Relative environmental impacts and monetary cost of food categories: Functional unit matters

IF 6.6 2区经济学 Q1 ECOLOGY

Ecological Economics Pub Date : 2025-03-29 DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108620

Florent Vieux , Matthieu Maillot , Corinne Marmonier , Anthony Rouault , Marlène Perignon , Nicole Darmon

{"title":"Relative environmental impacts and monetary cost of food categories: Functional unit matters","authors":"Florent Vieux , Matthieu Maillot , Corinne Marmonier , Anthony Rouault , Marlène Perignon , Nicole Darmon","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The aim of this study was to explore how the choice of a functional unit (FU) influences the environmental and economic rankings of food categories. For each adult in the latest French national dietary survey (<em>n</em> = 2121), we built a dataset providing the energy and nutritional content, environmental impacts (14 metrics) and monetary cost of 20 food categories as consumed. The cost and environmental impacts of each food category were expressed for each individual according to 4 general FUs (1 kg, 100 kcal, 1 portion, 1 nutritional quality unit) and 9 nutrient-specific FUs (e.g., 50 g of proteins), and categories were ranked according to their median impact or cost. Cost and environmental rankings of food categories differed according to the FU (especially with nutrient-specific ones). Despite such heterogeneous rankings, some results were generally consistent: compared to other food categories, legumes, potatoes and whole grains were less expensive and less impacting, meats (especially ruminant ones) were more expensive and more impacting, and dairy and eggs had intermediate cost and environmental impacts. By providing a wide overview of different “metric × FU” situations, this study contributes to answering the important question of the right FU to use when evaluating the sustainability of food.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":"234 ","pages":"Article 108620"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092500103X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore how the choice of a functional unit (FU) influences the environmental and economic rankings of food categories. For each adult in the latest French national dietary survey (n = 2121), we built a dataset providing the energy and nutritional content, environmental impacts (14 metrics) and monetary cost of 20 food categories as consumed. The cost and environmental impacts of each food category were expressed for each individual according to 4 general FUs (1 kg, 100 kcal, 1 portion, 1 nutritional quality unit) and 9 nutrient-specific FUs (e.g., 50 g of proteins), and categories were ranked according to their median impact or cost. Cost and environmental rankings of food categories differed according to the FU (especially with nutrient-specific ones). Despite such heterogeneous rankings, some results were generally consistent: compared to other food categories, legumes, potatoes and whole grains were less expensive and less impacting, meats (especially ruminant ones) were more expensive and more impacting, and dairy and eggs had intermediate cost and environmental impacts. By providing a wide overview of different “metric × FU” situations, this study contributes to answering the important question of the right FU to use when evaluating the sustainability of food.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ecological Economics 环境科学-环境科学

CiteScore

12.00

自引率

5.70%

发文量

313

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership. Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.