Interrelation of food supply, environment and security - a life
cycle assessment approach
Sirpa Kurppa
MTT Biotechnology and Food Research, Ecology of Food Production Systems,
sirpa.kurppa(at)mtt.fi.
Introduction
Food supply chain is urgent for human daily life, critical for global markets. key area
for price fluctuations, qualitatively or quantitatively inappropriate or misused by large
groups of consumers. developing to more and more complex structure and network
where direct contacts between stakeholders and personal responsibility are being
more and more minimized, loosing transparency in terms of origin, knowledgeability
and self-esteem of involved people, based on variable number of principal producers
of raw materials linked to decreasing number of food processors and ever decreasing
number of food retailers. Food supply chain is highly standardized and regulated and
works under a careful monitoring, which focus on quality of materials, material flow,
and technical processes including environmental impacts, documentation and its
reliability. In business, processes should be linear and effective in quartile statistics.
The origins of food supply are directly linked to environment; food originates from
ecological environment which is diverse in all possible ways and fertile for different
kinds of products and services. The structure is niche based, and ecological balance
maximized in high intraspesific (genotypic, phenotypic and/or ortogenic) variability in
nichespace occupation (Diaz & Cabido 2001). The nature based resource dynamics
ecological food chains are following these rules.
Human security is on the borderline or on the edge of a sharp knife, if we want to
interpret our present position a bit more dramatically. Our security, and modern
everyday life and welfare, is basing on effective food supply. In a way, modern food
supply is a success story in being able to feed ever growing number of people and
even in a way pushing less and less people to use 60% or more of their income for
food, which is the limit of a poverty. But we face big individual problems directly
linked to our present food supply: obesity one of the biggest and not only in western
countries but even in same families where at the same time undernourished people
are found. We throw up to 30 % of our edible food to waste. The only function of this
food is to cause environmental impacts, by using the resources and energy and
causing major environmental impacts during degrading processes. Of course, we
increase employment of people, but is that a sensible way to do that? The key
institutional issue is that decision processes of food supply chain have become
practically completely undependable of ecological framework functions, in terms of use
of resources and using ecological resilience to lessen the environmental impact of our
food supply chain. In a longer approach, our security will be inevitably threatened
because of the unbalance of functions caused in ecological environment. The indicators
are very clear. If we regard the food supply chain as massive too, which we use to dig
up our living from earth, we must look critically at our tool and how to use that.
Methods
The present key methods of food chain sustainability assessment and development for
sustainability include life cycle assessment (LCA)(for example Katajajuuri et al 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007), input-output (IO) analyses on national regional or local
scale, (Risku-Norja & Mäenpää 2007), LCA sophistically linked into (hybridized with)
IO assessment (present work lead by Jyri Seppälä’s group at the Finnish
Environmental Institute with Ilmo Mäenpää from University of Oulu and MTT) or
conventional LCA developed towards a more sophisticated network LCA (developed at
present at MTT by Yrjö Virtanen), food system modeling at regional or local scale, as
well as scenario approaches of environmental impacts in food supply-demand context
(initiated in the form of climate change impact assessment of food supply by a project
lead by Juha-Matti Katajajuuri). To a certain extent, material flow analysis (MFA) has
potential in assessing environmental sustainability (Kauppinen et al 2008).
Fortunately, also tools of the other two aspects of sustainability (social/cultural and
economic) are being gradually linked to LCA approach. Such are the social networking
of food chain stakeholders (Mikkola 2008, 2008), and food chain responsibility studies
that are gradually leading to comprehensive package of CSR (Forsman-Hugg et al.
2006, 2007, Timonen et al. 2007).
In the impact assessment, which is the key phase of LCA, the mandatory elements
are: 1) selection of impact categories, category indicators and characterization
models, 2) assignment of LCI results to the selected impact categories (classification),
3) calculation of category indicator results (characterization), and the optional
elements are: normalisation (calculating the magnitude of category indicator results
relative to reference information), grouping and weighting (converting and possibly
aggregating indicator results across impact categories using numerical factors based
on value-choices), and additional LCIA data quality analysis. As a complete
assessment, if based on true process based information, the LCA is the only tool that
is capable to manage environmental impact data through global food chains and it is
also, in principal, capable to relate environmental impacts of the global process step
by step against environmental framework and environmental policy of each step
space. Conventional impact categories are climate change, aquatic eutrophication,
acidification, formation of tropospheric ozone and primary energy consumption. In
addition, applications of LCA can be widely included into decision making, examples
are: product development and improvement, process and service operation, strategic
planning, technological impact assessment, public policy making, ecodesign and ecomarketing.
The approach of LCA method used in food sector needs a specific focusing. In other
industrial processes LCA is assessing the impact from the production units
/infrastructure to the surrounding environment. This aspect is valid also in food chain
LCA, but when food raw material is actually produced in a natural habitat; we need to
focus both the external natural environment and the internal production environment,
the land area as a production resource. The internal land facility approach is a
necessity for assessing food chain (internal) sustainability. The processing phase of
food production is analogical to any other, from natural environment separated
construction. The methods of LCA focusing on impacts to internal (changes of
biogeochemical processes, microbial balance, ecotoxicological impacts) are not well
developed. In natural habitats, the indirect impacts as a consequence from principal
changes in production areas are poorly estimated by LCA; only by quantity and extent
by changes in major land use. In this field integration or collaboration should be built
between risk assessment, which is giving spatial and scenario approach, and LCA that
is stronger in quantification and consequential approach. The biggest overall problem
of LCA methodology is the difficulty to assess impacts on biodiversity. Biodiversity
could be, if highly simplified, regarded as spatial network of functional niches; a selfregulating
and resilient from. LCA approach in far too simplified to assess impacts to
that.
Results
LCA is giving us a profile of the categorised environmental impacts of a product or
service through the whole production chain or chain of service activities. How
comprehensive this is, depends on the system boundaries of the particular
assessment. And at its best, LCA is not only restricted to principal system but covers
or makes linkages to periferic systems of production of process inputs (for instance
energy) and further processing of secondary or waste based products. LCA is a good
tool for development of zero-waste or carbon neutral systems. LCA is a highly
potential tool in benchmarking between various activity areas of society or economy
(Nissinen et al 2007), and in a few years it will be developed as a tool to benchmark
different food products and various brands of one category of food stuffs. By LCA such
new issues as virtual water will be easily handled.
LCA can be used in communication between food supply and demand. For that
purpose, results of LCA must be carefully modified to the cognitive frame and decision
making framework of consumer groups and stakeholders of a food chain. The
information based on LCA thinking has to be given from different sources and variable
aspects to consumers. The strongest progress will be taken if LCA is integrated into
integrated product policy (IPP) and IPP would be taken as an approach to reorient
environmental policy of food production. In that case, environmental policy would be
directly linked to food product quantity and quality, and as such linked to food
security.
But, LCA and the other neighbouring assessment systems are linking food supply
chain into more or less ‘unified’, standard environment. LCA is as poor in taking into
account diversity in natural ecological framework and in human society. Therefore it is
a fortune, that many progressive companies that first started to publish environmental
reports have very quickly extended their approach to corporate social responsibility
report. In terms of environmental assessment there is now a big challenge on one
hand in trying to develop LCA towards assessment of impacts on biodiversity and
natural resilience or ecosystem services and on the other hand to develop the
qualitative environmental assessment and integrated that into socioeconomic/cultural
approach of CRS assessments.
Discussion
LCA thinking is a good tool for environmental policy, we should not use that to steer
too much the food supply and security policies, at any scale. New Zealand is most
important player in global dairy market and India produces highest amount of milk, in
internal market. Both of the systems are surprisingly eco-efficient. LCA is most often
supportive to the main frame processes, it helps stepwise improvements, but with
global competition it most possibly decreases heterogeneity of production; NZ being a
good example. And this is against the multifunctional use of natural resources. LCA
most possibly give worse results on edge or barrier production spaces; simply because
those area quantitative yields are lower than in main frame areas. In giving the worse
results, LCA gives to indication to refocus environmental thinking of the specific
processes, but is unable to give further directions. The reason of this is that in edge of
barrier areas heterogeneity is high, and LCA can not handle this recourse. To
demonstrate the linkages between ecology and socio-economy, such niches have been
shown to provide innovative frictions in economic systems and may have stabilizing
properties (Tisdell & Seidl 2002), and enhancing environmental balance and security.
Conclusions
In assessing food supply chain, environmental impacts and security, we should not put
all eggs into same basket!
References
DIAZ, S. & CABIDO, M. 2001. Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem
processes. TRENDS in ecology & Evolution 16(11): 646-650.
FORSMAN-HUGG, S., KATAJAJUURI, J-M., MÄKELÄ, J., PAANANEN, J., PESONEN, I., TIMONEN,
P. 2007. Enhancing corporate social responsibility in the food chain with a stakeholder dialogue.
In: Proceedings of the Nordic Consumer Policy Research Conference, Helsinki, October 3-5,
2007. 14 p. http://www.consumer2007.info/wp-content/uploads/food10-%20Forsman-Hugg.pdf
FORSMAN-HUGG, S., PAANANEN, J., MÄKELÄ, J., ISONIEMI, M., PESONEN, I., KURPPA, S. 2006.
In search of a shared understanding of corporate responsibility to improve transparency and
competitiveness of food chains. In: Conference Bulletin of 7th International Conference on
Management in AgriFood Chains and Networks, 31 May - 2 June 2006, Ede, The Netherlands. p.
57.
KAUPPINEN, T., LÄHTEENOJA, S. & LETTENMEIER, M. 2008 [Material inputs in Finnish
foodstuffs.] In Finnish with English abstract. Maa- ja elintarviketalous 130. 91 p.
KATAJAJUURI, J-M., GRÖNROOS, J., MIKKOLA, A., NÄKKILÄ, J., VOUTILAINEN, P. 2007.
Environmental impacts of Finnish greenhouse cucumber production systems. Book of
proceedings. In: 5th International conference LCA in Foods, 25 - 26 April 2007, Gothenburg,
Sweden. The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology p. 133-137.
KATAJAJUURI, J-M., GRÖNROOS, J., USVA, K., VIRTANEN, Y., SIPILÄ, I., VENÄLÄINEN, E.,
KURPPA, S., TANSKANEN, R., MATTILA, T., VIRTANEN, H. 2006. [Environmental impacts and
improvement options of sliced broiler fillet production.] In Finnish with English abstract. Maa- ja
elintarviketalous 90: 118 s. http://www.mtt.fi/met/pdf/met90.pdf
KATAJAJUURI, J-M., TUHKANEN, H.R., NOUSIAINEN, J. 2005. Environmental impacts and
improvement options of the Finnish Emmental cheese production system: innovation by life
cycle management LCM 2005 international conference. In: Life cycle management LCM 2005
international conference: September 5-7, 2005, Barcelona, Spain. 1 p.
KATAJAJUURI, J-M., VOUTILAINEN, P., TUHKANEN, H-R., KURPPA, S. 2004. Environmental
impacts of production chain of oat flakes. In: Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio and Mari Topi-Hulmi (eds.).
Proceedings 7th International Oat Conference. Agrifood Research Reports 51: s. 212.
http://www.mtt.fi/met/pdf/met51.pdf Verkkojulkaisu päivitetty 23.7.2004
KATAJAJUURI, J.-M., VIRTANEN, Y., VOUTILAINEN, P., TUHKANEN, H.-R., KURPPA, S. 2003.
[Environmental impacts of foodstuffs FOODCHAIN.] In Finnish with English abstract. MMM:n
julkaisuja 6: 64 p. http://wwwb.mmm.fi/julkaisut/julkaisusarja/MMMjulkaisu2003_6.pdf
MIKKOLA, M. & SEPPÄNEN, L. 2006. Farmers' new participation in food chains: making
horizontal and vertical progress by networking. In: Hans Langeveld & Niels Röling (Eds.).
Changing European Farming systems for a better future. New visions for rural areas.
Wageningen Academic Publishers 2006. 267-71.
MIKKOLA, M. 2008. Coordinative structures and development of food supply chains. British Food
Journal. In press.
NISSINEN, A., GRÖNROOS, J., HEISKANEN, E., HONKANEN, A., KATAJAJUURI, J.-M., KURPPA,
S., MÄKINEN, T., MÄENPÄÄ, I., SEPPÄLÄ, J. TIMONEN, P., USVA, K., VIRTANEN, Y. 2007.
Developing benchmarks for consumer-oriented life cycle assessment-based environmental
information on products, services and consumption patterns. Journal of cleaner production 15,
6/2007: 538-549.
RISKU-NORJA, H & MÄENPÄÄ, I. 2007. MFA model to assess economic and environmental
consequences of food production and consumption. Ecological Economics, 60(4): 700-711.
TIMONEN, P., MÄKELÄ, J., KATAJAJUURI, J-M, FORSMAN-HUGG, S. 2007. Acceptance of
corporate social responsibility as social innovation. In: 8th Conference of the European
Sociological Association; Environment and Society Network, Glasgow, September 36, 2007. 14
p.
TISDELL, C. & Seidl, I. 2004. Niches and economic competition: implications for economic
efficiency, growth and diversity. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 15: 119-135.
Risk assessment of global agrifood production chains – NJF’s 90 year jubilee symposium : NJF seminar 410. NJF Report vol 4, no 7, 2008