Search

It has been estimated that one-third of global food is lost or wasted, entailing significant environmental, economic, and social costs. The scale and impact of food loss and waste (FLW) has attracted significant interest across sectors, leading to a relatively recent proliferation of publications. This article synthesizes existing knowledge in the literature with a focus on FLW measurement, drivers, and solutions. We apply the widely adopted DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) framework to structure the review. Key takeaways include the following: Existing definitions of FLW are inconsistent and incomplete, significant data gaps remain (by food type, stage of supply chain, and region, especially for developing countries), FLW solutions focus more on proximate causes rather than larger systemic drivers, and effective responses to FLW will require complementary approaches and robust evaluation.

Purpose: Plant-based alternatives to dairy milk have grown in popularity over the last decade. Almond milk comprises the largest share of plant-based milk in the US market and, as with so many food products, stakeholders in the supply chain are increasingly interested in understanding the environmental impacts of its production, particularly its carbon footprint and water consumption. This study undertakes a life cycle assessment (LCA) of a California unsweetened almond milk. Methods: The scope of this LCA includes the production of almond milk in primary packaging at the factory gate. California produces all US almonds, which are grown under irrigated conditions. Spatially resolved modeling of almond cultivation and primary data collection from one almond milk supply chain were used to develop the LCA model. While the environmental indicators of greatest interest are global warming potential (GWP) and freshwater consumption (FWC), additional impact categories from US EPA's TRACI assessment method are also calculated. Co-products are accounted for using economic allocation, but mass-based allocation and displacement are also tested to understand the effect of co-product allocation choices on results. Results and discussion: The GWP and FWC of one 48 oz. (1.42 L) bottle of unsweetened almond milk are 0.71 kg CO2e and 175 kg of water. A total of 0.39 kg CO2e (or 55%) of the GWP is attributable to the almond milk, with the remainder attributable to packaging. Almond cultivation alone is responsible for 95% of the FWC (167 kg H2O), because of irrigation water demand. Total primary energy consumption (TPE) is estimated at 14.8 MJ. The 48 oz. (1.42 L) PET bottle containing the almond milk is the single largest contributor to TPE (42%) and GWP (35%). Using recycled PET instead of virgin PET for the bottle considerably reduces all impact indicators except for eutrophication potential. Conclusions: For the supply chain studied here, packaging choices provide the most immediate opportunities for reducing impacts related to GWP and TPE, but would not result in a significant reduction in FWC because irrigation water for almond cultivation is the dominant consumer. To provide context for interpretation, average US dairy milk appears to have about 4.5 times the GWP and 1.8 times the FWC of the studied almond milk on a volumetric basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since agriculture directly contributes to global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, integrating trees into agricultural landscapes through agroforestry systems is a viable adaptive strategy for climate change mitigation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the carbon (C) sequestration and financial benefits of C sequestration according to Quebec's Cap-and-Trade System for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Allowances (C & T System) or the Système de plafonnement et d'échange de droits d'émission de gaz à effet de serre du Québec (SPEDE) program for two experimental 10-year-old tree-based intercropping (TBI) systems in southern Quebec, Canada. We estimated total C stored in the two TBI systems with hybrid poplar and hardwoods and adjacent non-TBI systems under agricultural production, considering soil, crop and crop roots, litterfall, tree and tree roots as C stocks. The C sequestration of the TBI and adjacent non-TBI systems were compared and the market value of the C payment was evaluated using the net present value (NPV) approach. The TBI systems had 33% to 36% more C storage than adjacent non-TBI systems. The financial benefits of C sequestration after 10 years of TBI practices amounted to of $2,259-$2,758 CAD ha 1 and $1,568-$1,913 CAD ha 1 for St. Edouard and St. Paulin sites, respectively. We conclude that valorizing the C sequestration of TBI systems could be an incentive to promote the establishment of TBI for the purpose of GHG mitigation in Quebec, Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]