Search

The production of food is responsible for major environmental impacts. Bearing this in mind, it is even worse when food is lost rather than consumed. In Switzerland, 46% of all processing potatoes and 53% of all fresh potatoes are lost on their way from field to fork. Our study therefore compares the environmental impacts of losses of fresh potatoes with those of French fries. With the aid of a Life Cycle Assessment, we assessed the impact categories "demand for nonrenewable energy resources", "global warming potential", "human toxicity", "terrestrial ecotoxicity" and "aquatic ecotoxicity". Our results show that 1 kg of potatoes consumed as French fries causes 3-5 times more environmental impacts than the same quantity of fresh potatoes, but also that the proportion of impacts relating to losses is considerably lower for French fries (5%-10% vs. 23%-39%). The great majority of processing potato losses occur before the resource-intensive, emission-rich frying processes and therefore the environmental "backpack" carried by each lost potato is still relatively small. Nonetheless, appropriate loss treatment can substantially reduce the environmental impact of potato losses. In the case of French fries, the frying processes and frying oil are the main "hot spots" of environmental impacts, accounting for a considerably higher proportion of damage than potato losses; it is therefore also useful to look at these processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food production causes large environmental impacts. In Switzerland, more than half of the initial potato production is not directly consumed by humans but lost. To analyze the environmental impacts caused by these losses, we conducted a Life Cycle Assessment concerning the demand for nonrenewable energy resources, the global warming potential, human toxicity and ecotoxicity (terrestrial and aquatic). We allocated these environmental impacts at each stage of the Swiss potato supply chain to marketable potatoes and potato losses. Furthermore, this study investigated how potential loss reduction scenarios and various loss treatments (animal feed, biogas, incineration) might affect the total ecological performance of the supply chain. The results showed that potato losses were responsible for 39% of the total terrestrial ecotoxicity, 31% of the total potato supply chain's global warming potential, 31% of its human toxicity, 27% of its aquatic ecotoxicity and 23% of its demand for nonrenewable energy resources. The results indicated in general that environmental benefits due to the loss treatments were bigger than benefits achieved by the loss reduction scenarios. Loss treatments, in particular feeding and fermentation, could reduce the examined impacts, but not generating losses represented a better option, especially at the household stage (the impacts here were 8–42 times as high as the impacts of losses at agricultural production). A combination of loss reduction and loss treatment could overcompensate the environmental impacts caused by potato losses because potatoes may be used to substitute for other goods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]