Original food consumption data from the NVS II



Supplementary Material toCarbon footprints and land use of conventional and organic diets in GermanyHanna Treu 1, Maria Nordborg 2, Christel Cederberg 2, Thorsten Heuer 3, Erika Claupein 3, Heide Hoffmann 1, G?ran Berndes 21 Faculty of Life Sciences, Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, WG Agroecology and Organic Agriculture, Humboldt University of Berlin, 10115 Berlin, Germany2 Department of Energy and Environment, Division of Physical Resource Theory, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden3 Department of Nutritional Behaviour, Max Rubner-Institut, Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food, 76131 Karlsruhe, GermanyTable of contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u S1.Original food consumption data from the NVS II PAGEREF _Toc475887385 \h 1S2.Assessment of food consumption (NVS II) PAGEREF _Toc475887386 \h 3S3.Classification of buyers and non-buyers of organic food in the NVS II PAGEREF _Toc475887387 \h 4S4.Re-categorisation of the NVS II food categories PAGEREF _Toc475887388 \h 5S5.Literature review of LCA studies PAGEREF _Toc475887389 \h 8S6.Conversion between different fractions of meat PAGEREF _Toc475887390 \h 9S7.Carbon footprints of plant-based food products PAGEREF _Toc475887391 \h 11S8.Carbon footprints of animal-based food products PAGEREF _Toc475887392 \h 13S9.Land use of plant-based food products PAGEREF _Toc475887393 \h 15S10.Land use of animal-based food products PAGEREF _Toc475887394 \h 17S11.Self-sufficiency rates and main import countries PAGEREF _Toc475887395 \h 19S12.Transport emissions PAGEREF _Toc475887396 \h 20S13.Re-categorisation of food categories used in analysis PAGEREF _Toc475887397 \h 22S14.Food supply in conventional and organic diets PAGEREF _Toc475887398 \h 23S15.Carbon footprints of conventional and organic diets PAGEREF _Toc475887399 \h 24S16.Land use of conventional and organic diets PAGEREF _Toc475887400 \h 25References PAGEREF _Toc475887401 \h 26Number of tables: 17Original food consumption data from the NVS II Table S1.1 Mean food consumption of “buyers of conventional food” (here refered to as conventional consumers) and “intensive buyers of organic food” (here refered to as organic consumers) from the German National Nutrition Survey II. Data were obtained from the Max-Rubner Institut. Information about what the food categories contain is available in Chapter S4.Food categories (as in NVS II)Conventional consumers, i.e., buyers of conventional food(g/day)Organic consumers, i.e., intensive buyers of organic food (g/day)Men (n=3,663)Women (n=3,536)Men (n=219)Women (n=442)Bread180135203141Cereals and cereal products71619684Pastries43323532Potatoes and potato products95749669Pomaceous fruit raw121130167175Pomaceous fruit cooked/canned1224Berries raw24353148Berries cooked/canned<1<1<1<1Stone fruit raw15231734Stone fruit cooked/canned<1<1<1<1Citrus fruit raw26323144Citrus fruit cooked/canned<1<1<1<1Other fruits raw35405159Other fruits cooked/canned1111Mixed fruit2336Dried fruit<1<112Fruit compote66116Nuts and seeds4355Fruit vegetables raw62708385Fruit vegetables cooked/canned23223132Root vegetables raw32354859Root vegetables cooked/canned13131919Bulb vegetables raw2121Bulb vegetables cooked/canned1091412Cabbage raw2334Cabbage cooked/canned24232928Leafy vegetables raw19192830Leafy vegetables cooked4466Stalk vegetables raw<1<1<1<1Stalk vegetables cooked/canned991416Mixed vegetables raw<1<1<1<1Mixed vegetables cooked/canned3355Other vegetables<1<1<11Legumes18151918Mushrooms2233Milk and mixed milk drinks 1219711589Dairy products809384100Cheese and curd cheese46445449Beef, veal115125Pork40212812Poultry20161710Meat of other animals2142Offals1<11<1Minced meat14996Other processed meat111<1Sausages57283813Fish, fish products and seafood27213723Eggs 17121611Butter 18122216Other animal fats <1<1<1<1Margarine 13974Oils 75107Other vegetable fats 1<11<1Soups (without stews)53436653Sauces and spicy ingredients46344032Sweets, ice cream and desserts45423935Sweet spreads19172418Sweeteners6452- thereof sugar6352Others211317- there of soja products111014Assessment of food consumption (NVS II) The modified version of the computer programme DISHES (Diet interview software for health examination studies), developed by the Robert-Koch Institute (Mensink et al., 1998) was used to assess food consumption data from NVS II participants (Heuer et al., 2015). In the diet history interview, participants were asked to give a detailed description of their food and beverages consumption of the previous four weeks. Participants initially provided information about usual meal patterns. Then, frequency and consumed amount of single food items of each meal were assessed in a standardised manner. For quantification of consumed amounts, standardised dish models (e.g. cups and plates) and an excerpt of the EPIC-SOFT picture book with different portion sizes of food items were used (Slimani et al., 1999). For more information, refer to Heuer et al. (2015). Classification of buyers and non-buyers of organic food in the NVS II Participants were classified into buyers and non-buyers of organic food based on the question: “Do you buy organic products? (Products resulting from organic cultivation respectively from organic production), to which participants could answer “yes“, ”no“ or ”I don’t know“. Those who answered “no“ were classified as non-buyers of organic food. The following question was: “How often do you eat the following organic products or food groups?”. Those that crossed either “yes“ at the first question, or “I don’t know” at the first question in combination with crossing several items in the following question, were classified as buyers of organic food. Buyers of organic food were further classified as “intensive”, “occasional” or “seldom” buyers of organic food based on the question “How often do you eat the following organic products or food groups?” for twelve food groups (bread and bakery products, cereals, fruits, vegetables, potatoes, dairy and dairy products, meat and sausages, fish, eggs, ready-made products such as pizza, fruit and vegetable juices, and wine and beer) on the basis of the purchase frequency “(almost) always”, “often”, “seldom” and “never” for the twelve food groups. For more information, refer to Hoffmann and Spiller (2010). Re-categorisation of the NVS II food categoriesTable S4.1 NVS II food categories and assumptions regarding re-categorisation for the presented analyses. The table also provides further information on what type of food the NVS II food categories contain.NVS II food categories Description of food categoriesAssumptions used in re-categorisationFood categories used in this study (in the analysis)BreadBread (brown, wholegrain, white) toast, buns.70% allocated to cereals (assuming 100 g baked bread consist of 70% cereals and 30% water).Cereals Cereals and cereal productsPasta, muesli, rice, cereals, pancakes.94.8% allocated to cereals, and 5.2% allocated to rice based on information in BLE (2015). Cereals / Rice PastriesFruit cake, pound cake, cookies, salty pastry, croissant, Danish pastries.93.9% allocated to cereals, and 6.1% allocated to Sugar & Sweets, in line with information in Meier et al. (2014). For the proportion allocated to cereals, it was assumed that 100 g pastries consist of 70% cereals. Other ingredients were not considered.Cereals / Sugar & sweets Potatoes and potato productsPotatoes, mashed potatoes, fries, potato dumplings, potato crisps.PotatoesPomaceous fruit rawApple, pear.Pomaceous fruitsPomaceous fruit cooked/canned aApple sauce.Berries rawGrapes, strawberries, melon.BerriesBerries cooked/canned aRaisin cooked, lingonberry heated.Stone fruit rawPeach, plum, nectarine, sweet cherry.Stone fruitsStone fruit cooked/canned aPeach can, cherry compote.Citrus fruit rawOrange, mandarin.Citrus fruitsCitrus fruit cooked/canned aLemon heated.Other fruits rawBanana, kiwi, ananas, mango.Other fruitsOther fruits cooked/canned aOlives (can).Mixed fruitFruit salad.No information concerning type of fruits. 100% allocated to pomaceous fruits since carbon footprint of conventional mixed fruits equals that of apples (R??s, 2012). Pomaceous fruitsDried fruitFruit mix dried, raisin.Other fruitsFruit compoteFruit compote, red fruit pudding.Nuts and seedsPeanuts, walnuts.Nuts and seedsFruit vegetables rawTomatoes, cucumber, pepper.Fresh tomatoes and cucumbersFruit vegetables cooked/cannedPickled gherkin (can), tomato puree, tomato cooked, pepper cooked, tomato sauce.Processed tomatoes and cucumbersRoot vegetables rawCarrot, radish, onions, white cabbage, kohlrabi, lettuce, fennel, raw vegetable saladOther fresh vegetablesBulb vegetables rawCabbage rawLeafy vegetables rawStalk vegetables rawMixed vegetables rawRoot vegetables cooked/cannedCooked carrot, celery, onions, garlic, broccoli, cauliflower, red cabbage, sauerkraut, spinach, greens (for making soup), leek cooked, asparagus and vegetables mix.Other processed vegetablesBulb vegetables cooked/cannedCabbage cooked/cannedLeafy vegetables cookedStalk vegetables cooked/cannedMixed vegetables cooked/cannedOther vegetablesChicory, capers, horseradishNot specified if raw or cooked; allocated to processed vegetables. Other processed vegetablesLegumesBean, peas, lentils, bean sprouts.LegumesMushroomsCommon mushroom.Not specified if raw or cooked; allocated to processed vegetables. Other processed vegetablesMilk and mixed milk drinksCow milk, cacao drinks, milkshakes. Non-dairy food products, e.g. fruits in yoghurts or cocoa, were disregarded in the analysis.Fresh dairy productsDairy productsYoghurt with and without fruits, condensed milk, (sour) cream, buttermilk, kefir, whey.Cheese and curd cheeseGouda cheese, camembert, Emmenthaler cheese, cream cheese, curd cheese.CheeseBeef, vealBeef: roast meat, steak, roll of beef. Veal: Wiener schnitzel.Content assumed to be 100% beef. BeefPorkPork schnitzel, goulash, cooked smoked ham, roast meat, steak, cutlet.Content assumed to be 100% pork.PorkPoultryChicken breast fillet, turkey breast, grilled chicken, poultry ragout, duck.Content assumed to be 100% poultry.PoultryMeat of other animalsLamb (fillet, roast meat, cutlet), saddle of venison, rabbit meat, wild boar.Meat of other animalsOffals Liver (pork, chicken).Considered as a by-product to other meat products and therefore excluded from the analysis.-Minced meat bMeatballs, minced meat.Content assumed to be 100% meat, of which 50% pork and 50% beef (Florén, pers. comm., 2016). Pork / BeefOther processed meat bSmoked meat.Content assumed to be 95% pork, and 5% other ingredients which were disregarded in the analysis. PorkSausages bSalami, sausage, liver sausage, mortadella, bockwurst, ham sausage, Leberk?se c. Meat content assumed to be 95% based on information for salami from Frech (2016), since salami is the most sold sausage in Germany (AMI, 2015). It was assumed that the meat of sausages consists of 55% pork, 23% poultry, 20% beef, and 2% meat of other animals on average, based on information from MRI (pers. comm., 2011). Pork / Beef / Poultry / Meat of other animalsFish, fish products and seafoodFillet of salmon, salmon (smoked, cooked), herring (can), trout (smoked, fried), fish-finger, rosefish, herring, tuna, prawn.Fish EggsHen’s egg. Exlcuding eggs in pastries, soups and sauces.EggsButter dButter.Butter Other animal fats dLard / pig fat.Margarine dMargarine.Aggregated, in line with the approach of Meier and Christen (2012).Vegetal oils & margarineOils dOlive oil, sun flower oil.Other vegetable fats dCoconut butter.Soups (without stews)Beef stock, noodle soup, lentil soup, vegetable soup, pea soup, tomato soup.Allocation to single ingredients was not possible. These food categories were therefore excluded from the analysis. -Sauces and spicy ingredientsBrown sauce, mustard, ketchup, cheese sauce / cream sauce, béchamel sauce, mayonnaise, salat dressing (yoghurt, vinegar / oil).Sweets, ice cream and dessertsChocolate, ice cream, gumdrop, pudding, chocolate bar, rice pudding.Aggregated and allocated to Sugar & Sweets, in line with the approach of Meier and Christen (2012).Sugar & SweetsSweet spreadsJam, honey, hazelnut spread.SweetenersSugar, sweetener.- there of sugarOthersVegetarian spread (yeast based) soy drinks, vegetarian burgers.Excluded from the analysis-- there of soja productsAllocated to legumes, in line with the approach of Meier et al. (2014).Legumesa Processing was disregarded in the analysis, since consumption is very low.b For these composite animal-based food products, the content and type of meat had to be estimated and allocated to the main ingredients (beef, pork, poultry and meat of other animals). Assumptions were made based on information from meat producers, supermarkets, interest representatives and academic experts, contacted in March - April 2016. In total, 19 stakeholders of the conventional and organic food sector were contacted. Additionally, web researches and direct product checks in supermarkets were conducted. It was assumed that meat content and type were the same for conventional and organic composite meat products, based on on-site research in Germany’s leading organic supermarkets. Additional ingredients, such as spices, vegetable ingredients and food additives were disregarded since information on the content was not available. c Meatloaf made out of finely-ground liver and other meat. d Without fats and oils in pastries, soups and sauces.Literature review of LCA studiesAs a starting point, a literature review by Landquist et al. (2016), conducted in February 2015 within the scope of another project, was used. In that review, the databases Web of Science, Science Direct and Google Scholar were searched by using terms such as “life cycle assessment”, “conventional” and “organic”. Only agricultural systems that were explicitly refered to as “organic” or “conventional” were considered. Additional studies were identified by reviewing cited studies. These searches generated 181 unique studies. After applying a set of selection criteria, see Table S5.1, 57 studies remained, of which 34 were already included in the review by Meier et al. (2015). The Excel database available as Supporting Information to Meier et al. (2015) was used as a starting point in the data collection. Meier’s database was extended by data for the items listed in Table S5.1 from the additional 23 (=57-34) studies. Table S5.1 Selection criteria and items for which information and data were collected in the first literature review in February 2015, conducted within the scope of another project.Selection criteria Items for which data were collected / calculated Peer-reviewedOriginal studyUses life cycle assessmentPublished between 2000 and 2015 Studies and compares both organically and conventionally produced foodIncludes at least one of the following environmental impact categories: climate change, eutrophication, acidification, ecotoxicity, energy use and land useAssesses environmental impacts in the primary productionPresents qualitative results for the assessed impact categoriesUses a mass-based functional unit Relevant with regard to Swedish consumption Is not a review study or meta-analysisIs of good scientific qualityFood categoryFood typeCountry of food productionImpact categories consideredImpact assessment method per impact category System boundariesData source(s) Harvest yields in organic production Harvest yields in conventional production Difference in harvest yields between organic and conventional production (%)Environmental impacts per product in organic production Environmental impacts per product in conventional production Difference in environmental impacts per product between organic and conventional production (%)Environmental impacts per area in organic production Environmental impacts per area in conventional production Difference in environmental impacts per area between organic and conventional production (%) Between November 2015 and February 2016, complementary searches in the databases PRIMUS (the database of Humboldt University Berlin) and Google Scholar, using keywords in Table S5.2, were performed in order to identify and expand the database with studies in German.Table S5.2 Keywords used in a complementary literature review between November 2015 and February 2016.“LCA AND organic AND conventional”“Land AND use AND conventional AND organic” “Carbon AND footprint AND conventional AND organic” “Greenhouse gas emissions AND organic AND conventional”“Lebenszyklusanalyse AND biologisch AND konventionell” “Landnutzung AND biologisch AND konventionell” “?kobilanz AND biologisch AND konventionell” ”Kohlenstoffbilanz AND biologisch AND konventionell””CO2-Fu?abdruck AND biologisch AND konventionell”Conversion between different fractions of meatCarbon footprints and land use of meat are commonly reported per kg live weight (LW), i.e., the weight of the whole animal before slaughter or kg carcass weight (CW), i.e., the weight of the carcass after slaughter excluding offal and hide, but including most bones. Tables S6.1 and S6.2 show how data were converted and expressed in relation to kg CW, before used in the impact assessment. Differences in system boundaries between studies (see Chapters S7-10) were not corrected for. Conversion coefficients from LW to CW are presented in Table 3 in the main paper.Table S6.1 Carbon footprint data from the original studies, and conversion to data values expressed in relation to kg carcass weight (used in the presented analyses). Study ?Food product / production systemCountryCarbon footprints as in the original sourceUnit in original sourceConverted carbon footprints (kg CO2-eq. / kg CW at the farm gate or slaughterhouse)Conversion factors ..PorkKool et al. 2010aPorkGermany3.705.00kg CO2-eq. / kg fresh meat at the slaughterhouse2.763.71Multiplied by ~0.56 a and divided by 0.75Netherlands3.604.302.673.18England3.504.402.523.17Denmark3.504.002.612.90Alig et al. 2012PorkSwitzerland3.303.40kg CO2-eq. / kg LW4.404.53Divided by 0.75Basset-Mens & van der Werf 2005Pork bFrance2.303.97kg CO2-eq. / kg LW3.075.29Divided by 0.75Williams et al. 2006PorkEngland & Wales6 3605 640kg CO2-eq. / ton CW6.365.64Divided by 1000Dourmad et al. 2014PorkEurope2.252.43kg CO2-eq. / kg LW3.003.24Divided by 0.75PoultryLeinonen et al. 2012aPoultry: standard indoor vs. organicUK4.415.661000 kg CO2-eq. / 1000 kg CW4.415.66NoneWilliams et al. 2006PoultryEngland & Wales4 5706 680kg CO2-eq. / ton CW4.576.68Divided by 1000Alig et al. 2012PoultrySwitzerland1.602.10kg CO2-eq. / kg LW 2.293.00Divided by 0.70BeefLeip et al. 2010Beef cGermany15.4015.40kg CO2-eq. / kg CW15.4015.40NoneMeat of other animalsWilliams et al., 2006LambUK & Wales17 50010 100kg CO2-eq. / ton CW17.5010.10Divided by 1000a Kool et al. (2010) report results per kg fresh meat at the slaughterhouse, referring to “meat cut of the pig that is not processed any further”. To convert from fresh meat to live weight conversion factors from Kool et al. (2010) were used that range between 0.54 and 0.56, depending on production system and country, and which represent the ratio between the weight of fresh meat and live weight.b Conventional pork in Basset-Mens & van der Werf (2005) refer to pork produced under “good agricultural practices”.c Carbon footprints of beef from Leip et al. (2010) are without greenhouse gas emissions from land use change.Table S6.1 Land use data from the original studies, and conversion to data values expressed in relation to kg carcass weight (used in the presented analyses). StudyFood product / production systemCountryLand use data values as in the original sourceUnit in original sourceConverted land use (m2 / kg CW at the farm gate or slaughterhouse)Conversion factors ..PorkAlig et al. 2012PorkSwitzerland4.37.5m2 / kg LW5.710.0Divided by 0.75Basset-Mens & van der Werf 2005 Pork aFrance5.439.87m2 / kg LW7.213.2Divided by 0.75Williams et al. 2006PorkEngland & Wales0.741.28ha / ton CW7.412.8Multiplied by 10Dourmad et al. 2014PorkEurope4.139.14m2 / kg LW5.512.2Divided by 0.75PoultryAlig et al. 2012 PoultrySwitzerland2.205.00m2 / kg LW 3.17.1Divided by 0.70Williams et al. 2006PoultryEngland & Wales0.641.40ha / ton CW6.414.0Multiplied by 10Leinonen et al. 2012aPoultry: standard indoor vs. organicUK0.562.50ha / 1000 kg CW5.625.0Multiplied by 10BeefAlig et al. 2012 Suckler cowSwitzerland26.9034.10m2 / kg LW50.864.3Divided by 0.53Casey & Holden 2006 Suckler cowIreland24.0049.00m2 / kg LW45.392.5Divided by 0.53Williams et al. 2006Organic vs. non-organic c England & Wales2.334.21ha / ton CW23.342.1Multiplied by 10Meat of other animalsNijdam et al., 2012LambNot specified26.544.5m2 / kg boneless retail meat b19.933.4Multiplied by 0.75a Conventional pork in Basset-Mens & van der Werf (2005) refer to pork produced under “good agricultural practices”.b To convert between boneless retail meat and carcass weight, a conversion coefficient of 0.75, from Nijdam et al. (2012), was used. c Non-organic beef in Williams et al. (2006) refer to a mix of beef from suckler cows and beef as by-product from milk production (i.e., surplus calves and culled dairy cows). Carbon footprints of plant-based food productsTable S7.1 Carbon footprints of plant-based food products used in the presented analyses. Food categories marked with * were not differentiated between conventional and organic food products due to lack of suitable LCA data, i.e., carbon footprints of conventional food products were used also for organic food products. The average carbon footprints were used in the cases where several studies were available.Study Food itemCountryCarbon footprints (kg CO2-eq. / kg)Average carbon footprints used in the analyses (kg CO2-eq. / kg)Relative difference between conventional and organic food products (basis = conv.)..Cereals0.540.50-7%Meisterling et al. 2009 wheatUSA0.30.2The food category includes different types of cereals, but data were only available for wheat. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.Williams et al. 2006 wheatUK0.80.8Williams et al. 2010 wheatEngland & Wales0.70.8Moudr? et al. 2013 wheatCzech Republic0.60.5Tuomisto et al. 2014 wheatUK0.40.4Bos et al. 2007 wheatThe Netherlands0.40.5Refsgaard et al. 2012 wheatNorway0.60.3Rice1.462.00+37%Hokazono & Hayashi 2012 riceJapan1.52.0System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.Potatoes0.180.16-11%Williams et al. 2006potatoesUK0.20.2System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate for all studies except Moudr? et al. (2013) which also includes transport to the processing plant.Williams et al. 2010potatoesEngland & Wales0.20.2Bos et al. 2007potatoesThe Netherlands0.20.2Moudr? et al. 2013potatoesCzech Republic0.20.1Fritsche & Eberle 2007potatoesGermany0.20.1Pomaceous fruits 0.210.16-24%Davis et al. 2011applesSweden0.20.2The food category includes apples and pears, but data were only available for apples. System boundaries are cradle-to-retail.Stone fruits 0.610.22-112%Michos et al. 2012 peachGreece0.60.2The food category includes different types of stone fruits, but data were only available for peaches. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.Citrus fruits0.120.06-50%Knudsen et al. 2011 orangesBrazil0.10.1The food category includes different citrus fruits, but data were only available for oranges. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate. Pergola et al. 2013orangesItaly0.10.1Other fruits0.110.110%Müller et al. 2015 kiwiNew Zealand0.20.2The food category includes different fruits, but data were only available for kiwi and banana. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.Graefe et al. 2011 bananaEcuador0.10.02Table S7.1 Continued.Study Food itemCountryCarbon footprints (kg CO2-eq. / kg)Average carbon footprints used here (kg CO2-eq. / kg)Relative difference between conventional and organic food products (basis = conv.)..Berries0.360.360%Kavargiris et al. 2009 grapesGreece0.50.6The food category includes different berries, but carbon footprint data were only available for grapes and strawberries. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.Venkat 2012 grapes case 1USA (California)0.30.2Venkat 2012grapes case 2USA (California)0.20.2Venkat 2012 grapes raisinUSA (California)0.70.7Venkat 2012 strawberryUSA (California)0.30.2Bos et al. 2007 strawberryThe Netherlands0.10.2Nuts and seeds *1.501.500%R??s 2012nutsSweden1.51.5System boundaries are cradle-to-store excluding transport. No differentiation between conventional and organic nuts and seeds due to lack of data was made.Fresh tomatoes and cucumbers0.430.34-21%Fritsche & Eberle 2007fresh tomatoesGermany0.30.2The food category includes fresh tomatoes, cucumbers and pepper, but data were only available for fresh tomatoes and cucumbers. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate. Raab et al. 2014cucumberAustria / Spain0.50.5Raab et al. 2014cucumberAustria0.4-Other fresh vegetables 0.150.13-13%Fritsche & Eberle 2007 vegetablesGermany0.20.1Fritsche & Eberle (2007) do not specify the type of vegetables but tomatoes and potatoes were explicitly excluded. Results refer to average greenhouse gas emissions for fresh organic and conventional open-air vegetables under cultivation conditions in Germany. System boundaries are cradle-to-retail. Processed tomatoes and cucumbers1.131.130%Brodt et al. 2013 tomato pasteUSA (California)1.51.5The food category includes processed tomatoes, cucumber, pepper, but carbon footprint data were only available for diced tomatoes and tomato paste. System boundaries are cradle-to-retail.Brodt et al. 2013 diced tomatoesUSA (California)0.80.8Other processed vegetables0.510.48-6%Fritsche & Eberle 2007 vegetablesGermany0.50.5Fritsche & Eberle (2007) do not specify the vegetables but tomatoes and potatoes were explicitly excluded. Results refer to average greenhouse gas emissions for processed organic and conventional open-air vegetables under cultivation conditions in Germany. System boundaries are cradle-to-retail. Legumes0.320.35+9%Abeliotis et al. 2013bean variety gigantesGreece0.30.3The food category includes different legumes, but carbon footprint data were only available for beans, peas and soybeans. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate. Abeliotis et al. 2013bean variety plakeGreece0.30.4Bos et al. 2007 peaThe Netherlands0.50.5Bos et al. 2007 beanThe Netherlands0.30.4Knudsen 2010soybeanChina0.30.2Vegetal oils and margarine * a1.951.950%Flysj? 2013vegetal oils, margarineDenmark1.951.95Average of carbon footprint for vegetable margarine with 60% fat, and Danish rape seed oil. Sugar and sweets * a2.502.500%Flysj? 2013sweetsDenmark2.52.5a No information about transport was given in Flysj? et al. (2013). Assuming that transports were not included, emissions associated with national transport in Germany were added. No differentiation between conventional and organic products was made due to lack of data.Carbon footprints of animal-based food productsTable S8.1 Carbon footprints of animal-based food products used in the presented analyses. Food categories marked with * were not differentiated between conventional and organic products, due to lack of suitable studies or because differences were low, i.e., carbon footprints of conventional food products were used also for organic food products. Carbon footprints of the meat products where expressed in relation to kg carcass weight before averages were calculated (see Chapter S6). The average carbon footprints were used in the cases where several studies were available.Study Food product / production systemCountryCarbon footprints (kg CO2-eq. / kg)Average carbon footprints used in the analyses (kg CO2-eq. / kg)Relative difference between conventional and organic food products (basis = conv.)..Pork 3.42 3.96 +16%Kool et al. 2010porkGermany2.763.71The system boundaries include primary production (feed), pig husbandry, slaughter, i.e., cradle-to-slaugterhouse. Transport from slaughterhouse to retail is not included.Kool et al. 2010porkNetherlands2.673.18Kool et al. 2010porkEngland2.523.17Kool et al. 2010porkDenmark2.612.90Alig et al. 2012porkSwitzerland4.404.53The system boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate. Transport after farm gate is not included. Conventional pork in Basset-Mens & van der Werf (2005) refer to pork produced under “good agricultural practices”.Basset-Mens & van der Werf 2005porkFrance3.075.29Williams et al. 2006porkEngland & Wales6.365.64Dourmad et al. 2014porkEurope3.003.24Poultry3.765.11+36%Leinonen et al. 2012apoultry: standard indoor vs. organicUK4.415.66Due to the use of single purpose breeds in German poultry production, no allocation between eggs and poultry meat was done (Sharma and Chemnitz, 2014). System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate. Transport after farm gate is not included. Williams et al. 2006poultry: organic vs non-organicEngland & Wales4.576.68Alig et al. 2012poultrySwitzerland2.293.00Beef *15.4015.400%Leip et al. 2010beefGermany15.4 a15.4 aThe food category includes beef and veal, but carbon footprint data were only available for beef. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate including slaughtering. Carbon footprints of beef are without greenhouse gas emissions from land use change.Meat of other animals 17.5010.10-42%Williams et al. 2006lambUK & Wales17.510.1The food category includes lamb (fillet, roast meat, cutlet), saddle of venison, rabbit meat and wild boar. However, no information about intake proportions was available. Carbon footprint data for lamb were used to represent this category. Due to the very low intake, no allocation to co-products was done. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate. Transport after farm gate is not included. Fish *4.004.000%Skontorp Hognes et al. 2014salmonNorway4.04.0Carbon footprint data for salmon were used since this is the most consumed fish in Germany (Fisch-Informationszentrum e.V. , 2016). System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate. a The review by Landquist et al. (2016) showed a very low (5%) difference between conventional and organic beef production based on results from four studies, therefore no differentiation was made between conventional and organic beef. The carbon footprint for beef used here is relatively low since a large part of Germany’s beef production is a by-product from the milk sector, i.e., culled dairy cows and surplus calves (Zehetmeier et al., 2012). Table S8.1 Continued.Study Food product / production systemCountryCarbon footprints (kg CO2-eq. / kg)Average carbon footprints used here (kg CO2-eq. / kg)Relative difference between conventional and organic food products (basis = conv.)..Eggs2.902.80-3%Dekker et al. 2011 battery cageThe Netherlands2.2Due to the use of single purpose breeds in German poultry production, no allocation between eggs and poultry meat was done (Sharma and Chemnitz, 2014). System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate. Dekker et al. 2011 barn case 1The Netherlands2.7Dekker et al. 2011 barn case 2The Netherlands2.7Dekker et al. 2011 free range case 1The Netherlands2.8Dekker et al. 2011 free range case 2)The Netherlands2.7Dekker et al. 2011 organic case 1The Netherlands2.5Dekker et al. 2011 organic case 2The Netherlands2.5Dekker et al. 2011battery cageThe Netherlands2.2Dekker et al. 2011barn case 1The Netherlands2.7Dekker et al. 2011barn case 2The Netherlands2.7Dekker et al. 2011 free range case 1The Netherlands2.8Dekker et al. 2011 free range case 2The Netherlands2.7Leinonen et al. 2012b cageUK2.9Leinonen et al. 2012b free rangeUK3.4Leinonen et al. 2012b barnUK3.5Leinonen et al. 2012b organicUK3.4Fresh dairy products * a1.11.10%Flysj? et al. 2014, and A. Flysj?, pers. comm., 2016consumer milk, yogurt, etc.Northern Europe (data from Arla Foods)1.11.1System boundaries are cradle-to-factory gate (includes energy use at dairy factory). Raw milk is allocated based on milk solid content, which is a different allocation method than used in Flysj? et al. (2014). Cheese * a4.94.90%Flysj? et al. 2014, and A. Flysj?, pers. comm., 2016yellow cheese, cream cheese, etc.Northern Europe (data from Arla Foods)4.94.9System boundaries are cradle-to-factory gate (includes energy use at dairy factory). Raw milk is allocated based on milk solid content, which is a different allocation method than used in Flysj? et al. (2014). Butter * a7.27.20%Flysj? et al., 2014, and A. Flysj?, pers. comm., 2016butter and butter blendNorthern Europe (data from Arla Foods)7.27.2System boundaries are cradle-to-factory gate (includes energy use at dairy factory). Raw milk is allocated based on milk solid content, which is a different allocation method than used in Flysj? et al. (2014). a The review by Landquist et al. (2016) showed a very low (1%) average difference between conventional and organic raw, energy-corrected milk, based on results from 13 studies encompassing 32 comparisons. Therefore, no differentiation was made between conventional and organic dairy products.Land use of plant-based food productsTable S9.1 Land use of plant-based food products used in the presented analyses. The average land use results were used in the cases where several studies were available. Land use of organic plant-based food products was assessed using land use of conventional plant-based food products as a baseline, and multiplying with crop-specific yield-correction factors accounting for the relative yield differences in conventional and organic agriculture, derived from the global meta-review by de Ponti et al. (2012).Study Food productCountryYield-correction factors (ratio) between conventional and organic yields (dimensionless)Land use (m2 / kg)Average land use used in the analyses (m2 / kg)Relative difference between conventional and organic food products (basis = conv.)..Cereals1.401.78+27%Williams et al. 2006wheatUK1.4The food category includes different types of cereals, but land use data were only available for wheat. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.Williams et al. 2010wheatEngland & Wales1.4de Ponti et al. 2012wheatWorldwide1.271.8Rice 1.801.91+6%Meier & Christen 2013grainsGermany1.8System boundaries are cradle-to store.de Ponti et al. 2012riceWorldwide1.061.9Potatoes0.230.30+30%Williams et al. 2006potatoesUK0.2System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.Williams et al. 2010potatoesEngland & Wales0.2de Ponti et al. 2012potatoesWorldwide1.300.3Pomaceous fruits0.440.58+31%Bryngelsson et al. 2016fruitsSweden0.44Land use refers to imported fruits, since most fruits consumed in Germany are imported. de Ponti et al. 2012applesGermany1.310.52Stone fruits0.440.54+22%Bryngelsson et al. 2016fruitsSweden0.44Land use refers to imported fruits, since most fruits consumed in Germany are imported.de Ponti et al. 2012fruitsWorldwide1.220.54Citrus fruits0.500.61+22%Knudsen et al. 2011 orangesBrazil0.5The food category includes different citrus fruits, but only land use data for oranges were available. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.de Ponti et al. 2012fruitsWorldwide1.220.6Other fruits0.440.54+22%Bryngelsson et al. 2016fruitsSweden0.44Land use refers to imported fruits, since most fruits consumed in Germany are imported.de Ponti et al. 2012fruitsWorldwide1.220.54Berries0.961.35+41%Villanueva-Rey et al. 2014 grapesSpain1.0System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.de Ponti et al. 2012strawberriesWorldwide1.411.4Nuts and seeds4.306.06+41%Bryngelsson et al. 2016nuts and seedsSweden4.3de Ponti et al. 2012strawberriesWorldwide1.416.1Fresh tomatoes and cucumbers 0.300.36+19%Williams et al. 2006tomatoesUK0.3System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.de Ponti et al. 2012tomatoesWorldwide1.190.4Table S9.1 Continued.Study Food productCountryYield-correction factors (ratio) between conventional and organic yields (dimensionless)Land use (m2 / kg)Average land use used in the analyses (m2 / kg)Relative difference between conventional and organic food products (basis = conv.)..Other fresh vegetables0.210.23+11%Karlsson 2011carrotsSweden0.2The food category includes different vegetables, but land use data were only available for carrots. System boundaries are cradle-to-retail.de Ponti et al. 2012carrotsWorldwide1.110.2Processed tomatoes and cucumbers 0.300.36+19%Williams et al. 2006tomatoesUK0.3No additional land use was added to account for processing (same data used as for fresh vegetables). System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.de Ponti et al. 2012tomatoesWorldwide1.190.4Other processed vegetables0.210.23+11%Karlsson 2011carrotsSweden0.2No additional land use was added to account for processing (same data used as for fresh vegetables). System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.de Ponti et al. 2012carrotsWorldwide1.110.2Legumes0.360.40+12%Abeliotis et al. 2013bean variety gigantesGreece0.4The food category includes different legumes, but LCA data were only available for beans. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.de Ponti et al. 2012pulsesWorldwide1.120.4Vegetal oils and margarine9.812.05+23%Bryngelsson et al. 2016vegetable oilsSweden9.8de Ponti et al. 2012sunflowerWorldwide1.2312Sugar and sweets0.690.66-5%Bryngelsson et al. 2016various, see commentSweden0.7Average result of sugar (0.94 m2 kg-1 of fresh weight), snacks (0.70 m2 kg-1 of fresh weight) and sweets (0.42 m2 kg-1 of fresh weight) from Bryngelsson et al. (2016).de Ponti et al. 2012other root and tuber cropsWorldwide0.950.7Land use of animal-based food productsTable S10.1 Land use of animal-based food products used in the presented analyses. Land use results for the meat products where expressed in relation to kg carcass weight before averages were calculated (see Chapter S6). The average land use results were used in the cases where several studies were available. Study Food product / production systemCountryLand use (m2 / kg)Average land use used in the analyses (m2 / kg)Relative difference between conventional and organic food products (basis = conv.).Conv. Org.Pork6.4712.0+86%Alig et al. 2012porkSwitzerland5.710.0System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.Basset-Mens & van der Werf 2005 pork: good agricultural practice (conventional) vs. organicFrance7.213.2Williams et al. 2006pork: non-organic vs non-organicEngland & Wales7.412.8Dourmad et al. 2014porkEurope5.512.2Poultry5.0515.4+205%Alig et al. 2012 poultrySwitzerland3.17.1System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate. Williams et al. 2006poultry: organic vs non-organicEngland & Wales6.414.0Leinonen et al. 2012apoultry: standard indoor vs. organicUK5.625.0Beef39.866.3+67%Alig et al. 2012 suckler cowSwitzerland50.864.3The food category includes beef and veal, but land use data were only available for beef. Land use data refer to beef from the dairy production system (culled dairy cows and surplus calves from dairy cows), since a large part (70%) of German beef production can be considered a co-product of the dairy sector (Zehetmeier et al. 2012). System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.Casey & Holden 2006 suckler cowIreland45.392.5Williams et al. 2006organic vs. non-organic a England & Wales23.342.1Meat of other animals19.933.4+68%Nijdam et al. 2012lambDifferent countries19.9The food category includes lamb (fillet, roast meat, cutlet), saddle of venison, rabbit meat and wild boar. However, no information about intake proportions was available. The average land use data for lamb from Nijdam et al. (2012) was used to represent this category. Due to the very low intake, no allocation to co-products was done. System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.33.4 bFish3.304.13+25%Ytrest?yl et al. 2011salmonNorway3.30The food category includes all fish, but land use data for salmon were used here, since this is the fish mostly consumed in Germany (Fisch-Informationszentrum e.V. 2016). System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.4.1 ca Non-organic beef in Williams et al. (2006) refer to a mix of beef from suckler cows and beef as by-product from milk production, i.e, surplus calves and culled dairy cows.b According to the review by Landquist et al. (2016), organic beef production requires on average 68% more land, compared to conventional beef production, based on results from three studies. The same land use difference between conventional and organic “meat of other animals” was assumed.c Ytrest?yl et al. (2011) only report land use of conventional salmon. For organic fish, 25% higher land use was assumed since the fish is fed with organic feed (based on average yield differences in conventional and organic farming according to Seufert et al. (2012).Table S10.1 Continued.Study Food product / production systemCountryLand use (m2 / kg)Average land use used here (m2 / kg)Relative difference between conventional and organic food products (basis = conv.)..Eggs4.0310.14+152%Dekker et al. 2011battery cageThe Netherlands3.3Due to the use of single purpose breeds in German poultry production, no allocation between eggs and poultry meat was done (Sharma and Chemnitz 2014). System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate.Dekker et al. 2011 barn case 1The Netherlands3.8Dekker et al. 2011 barn case 2The Netherlands3.8Dekker et al. 2011 free range case 1The Netherlands4.1Dekker et al. 2011 free range case 2The Netherlands4.1Dekker et al. 2011 organic case 1The Netherlands6.8Dekker et al. 2011 organic case 2The Netherlands6.8Leinonen et al. 2012b cageUK4.0Leinonen et al. 2012b free rangeUK5.1Leinonen et al. 2012b barnUK4.2Leinonen et al. 2012b organicUK16.9Fresh dairy products1.602.24+40%Cederberg & Flysj? 2004milkSweden1.52.9System boundaries are cradle-to-farm gate. Cederberg & Mattsson 2000milkSweden1.93.5Gr?nroos et al. 2006milkFinland2.53.6Guerci et al. 2013milkDenmark1.31.7Haas et al. 2001milkGermany1.42.0H?rtenhuber et al. 2010milk, upland pastureAustria1.51.6H?rtenhuber et al. 2010milk, uplandAustria1.61.7H?rtenhuber et al. 2010milk, lowlandAustria1.21.3H?rtenhuber et al. 2010milk, AlpineAustria2.22.4Kristensen et al. 2011milkDenmark1.82.4Thomassen et al. 2008milkHolland1.31.8Van der Werf et al. 2009milkFrance1.42.1Williams et al. 2006milkEngland & Wales1.22.0Cheese 7.12 a 9.97 b +40% b Butter 10.46 c 14.64 d +40% d a Land use of conventional cheese was estimated assuming the same ratio between land use of milk and cheese as between carbon footprints of milk and cheese (1:4.5). b Land use of organic cheese was assumed to be 40% higher, in line with the average difference in land use between conventional and organic milk raw milk (Landquist et al. 2016). c Land use of conventional butter was estimated assuming the same ratio between land use of milk and butter as between carbon footprints of milk and butter (1:6.5). d Land use of organic butter was assumed to be 40% higher, in line with the average difference in land use between conventional and organic milk raw milk (Landquist et al. 2016). Self-sufficiency rates and main import countries Table S11.1 Self-sufficiency rates of conventional and organic food product, and main import countries. Self-sufficiency rates of conventional food products were obtained from Statista (2016) and refer to the year 2015. Self-sufficiency rates of organic food products were obtained from Schaack et al. (2014), and refer to the year 2011/2012. Main countries of import represent those of organic food products, and were used also for conventional food products, since information about main import countries of conventional food products was not available.Food categoriesSelf-sufficiency rates (%)Main countries of importConventional foodOrganic foodPlant-based food productsCereals11581UkraineRice00China aPotatoes14265EgyptPomaceous fruits2562ItalyStone fruits2525 bSpain aCitrus fruits00Spain aOther fruits00Dominican RepublicBerries2525 bSpain aNuts and seeds21 c21RomaniaFresh tomatoes and cucumber4020SpainOther fresh vegetables4032NetherlandsProcessed tomatoes and cucumber4020SpainOther processed vegetables4032NetherlandsLegumes94 c94 dRomaniaVegetal oils and margarine100 a100 aNot applicableSugar and sweets129100 aNot applicableAnimal-based food productsPork12082The Netherlands Poultry112112 bNot applicableBeef107107 bNot applicableMeat of other animals 73 e73 bNew Zeeland Fish2222 bNorway fEggs7186The NetherlandsFresh dairy products 12079AustriaCheese 12361AustriaButter 10661Denmarka Own assumption due to lack of more specific information. b The self-sufficiency rate for conventional food products was used, since data for organic food products were not available. c The self-sufficiency rate for organic food products was used, since data for conventional food products were not available. d Data refer to soybeans.e Estimated to be 50% lamb, of which 55% is imported from New Zeeland based on information in Keller (2010), and 50% game meat from wild animals from Germany. 45% of the lamb is thus locally produced. Hence, the self-sufficiency rates of “meat of other animals” is 0.5+0.5×0.45=72.5%.f Based on information from F. Ziegler (pers. comm., 2016).Transport emissionsConcerning means of transportation for imports to Germany, differentiation between transport by lorry (cooled and uncooled), ship (cooled and uncooled) and cooled air freight was made, based on estimates that ca. 95% of vegetables and 75% of fruits (mass basis) are imported to Germany from other EU countries, almost exclusively by lorry, and that only 0.2% of food is imported by air (Keller, 2010). GHG emissions associated with different means of transportation were taken from the ecoinvent database (version 3.2), see Table S12.1. To calculate emissions associated with international transport, distances were measured from the main country of import to Germany, see Table S12.2. For lorry, distances were measured from the centre of the country of import, to the centre of Germany, using Google Maps. For maritime cargo, distances were measured straight from the largest port in the country of import to Hamburg port, using the website . For air transport, flight distances were measured from the centre of the country of import to Frankfurt airport (Germany’s largest cargo airport), also using . Table S12.1 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with different means of transportation. Data were obtained from the ecoinvent database v. 3.2. The global warming potentials have been calculated with a life cycle impact assessment model based on IPCC 2013 with a 100 year perspective. Codes (used in Table S12.2)Description (as given in ecoinvent)Global warming potentials (kg CO2-eq / metric tonne*km)1Freight transport by aircraft, with reefer, cooling 1.132Freight transport by lorry, 7.5-16 metric ton, EURO5 a0.223Freight transport by lorry with refrigeration machine, 7.5-16 ton, EURO5, R134a refrigerant b, cooling 0.294Freight transport on sea by transoceanic ship0.015Freight transport on sea by transoceanic ship with reefer, cooling0.02a Technology level of the transport with lorries is indicated with different EURO classes, where EURO3and EURO6 are the oldest and newest levels of technology, respectively (ecoinvent database 3.2). It was assumed that the technology level is EURO5.b This is the currently most widely used refrigerant (ecoinvent database 3.2).Table S12.2 Key data used for calculating emissions associated with national and international transport of food. Numbers in brackets refer to means of transportation in Table S12.1.Food categoriesInternational transportNational transport distance and means of transportation (applied to both conv. and org. food).Share of food imported (%) and means of transportation (see Table S12.1).Distance and countries Conventional foodOrganic foodPlant-based food productsCerealsNot applicable19% by uncooled lorry (2)Centre of Ukraine to centre of Germany: 1,760 km.350 km, uncooled lorry (2)Rice100% by uncooled ship (4)Shenzhen (China) port to Hamburg port: 18,530 km.350 km, uncooled lorry (2)PotatoesNot applicable35% by cooled ship (5)Alexandria port to Hamburg port: 6,370 km350 km, uncooled lorry (2)Pomaceous fruits 75% by cooled lorry (3)38% by cooled lorry (3)Centre Italy – centre Germany: 1,400 kmNot applicable aStone fruits75% by cooled lorry (3)Centre of Spain to centre of Germany: 2,100 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Citrus fruits100% by cooled lorry (3)Centre of Spain to centre of Germany: 2,100 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Other fruits100% by cooled ship (5)Caucedo (largest port in Dominican Rep.) to Hamburg: 7,900 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Berries75% by cooled lorry (3)Centre of Spain to centre of Germany: 2,100 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Nuts and seeds79% by uncooled lorry (2)Centre of Romania to centre of Germany: 1,560 km.350 km, uncooled lorry (2)Fresh tomatoes and cucumber 60% by cooled lorry (3)80% by cooled lorry (3)Centre of Spain to centre of Germany: 2,100 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Other fresh vegetables 60% by cooled lorry (3)68% by cooled lorry (3)Centre of the Netherlands to centre of Germany: 500 km.Not applicable aProcessed tomatoes and cucumber 60% by uncooled lorry (2)80% by uncooled lorry (2)Centre of Spain to centre of Germany: 2,100 km.Not applicable aOther processed vegetables 60% by uncooled lorry (2)68% by uncooled lorry (2)Centre of the Netherlands to centre of Germany: 500 km.Not applicable aLegumes6% by cooled lorry (3)Centre of Romania to centre of Germany: 1,560 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Vegetal oils and margarine Not applicableNot applicableNot applicable.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Sugar and sweets Not applicableNot applicableNot applicable.350 km, uncooled lorry (2)Animal-based food productsPorkNot applicable18% by cooled lorry (3)Centre of the Netherlands to centre of Germany: 500 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)PoultryNot applicableNot applicableNot applicable.350 km, cooled lorry (3)BeefNot applicableNot applicableNot applicable.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Meat of other animals27.5% by cooled air freight (1) b Flight distance (direct flights) between Auckland (New Zeeland) and Frankfurt (Germany): 18,200 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Fish 78% by cooled ship (5) cBergen port to Hamburg port: 875 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Eggs29% by cooled lorry (3)14% by cooled lorry (3)Centre the Netherlands to centre of Germany: 500 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Fresh dairy products Not applicable21% by cooled lorry (3)Centre Austria to centre of Germany: 690 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Cheese Not applicable39% by cooled lorry (3)Centre Austria to centre of Germany: 690 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)Butter Not applicable39% by cooled lorry (3)Centre of Denmark to centre of Germany: 700 km.350 km, cooled lorry (3)a No additional emissions associated with national transport were added since the system boundaries in the LCA studies were cradle-to-retail.b For “meat of other animals” it was estimated that 50% is lamb, of which 55% is imported from New Zeeland, see Table S11.1, and 50% is game meat from wild animals from Germany. No international transport emissions were considered for game meat. Hence, international transport emissions were added to 27.5% (55%×0.5) of the meat in this category. c Germany also imports fish, usually by air, from countries such as the Maldives, Sri Lanka or Tanzania. However, over 90% of fish comes by ship (Keller, 2010).Re-categorisation of food categories used in analysisTable S13.1 Re-categorisation of the 25 food categories used in the analysis, to 16 food categories used in presentation of results in the main paper.Food categories used in analysis (calculation of results)Food categories used in the presentation of results in the main paperPlant-based food productsCerealsCereals and riceRicePotatoesPotatoesPomaceous fruitsFruitsStone fruitsCitrus fruitsOther fruitsBerriesNuts and seedsFresh tomatoes and cucumbers VegetablesOther fresh vegetablesProcessed tomatoes and cucumbers Other processed vegetablesLegumesLegumesVegetal oils and margarineVegetal oils and margarineSugar and sweetsSugar and sweetsAnimal-based food productsPorkPorkPoultryPoultryBeefBeefMeat of other animalsMeat of other animalsFishFishEggsEggsFresh dairy products Fresh dairy products Cheese Cheese ButterButter Food supply in conventional and organic dietsTable S14.1 Detailed results calculated in this study: food supply in conventional and organic diets of German men and women, and averages of men and women. Averages represent the non-weighted average of male and female consumers (average of one man and one woman).Food categoryFood supply (kg cap-1 yr-1)ConventionalOrganicMenWomenAverageMenWomenAveragePlant-based food productsCereals103809111992105Rice212222Potatoes977586977084Pomaceous fruits616664859087Stone fruits8121091713Citrus fruits131615152219Other fruits182019263028Berries121815162420Nuts and seeds544666Fresh tomatoes and cucumbers303432404140Other fresh vegetables262827394542Processed tomatoes and cucumbers111111151515Other processed vegetables313031434343Legumes988141514Vegetal oils and margarine191416161114Sugar and sweets474245463741Animal-based food productsPork713754482134Poultry21151817913Beef1791314610Meat of other animals211312Fish161314221418Eggs118101079Fresh dairy products 1059910210399101Cheese 222122262425Butter 96812810All food productsTotal766668717842750796Carbon footprints of conventional and organic dietsTable S15.1 Detailed results calculated in this study: carbon footprints in conventional and organic diets of German men and women, and averages of men and women (including transport). Averages represent the non-weighted average of male and female consumers (average of one man and one woman).Food categoryCarbon footprint (kg CO2-eq cap-1 yr-1)ConventionalOrganicMenWomenAverageMenWomenAveragePlant-based food productsCereals635056776069Rice333555Potatoes251922272024Pomaceous fruits312428272827Stone fruits9141171310Citrus fruits111312121714Other fruits777101110Berries111614142218Nuts and seeds978111111Fresh tomatoes and cucumbers273430373837Other fresh vegetables67791010Processed tomatoes and cucumbers161616222323Other processed vegetables181718242424Legumes434777Vegetal oils and margarine392834332328Sugar and sweets12210911611796107Animal-based food productsPork24913219019784140Poultry825669874566Beef26214020122294158Meat of other animals392029411729Fish675259905773Eggs352530312226Fresh dairy products 126119122128123126Cheese 111106109133120126Butter 694758856274All food productsTotal1 4411 0651 2531 4531 0321 242Land use of conventional and organic dietsTable S16.1 Detailed results calculated in this study: land use in conventional and organic diets of German men and women, and averages of men and women. Averages represent the non-weighted average of male and female consumers (average of one man and one woman).Food categoryLand use (m2 cap-1 yr-1)ConventionalOrganicMenWomenAverageMenWomenAveragePlant-based food productsCereals144112128211164187Rice333444Potatoes221720292125Pomaceous fruits272928495250Stone fruits354597Citrus fruits78791311Other fruits898141615Berries121714213327Nuts and seeds201618363736Fresh tomatoes and cucumbers91010141514Other fresh vegetables56691110Processed tomatoes and cucumbers333565Other processed vegetables766101010Legumes333666Vegetal oils and margarine185135160197132164Sugar and sweets332931302427Animal-based food productsPork456242349580247413Poultry1087390256133194Beef673360516950403676Meat of other animals341725853661Fish544248905774Eggs4634401067591Fresh dairy products 167158163231221226Cheese 159151155260235248Butter 996884169123146All food productsTotal2 2861 5531 9203 3782 0812 730ReferencesAbeliotis, K., Detsis, V., Pappia, C. (2013) Life cycle assessment of bean production in the Prespa National Park, Greece. Journal of Cleaner Production 41, 89-96.Alig, M., Grandl, F., Mieleitner, J., Nemecek, T., Gaillard, G. (2012) Life Cycle Assessment of Beef, Pork and Poultry. Executive Summary. Forschungsanstalt Agroscope Reckenholz-T?nikon ART: Zürich, 1-8.AMI (2015) Beliebte Wurst- und Fleischwaren in Deutschland 2014. (accessed March 10, 2016). Basset-Mens, C., van der Werf, H. M. G. (2005) Scenario-based environmental assessment of farming systems: the case of pig production in France. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 105, 127-144.BLE (2015) Nationale Versorgungsbilanzen. . (accessed February 06, 2016). Bos, J.F.F.P., de Haan, J.J., Sukkel, W., Schils, R.L.M. (2007) Comparing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional farming systems in the Netherlands. In: 3rd QLIF Congress. Hohenheim, Germany. 1-4.Brodt, S., Kramer, K.J., Kendall, A., Feenstra, G. (2013) Comparing environmental impacts of regional and national-scale food supply chains: A case study of processed tomatoes. Food Policy 42, 106-114.Bryngelsson, D., Wirsenius, S., Hedenus, F., Sonesson, U. (2016) How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Supporting Information. Food Policy 59, 152-164.. Casey, J.W., Holden, N.M. (2006) Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional, agri- environmental scheme, and organic Irish suckler-beef units. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 231-239.Cederberg, C., Flysj?, A. (2004) Life cycle inventory of 23 dairy farms in south-western Sweden. G?teborg, Sweden: SIK - the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology. Report No 728 2004. 1-59.Cederberg, C., Mattsson, B. (2000) Life cycle assessment of milk production — a comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner Production 8(1), 49-60. Davis, J., Wallman, M., Sund, V., Emanuelsson A., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U. (2011) Emissions of Greenhouse gases from production of horticultural products. Analysis of 17 products cultivated in Sweden. SIK Report 828. 1-69. Dekker, S.E.M., de Boer, I.J.M., Vermeij, I., Aarnink, A.J.A., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G. (2011) Ecological and economic evaluation of Dutch egg production systems. Livestock Science 139, 109-121. de Ponti T., Rijk B, van Ittersum M. (2012) The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 108, 1-9.Dourmad, J.Y., Ryschawy, J., Trousson, T., Bonneau, M., Gonza?lez, J., Houwers, H.W.J., Hviid, M., Zimmer, C., Nguyen, T.L.T., Morgensen, L. (2014) Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment. Animal 8, 2027-2037.Eisinger-Watzl, M., Wittig, F., Heuer, T., & Hoffmann, I. (2015) Customers Purchasing Organic Food-Do They Live Healthier? Results of the German National Nutrition Survey II. European Journal of Food Research & Review, 5(1), 59.Fisch-Informationszentrum e.V. (2016) Strukturdaten. (accessed March 15, 2016).Florén, B. (2016) SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden. Personal communication. Flysj?, A. (2013) Carbon footprint of foods – an overview. Arla Foods, 1-13.Flysj?, A., Thrane, M., Hermansen, J. E. (2014) Method to assess the carbon footprint at product level in the dairy industry. International Dairy Journal 34(1), 86-92.Flysj?, A. (2016) Arla Foods. Personal communication.Frech, H. (2016) Salami selber machen. (accessed March 18, 2016). Fritsche, U., Eberle, U. (2007) Treibhausgasemissionen durch Erzeugung und Verarbeitung von Lebensmitteln. Arbeitspaper. ?ko-Institut (Ed.), 1-13.Graefe, S., Dufour, D., Giraldo, A., Mu?oz, L.A., Mora, P., Solís, H., Garcés, H., Gonzalez, A. (2011) Energy and carbon footprints of ethanol production using banana and cooking banana discard: a case study from Costa Rica and Ecuador. Biomass and Bioenergy 35, 2640-2649.Gr?nroos, J., Sepp?l?, J., Voutilainen, P., Seuri, P., Koikkalainen, K. (2006) Energy use in conventional and organic milk and rye bread production in Finland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 117(2–3), 109-118. Guerci, M., Knudsen, M. T., Bava, L., Zucali, M., Schoenbach, P., Kristensen, T. (2013) Parameters affecting the environmental impact of a range of dairy farming systems in Denmark, Germany and Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production 54, 133-141. Haas, G., Wetterich, F., K?pke, U. (2001) Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 83(1–2), 43-53. Heuer, T., Krems, C., Moon, K., Brombach, C., Hoffmann, I. (2015) Food consumption of adults in Germany: results of the German National Nutrition Survey II based on diet history interviews. British Journal of Nutrition 113, 1603-1614. Hokazono, S., Hayashi, K. (2012) Variability in environmental impacts during conversion from conventional to organic farming: a comparison among three rice production systems in Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production 28, 101-112.H?rtenhuber, S., Lindenthal, T., Amon, B., Markut, T., Kirner, L., Zollitsch, W. (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from selected Austrian dairy production systems-model calculations considering the effects of land use change. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25(4), 316-329. Karlsson, H. (2011) Seasonal vegetables. An environmental assessment of seasonal food. Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Master thesis. 1-67. Kavargiris, S.E., Mamolos, A.P., Tsatsarelis, C.A., Nikolaidou, A.E., Kalburtji, K.L. (2009) Energy resources' utilization in organic and conventional vineyards: energy flow, greenhouse gas emissions and biofuel production. Biomass & Bioenergy 33, 1239-1250.Keller, M. (2010) Flugimporte von Lebensmitteln und Blumen nach Deutschland. Eine Untersuchung im Auftrag der Verbraucherzentralen. Gie?en. 1-55. Kool, A., Blonk, H., Ponsioen, T., Sukkel, W., Vermeer, H., de Vries, J., Hoste, R. (2010) Carbon footprints of conventional and organic pork. Assessments of typical production systems in the Netherlands, Denmark, England and Germany. Blonk Milieuadvies BV. 1-90.Knudsen, M. (2010) Environmental assessment of imported organic products. Focusing on organge juice from Brazil and soybeans from China. PhD thesis. Aarhus University.Knudsen, M., Yu-Hui, Q., Yan, L., Halberg, N. (2010) Environmental assessment of organic soybean (Glycine max.) imported from China to Denmark: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 1431-1439.Knudsen, M., Fonseca de Almeida, G., Langer, V., Santiago de Abreu, L., Halberg, N. (2011) Environmental assessment of organic juice imported to Denmark: a case study on oranges (Citrus sinensis) from Brazil. Organic Agriculture 1, 167-185.Kristensen, T., Mogensen, L., Knudsen, M. T., Hermansen, J. E. (2011) Effect of production system and farming strategy on greenhouse gas emissions from commercial dairy farms in a life cycle approach. Livestock Science 140(1), 136-148. Landquist, B., Nordborg, M., Hornborg, S. (2016) Litteraturstudie av milj?p?verkan fr?n konventionellt och ekologiskt producerade livsmedel. Fokus p? studier utf?rda med livscykelanalysmetodik. The Swedish National Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket), report 2, 2016: Uppsala.Leinonen, I., Williams, A.G., Wiseman, J., Guy, J., Kyriazakis, I. (2012a) Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: broiler production systems. Poultry Sciences 91, 8-25.Leinonen, I., Williams, A.G., Wiseman, J., Guy, J., Kyriazakis, I. (2012b) Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: egg production systems. Poultry Sciences 91, 26-40.Leip, A., Weiss, F., Wassenaar, T., Perez, I., Fellmann, T., Loudjani, P., Tubiello, F., Grandgirard, D., Monni, S., Biala, K., (2010) Evaluation of the Livestock Sector’s Contribution to the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGELS) – Final Report. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Meier, M., Stoessel, F., Jungbluth, N., Juraske, R., Schader, C., Stolze, M. (2015) Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products – Are the differences captured by life cycle assessment? Journal of Environmental Management 149, 193-208.Meier, T. and Christen, O. (2012) Gender as a factor in an environmental assessment of the consumption of animal and plant-based foods in Germany. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17, 550-564. Meier, T. and Christen, O. (2013) Environmental impacts of dietary recommendations and dietary styles: Germany as an example. Environmental Science & Technology 47, 877-888.Meier, T., Christen, O., Semler, E., Jahreis, G., Voget-Kleschin, L., Schrode, A., Artmann, M. (2014) Balancing virutal land imports by a shift in the diet. Using a land balance approach to assess the sustainability of food consumption. Germany as an example. Appetite 74, 20-34. Meisterling, K., Samaras, C., Schweizer, V. (2009) Decisions to reduce greenhouse gases from agriculture and product transport: LCA case study of organic and conventional wheat. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 222-230.Mensink, G. B. M., Herrmann-Kunz, E., Thamm, M. (1998) Der Ern?hrungssurvey. Gesundheitswesen 60, 83-86.Michos, M., Mamolos, A., Menexes, G.; Tsatsarelis, C., Tsirakoglou, V., Kalburtji, K. (2012) Energy inputs, outputs and greenhouse gas emissions in organic, integrated and conventional peach orchards. Ecological Indicators 13, 22-28. Moudr? jr. J., Jelínková, Z., Plch, R., Moudr?, J., Konvalina, P., Hy?pler, R. (2013) The emissions of greenhouse gases produced during growing and processing of wheat products in the Czech Republic. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 11, 1133-1136.Müller, K., Holmes, A., Deurer, M., Clothier, B. (2015) Eco-efficiency as a sustainability measure for kiwifruit production in New Zealand. Journal of Cleaner Production 106. 333-342.MRI (2011) Department of Safety and Quality of Meat, Max Rubner-Institut, Federal Research Institute of Nutrition and Food. Personal communication.Nijdam, D., Rood, T., Westhoek, H. (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 37. 760-770. Pergola, M., D’Amico, M., Celano, G., Palese, A.M., Scuderi, A., Di Vita, G., Pappalardo, G., Inglese, P. (2013) Sustainability evaluation of Sicily’s lemon and orange production: An energy, economic and environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 128, 674-682.Raab, M., Brunklaus, B., P?chtr?ger, S. (2014) Gegenüberstellung von importierten Biogurken aus Spanien und heimischen konventionellen Gurken in der Winterzeit anhand des CO2-Fu?abdruckes. In: Jahrbuch der ?sterreichischen Gesellschaft für Agrar?konomie 23, 171-180. Refsgaard, K., Bergdsdal, H., Berglann, H., Pettersen, J. (2012) Greenhouse gas emissions from life cycle assessment of Norwegian food production systems. Animal Science 62, 336-346. R??s, E. (2012) Mat-klimat-listan, version 1.0. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala, Report 040. Schaack, D., Rampold, C., Willer, Pusch, E. (2014) Advancement of analysis and data collection methods about organic imported products to Germany using the example of 2011/2012. Final Report. Published in: Bundesprogramm ?kologischer Landbau und andere Formen nachhaltiger Landwirtschaft (B?LN). Bonn, 35-140..Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485, 229-232.Sharma, S., Chemnitz, C. (2014) Hühner – weltweiter Steigflug in die Fabrik. In: Heinrich-B?ll Foundation, Bund für Umwelt- und Naturschutz Deutschland and Le Monde diplomatique (Eds.) Fleischatlas 2014. Daten und Fakten über Tiere als Nahrungsmittel. 32-33. Skontorp Hognes, E., Nilsson, K., Sund, V., Ziegler, F. (2014) LCA of Norwegian salmon production 2012. Report for SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture. 1-41.Slimani, N., Deharveng, G., Charrondière, R. U., van Kappel, A. L., Ocké, M. C., Welch, A., Lagiou, A., van Liere, M., Agudo, A., Pala, V. Brandstetter, B., Andren, C., Stripp, C., van Staveren, W. A., Riboli, E. (1999) Structure of the standardized computerized 24-h diet recall interview used as reference method in the 22 centers participating in the EPIC project. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine, 58, 251-266.Statista (2016) Selbstversorgungsgrad verschiedener Lebensmittel in Deutschland. (accessed June 15, 2016).Thomassen, M. A., van Calker, K. J., Smits, M. C. J., Iepema, G. L., de Boer, I. J. M. (2008) Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic milk production in the Netherlands. Agricultural Systems 96(1-3), 95-107. Tuomisto, H., Ellis, M.J., Haastrup, P. (2014) Environmental impacts of cultured meat: alternative production scenarios. In: Schenck, R.; Huizenga, D. (Eds.) (2014) Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014). San Francisco, 1360-1366.van der Werf, H. M. G., Kanyarushoki, C., Corson, M. S. (2009) An operational method for the evaluation of resource use and environmental impacts of dairy farms by life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 90(11), 3643-3652. Venkat, K. (2012) Comparison of Twelve Organic and Conventional Farming Systems: A Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Perspective. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 36(6), 620-649. Villanueva-Rey, P., Vazquez-Rowe, I., Teresa Moreira, M. O., Feijoo, G. (2014) Comparative life cycle assessment in the wine sector: biodynamic vs. conventional viticulture activities in NW Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 330-341.Williams, A.G., Audsley, E., Sandars, D. L. (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities: Defra project report IS0205.Williams, A., Audsley, E., Sandars, D. (2010) Environmental burdens of producing bread wheat, oilseed rape and potatoes in England and Wales using simulation and system modelling. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 15, 855-868. Ytrest?yl, T., Synn?ve Aas, T., Berge, G.M., Hatlen, B., S?rensen, M., Ruyter, B., Thomassen, M., Skontorp Hognes, E., Ziegler, F., Sund, V., ?sg?rd, T. (2011) Resource utilisation and eco-efficiency of Norwegian salmon farming in 2010. Report for Nofima. 1-106. Zehetmeier, M., Baudracco, J., Hoffmann, H., Hei?enhuber, A. (2012) Does increasing milk yield per cow reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A system approach. Animal 6. 154-166.Ziegler, F. (2016) SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden. Personal communication. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download