The Carbon and Land Footprint of Certified Food Products

Q3 Business, Management and Accounting
V. Bellassen, M. Drut, F. Antonioli, R. Brečić, M. Donati, Hugo Ferrer‐Pérez, L. Gauvrit, V. Hoang, Kamilla Knutsen Steinnes, Apichaya Lilavanichakul, E. Majewski, A. Malak-Rawlikowska, K. Mattas, A. Nguyễn, I. Papadopoulos, J. Peerlings, B. Ristić, M. Tomić Maksan, Á. Török, G. Vittersø, A. Diallo
{"title":"The Carbon and Land Footprint of Certified Food Products","authors":"V. Bellassen, M. Drut, F. Antonioli, R. Brečić, M. Donati, Hugo Ferrer‐Pérez, L. Gauvrit, V. Hoang, Kamilla Knutsen Steinnes, Apichaya Lilavanichakul, E. Majewski, A. Malak-Rawlikowska, K. Mattas, A. Nguyễn, I. Papadopoulos, J. Peerlings, B. Ristić, M. Tomić Maksan, Á. Török, G. Vittersø, A. Diallo","doi":"10.1515/JAFIO-2019-0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The carbon and land footprint of 26 certified food products – geographical indications and organic products and their conventional references are assessed. This assessment goes beyond existing literature by (1) designing a calculation method fit for the comparison between certified food and conventional production, (2) using the same calculation method and parameters for 52 products – 26 Food Quality Schemes and their reference products – to allow for a meaningful comparison, (3) transparently documenting this calculation method and opening access to the detailed results and the underlying data, and (4) providing the first assessment of the carbon and land footprint of geographical indications. The method used is Life Cycle Assessment, largely relying on the Cool Farm Tool for the impact assessment. The most common indicator of climate impact, the carbon footprint expressed per ton of product, is not significantly different between certified foods and their reference products. The only exception to this pattern are vegetal organic products, whose carbon footprint is 16% lower. This is because the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from the absence of mineral fertilizers is never fully offset by the associated lower yield. The climate impact of certified food per hectare is however 26% than their reference and their land footprint is logically 24% higher. Technical specifications directly or indirectly inducing a lower use of mineral fertilizers are a key driver of this pattern. So is yield, which depends both on terroir and farming practices. Overall, this assessment reinforces the quality policy of the European Union: promoting certified food is not inconsistent with mitigating climate change.","PeriodicalId":52541,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/JAFIO-2019-0037","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/JAFIO-2019-0037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract The carbon and land footprint of 26 certified food products – geographical indications and organic products and their conventional references are assessed. This assessment goes beyond existing literature by (1) designing a calculation method fit for the comparison between certified food and conventional production, (2) using the same calculation method and parameters for 52 products – 26 Food Quality Schemes and their reference products – to allow for a meaningful comparison, (3) transparently documenting this calculation method and opening access to the detailed results and the underlying data, and (4) providing the first assessment of the carbon and land footprint of geographical indications. The method used is Life Cycle Assessment, largely relying on the Cool Farm Tool for the impact assessment. The most common indicator of climate impact, the carbon footprint expressed per ton of product, is not significantly different between certified foods and their reference products. The only exception to this pattern are vegetal organic products, whose carbon footprint is 16% lower. This is because the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from the absence of mineral fertilizers is never fully offset by the associated lower yield. The climate impact of certified food per hectare is however 26% than their reference and their land footprint is logically 24% higher. Technical specifications directly or indirectly inducing a lower use of mineral fertilizers are a key driver of this pattern. So is yield, which depends both on terroir and farming practices. Overall, this assessment reinforces the quality policy of the European Union: promoting certified food is not inconsistent with mitigating climate change.
认证食品的碳足迹和土地足迹
摘要对26种经认证的食品——地理标志和有机产品及其常规参考——的碳足迹和土地足迹进行了评估。该评估超越了现有文献,(1)设计了一种适用于认证食品和传统生产之间比较的计算方法,(2)对52种产品——26种食品质量计划及其参考产品——使用相同的计算方法和参数,以进行有意义的比较,(3)透明地记录这种计算方法,并开放对详细结果和基础数据的访问,以及(4)提供对地理标志的碳足迹和土地足迹的首次评估。使用的方法是生命周期评估,主要依靠Cool Farm Tool进行影响评估。气候影响最常见的指标,即每吨产品的碳足迹,在认证食品及其参考产品之间没有显著差异。这种模式的唯一例外是植物有机产品,其碳足迹低16%。这是因为缺乏矿物肥料造成的温室气体排放量的减少从未被相关的较低产量完全抵消。然而,每公顷认证食品对气候的影响比其参考值高26%,其土地足迹从逻辑上讲高出24%。直接或间接减少矿物肥料使用的技术规范是这种模式的关键驱动因素。产量也是如此,这取决于风土和农业实践。总的来说,这一评估强化了欧盟的质量政策:推广认证食品与缓解气候变化并不矛盾。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization
Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization Business, Management and Accounting-Business, Management and Accounting (all)
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊介绍: The Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization (JAFIO) is a unique forum for empirical and theoretical research in industrial organization with a special focus on agricultural and food industries worldwide. As concentration, industrialization, and globalization continue to reshape horizontal and vertical relationships within the food supply chain, agricultural economists are revising both their views of traditional markets as well as their tools of analysis. At the core of this revision are strategic interactions between principals and agents, strategic interdependence between rival firms, and strategic trade policy between competing nations, all in a setting plagued by incomplete and/or imperfect information structures. Add to that biotechnology, electronic commerce, as well as the shift in focus from raw agricultural commodities to branded products, and the conclusion is that a "new" agricultural economics is needed for an increasingly complex "new" agriculture.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信