the Food and Environment Interest Group of Dietitians Australia. She also receives research grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Dementia Collaborative Research Centre, the Australian Research Centre, and Resolve to Save Lives. These grants did not support this work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Public Health Nutrition

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 80 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 32 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Forbes, S., Bicknell, E., Guilovica, L. et al. A Rapid Review of the Environmental Impacts Associated with Food Consumption in Australia and New Zealand. Curr Nutr Rep (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-021-00374-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Food consumption
  • Dietary patterns
  • Environmental impacts
  • Sustainability
  • Australia
  • New Zealand