Eco-friendly food
Food guidelines for a sustainable environment
Choose food wisely by selecting environmentally friendly and ethical food choices.
Environmental considerations
1. Avoid overconsumption.
2. Select foods that minimise your carbon footprint.
2.1. Minimise your food miles.
2.2. Choose fresh or minimally processed foods.
2.3. Choose more sustainable protein sources.
2.4. Choose organic food and drink products where possible.
2.5. Be aware of the environmental impacts of purchasing alcohol.
3. Consider the environment when preparing foods.
3.1. Conserve water.
3.2. Use energy efficient kitchen appliances.
4. Reduce your contribution to landfill associated with food.
4.1. Don’t purchase more than you need.
4.2. Choose foods with minimal or no packaging.
4.3. Drink tap water (plain or filtered).
4.4. Reuse and recycle as much as possible.
4.5. Compost your food waste.
5. Encourage and support breastfeeding.
Ethical considerations
6. Purchase Fair Trade items when no local product is available.
7. Consider the effects of your food purchases on the wellbeing of animals.
1Nutrition Promotion Unit
April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
Environmental considerations
1. Avoid overconsumption
“Eat real food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” (Pollan, 2008; front cover)
Eating more calories than we require and selecting foods with a high carbon footprint have effects on our
environment.
For Australians, it is now more common to be overweight than a healthy weight. The National Health Survey
2007–08 found 61 per cent of the Australian adult population and 25 per cent of children aged five to
17 years were overweight or obese (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009). In children and adolescents, the
prevalence of overweight and obesity is not only increasing, it is accelerating (Booth et al, 2003; Vaska
& Volkmer, 2004). The overconsumption of high calorie foods is an important factor in causing the obesity
epidemic in developed countries (Swinburn et al, 2005).
The foods we overconsume
Reducing the overconsumption of foods that produce high carbon emissions or that contribute to health
problems (such as obesity) are effective strategies against global warming.
The livestock industry is both a major contributor to global warming and a significant user of water. Further
information on this is provided in the section: Guideline 2.3, Choose more sustainable protein sources.
McMichael et al proposed a global target for meat consumption of 90g per day, with not more than 50g per
day coming from ruminants (i.e. cattle, sheep, and goats) in order to prevent increased greenhouse gas
emissions from livestock production (McMichael et al, 2007). Australians are eating much more than this
recommendation, with 157g of meat, poultry and game eaten per adult (over 19 years) per day (Australian
Bureau of Statistics, 1999).
Consumption of foods that are high in fat and/or sugar but low in other nutrients is one of the contributing
factors to overweight and obesity in Australia. These foods, that are described as ‘extra foods’ in
The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (Commonwealth of Australia, 1998), contributed 47 per cent of total
fat, 47 per cent of saturated fat and 54 per cent of sugar to the average Australian diet, and relatively few
vitamins and minerals (Rangan, 2006). For example, an association between soft drink consumption and
overweight and obesity in Australian children has been found (Sanigorski et al, 2005).
How to reduce overconsumption
• Eat only what you need to maintain a healthy weight.
• Consider the size of your food and drink serves when at home or eating out.
• Limit your meat consumption to 90g a day with no more than 50g per day coming from red meat from
ruminants such as cattle, sheep and goats.
• Eat more meals based on legumes such as kidney and other beans, chickpeas and lentils. Consider
the amount of meat that you consume by eating vegetarian meals more often.
See http://meatlessmondays-australia.com/ for futher information.
• Reduce the amount of meat in recipes and substitute this for legumes.
• Reduce consumption of high fat and/or sugar foods that are low in other nutrients.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
2
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1999. National Nutrition Survey: Foods Eaten: Australia 1995. Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2009. Australian Social Trends, Sep 2009. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/
[email protected]/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20Sep+2009 January 21st 2010.
Booth, M.L., Chey, T., Wake, M., Norton, K., Hesketh, K., Dollman, J., and Robertson, I. 2003. Change in the prevalence of
overweight and obesity among young Australians. Am J Clin Nutr, 77: 1969–97.
Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating: Background Information for Nutrition Educators.
Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/FD699468D52A5A2ECA256F19000406D6/
$File/fdeduc.pdf on April 10th 2010.
McMichael, A.J., Powles, J.W., Butler, C., and Uauy, R. 2007. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health.
Energy and Health 5. Lancet 370: 1253–1263.
Pollan, M. 2008. In Defence of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto. Penguin Press. New York. USA.
Rangan, A.N., Randall, D., Hector, D.J., Gill, T.P., and Webb, K.L. 2008. Consumption of ‘extra’ foods by Australian children:
types, quantities and contribution to energy and nutrient intakes. Eur J Clin Nutr, 62(3): 356–355.
Swinburn, B., Gill, T., and Kumanyika, S. 2005. Obesity prevention: a proposed framework for translating evidence into action.
Obesity reviews 6: 23–33.
Sanigorski, A.M., Bell, A.C., and Swinburn, B.A. 2005. Association of key foods and beverages with obesity in Australian
schoolchildren. Public Health Nutrition 10(2): 152–157.
Vaska, V., and Volkmer, R. 2004. Increasing prevalence of obesity in South Australian 4-year-olds: 1995–2002.
J Paediatr Child Health 40: 353–355.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
3
2. Select foods that minimise your carbon footprint
For the typical Australian diet, the greenhouse emissions generated by a household’s food choices are much
greater than that of a household’s transport and electricity consumption (Russell & Ferrie, 2008).
2.1 Minimise your food miles
The modern, global food system allows millions of people access to a vast array of food from all over the
world. Diets are no longer restricted to what is grown locally and by the seasons.
What are food miles?
The term ‘food miles’ is now commonly used to measure the transport distance travelled by food products
between production and consumption (Gaballa & Abraham, 2008). The use of fossil fuels to transport food
is associated with increased levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. The term was
coined by Dr Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at London’s City University, in the 1990s and provides an
indication of the environmental impact of the food we eat (Woodhouse, 2007).
Gaballa and Abraham (2008) stated that ‘food miles’ are a useful first step when assessing the
environmental impact of foods. Consumers do however also need to be aware of the other factors that
contribute to the overall environmental impact of their food choices. In fact processing, packaging and cold
storage can contribute more to a food’s carbon footprint than do its food miles (Stacey, 2008).
Food miles associated with the Australian diet
In the last four years, Australia increased its imports of fresh produce by 26 per cent (Sydney Food
Fairness Alliance, 2007). In a study conducted by the Centre for Education and Research in Environmental
Strategies (CERES), data was collected to establish food miles and greenhouse gas emission estimates
for a typical food basket in Victoria (Gaballa & Abraham, 2008). The total distance for all transportation of
the food basket was estimated at 70,803km. This is equivalent to travelling approximately twice around
the circumference of the Earth (40,072km), or travelling around Australia’s coastline three times (Gaballa
& Abraham, 2008).
Why minimise your food miles?
The main reasons for minimising food miles are that the transport of food significantly contributes to
greenhouse gas production, while foods that have been stored and transported large distances are often
nutritionally inferior to locally produced foods. Generally speaking, the lower the food miles, the better the
choice for the environment and for your health.
Transport
The transport of foods over long distances consumes large quantities of fuel and energy, and this is a major
contributor to greenhouse gases and climate change. Food transportation methods include road, rail,
shipping and airfreight and each method of transport produces greenhouse gas emissions. Air freight and
road transport are the highest carbon emitters, with the transport of food by air generating 177 times more
greenhouse gases than shipping (Stacey, 2008).
Foods produced in sub-tropical climates such as bananas and sugar, and processed foods such as biscuits,
orange juice and potato chips accumulate the greatest miles (Gaballa and Abraham, 2008).
In Australia, many major supermarkets have national distribution systems. Therefore, food grown near a
particular branch may have travelled by road to a central depot and back to its place of origin to be sold in
that local supermarket. In the food processing industry, ingredients might also travel around the country
from factory to factory before reaching the consumer as the finished product.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
4
Proponents of low food miles advocate that sourcing food locally or regionally not only brings environmental
benefits such as emissions reduction, but also helps local producers and strengthens local economies.
In Australia, you are able to identify whether food and drinks are produced here or overseas. Food Standards
Australia and New Zealand’s (FSANZ) Standard 1.2.11 Country of Origin Requirements (2006) sets out the
requirements for ‘Country of Origin’ labelling of packaged and certain unpackaged foods. All packaged food
and unpackaged fresh or processed fruit, vegetables, nuts, fish or fish products and pork or pork products
must have ‘Country of Origin’ labelling. The standard does not apply to unpackaged cereals, meat other than
pork, eggs, oils, dairy products, sugar, honey, vinegar and related products, and salt or to food sold to the
public by restaurants, canteens, schools, caterers or self-catering institutions where the food is offered for
immediate consumption (FSANZ, 2006).
‘Product of’ labelling means the country of origin claimed must be the country of origin of each significant
ingredient in the food and virtually all of the production or manufacture of the foods must have happened
in that country (FSANZ, 2006). For example, ‘Product of Australia’ means that the product is produced or
manufactured in Australia, using only Australian ingredients.
‘Made in . . .’ means the product has been substantially changed in the claimed country and 50 per cent of
the cost of production has been carried out in that country (FSANZ, 2006). For example, a can of tomatoes
with the label ‘Made in Australia’ may mean that the fresh tomatoes have been imported from Italy and then
peeled and canned in Australia. A common label of this nature is ‘Made in Australia from local and imported
ingredients’.
In general, processed foods tend to have multiple ingredients that may have been transported from several
locations to a central processing facility. Less processed, ‘whole’ foods, grown and purchased locally are
likely to have accumulated fewer food miles.
Food quality
Some studies have indicated that long distance transport and the use of plant varieties that tolerate
transport and storage reduces the nutritional value of food.
Fruit and vegetables transported long distances are likely to be inferior in nutrition through nutrient
losses; such as vitamin C, vitamin A, riboflavin and vitamin E, which can occur even with excellent storage
conditions over time (Gaballa & Abraham, 2008). Items grown for long distance travel tend to be chosen
for their yield and storage qualities and not for flavour, diversity or nutritional value (Sustain, 2007). Many
of these foods are harvested before they are ripe and stored for long periods between production, packing
and distribution – sometimes with post-harvest chemical treatments such as fungicides applied to increase
shelf-life (Sustain, 2007). Instead, local and seasonal foods suit surrounding growing conditions and are
fresher, tastier and likely to be cheaper.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
5
How to minimise your food miles
• Become familiar with foods that are grown or produced locally and what time of the year they are
available. Seasonal food guides are available from some fruit markets and online.
• Look for local farmers’ markets, community gardens, food co-operatives and community supported
agriculture schemes.
• Grow your own fruit and vegetables or keep chickens in your own backyard.
• Read the labels of packaged foods and choose those where the ingredients are grown, produced and
manufactured in Australia where possible.
• Ask questions of your food retailers and manufacturers regarding the origin of the food you are
buying. Locate fruit and vegetable retailers, butchers, delicatessens and fishmongers that sell food
produced locally.
• Purchase fewer processed foods.
References
Food Standards Australia New Zealand. 2006. Country of Origin Labelling of Food, 1st Ed, Food Standards Australia New
Zealand: Canberra.
Gaballa, S., and Abraham, A.B. 2008. Food miles in Australia: a preliminary study of Melbourne, Victoria. Retrieved from
http://sustainability.ceres.org.au/pdfs/sei/CERES_Food_Miles.pdf on June 20th 2008.
Russell, G., and Ferrie, S. 2008. Health and environmental implications of the CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet. Nutrition and
Dietetics, 65: 139–143.
Stacey, C. 2008. Food Miles. Retrieved from www.bbc.co.uk/food/food_matters/foodmiles.shtml on February 18th 2010.
Sustain. 2007. Eat well and save the planet: a guide for consumers on how to eat greener, healthier and more ethical food.
Retrieved from http://www.sustainweb.org/pdf/SFG_Consumers.pdf on February 18th 2010.
Sydney Food Fairness Alliance. 2007. Understanding food miles. Retrieved from http://sydneyfoodfairness.org.au/wp-content/
uploads/2009/07/SFFA_food_miles_v1_oct06www.pdf on February 6th 2010.
Woodhouse, J. 2007. Food miles and food exporting. Retrieved from www.foodprocessing.com.au/articles/1513-Food-milesand-food-exporting on February 18th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
6
2.2 Choose fresh or minimally processed foods
Generally, the more processing a food has undergone, the higher the energy and water costs and the higher
the food miles associated with the product (Gaballa & Abraham, 2008). In highly processed foods, each
ingredient may have been transported to various parts of the country for processing and preparation before
incorporation into the final product. Once manufactured, the longer the distance travelled by the food
product, the higher the level of food processing, refrigeration and storage time required.
Food processing can also lead to the loss of valuable nutrients. Some methods, such as milling and juicing,
significantly reduce the level of some vitamins, minerals and fibre. The end products of food processing also
tend to be richer in undesirable ingredients, such as fats, salt, preservatives and other additives (Leitzmann,
2005).
Fresh products generally cost less than processed foods and produce less waste from packaging.
How to choose fresh or minimally processed foods
• Purchase fresh fruit and vegetables and, where possible, locally produced items.
• Eat plenty of vegetables in season – adults need five or more half cup serves per day.
• Cook meals using fresh ingredients rather than purchasing ready-made meals that require reheating.
• Choose fresh fruit, nuts and vegetables for snacks rather than processed foods such as crisps,
biscuits, bought cakes and muesli bars.
References
Gaballa, S., and Abraham, A.B. 2008. Food miles in Australia: a preliminary study of Melbourne, Victoria. Retrieved from
http://sustainability.ceres.org.au/pdfs/sei/CERES_Food_Miles.pdf on June 20th 2008.
Leitzmann, C. 2005. Wholesome nutrition: a suitable diet for the new nutrition science project, Public Health Nutrition, 8(6A):
753–759.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
7
2.3 Choose more sustainable protein sources
In order to meet nutritional requirements for protein, the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating (1998)
recommends adults consume one serve of protein per day (more for breastfeeding and pregnant women),
where a serve is equivalent to:
• 65–100g cooked meat/chicken (e.g. ½ cup mince, two small chops, or two slices roast meat)
• 80–120g cooked fish fillet
• two small eggs, one cup cooked dried beans, lentils, chickpeas, split peas or canned beans, or 1/3 cup
peanuts/almonds.
The type and amount of protein we choose to eat as individuals has environmental consequences due to
the varying amounts of energy used, the byproducts created (such as methane), and the natural resources
(such as water) required for their production. Meat production is a major contributor to global warming
(Joyce et al, 2008). The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO, 2007) has reported a global increase in
meat consumption to an average of 41kg per person per year in 2005.
Environmental impacts of livestock production
Atmosphere and climate
The Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) (2006) reported that livestock production is responsible for
18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions from all human activities. This represents a greater share
of greenhouse gas emissions than transport (FAO, 2006). In Australia, agriculture is the most significant
contributor of methane (59.5 per cent) with the bulk of this produced from livestock (Australian Greenhouse
Office, 2007). Methane is a greenhouse gas with 23 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide
(FAO, 2006). The Australian Greenhouse Office (2007) has calculated that Australian beef production
generates 51.7kg of carbon dioxide per kilogram of carcass compared with 0.4kg of carbon dioxide per
kilogram of wheat.
Use of natural resources – energy, water and land
The meat and livestock industry is also a major user of natural resources such as water, fossil fuels and
land. The dairy industry is the highest user of irrigated water in the Murray-Darling Basin (Bryan & Marvanek,
2004). In terms of meat production, research regarding energy and natural resource use in Australia is
limited. However, a comparison of meat-based and plant-based diets carried out in America found that
the meat-based diet used ten times more fossil fuel to produce the same amount of protein and more land
and water (Pimental et al, 2003). Another study found that, when compared with soybean production,
land requirements for meat protein production are increased by a factor of between six and 17 and water
consumption is increased by a factor of up to 26 (Reijnders & Soret, 2003).
The energy efficiency of converting grain to protein is poor for beef. Feedlot beef, in particular, requires 20kg
of grain to produce each kilogram of edible meat (Foran & Poldy, 2002).
Recommended global target
The current global average meat consumption is 100g per person per day (FAO, 2007), however, Australians
are consuming almost 157g per person per day (ABS, 1999). An average meat consumption global target of
90g per day, with not more than 50g per day coming from red meat from ruminants (i.e. cattle, sheep, goats
and other digastric grazers), has been proposed in order to prevent increased greenhouse gas emissions
from livestock production (McMichael et al, 2007). Australians can reduce their food-related carbon footprint
by limiting their meat consumption to this recommended target.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
8
Native animals as a viable protein source in Australia
Recently there have been suggestions to use native animals as a food source to combat climate change in
Australia because they are not ruminants (Tedmanson 2008). Kangaroo harvesting and emu farming are two
industries that have the potential for reducing our dependency on other domesticated livestock as a source
of meat. Both native animals produce red meats that are relatively high in iron and low in saturated fat
(Wright 2004; Frapple et al, 1997). However the animal welfare issues associated with using native animals
as a food source are important areas to consider when deciding upon dietary recommendations relating to
food sustainability as well as the relative lack of research on emu and kangaroo husbandry.
Benefits of plant-based protein
Lea, Crawford and Worsley (2006) defined a plant-based diet as an eating pattern dominated by fresh
or minimally processed plant foods and decreased consumption of meat, eggs and dairy products. The
advantages of eating a plant-based diet include health benefits and much lower environmental costs
than meat-based diets (Goodland 1997). Frey and Barrett (2007) looked at the potential reductions in the
carbon footprint from a number of modifications to the average UK diet. They found that a diet that is low
in meat products can reduce an individual’s carbon footprint by 22 per cent, a vegetarian diet that includes
moderate amounts of milk and eggs can reduce it by 40 per cent, while the ‘optimal’ healthy, vegetarian,
local, and organic diet could result in a 44 per cent reduction in carbon footprint.
From an environmental perspective, legumes offer a more sustainable source of protein. Legume crops are
able to fix nitrogen from the air and raise soil nitrogen content. This reduces the need for nitrogen fertilisers
for subsequent crops.
Legumes provide a viable, nutritional alternative to animal proteins because of their high protein and low
saturated fat contents. Legumes are also a source of iron, using the AUSNUT database the average iron
content for 100g of legumes is approximately 2mg compared to the same portion of grilled rump steak
having around 3mg (FSANZ, 2010). Given the recommended daily intake of iron is 8mg for men and 18mg
for menstruating women (NHMRC, 2006), legumes represent a useful source of dietary iron for vegetarians
and those wanting to reduce their meat consumption. It is worth noting though, that iron from plant sources
is much less well absorbed by the digestive system than from animal sources. However, absorption can be
increased if foods or beverages with vitamin C are consumed at the same time (Messina, 1999).
Can plant-based diets meet nutritional needs?
A well planned, plant-based or ‘vegetarian’ diet can meet all nutritional requirements when a variety of plant
foods are consumed and energy needs are met. In a position paper, the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada (2003) stated that ‘appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally
adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases’.
Sustainable varieties of fish
There is growing evidence that a regular intake of fish, principally as a source of omega-3 fatty acids, is
protective against a number of health problems including cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. However,
three-quarters of the world’s oceans are considered to be overfished and Australia is no exception, with catch
rates declining in many species due to overfishing (Vieira et al, 2007). Sustainable seafood species, such as
bream or whiting, are generally robust (in breeding terms), short-lived and fast‑growing.
The environmental impacts associated with commercial fishing include:
• loss of marine biodiversity from declining fish stocks
• loss of other species through ‘by catch’ where whales, sharks, dolphins and young fish are accidentally
killed by fishing gear
• damage to the sea bed, particularly by bottom trawling.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
9
Aquaculture, however, is not necessarily a more sustainable alternative. In sea cage aquaculture, fish can
escape from the cages and transfer disease to wild fish, dissolved and solid fish waste can pollute coastal
waterways, and large amounts of wild fish are used for fishmeal. Commercial aquaculture of popular fish
at the top of the food chain, like tuna and salmon, consumes more fish than it produces. A farmed tuna is
fed 8–11kg of fish for each kilogram of live weight gain (Russell & Ferrie, 2008). With farmed fish, a more
sustainable choice is fish from small, closed system aquaculture (tanks and ponds), where all waste is
controlled and smaller amounts of fishmeal are required.
Fish and fish oils provide omega-3 fatty acids. The richer sources of these fats are the oily fish, such as
mackerel, herrings, sardines, salmon and tuna. These oils have cardiovascular and anti-inflammatory
benefits. Some plant foods also contain omega-3 fatty acids in a different form but these are able to be
converted by the body to the type found in fish. Good plant sources of omega-3 fatty acids include walnuts,
linseeds and linseed (flaxseed) oil, canola oil and canola margarines, cooked soybeans and tofu.
How to choose more sustainable protein sources
• Limit your meat consumption to 90g a day with no more than 50g per day coming from red meat from
ruminants such as cattle, sheep, deer and goats.
– Eat vegetarian meals more often (see http://meatlessmondays-australia.com/ for futher
information).
– Eat more meals based on legumes such as kidney and other beans, chickpeas, and lentils.
– Substitute some of the meat in recipes for legumes e.g. add some kidney beans to the mince in
Mexican dishes.
• Choose sustainable varieties of fish. Visit the Australian Marine Conservation Society’s website
(www.marineconservation.org.au) and download their 3 Step Pocket Guide to choosing
sustainable seafood.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1999. National Nutrition Survey: Foods Eaten: Australia 1995. Commonwealth of Australia.
American Dietetic Association. 2003. Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103 (6): 748–765.
Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating: Background Information for Nutrition Educators.
Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/FD699468D52A5A2ECA256F19000406D6/
$File/fdeduc.pdf on April 4th 2010.
Australian Greenhouse Office. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2005. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2007.
Retrieved from http://www.climatechange.gov.au/inventory/2005/pubs/inventory2005.pdf on January 2nd 2009.
Bryan, B., and Marvanek, S. 2004. Quantifying and valuing land use change for Integrated Catchment Management evaluation
in the Murray-Darling Basin 1996/97–2000/01. Stage 2 Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Urrabrae, South
Australia: CSIOR Land and Water. Retrieved from http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/consultancy/2004/MDBC_stage2_
report.pdf on January 2nd 2009.
Frey, S., and Barrett, J. 2007. Our Health, our environment: The ecological footprint of what we eat. Stockholm Environment
Institute. International Ecological Footprint Conference, Cardiff, 8–10 May 2007. Retrieved from http://www.brass.cf.ac.uk/
uploads/Frey_A33.pdf on February 18th 2010.
Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Retrieved from
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e00.pdf on February 18th 2010.
Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2007. Food Outlook. Global Market Analysis. Meat and Meat Products. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah864e/ah864e09.htm on February 10th 2010.
FSANZ (Food Standards Australia & New Zealand). AUSNUT 2007. Retrieved from http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/
consumerinformation/ausnut2007/ on February 10th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
10
10
Foran, B., and Poldy, F. 2002. Future Dilemmas: Options to 2050 for Australia’s population, technology, resources and
environment, Chapter 3. The Urban Environment, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra.
Frapple, P., O’Malley, P., Snowden, J., and Hagan, R. 1997. Emu Processing and Product Development. Report for the Rural
Industries Research and Development Corporation. Barton: Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation.
Goodland, R. 1997. Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters. Ecological Economics 23: 189–200.
Joyce, A., Dixon, S., Comfort, J., and Hallett, J. 2008. The cow in the room: public knowledge of the links between dietary
choices and health and environmental impacts. Environmental Health Insights 1: 31–34.
Lea, E., Crawford, D., and Worsley, A. (2006) Public views of the benefits and barriers to the consumption of a plant-based
diet, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition., Vol. 60: 828–837.
McMichael, A.J., Powles, J.W., Butler, C., and Uauy, R. 2007. Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health.
Energy and Health 5. Lancet 370: 1253–1263.
Messina, M. 1999. Legumes and soybeans: overview of their nutritional profiles and health effects. Am J Clin Nutr 70 (suppl):
439S–50S.
National Health and Medical Research Council. 2006. Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand including
Recommended Dietary Targets. Department of Health and Ageing: Australian Government. Retrieved from http://www.nhmrc.
gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/n35.pdf on January 13th, 2010.
Pimentel, D., and Pimentel, M. 2003. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Am J Clin Nutr
78 (suppl): 660S–663S.
Reijnders, L., and Soret, S. 2003. Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices, American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78 (Supplement), 664S–668S.
Russell, G., and Ferrie, S. 2008. Health and environmental implications of the CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet. Nutrition and
Dietetics, 65: 139–143.
Tedmanson, S. 2008. Australians say eating kangaroos will save the world. Times Retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol/news/world/article4483757.ece on January 2nd 2009.
Vieira, S., Wood, R., and Galeano, D. 2007. Australian Fisheries Survey Report 2006: Results for Selected Fisheries, 2003–04
and 2004–05. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Wright, A. 2004. Kangaroo meat – health secret revealed. CSRIO Livestock Industries. Retrieved from www.csiro.au/files/
mediaRelease/mr2004/kangaroofat.htm on July 28th 2008.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
11
11
2.4 Choose organic food and drink products where possible
Industrial food production produces an abundance of relatively inexpensive food; however, this comes at
a substantial cost to the environment (American Dietetic Association, 2007). Agriculture can result in damage
to soil structure due to excessive cultivation, use of heavy machinery and overgrazing of livestock, which then
has the potential to contaminate surrounding areas with agricultural chemicals (American Dietetic Association,
2007). These chemicals, common in conventional agriculture, can result in reduced plant growth and pollution
of nearby plant and animal populations and water systems (Horrigan, Lawrence and Walker, 2002).
Organic agriculture offers a more sustainable option, based on ecological principles of diversification, low
external inputs and conservation of resources, often resulting in greater biodiversity (Garcia and Alteri,
2005). A 22-year experiment comparing organic animal-based, organic legume-based and conventional
agriculture systems found the organic systems consistently offered greater environmental benefits due to
reduced chemical inputs, less soil erosion, water conservation and improved soil organic matter (soil carbon)
(Pimental et al, 2005). Soil organic matter provides important nutrients, helps to increase biodiversity and
assists in conserving soil and water, which can be beneficial during droughts (Pimental et al, 2005).
A review funded by the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs examined the
environmental impacts of organic farming. The study found that organic agriculture systems generally had
better soil quality (organic matter and soil structure), less pesticide pollution to water and air, greater energy
efficiency and less waste (Shepherd et al, 2003). While these results may not apply to all organic farming,
organic systems are generally more likely to result in environmental benefits than conventional agriculture
and will use less energy per unit of area and item produced (Shepherd et al, 2003).
Food and drink that has been produced organically has a lower ecological impact per kilogram compared to
that which has been produced conventionally because less energy intensive methods are used to produce
these items (Collins & Fairchild, 2007). Collins and Fairchild (2007), when assessing the ecological footprint
of food and drink consumption in Wales, estimated that increasing the amount of organic food and drink
consumed would bring about a reduction of over 20 per cent in the ecological footprint, though the cost to
the consumer would significantly increase.
While no compulsory regulations exist in Australia, there are seven organic certifiers that have been
accredited by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS). These certifiers require producers to
adhere to national or international standards prior to approval for organic certification. The main purpose
of these standards is to ensure goods exported from Australia meet international requirements (Australian
Quarantine and Inspection Service, 2010) though they do not require domestic producers to meet these
standards. This has led to the Organic Federation of Australia, the peak body for the national organic
industry, assisting in the development of an Australian Standard in 2009 (Leu, 2009). This new Australian
Standard enables the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to ensure that companies
promoting their products as ‘organic’ meet some type of Australian industry standards (Leu, 2009) though
there are still no uniform guidelines followed nationally.
How to choose organic products
• Consider organic alternatives for food and drinks items you already purchase.
• Ask questions of your food retailers and manufacturers regarding the availability of organic varieties
of food you are buying.
• Become familiar with Australian accredited organic certifiers, distributors and producers.
• Investigate how you can produce organic fruit, vegetables and eggs in your own home garden.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
12
12
References
American Dietetic Association. 2007. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food and Nutrition Professional Can
Implement Practices to Conserve Natural Resources and Support Ecological Sustainability. Journal of the American Dietetic
Association 107(6): 1033–1043
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (2010). Organic and Bio-dynamic Products. Retrieved from http://www.daff.gov.
au/aqis/export/organic-bio-dynamic on February 9th 2010.)
Collins, A., and Fairchild, R. 2007. Sustainable food consumption at a sub-national level: an ecological footprint, nutritional
and economic analysis. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9 (1): 5–30.
Garcia, M., and Altieri, M. 2005. Transgenic crops: Implications for biodiversity and sustainable agriculture. Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, 25 (4): 335–353.
Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R., and Walker, P. 2002. How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health
harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (5): 445–456.
Leu, A. 2009. OFA Position Paper: The Australian Standard for Organic and Biodynamic Products and Regulation. Retrieved
from http://www.ofa.org.au/papers/OFA-position-Aust-Std-and-TPA.pdf on February 9th 2010.
Pimental, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel, R. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons or
organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55 (7): 573–582.
Shepherd, M., Pearce, B., Cormack, B., Philipps, L., Cuttle, S., Bhogal, A., Costigan, P., and Unwin, R. 2003. An assessment of
the environmental impacts of organic farming. Retrieved from http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/growing/organic/policy/
research/pdf/env-impacts2.pdf on February 9th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
13
13
2.5 Be aware of the environmental impacts of purchasing
alcohol
Brewing and winemaking industries are heavy users of water. Water is used in the production of raw
ingredients and the processing and packaging of alcohol. It is estimated that 100 litres of water are required
to brew one bottle of beer and 270 litres to produce one bottle of wine (Meyer, 2007). Beer and wine can
also contribute to extra food miles when imported and non-local brands are purchased.
Eco-efficiency agreements have been entered into by industry bodies such as the Winemakers Federation
of Australia, and state winemaking bodies, such as the South Australian Wine Industry Association (Waye,
2008). These associations have agreed with the Commonwealth Government to undertake work with
their members to increase efficiency and reduce their environmental impact. An audit of the Australian
wine industry in 2003 revealed broad implementation of the industry environmental policies among
viticulturalists and winemakers (Waye, 2008). The majority had established and developed environmental
management systems, eco-efficiency and greenhouse gas abatement initiatives, cleaner production
methods and supply chain management programs, while having implemented environmental stewardship
undertakings (Waye, 2008).
Individual companies have publicised their environmental achievements. For example, the Swan Brewing
Company claims to save 60,000 kilolitres per year as a result of water recycling (Nelson, 2002). Wirra Wirra
Winery uses monitoring of soil moisture content and managed irrigation to conserve water (Wirra Wirra
Winery, 2010).
How to reduce the environmental impact of your alcohol choices
• Limit your intake of alcohol.
• Purchase alcohol with the lowest food miles possible.
• If you enjoy a particular beer or wine, contact the manufacturer to learn about their environmental
policies and to advocate for more environmentally friendly production methods.
References
Meyer, W. 2007. Beer uses less water than wine. My Country: Communities Working Together. Retrieved from http://
cleanerproduction.curtin.edu.au/local/resources/casestudies/swan-brewery.pdf on February 18th 2010.
Nelson, T. 2002. The Swan Brewery: Water and Energy Efficiency, Curtin University. Retrieved from http://cleanerproduction.
curtin.edu.au/local/resources/casestudies/swan-brewery.pdf on February 18th 2010.
Waye, V. 2008. Carbon footprints, food miles and the Australian Wine Industry, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 9 (1).
Retrieved from www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbJIL/2008/9.html 18 on February 18th 2010.
Wirra Wirra Winery 2010 Green Thoughts. Retrieved from http://www.wirrawirra.com/thecellars/environment.aspx on
February 18th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
14
14
3. Consider the environment when preparing foods
How we prepare our food can influence our individual carbon footprint through our use of water and
kitchen appliances.
3.1 Conserve water
Water is a precious resource that should be reused, recycled and conserved. One of the most vital factors for
human life and food production is an adequate and safe water supply (Wahlqvist, 2002). Australia’s rainfall
is the lowest of the continents, which combines with very high evaporation to make Australia the driest
inhabited continent in the world. Yet, Australians are the highest per capita users of water in the world,
using 2.3 times the global average (Melbourne Water, 2008).
Household water use accounts for 11 per cent of the total water use in Australia (Department of the
Environment, Heritage and the Arts, 2007). Large quantities of water are often used in the initial preparation
and cooking of food and cleaning up. Dripping taps can also lose up to 50 litres of water per day (Monash
University, 2007).
The purchase of water-efficient appliances for the kitchen are expected to lead to a significant fall in water
use per capita over the next few decades (Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment,
2006). For example, the most efficient dishwashers use half the amount of water of the average model
(Australian Government, 2009).
The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) Scheme requires certain water-using products to be
labelled for water efficiency, helping Australian households to save water and money. The label carries two
important pieces of information to help the consumer to compare products – stars and water consumption
or water flow figures. For better water efficiency chose a product with more stars and a lower water flow
number (Australian Government, 2010).
How to reduce the water you use in the kitchen
• Soak your pots and pans rather than rinsing under the tap when you’re hand washing.
• Wash your fruit and vegetables in a half filled sink rather than under running water.
• Collect the cold water from the tap while you’re waiting for it to heat up and use elsewhere later.
• Purchase the most water efficient dishwasher. Find out more about the Water Efficiency Labelling and
Standards Scheme and it’s five star rating for appliances (http://www.waterrating.gov.au/products/
index.html#dishwashers).
To reduce the amount of water used in dishwashers:
– Completely fill before use.
– Use the economy setting.
– Scrape dishes rather than rinsing under the tap.
• Look for and fix leaking or dripping kitchen taps.
• For more tips on saving water, visit the Queensland Water Commission website (http://target170.
com.au/HomePage).
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
15
15
References
Australian Government. 2010. Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) Scheme. Retrieved from http://www.
waterrating.gov.au on February 15th 2010.
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment. 2006. Consumer’s Guide to Drinking Water. CRC for Water
Quality and Treatment. Retrieved from http://www.wqra.com.au/crc_archive/consumers/toc.htm on February 19th 2010.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2007. Sustainability Tips. Retrieved from www.environment.gov.
au/education/aussi/publications/sustainability-tips.html on February 19th 2010.
Melbourne Water. 2008. Australia: the driest continent. Retrieved from www.conservewater.melbournewater.com.au//content/
driest.asp on February 19th 2010.
Monash University. 2007. Tips for Greening Your Kitchen. Retrieved from http://fsd.monash.edu.au/environmentalsustainability/how-you-can-help/tips-greening-your-kitchen-0 on February 18th 2010.
Wahlqvist, M. 2002. Food sustainability and health through food variety. Retrieved from www.natsoc.org.au/html/papers/
wahlqv.pdf on February 19th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
16
16
3.2 Use energy efficient kitchen appliances
It is currently mandatory for all refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers offered for sale in Australia to carry
an approved energy label (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2008). The Energy
Rating label enables consumers to compare the energy efficiency of domestic appliances on a fair and
equitable basis. For more information, go to www.energyrating.gov.au/background.html. It also provides
incentive for manufacturers to improve the energy performance of appliances. Buyers who purchase a more
energy efficient product will also contribute to the reduction of greenhouse pollution in Australia.
Nearly 17 per cent of all household greenhouse gas emissions in Australia in 2000 were generated by
refrigerators and freezers (Australian Greenhouse Office, 2006). The number of refrigerators per household
is also important. In Australia the average household has 1.3 refrigerators (Environment Victoria, 2010).
Households that dispose of a second fridge save an average of $190 a year in electricity bills and eight
tonnes of greenhouse gases (Pittwater Council, 2010). Keeping refrigerators defrosted and at the right
temperature also decreases their energy use (Monash University, 2007).
The maintenance of appliances is also important. Damaged fridge seals, for example, can dramatically
increase the electricity required to run them. At the same time, the choice of cooking method can be
important, with pressure cookers, microwaves and electric fry pans being more energy efficient than ovens
(Energy Australia, 2010).
How to reduce your energy use in the kitchen
• Choose energy efficient appliances. Go to www.energyrating.gov.au/background.html for more
information.
• Maintain equipment, especially your refrigerator seals.
• Maximise your use of energy efficient cooking methods such as microwaves, electric fry pans and
pressure cookers.
• Fully load your dishwasher before use.
• Place your refrigerator in a cool, well ventilated position.
• Keep your refrigerator frost free and at the right temperature (i.e. 4°C), with the freezer between −15°C
and −18°C (Monash University, 2010).
References
Australian Greenhouse Office. 2006. Retrospective Analysis of the Impacts of Energy Labelling and MEPS: Refrigerators and
Freezers. Retrieved from http://www.energyrating.gov.au/library/pubs/200614-meps-rf-fz.pdf on February 18th 2010.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2008. Overview of regulatory requirements – labelling and
MEPS. Retrieved from www.energyrating.gov.au/man1.html on June 20th 2008.
Environment Victoria. 2010. The energy you use at home. Retrieved from http://www.environmentvictoria.org.au/content/
energy-home on February 18th 2010.
Energy Australia. 2010. Cooking up energy savings in the kitchen. Retrieved from http://www.energysave.energyaustralia.com.
au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/1561/energyefficiencytipsinthekitchen.pdf on February 18th 2010.
Monash University. 2007. Tips for Greening Your Kitchen. Retrieved from http://fsd.monash.edu.au/environmentalsustainability/how-you-can-help/tips-greening-your-kitchen-0 on February 18th 2010.
Pitwater Council. 2009. A Leader in Fridge Buybacks. Retrieved from http://www.pittwater.nsw.gov.au/council/media/
news/2009/october/pittwater_a_leader_in_fridge_buyback on February 18th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
17
17
4. Reduce your contribution to landfill associated
with food
One of the major threats to the environment is the amount of waste produced. Australia is the second
highest producer of waste per capita after the United States, sending 18 million tonnes to landfill per annum
(Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2007). This is equivalent to one tonne for
every person and it would be enough to cover the state of Victoria to a depth of 10cm (Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2007). South East Queensland alone produces approximately
3000 tonnes of waste every day and most is sent to landfill (Department of Environment and Resource
Management, 2010).
Food, and the waste associated with it, such as packaging and plastic bags, contributes to landfill if
disposed of in normal household waste. The transport of waste also uses fossil fuels, which contribute to
climate change (Shanklin & Hackes, 2001). Carbon dioxide and methane produced from the breakdown
of organic waste in landfill (such as food and garden waste) are both greenhouse gases. Landfills are the
second largest human-related source of methane in the U.S., accounting for 23 per cent of all methane
emissions in 2007 (US Emissions Inventory, 2009).
When food is wasted, the energy and water used in producing the food is also wasted.
References
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2007. Sustainability Tips. Retrieved from www.environment.
gov.au/education/aussi/publications/sustainability-tips.html on June 20th 2008.
Department of Environment and Resource Management. 2010. Environmental management: Reduce, reuse recycle. Retrieved
from http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/waste/waste_minimisation/reduce_reuse_recycle.html on
January 13th 2010.
Shanklin, C., and Hackes, B. 2001. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Dietetics Professionals can Implement
Practices to Conserve Natural Resources and Protect the Environment, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 101 (10),
1221–1227. US Emissions Inventory. 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007. Retrieved from
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html on February 8th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
18
18
4.1 Don’t purchase more than you need
Food waste
Our current food supply system produces a significant amount of uneaten food. Excessive purchasing of food
requires increased storage in energy-consuming devices, such as refrigerators and freezers. Both individual
demand and purchasing power also creates situations where too much food is purchased and then wasted
in the home. The average South Australian’s household garbage is 40 per cent food waste (Government of
South Australia, 2006). Hamilton et al (2005) claimed that we spend $5.3 billion annually on food we do not
eat, while in 2004, Australians threw away $2.9 billion of fresh food, $876 million of leftovers, $630 million
of uneaten take-away food, $596 million of unfinished drinks and $241 million of frozen food, with a total of
3.3 million tonnes of food delivered to landfill each year (Hamilton et al, 2005).
How to reduce food waste
• Plan meals ahead of time and buy only what you need for your planned menu.
• Avoid throwing out leftovers. Take them for lunch the next day or try incorporating them into another
meal.
• Consider sharing dishes when eating out, as restaurant meal sizes can be quite large, or consider
ordering an entrée sized meal.
References
Government of South Australia. 2006. South Australian Ecological Footprint-Living well within the means of nature, Summary
Report. Retrieved from http://www.sustainableliving.sa.gov.au on February 18th 2008.
Hamilton, C., Denniss, R., and Baker, D. 2005. Wasteful Consumption In Australia: Discussion Paper Number 77. The Australia
Institute. Retrieved from https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node/16 on February 9th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
19
19
4.2 Choose foods with minimal or no packaging
There are 3.3 million tonnes of packaging produced per year in Australia (Boomerang Alliance, 2008). In the
U.S., it has been estimated that between 55 per cent and 65 per cent of packaging produced is contributed
by food and beverage packaging (Brody et al, 2008).
Australia produces more than 1.3 million tonnes of plastic per year, which equates to more than 71kg for
every person (Sustainable Choice, 2010). Plastics are made from oil, gas and coal, which are non-renewable
resources. Large amounts of energy are used in the generation of packaging materials as well as the
transport of the food and packaging materials to the endpoint where packaging is completed. Packaging,
if not recovered through recycling or reuse, is buried in landfill. This takes up space and results in soil and
water contamination and the generation of methane (Knight & Khan, 2007). Additionally throughout the
past 35 years, at least 77 Australian species of marine wildlife have been affected by plastic debris in their
habitat (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2009).
Buying more local fresh foods and products with minimal packaging reduces processing costs and the
volume of waste generated (Shanklin and Hackes, 2001).
How to reduce food packaging going to landfill
When buying products consider the following:
• What is the recycled or remanufactured content of the packaging?
• Can the packaging be reused or recycled when you’ve finished with it?
• How much packaging does it have and is there an alternative with less packaging?
When shopping for food:
• Buy fruit and vegetables loose or in paper bags.
• Take re-useable bags with you to the supermarket or farmers’ markets.
• Get into the habit of carrying a spare bag for spontaneous shopping.
• Choose larger sizes rather than individually packaged portions. Buy a single larger sized container
and decant into smaller jars or containers as needed, e.g. yoghurt.
• Look for biodegradable packaging, such as cardboard or cornstarch-based containers, and buy these
instead of alternatives wrapped in bulky plastic or polystyrene.
References
The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2009. Impacts of Plastic Debris On Australian Marine
Wildlife: Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/pubs/marinedebris-cr-consulting.pdf on February 9th 2010.
Boomerang Alliance. 2010. Packaging Waste in Australia: an overview. Retrieved from http://www.boomerangalliance.
org/000_files/28_container_deposits.pdf on February 9th 2010.
Brody, A.L., Bugusu, B., Han, J.H., Sand, C.K., and McHugh, T.H. (2008) Innovative Food Packaging Solutions. Journal
of Food Science Vol. 73: 8: 107–116. Retrieved from http://members.ift.org/NR/rdonlyres/52C02219-A6E0-4719-A55DFC9E7B4ADB0/0/InnovFoodPkg.pdf on February 9th 2010.
Knight, L., and Kahn, F. 2007. Human Settlements. Retrieved from www.epa.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/state_
of_the_environment/state_of_the_environment_queensland_2007/state_of_the_environment_queensland_2007_pdf/ on
June 20th 2008.
Shanklin, C., and Hackes, B. 2001. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Dietetics Professionals can Implement Practices
to Conserve Natural Resources and Protect the Environment. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 101 (10): 1221–1227.
Sustainable Choice: Local Government Purchasing for Sustainability. 2010. Quick Factions and Figures. Retrieved from
http://www.lgsa-plus.net.au/www/html/993-quick-facts.asp?intLocationID=993 on February 9th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
20
20
4.3 Drink tap water (plain or filtered)
Bottled water and other packaged drinks contribute to our carbon footprint by the energy costs related to
their production, transport and disposal or recycling of the bottles. In the U.S., the bottled water market is
the largest single market for plastic bottles (US Plastic Containers Market Report, 2008).
In Australia, 314,000 barrels of oil per year are required to package, ship and refrigerate bottled water
alone – despite Australian tap water being freely available to most homes and safe to drink (Koutsoukis,
2007). The Pacific Institute (2010) estimated that the total amount of energy required to produce each
bottle of water purchased is equivalent, on average, to filling that plastic bottle one quarter full with oil.
It also takes between three and five litres of water to manufacture one litre of bottled water (Australian
Conservation Foundation, 2010).
Safe, refillable plastic and metal bottles are available in Australia for refilling with tap water. These are
much more sustainable alternatives to purchasing bottled water and other drinks.
How to reduce drink packaging going to landfill
• Drink plenty of tap water rather than purchasing water or other drinks in disposable plastic bottles.
• Use a refillable plastic or metal water bottle instead of purchasing drinks when you are out and
about.
• Recycle all disposable plastic bottles that you do purchase.
References
Australian Conservation Foundation. 2010. Frequently Asked Questions: Is bottled water a problem for the environment?
Retrieved from http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=2114#17 on February 9th 2010.
Koutsoukis, J. 2007. The real cost of bottled water. The Age, August 19, 2007. Retrieved from www.theage.com.au/articles/
2007/08/18/1186857841959.html on June 20th 2008.
Pacific Institute. 2010. Bottled Water and Energy: A Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.pacinst.org/topics/water_and_
sustainability/bottled_water/bottled_water_and_energy.pdf on February 9th 2010.
US Plastic Containers Market. 2008. US Plastic Containers Market Report. Freedonia. Retrieved from www.reportlinker.com/
p091962/US-Plastic-Containers-Market.html on September 12th 2008.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
21
21
4.4 Reuse and recycle as much as possible
Waste can be halved through reusing and recycling, combined with other efforts such as minimising food
waste and packaging mentioned previously (The Department of Environment and Resource Management,
2010). Despite considerable recycling efforts, in 2004–05 an estimated 1.35 million tonnes or 341kg per
capita of domestic waste was sent to landfill in Queensland (Knight & Kahn, 2007). Plastic bottles and
aluminium cans take hundreds of years to decompose, while glass bottles will spend around one million
years decomposing in landfill, though all can be easily recycled (Department of Primary Industries, Parks,
Water and Environment, 2010).
Recycling also conserves the energy already expended in sourcing the raw materials and manufacturing
a product. A typical household that is recycling 3.76 kilograms per week can avoid generating 106 kilograms
of carbon dioxide each year (Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, 2005). This reduction is
equivalent to 50 per cent of the household’s annual electricity consumption for lighting or almost 40 per cent
of the annual electricity consumption for cooking (Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, 2005).
Recycling makes used materials available again for the manufacturing of new products. This often results
in a more efficient use of both energy and raw materials. Making aluminium from recovered aluminium cans
and other aluminium scrap takes 95 per cent less energy than using raw materials (Planet Ark, 2008). As a
result, significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are achieved when recycled aluminium is used
instead of raw materials.
Reusing packaging, like takeaway plastic containers and glass jars, for other household uses, is even more
efficient because it does not involve the transport and processing that recycling requires.
How to reuse and recycle more of your food-related waste
• Look for food items in refillable or reusable containers when you shop.
• Reuse glass jars and bottles, aluminium foil and plastic takeaway food containers for a variety of
household purposes before recycling or disposing of them. Make sure you check if plastic containers
are safe to be put in the microwave before you reuse them.
• Carry your lunch in a reusable container rather than disposable wrapping.
• Make sure you recycle as many food containers and packages as possible. Check your local council
website for information on what is recyclable in your area. Why not keep track of how much rubbish
accumulates in your non-recycling bin (rename this your landfill bin) and see your progress?
References
Department of Environment and Conservation NSW. (2005) Benefits of Recycling. Retrieved from http://www.environment.
nsw.gov.au/resources/warr/2005139_gov_benefitrecyrpt.pdf on May 20th 2008.
Department of Environment and Resource Management. 2010. Environmental management: Reduce, reuse recycle. Retrieved
from http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/waste/waste_minimisation/reduce_reuse_recycle.html on
January 13th 2010.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. 2010. Waste and Recycling: Litter. Retrieved from http://
www.environment.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=2435 on January 13th 2010.
Knight, L., and Kahn, F. 2007. Human Settlements. Retrieved from www.epa.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/state_
of_the_environment/state_of_the_environment_queensland_2007/state_of_the_environment_queensland_2007_pdf/ on
June 20th 2008.
Planet Ark. 2008, Recycling-Is it a load of rubbish? Retrieved from http://www.recyclingnearyou.com.au/documents/
Recycling-Is-it-a-load-of-rubbish.pdf on May 20th 2008.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
22
22
4.5 Compost your food waste
Around two-thirds of all waste deposited in landfill is organic items such as food scraps, garden clippings,
paper, wood and hair (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts, 2009).
When organic waste decomposes, it produces gases including the potent greenhouse gas, methane.
Landfills are the second largest human-related source of methane in the U.S., accounting for 23 per cent
of all methane emissions in 2007 (US Emissions Inventory, 2009). While over 30 per cent of all organic
waste produced in Australia in 2006–07 was recovered and recycled, 13.6 million tonnes was sent to
landfill (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts, 2009). Recent data indicates that while
30 per cent of Queenslanders compost or recycle their food waste all or most of the time, over 50 per cent
of the population do this rarely or never (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009). Composting or recycling
food and garden waste can reduce an individual’s waste by 50 per cent, which can mean a reduction in
landfill of around 560kg each year per person (Australian Conservation Foundation, 2010).
Organic waste can also be used to generate nutrient-rich natural fertiliser that can be used to improve
soil quality and also help to reduce soil erosion (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2010).
Composting and worm farms are a natural way to speed up this process and, instead of increasing landfill
deposits and greenhouse gases, household food and garden waste can be recycled into ‘plant food’.
Composting and worm farms produce soil that can be used in the garden instead of a chemical fertiliser,
and is naturally rich in nutrients that are readily available to plants.
Local council and state government websites provide practical information on composting, recycling and
other waste minimisation strategies.
How to compost your food waste
• Investigate options such as a compost bin, worm farm or Bokashi bin for disposing your household
food waste.
• Your local council and state government websites may provide information to assist you to choose
which option suits your household.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2009. Environmental Issues and Behaviour, Queensland 2007–08. Retrieved from
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/1318.3Feature%20Article14Aug%202009 on January 13th 2010.
Australian Conservation Foundation. 2010. Using your green waste. Retrieved from http://www.acfonline.org.au/news.
asp?news_id=154 on January 13th 2010.
Department of Environment and Conservation. 2010. Composting, mulching and worm farming. Retrieved from
http://www.actnow.wa.gov.au/act-now/recycling/composting-mulching-and-worm-farming.html on January 13th 2010.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts. 2009. National Waste Policy Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/waste/publications/pubs/fs-organic-waste.pdf on January 13th 2010.
US Emissions Inventory. 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2007. Retrieved from
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html on February 8th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
23
23
5. Encourage and support breastfeeding
Apart from the documented health risks relating to the use of artificial formula for both mother and child,
there are clear arguments that, when compared to breastfeeding, the use of artificial formula is more
detrimental to the environment.
Environmental effects associated with artificial formula
It is difficult to find reliable estimates on the ecological impact of artificial feeding, however a number of
production points can be identified that have a negative environmental impact. These include:
• The majority of artificial formulae are based on cows’ milk. The dairy industry is a major user of resources
such as water, energy, feed (including grain) and land and a producer of pollutants that contribute to
environmental damage.
• Dairy cattle produce methane as a by-product of enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide which is released
from their manure. A typical cow burps 280 litres of methane each day – the result of microbial digestion
of fodder in its stomach (Bentley, 2000). Both methane and nitrous oxide are powerful greenhouse
gases. Methane has 23 times, and nitrous oxide 296 times, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of
carbon dioxide (Steinfeld, 2006).
• The processing involved in the conversion of milk to powdered formula requires the use of water, energy
and resources, while generating waste and pollutants.
• Infant formula packaging across its production stages uses paper, cardboard, aluminium, plastic, steel
and tin, which in turn, require energy to produce.
• Artificial formula is a heavily traded product worldwide and thus contributes to food miles. Much of
Australia’s domestic consumption is imported from New Zealand, France, Ireland and Germany, while
Australia produces 13,000 tonnes of artificial formulae for export (Riley cited by Newnham, 2008).
Additionally, raw ingredients may be exported for production of artificial formula off-shore.
• Powdered artificial formulae must be reconstituted prior to consumption, and this process involves
energy associated with boiling and cooling water, as well as washing and sterilising bottles. There is
also energy associated with the manufacture of baby bottles and teats and the impacts of their disposal
should be considered.
• Artificial feeding results in higher rates of medical treatment of infants, including hospitalisation. Based
on data generated in the Australian Capital Territory, exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of
life could save between $60–120 million in Australian hospital costs for treatments of infants suffering
illnesses that are associated with early weaning (Smith et al 2002).
• In terms of ethics, the export of Australian-produced artificial formula and the encouragement of its
use in developing countries should be avoided unless stringent guidelines and their strict enforcement
are assured. Inappropriate marketing of artificial formula in these settings in the past has resulted in
increased infant mortality, poverty and birth rates (though the loss of breastfeeding’s contraceptive
effect) within communities that can least afford these consequences.
Environmental impacts of breastfeeding
It must be acknowledged that there are both positive and negative environmental impacts also associated
with dietary changes of breastfeeding mothers and with expressing breastmilk. These include:
• The environmental costs associated with increased food intake with lactating. According to the Nutrient
Reference Values for Australian and New Zealand (NHMRC, 2005), there is an increased requirement for
water, energy and most vitamins and minerals during lactation, above the mother’s usual requirements.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
24
24
• If a breastfeeding woman chooses to express breast milk, there are environmental impacts. Data
regarding the proportion of breastfeeding mothers who express breastmilk is not available, although
some evidence suggests that this is becoming more common (Binns et al, 2006). Activities associated
with this that may have an environmental impact include operation of an electric breast pump (if used),
refrigeration/freezing of expressed breast milk, warming of stored breast milk, manufacture, disposal,
washing and sterilising of baby bottles and the necessary equipment, and its eventual disposal.
• An environmental benefit of breastfeeding is that it prevents more births worldwide than all other forms
of contraception put together and consequently decreases consumption of feminine hygiene products
used during menstruation (Radford, 2002).
In conclusion, although breastfeeding does have environmental impacts, use of artificial formula is by far
the worse choice in environmental terms. Attention should also be paid to the significant additional health
costs related to the use of artificial formula and the subsequent environmental costs associated with
hospital treatment.
This section is based on the discussion paper, The Environmental Impacts of Infant Formula Versus
Breastfeeding by Elise Newnham, Community Nutritionist, Metro South Health Service District, Queensland
Health, June 2008.
How to reduce the impact of infant feeding
• Promote and support breastfeeding where possible. For help and support for breastfeeding, call the
Australian Breastfeeding Association’s helpline on 1800 686 2 686 (ie 1800 mum2mum).
• Consider the packaging and energy consumed by items used in both bottle and breastfeeding.
• If artificial formula is used, consider the food miles of the products available.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2000. Apparent Consumption of Foodstuffs, Australia, 1997–98 and 1998–99. Australian
Government. Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/productsbytitle/
123FCDBF086C4DAACA2568A90013939A?OpenDocument on December 31st 2008.
Bentley, S. 2000. Mapping methane emissions from livestock. Atmosphere: Newsletter of Atmospheric Research. Issue 9, p. 1.
Retrieved from http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/AtmosphereOct2000.pdf on July 23rd 2008,
Binns, C.W., Win, N.N., Zhao, Y., Scott, J.A. 2006. Trends in the expression of breastmilk. Breastfeeding Review, 14(3): 5–9.
National Health and Medical Research Council. 2005. Nutrient Reference Values for Australian and New Zealand: including
recommended daily intakes. Department of Health and Ageing; Australian Government. Retrieved from http://www.nhmrc.
gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/n35.pdf on April 23rd 2010.
Newnham, E. 2008. The Environmental Impacts of Infant Formula vs Breastfeeding. Metro South Health Service District,
Queensland.
Radford, A. 2002. The Ecological Impact of Bottle Feeding. Baby Milk Action. Retrieved from http://www.reducepackaging.
com/article.html on June 24th 2008.
Smith, J.P., Thompson, J.F., and Ellwood, D.A. 2002. Hospital System Costs of Artificial Feeding: Estimates for the Australian
Capital Territory. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 26: 543–551.
Stenfeld, H. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: Environment issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations (FAO), Rome. Retrieved from http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/FAO/livestocks_long_shadow.pdf on July 4th 2008.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
25
25
Ethical considerations
6. Purchase Fair Trade items when no local product is
available
As world citizens, it is vital that we understand, and are accountable for, our food consumption. This includes
where we source our food. Lang and Heasman (2004) describe a new ‘Health Colonialism’ where new food
commodity chains are built on production in developing countries for consumption in rich countries. They
describe the disastrous effects for small farmers, particularly those who trade in tropical commodities such
as coffee, cocoa, rubber and sugar, where world prices have decreased over the last 20 years.
In addition, small farmers in developing countries have little access to markets and are unable to effectively
advocate for fair prices for their commodities. At the same time, agricultural workers may endure low pay,
unsafe working environments and lack the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their lives
(Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand, 2008(a)).
Many of our food items can be sourced locally or at least within Australia (thus reducing food miles). However,
a small number of food products are not grown and/or produced commercially in Australia. In these cases, it
is important to source food items from distributors who can ensure that the human rights of farmers and their
workers are respected and that they are adequately paid for their labours.
The term ‘Fair Trade’ describes the ethical sale of products from developing countries. Produce labelled as
‘Fair Trade’ assists the consumer in choosing items where the production and trade methods protect the
well-being of the farmers and labourers. The FINE* definition of fair trade is:
‘Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks
greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better
trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially
in the South. Fair Trade organizations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting
producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional
international trade.’ (Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand, 2008(b))
* FINE is an informal association of the four main Fair Trade world wide networks
How to purchase Fair Trade items
• Be aware of the Fair Trade symbol when purchasing goods like coffee, chocolate,
cocoa, tea and spices.
• Learn more about how Fair Trade works and its benefits to local farmers, the
environment and to consumers at www.fta.org.au.
References
Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand. 2008(a). Why Fair Trade? Fair Trade Association of Australia and New
Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.fairtrade.com.au/book/print/13 on July 28th 2008.
Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand. 2008(b). What is Fair Trade? Fair Trade Association of Australia and New
Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.fairtrade.com.au/node/43 on August 11th 2008.
Lang, T., and Heasman, M. 2004. Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds and Markets. Earthscan, London.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
26
26
7. Consider the effects of your food purchases on the
wellbeing of animals
Over the last few decades the production of animal-derived food products has changed dramatically in
response to growing consumer awareness of the ethical consideration for the welfare of animals (Voiceless,
2007). Discussions on animal welfare and the environmental and human health impacts of intensive
livestock production have prompted demand for adequate food labelling so that consumers are able to
make informed choices in regard to the way their food is produced (Voiceless, 2007).
Organic farming is not only concerned with environmental sustainability, but also with animal welfare. Thus,
animals raised on organic farms must be treated humanely, and are not fed any growth-regulating drugs,
steroids, hormones or antibiotics (Better Health Channel, 2008). The animals may, however, be treated with
vaccines to prevent disease. Unfortunately, the current lack of mandatory legislative standards around the
use of the words ‘free-range’ and ‘organic’ in food labelling creates speculation about the authenticity of
such products.
Certified organic farms can only be accredited after operating according to organic principles for a minimum
of three years (Better Health Channel, 2008). The best way to ensure that the products you intend to purchase
are organic and/or free-range is to select products that have been certified by one of Australia’s seven
certifying bodies accredited by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) (Organic Guide, 2007).
Accredited organic certifying organisations (Better Health, 2008):
• Biodynamic Research Institute (Demeter)
• Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA)
• National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA)
• Organic Food Chain (OFC)
• Organic Herb Growers of Australia (OHGA)
• Organic Vignerons Association of Australia (OVAA)
• Tasmanian Organic Producers (TOP).
For the consumer to be able to consider the impact of these food choices on animals, they must understand
the terminology used. For instance, the term ‘free-range’ also has no regulatory definition, and therefore
is often open to interpretation by both producers and consumers. The term ‘bred free-range’, has recently
emerged in regard to free-range farming, particularly for pork products (Voiceless, 2007). As part of the
‘bred free-range’ practices, sows spend their pregnancy outdoors in a natural environment instead of within
metal sow stalls. Piglets are born outdoors and are generally raised in large hooped-roof shelters with straw
bedding, however, may be prematurely weaned, have their teeth clipped, tail docked, and be unable to
forage outdoors for most of their lives (Voiceless, 2007).
Free-range chickens, for example, have access to an outdoor space during the day once they reach three
weeks of age (Clifton, 2008). There is more space per bird than at conventional chicken farms but they are
fed the same feed as birds housed at conventional chicken farms. However, certified organic chickens bred
for meat are fed only organic feed, which is produced without the use of synthetic fertilisers, herbicides
or pesticides, and are given access to outdoor space after 10 days of age (Clifton, 2008). Certified organic
chickens are provided with more space per bird than both conventional and free-range birds and grow more
slowly (Clifton, 2008).
Several other organisations outside of the seven certified bodies accredited by AQIS can also accredit
animal products based specifically on animal welfare principles. As part of this accreditation, standards
have been developed to ensure farm animals have the best life possible and most humane death possible.
Accredited farms are generally audited half-yearly or annually.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
27
27
Major animal welfare accreditation organisations in Australia include:
• Humane Society International (HSI) – Australian Branch
• Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)
• Free Range Egg and Poultry Australia (FREPA)
• Free Range Egg and Poultry Association of Australia (FREPAA).
How to consider animal welfare when choosing food items
• Become more aware of the welfare organisations and accreditation schemes relevant to food
production.
• When shopping for meat poultry and eggs, read labelling relating to animal welfare.
• Consider keeping your own chickens.
References
Better Health Channel 2008, Organic Food, Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.
nsf/pages/Organic_food?Open on July 29th 2008.
Clifton, P. 2008. Food, Health and Nutrition: Where does Chicken Fit? Australian Chicken Meat Federation (ACMF), Adelaide.
Organic Guide 2007, Organic certification and labelling in Australia, Organic Guide, Brisbane. Retrieved from http://www.
organicguide.com/australia/organic-certification-and-labelling-in-australia/ on July 28th 2008.
Voiceless, 2007. From Label to Liable: Scams, Scandals and Secrecy. Lifting the Veil on Animal Derived Food Product Labelling
in Australia. Voiceless, Sydney. Retrieved from http://www.voiceless.org.au/images/stories/reports/Voiceless_Label_to_
Liable_Report.pdf on February 17th 2010.
Nutrition Promotion Unit April 2010 www.ecofriendlyfood.org.au
28
28