Environmental sustainability of food production and consumption in the Nordic and Baltic region – a scoping review for Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023

  • Helen Harwatt Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, UK
  • Tim G. Benton Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, UK
  • Jan Bengtsson Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden
  • Bryndís Eva Birgisdóttir University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
  • Kerry Ann Brown University of Exeter, Devon, UK
  • Corné van Dooren World Wildlife Fund, Zeist, Netherlands
  • Maijaliisa Erkkola University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  • Morten Graversgaard Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Thorhallur Halldorsson University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
  • Michael Hauschild National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Anne Høyer-Lund The Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo, Norway
  • Jelena Meinilä University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  • Bob van Oort Centre for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway
  • Merja Saarinen Natural Resources Institute, Helsinki, Finland
  • Hanna L. Tuomisto University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; and Natural Resources Institute, Helsinki, Finland
  • Ellen Trolle National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark (DTU), Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
  • Olafur Ögmundarson University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
  • Rune Blomhoff Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Keywords: Dietary guidelines, nutrition recommendations, sustainable diets, sustainable consumption, food policy, agriculture, climate change, biodiversity loss, land use, planetary boundaries

Abstract

This scoping review examines environmental impacts related to food production and consumption in Nordic and Baltic countries. The overarching advice to all Nordic and Baltic countries, in line with the current body of scientific literature, is to shift to a more plant-based dietary pattern and avoid food waste. Taking into account current consumption patterns, there is a high potential and necessity to shift food consumption across the countries to minimise its environmental impact. More specifically, a substantial reduction in meat and dairy consumption and increased consumption of legumes/pulses, whole grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds are suggested as a priority intervention. Reducing the environmental impacts of seafoods is also key and suggestions include a shift to seafoods with lower environmental impacts such as seaweed and bivalves. As part of the suggested transition to a more plant-based diet, the scope for increasing the provision of plant-based foods through increasing the cultivation of legumes/pulses, vegetables, and grains and through feed-to-food shifts within the region should be explored.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References


1.
Halpern BS, Frazier M, Verstaen J, Rayner P-E, Clawson G, Blanchard JL, et al. The environmental footprint of global food production. Nat Sustain 2022; 5(12): 1027–39. doi: 10.1038/s41893-022-00965-x


2.
Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 2018; 360(6392): 987–92. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216


3.
Benton TG, Bieg C, Harwatt H, Pudasaini R, Wellesley L. Food system impacts on biodiversity loss: three levers for food system transformation in support of nature. London: Chatham House; 2021. Available from: https://www.chathamhouse.org/ [cited 1 November 2022].


4.
Williams DR, Clark M, Buchanan GM, Ficetola GF, Rondinini C, Tilman D. Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion. Nat Sustain 2020; 4(4): 314–22. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-00656-5


5.
Bodirsky BL, Dietrich JP, Martinelli E, Stenstad A, Pradhan P, Gabrysch S, et al. The ongoing nutrition transition thwarts long-term targets for food security, public health and environmental protection. Sci Rep 2020; 10(1): 19778. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-75213-3


6.
Clark MA, Domingo NGG, Colgan K, Thakrar SK, Tilman D, Lynch J, et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees C climate change targets. Science 2020; 370(6517): 705–8. doi: 10.1126/science.aba7357


7.
Springmann M, Godfray HC, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016; 113(15): 4146–51. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1523119113


8.
IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Lee H, Romero J, editors. Climate Change 2023: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC; 2023. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements/ [cited 1 May 2023].


9.
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, et al. Sustainability. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015; 347(6223): 1259855. doi: 10.1126/science.1259855


10.
Wang-Erlandsson L, Tobian A, van der Ent RJ, Fetzer I, te Wierik S, Porkka M, et al. A planetary boundary for green water. Nat Rev Earth Environ 2022; 3(6): 380–92. doi: 10.1038/s43017-022-00287-8


11.
Persson L, Carney Almroth BM, Collins CD, Cornell S, de Wit CA, Diamond ML, et al. Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. Environ Sci Technol 2022; 56(3): 1510–21. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c04158


12.
Schulte-Uebbing LF, Beusen AHW, Bouwman AF, de Vries W. From planetary to regional boundaries for agricultural nitrogen pollution. Nature 2022; 610(7932): 507–12. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05158-2


13.
Benton TG, Harwatt H, Høyer A, Meltzer HM, Trolle E, Blomhoff R. An overview of approaches for assessing the environmental sustainability of diets – a scoping review for Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023. Food Nutr Res. 2024; 68. doi: 10.29219/fnr.v68.10453


14.
Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky BL, Lassaletta L, et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 2018; 562(7728): 519–25. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0


15.
Springmann M, Mozaffarian D, Rosenzweig C, Micha R. What we eat matters: health and environmental impacts of diets worldwide. In: Micha R, editor. 2021 Global Nutrition Report: the state of global nutrition. Bristol, UK: Development Initiatives; 2021; pp. 35–49.


16.
Sachs JD, Lafortune G, Fuller G, Drumm E. Implementing the SDG stimulus. Sustainable Developent Report 2023. Paris: SDSN; 2023.


17.
Global Nutrition Report. Country nutrition profiles. Available from: http://www.globalnutritionreport.org/resources/nutrition-profiles [cited 1 June 2023]


18.
Webb P, Benton TG, Beddington J, Flynn D, Kelly NM, Thomas SM. The urgency of food system transformation is now irrefutable. Nat Food 2020; 1(10): 584–85. doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-00161-0


19.
Rockstrom J, Gupta J, Qin D, Lade SJ, Abrams JF, Andersen LS, et al. Safe and just earth system boundaries. Nature 2023; 619(7968): 102–11. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8


20.
Karlsson J, Röös E, Sjunnestrand T, Pira K, Larsson M, Andersen BH, et al. Future Nordic diets. Exploring ways for sustainably feeding the Nordics. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2017.


21.
Mittenzwei K, van Oort B. Hvordan øke selvforsyningsgraden i norsk jordbruk? Notat 3/22. Oslo/Trondheim: Ruralis; 2022.


22.
Bakken AK, Mittenzwei K. Produksjonspotensial i jordbruket og nasjonal sjølforsyning med mat. Utredning for Klimautvalget 2050. Trondheim: NIBIO; 2023.


23.
FAO. Food and agriculture statistics. Available from: https://www.fao.org/food-agriculture-statistics/en/ [cited 02 February 2023].


24.
FAO. FAOSTAT. Definitions and standards used in FAOSTAT. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#definitions [cited 12 February 2023].


25.
Springmann M, Spajic L, Clark MA, Poore J, Herforth A, Webb P, et al. The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study. BMJ 2020; 370: m2322. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2322


26.
CML. CML2 baseline method 2000. 2001.


27.
FAO. FAOSTAT. Land use. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL [cited 12 February 2023].


28.
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL). FiBL statistics. Organic area. Available from: https://statistics.fibl.org/europe/area.html [cited 12 February 2023].


29.
European Commission. Factsheet: from farm to fork: our food, our health, our planet, our future 2020. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_20_908 [cited 12 February 2023].


30.
Herzon I, Raatikainen KJ, Wehn S, Rūsiņa S, Helm A, Cousins SAO, et al. Semi-natural habitats in boreal Europe: a rise of a social-ecological research agenda. Ecol Soc 2021; 26(2):13. doi: 10.5751/es-12313-260213


31.
Lemming EW, Pitsi T. The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2022 – food consumption and nutrient intake in the adult population of the Nordic and Baltic countries. Food Nutr Res 2022; 66: 8572. doi: 10.29219/fnr.v66.8572


32.
Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2012 – integrating nutrition and physical activity. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers; 2014.


33.
Andersen JLM, Halkjaer J, Rostgaard-Hansen AL, Martinussen N, Lund AQ, Kyro C, et al. Intake of whole grain and associations with lifestyle and demographics: a cross-sectional study based on the Danish Diet, Cancer and Health-Next Generations cohort. Eur J Nutr 2021; 60(2): 883–95. doi: 10.1007/s00394-020-02289-y


34.
Pedersen AN, Christensen T, Matthiessen J, Kildegaard Knudsen V, Rosenlund Sørensen M, Biltoft-Jensen AP, et al. Danskernes kostvaner 2011–2013. Søborg: DTU Fødevareinstituttet; 2015.


35.
Nurk E, Nelis K, Saamel M, Martverk M, Nelis L. National Dietary Survey among 11–74 years old individuals in Estonia. EFSA Support Publications 2017; 14(4): 1198. doi: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1198


36.
Valsta L, Kaartinen N, Tapanainen H, Männistö S, Säaksjärvi K. Ravitsemus Suomessa – FinRavinto 2017 -tutkimus (Nutrition in Finland – The National FinDiet 2017 Survey). Helsinki: Finnish institute for health and welfare (THL); 2018.


37.
Gunnarsdottir S, Gudmannsdottir R, Thorgeirsdottir H, Torfadottir JE, Steingrimsdottir L, Tryggvadottir EA, et al. Hvað borða Íslendingar? Könnun á mataræði Íslendinga 2019–2021 (What do Icelanders eat? Survey of the diet of Icelanders 2019–2021). Reykjavik: Directorate of Health and Unit for Nutrition Research, University of Iceland; 2022. Available from: https://maturinnokkar.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Hvadbordaislendingar_vefur_endanlegt.pdf [cited 1 February 2023].


38.
Siksna I, Lazda I, Goldmanis M. Pētījums par sāls un joda patēriņu Latvijas pieaugušo iedzīvotāju populācijā [Study of salt and iodine consumption in the adult population in Latvia (2018–2020)]. Riga: Ministry of Health; 2020.


39.
Barzda A. Actual nutrition and nutrition habits of adults and elderly of Lithuania. Vilnius: Ministry of Health; 2016.


40.
Totland TH, Melnæs BK, Lundberg-Hallén N, Helland-Kigen KM, Lund-Blix NA, Myhre JB, et al. [Norkost 3: a national dietary survey among men and women aged 18–70 years, 2010–11]. Oslo: Directorate of Health; 2012.


41.
Amcoff E, Edberg A, Barbieri HE, Lindroos AK, Nälsén C, Pearson M, et al. Riksmaten – vuxna 2010–11: Livsmedels- och näringsintag bland vuxna i Sverige (Riksmaten- Adults 2010–11: food and nutrition intakes among adults in Sweden). Uppsala: Livsmedelsverket; 2012. Available from: https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/globalassets/publikationsdatabas/rapporter/2011/riksmaten_2010_20111.pdf [cited 1 November 2022].


42.
Willett W, Rockstrom J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019; 393(10170): 447–92. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4


43.
Hayek MN, Harwatt H, Ripple WJ, Mueller ND. The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land. Nat Sustain 2021; 4(1): 21–24. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4


44.
Erb KH, Lauk C, Kastner T, Mayer A, Theurl MC, Haberl H. Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat Commun 2016; 7: 11382. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11382


45.
Kalt G, Mayer A, Haberl H, Kaufmann L, Lauk C, Matej S, et al. Exploring the option space for land system futures at regional to global scales: the diagnostic agro-food, land use and greenhouse gas emission model BioBaM-GHG 2.0. Ecol Model. 2021; 459: 1097299. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109729


46.
Bryngelsson D, Wirsenius S, Hedenus F, Sonesson U. How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy 2016; 59: 152–64. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.12.012


47.
Moberg E, Karlsson Potter H, Wood A, Hansson P-A, Röös E. Benchmarking the Swedish diet relative to global and national environmental targets – identification of indicator limitations and data gaps. Sustainability 2020; 12(4): 1407. doi: 10.3390/su12041407


48.
Bajželj B, Richards KS, Allwood JM, Smith P, Dennis JS, Curmi E, et al. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat Climate Change 2014; 4(10): 924–29. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2353


49.
Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 2014; 515(7528): 518–22. doi: 10.1038/nature13959


50.
Clune S, Crossin E, Verghese K. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. J Clean Product 2017; 140: 766–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082


51.
Clark M, Springmann M, Rayner M, Scarborough P, Hill J, Tilman D, et al. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2022; 119(33): e2120584119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2120584119


52.
Hallström E, Carlsson-Kanyama A, Börjesson P. Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. J Clean Product 2015; 91: 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008


53.
Aleksandrowicz L, Green R, Joy EJM, Smith P, Haines A. The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: a systematic review. PLoS One 2016; 11(11): e0165797. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165797


54.
Jarmul S, Dangour AD, Green R, Liew Z, Haines A, Scheelbeek PFD. Climate change mitigation through dietary change: a systematic review of empirical and modelling studies on the environmental footprints and health effects of ‘sustainable diets’. Environ Res Lett 2020; 15(12): 123014. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abc2f7


55.
Wallén A, Brandt N, Wennersten R. Does the Swedish consumer’s choice of food influence greenhouse gas emissions? Environ Sci Policy 2004; 7(6): 525–35. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.08.004


56.
Martin M, Brandão M. Evaluating the environmental consequences of Swedish food consumption and dietary choices. Sustainability 2017; 9(12): 2227. doi: 10.3390/su9122227


57.
Saarinen M, Kaljonen M, Niemi J, Antikainen R, Hakala K, Hartikainen H. Effects of dietary change and policy mix supporting the change, End report of the FoodMin project. (in Finnish with an English abstract). Publications of the Government´s analysis, assessment, and research activities. 2019; 47.


58.
Röös E, Karlsson H, Witthöft C, Sundberg C. Evaluating the sustainability of diets–combining environmental and nutritional aspects. Environ Sci Policy 2015; 47: 157–66. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.001


59.
Wood A, Gordon LJ, Röös E, Karlsson J, Häyhä T, Bignet V, et al. Nordic food systems for improved health and sustainability. Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre UoS; 2019.


60.
Trolle E, Meinilä J, Eneroth H, Meltzer HM, Thorsdóttir I, Halldorsson TI, et al. Integrating environmental sustainability into Food-Based Dietary Guidelines in the Nordic Countries. Food Nutr Res 2024.


61.
Clark M, Tilman D. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ Res Lett 2017; 12(6): 064016. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5


62.
Järviö N, Maljanen N-L, Kobayashi Y, Ryynänen T, Tuomisto HL. An attributional life cycle assessment of microbial protein production: a case study on using hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria. Sci Total Environ. 2021; 776: 145764. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145764


63.
Behm K, Nappa M, Aro N, Welman A, Ledgard S, Suomalainen M, et al. Comparison of carbon footprint and water scarcity footprint of milk protein produced by cellular agriculture and the dairy industry. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2022; 27(8): 1017–34. doi: 10.1007/s11367-022-02087-0


64.
Jarvio N, Parviainen T, Maljanen NL, Kobayashi Y, Kujanpaa L, Ercili-Cura D, et al. Ovalbumin production using Trichoderma reesei culture and low-carbon energy could mitigate the environmental impacts of chicken-egg-derived ovalbumin. Nat Food 2021; 2(12): 1005–13. doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00418-2


65.
Amiri-Jami M, Abdelhamid AG, Hazaa M, Kakuda Y, Griffths MW. Recombinant production of omega-3 fatty acids by probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2015; 362(20): fnv166. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnv166


66.
Benton TG, Harwatt H. Sustainable agriculture and food systems: comparing contrasting and contested versions. London: Affairs RIoI; 2022.


67.
Francaviglia R, Álvaro-Fuentes J, Di Bene C, Gai L, Regina K, Turtola E. Diversification and management practices in selected European regions. A data analysis of Arable crops production. Agronomy 2020; 10(2): 297. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10020297


68.
Ferreira H, Pinto E, Vasconcelos MW. Legumes as a cornerstone of the transition toward more sustainable agri-food systems and diets in Europe. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2021; 5. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.694121


69.
Tuck SL, Winqvist C, Mota F, Ahnstrom J, Turnbull LA, Bengtsson J. Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 2014; 51(3): 746–55. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12219


70.
Muller A, Schader C, El-Hage Scialabba N, Brüggemann J, Isensee A, Erb K-H, et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat Commun 2017; 8(1): 1290. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w


71.
Seufert V, Mehrabi Z, Gabriel D, Benton TG. Current and potential contributions of organic agriculture to diversification of the food production system. Agroecosyst Divers 2019; 435–52.


72.
Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, Macdonald DW. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? – A meta-analysis of European research. J Environ Manage 2012; 112: 309–20. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018


73.
Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 2003; 18(4): 182–8. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(03)00011-9


74.
Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 2012; 485(7397): 229–32. doi:10.1038/nature11069


75.
Fogelberg CL. Towards environmentally sound dietary guidelines – scientific basis for environmental assessment of the Swedish National Food Agency’s Dietary guidelines. Uppsala: Livsmedelsverket; 2013.


76.
Varis A-L. Effect of intercropping carrots and onions on damage caused by the carrot fly, Psila rosae (F.) (Dipt., Psilidae). Agric Food Sci 1991; 63(5): 411–4. doi: 10.23986/afsci.72420


77.
Lizarazo CI, Tuulos A, Jokela V, Mäkelä PSA. Sustainable mixed cropping systems for the boreal-nemoral region. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2020; 4: 1–15. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00103


78.
Peltoniemi K, Velmala S, Fritze H, Lemola R, Pennanen T. Long-term impacts of organic and conventional farming on the soil microbiome in boreal arable soil. Eur J Soil Biol 2021; 104: 103314. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2021.103314


79.
Rigal S, Dakos V, Alonso H, Aunins A, Benko Z, Brotons L, et al. Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2023; 120(21): e2216573120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2216573120


80.
Outhwaite CL, McCann P, Newbold T. Agriculture and climate change are reshaping insect biodiversity worldwide. Nature 2022; 605(7908): 97–102. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04644-x


81.
Harwatt H, Wetterberg K, Giritharan A, Benton TG. Aligning food systems with climate and biodiversity targets. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs; 2022.


82.
Convention on Biological Diversity. Kunming-montreal global biodiversity framework. Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity; 2022.


83.
FAO. FAOSTAT. Crops and livestock products 2020. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL [cited 12 February 2023].


84.
FAO. FAOSTAT. Food balances. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS [cited 12 February 2023].


85.
Ladha JK, Peoples MB, Reddy PM, Biswas JC, Bennett A, Jat ML, et al. Biological nitrogen fixation and prospects for ecological intensification in cereal-based cropping systems. Field Crops Res 2022; 283: 108541. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108541


86.
Lassaletta L, Billen G, Grizzetti B, Anglade J, Garnier J. 50 year trends in nitrogen use efficiency of world cropping systems: the relationship between yield and nitrogen input to cropland. Environ Res Lett. 2014; 9(10): 105011. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/105011


87.
West PC, Gerber JS, Engstrom PM, Mueller ND, Brauman KA, Carlson KM, et al. Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment. Science 2014; 345(6194): 325–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1246067


88.
Breiling M, Hashimoto S, Sato Y, Ahamer G. Rice-related greenhouse gases in Japan, variations in scale and time and significance for the Kyoto Protocol. Paddy Water Environ. 2005; 3(1): 39–46. doi: 10.1007/s10333-005-0071-x


89.
Eshel G, Shepon A, Makov T, Milo R. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(33): 11996–2001. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1402183111


90.
Alexander P, Brown C, Arneth A, Finnigan J, Rounsevell MDA. Human appropriation of land for food: the role of diet. Glob Environ Change 2016; 41: 88–98. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.09.005


91.
Cassidy ES, West PC, Gerber JS, Foley JA. Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ Res Lett. 2013; 8(3): 034015. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015


92.
Harwatt H. Including animal to plant protein shifts in climate change mitigation policy: a proposed three-step strategy. Clim Policy 2018; 19(5): 533–41. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2018.1528965


93.
Shepon A, Eshel G, Noor E, Milo R. The opportunity cost of animal based diets exceeds all food losses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018; 115(15): 3804–09. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1713820115


94.
Aune D, Keum N, Giovannucci E, Fadnes LT, Boffetta P, Greenwood DC, et al. Whole grain consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and all cause and cause specific mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMJ 2016; 353: i2716. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i2716


95.
Davis J, Wallman M, Sund V, Emanuelsson A, Cederberg C, Sonesson U. Emissions of greenhouse gases from production of horticultural products analysis of 17 products cultivated in Sweden. Göteborg: SIK; 2011.


96.
van Lenteren JC, Alomar O, Ravensberg WJ, Urbaneja A. Biological control agents for control of pests in greenhouses. In: Gullino M, Albajes R, Nicot P eds. Integrated pest and disease management in greenhouse crops. Cham: Springer; 2020, pp. 409–39. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-22304-5_14


97.
Carlsson-Kanyama A, Boström-Carlsson K. Energy use for cooking and other stages in the life cycle of food. A study of wheat, spaghetti, pasta, barley, rice, potatoes, couscous and mashed potatoes. Stockholm: Stockholm University; 2001.


98.
Andersson J, Hedberg C. Bärometer 2021 – what happens to the wild berries? 2023. Available from: https://www.ri.se/en/barometer-2021-what-happens-to-the-wild-berries [cited 15 February 2023].


99.
Mittenzwei K, Milford AB, Grønlund A. Status og potensial for økt produksjon og forbruk av vegetabilske matvarer i Norge. Ås: NIBIO; 2017.


100.
Naseer M, Persson T, Hjelkrem A-GR, Ruoff P, Verheul MJ. Life cycle assessment of tomato production for different production strategies in Norway. J Cleaner Product 2022; 372: 133659. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133659


101.
Naseer M, Persson T, Righini I, Stanghellini C, Maessen H, Ruoff P, et al. Bioeconomic evaluation of extended season and year-round tomato production in Norway using supplemental light. Agric Syst. 2022; 198: 103391. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103391


102.
Naseer M, Persson T, Righini I, Stanghellini C, Maessen H, Verheul MJ. Bio-economic evaluation of greenhouse designs for seasonal tomato production in Norway. Biosyst Eng 2021; 212: 413–30. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2021.11.005


103.
Wacker J-D, Verheul MJ, Righini I, Maessen H, Stanghellini C. Optimisation of supplemental light systems in Norwegian tomato greenhouses – a simulation study. Biosyst Eng 2022; 215: 129–42. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2021.12.020


104.
Butrico GM, Kaplan DH. Greenhouse agriculture in the icelandic food system. Eur Countryside 2018; 10(4): 711–24. doi: 10.2478/euco-2018-0039


105.
Björklund J, Eksvärd K, Schaffer C. Exploring the potential of edible forest gardens: experiences from a participatory action research project in Sweden. Agroforestry Syst 2018; 93(3): 1107–18. doi: 10.1007/s10457-018-0208-8


106.
Farstad FM, Hermansen EAT, Grasbekk BS, Brudevoll K, van Oort B. Explaining radical policy change: Norwegian climate policy and the ban on cultivating peatlands. Glob Environ Change 2022; 74: 102517. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2022.102517


107.
Riksskogstaxeringen. Årlig blåbärs- och lingonproduktion (2016- idag). Available from: https://skogsstatistik.slu.se/pxweb/sv/OffStat/OffStat__Skogsmark__StandortVegetation/SM_Barproduktion_tab.px [cited 13 February 2023].


108.
Skogen. Available from: https://www.skogssverige.se/hur-mycket-atliga-bar-finns-det-i-sverige-idag [cited 1 May 2023].


109.
Skogsaktuellt. Svenska bär kan bli guld värda. Available fom: https://www.skogsaktuellt.se/artikel/31849/svenska-bar-kan-bli-guld-varda.html [cited 13 February 2023].


110.
Pulses.org. What are pulses? Available from: https://pulses.org/nap/what-are-pulses/ [cited 15 February 2023].


111.
Our World in Data. 2021. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/soy [cited 15 February 2023].


112.
Nemecek T, Baumgartner D. Environmental impacts of introducing grain legumes into European crop rotations and pig feed formulas. Concerted Action GL-Pro, Final report WP4. Switzerland: Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station (ART); 2006.


113.
Smil V. Nitrogen and food production: proteins for human diets. Ambio 2002; 31(2): 126–31. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-31.2.126


114.
Andersson A, Jansson A, Hellström A. The Swedish monitoring of pesticide residues in food of plant origIn: 2005. Uppsala: Livsmedelsverket; 2006.


115.
Jungbluth N, Demmeler M. LCA of imported agricultural products – impacts due to deforestation and burning of residues. LCA in foods; Gothenburg: SIK; 2005.


116.
Goldman E, Weisse MJ, Harris N, Schneider M. Estimating the role of seven commodities in agriculture-linked deforestation: oil palm, soy, cattle, wood fiber, cocoa, coffee, and rubber. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2020.


117.
Kuepper B, Stravens M. Mapping the European soy supply chain – embedded soy in animal products consumed in the EU27+UK. Amsterdam: Profundo; 2022.


118.
FAO. Agricultural production statistics 2000–2020. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief Series No. 41. Rome: Organization FAO; 2022. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/cb9180en/cb9180en.pdf [cited 1 May 2023].


119.
Harwatt H, Sabaté J, Eshel G, Soret S, Ripple W. Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets. Clim Change 2017; 143(1–2): 261–70. doi: 10.1007/s10584-017-1969-1


120.
Cooper H, Jennings S. Danish risky business: land use, deforestation and corruption from soy, timber, pulp and paper imports. Oxford: 3keel; 2020. Available from: https://www.3keel.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WWF-Denmark-Risky-Business-Summary-Report-design_final_23-January.pdf [cited 1 February 2023].


121.
Smithers R. UK’s first commercial crop of chickpeas harvested in Norfolk. The Guardian. 29 August 2019.


122.
Vogelsang-O’Dwyer M, Petersen IL, Joehnke MS, Sørensen JC, Bez J, Detzel A, et al. Comparison of faba bean protein ingredients produced using dry fractionation and isoelectric precipitation: techno-functional, nutritional and environmental performance. Foods 2020; 9(3): 322. doi: 10.3390/foods9030322


123.
Gonera A, Milford AB. The plant protein trend in Norway – market overview and future perspectives. Ås: Nofima, NIBIO; 2018.


124.
Abrahamsen U, Uhlen AK, Waalen WM, Stabbetorp H. Muligheter for økt proteinproduksjon på kornarealene. NIBIO Bok 2019; 5(1): 160–8.


125.
ScenoProt. Available from: https://projects.luke.fi/scenoprot/en/ [cited 1 June 2023].


126.
Leg4Life. Available from: https://www.leg4life.fi/en/project-info/ [cited 1 June 2023].


127.
Seehusen T, Uhlen AK. Analyses of yield gaps for the production of wheat and barley in Norway – potential to increase yields on existing farmland. NIBIO Rapport 2019; 5(166): 1–58.


128.
Röös E, Carlsson G, Ferawati F, Hefni M, Stephan A, Tidåker P, et al. Less meat, more legumes: prospects and challenges in the transition toward sustainable diets in Sweden. Renew Agric Food Syst 2018; 35(2): 192–205. doi: 10.1017/s1742170518000443


129.
Troell M, Jonell M, Crona B. The role of seafood in sustainable and healthy diets Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre, University of Stockholm; 2019.


130.
Our World in Data. Fish and Overfishing 2021. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/fish-and-overfishing#total-seafood-production-by-country [cited 1 November 2022].


131.
Winther U, Skontorp Hognes E, Jafarzadeh S, Ziegler F. Greenhouse gas emissions of Norwegian seafood products in 2017. Trondheim: SINTEF Ocean; 2020.


132.
Holm HC, Fredricks HF, Bent SM, Lowenstein DP, Ossolinski JE, Becker KW, et al. Global ocean lipidomes show a universal relationship between temperature and lipid unsaturation. Science 2022; 376(6600): 1487–91. doi: 10.1126/science.abn7455


133.
Gephart JA, Henriksson PJG, Parker RWR, Shepon A, Gorospe KD, Bergman K, et al. Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature 2021; 597(7876): 360–65. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2


134.
Sala E, Mayorga J, Bradley D, Cabral RB, Atwood TB, Auber A, et al. Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature 2021; 592(7854): 397–402. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z


135.
Ziegler F, Hilborn R. Fished or farmed: life cycle impacts of salmon consumer decisions and opportunities for reducing impacts. Sci Total Environ 2023; 854: 158591. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158591


136.
Silvenius F, Grönroos J, Kankainen M, Kurppa S, Mäkinen T, Vielma J. Impact of feed raw material to climate and eutrophication impacts of Finnish rainbow trout farming and comparisons on climate impact and eutrophication between farmed and wild fish. J Clean Product 2017; 164: 1467–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.069


137.
Bolstad GH, Karlsson S, Hagen IJ, Fiske P, Urdal K, Saegrov H, et al. Introgression from farmed escapees affects the full life cycle of wild Atlantic salmon. Sci Adv 2021; 7(52): eabj3397. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abj3397


138.
FAO. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020. Rome: FAO; 2020.


139.
Hiddink JG, Jennings S, Sciberras M, Szostek CL, Hughes KM, Ellis N, et al. Global analysis of depletion and recovery of seabed biota after bottom trawling disturbance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017; 114(31): 8301–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618858114


140.
Jørgensen LL, Planque B, Thangstad TH, Certain G. Vulnerability of megabenthic species to trawling in the Barents Sea. ICES J Marine Sci 2016; 73(suppl_1): i84–i97. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsv107


141.
Atwood TB, Connolly RM, Ritchie EG, Lovelock CE, Heithaus MR, Hays GC, et al. Predators help protect carbon stocks in blue carbon ecosystems. Nat Clim Change 2015; 5(12): 1038–45. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2763


142.
Lebreton L, Slat B, Ferrari F, Sainte-Rose B, Aitken J, Marthouse R, et al. Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Sci Rep 2018; 8(1): 4666. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22939-w


143.
Sprague M, Dick JR, Tocher DR. Impact of sustainable feeds on omega-3 long-chain fatty acid levels in farmed Atlantic salmon, 2006–2015. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 21892. doi: 10.1038/srep21892


144.
Ziegler F, Jafarzadeh S, Skontorp Hognes E, Winther U. Greenhouse gas emissions of Norwegian seafoods: from comprehensive to simplified assessment. J Indust Ecol 2021; 26(6): 1908–19. doi: 10.1111/jiec.13150


145.
Gullestad P, Blom G, Bakke G, Bogstad B. The “Discard Ban Package”: experiences in efforts to improve the exploitation patterns in Norwegian fisheries. Marine Policy 2015; 54: 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.025


146.
Borges L, Cocas L, Nielsen KN. Discard ban and balanced harvest: a contradiction? ICES J Marine Sci 2016; 73(6): 1632–39. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsw065


147.
Eurofish. Norway 2023. Available from: https://eurofish.dk/member-countries/norway/#:~:text=Approximately%2090%25%20of%20Norway%E2%80%99s%20catch%20volume%20comes%20from,Iceland%2C%20the%20Faroe%20Islands%2C%20Greenland%2C%20and%20the%20EU [cited 14 February 2023].


148.
The World Bank. Fish to 2030: prospects for fisheries and aquaculture (No. 83177). Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2013.


149.
Thorsøe MH, Andersen MS, Brady MV, Graversgaard M, Kilis E, Pedersen AB, et al. Promise and performance of agricultural nutrient management policy: lessons from the Baltic Sea. Ambio 2021; 51(1): 36–50. doi: 10.1007/s13280-021-01549-3


150.
Luthman O, Jonell M, Rönnbäck P, Troell M. Strong and weak sustainability in Nordic aquaculture policies. Aquaculture 2022; 550: 737841. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737841


151.
ICES. Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas 1–8 and 14, and in Division 9.a (Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters) 2022. Available from: https://ices-library.figshare.com/articles/report/Mackerel_Scomber_scombrus_in_subareas_1_8_and_14_and_in_Division_9_a_Northeast_Atlantic_and_adjacent_waters_/19772392?backTo=/collections/ICES_Advice_2022/5796935 [cited 1 June 2023].


152.
Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, et al. Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Rome: FAO; 2013.


153.
Torres-Miralles M, Särkelä K, Koppelmäki K, Lamminen M, Tuomisto HL, Herzon I. Contribution of high nature value farming systems to sustainable livestock production: a case from Finland. Sci Total Environ 2022; 839: 156267. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156267


154.
Petersen BM, Knudsen MT, Hermansen JE, Halberg N. An approach to include soil carbon changes in life cycle assessments. J Clean Product 2013; 52: 217–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.007


155.
Brown P, Cardenas L, Choudrie S, Del Vento S, Karagianni E, MacCarthy J. London, UK Greenhouse gas inventory, 1990 to 2019: annual report for submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. UK: Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy; 2021.


156.
Röös E, Ekelund L, Tjärnemo H. Communicating the environmental impact of meat production: challenges in the development of a Swedish meat guide. J Clean Product 2014; 73: 154–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.037


157.
Højberg A, Thodsen H, Børgesen C, Tornbjerg H, Nordstrøm B, Troldborg L, et al. National kvælstofmodel – version 2020. 2021. Available from: https://www.geus.dk/Media/637576521825668552/NKM2020_Bilag_18maj2021_web.pdf [cited 1 November 2022].


158.
Motarjemi SK, Styczen ME, Petersen RJ, Jensen KJS, Plauborg F. Effects of different drainage conditions on nitrogen losses of an agricultural sandy loam soil. J Environ Manage 2023; 325: 116267. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116267


159.
Heikkinen J, Ketoja E, Nuutinen V, Regina K. Declining trend of carbon in Finnish cropland soils in 1974–2009. Global Change Biol 2013; 19(5): 1456–69. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12137


160.
De Pue D, Bral A, Buysse J. Abatement of ammonia emissions from livestock housing fine-tuned according to impact on protected habitats. Agric Syst 2019; 176: 102667. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102667


161.
World Resources Institute. Estimating the role of seven commodities in agriculture-linked deforestation: oil palm, soy, cattle, wood fiber, cocoa, coffee, and rubber. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2020.


162.
Machovina B, Feeley KJ, Ripple WJ. Biodiversity conservation: the key is reducing meat consumption. Sci Total Environ 2015; 536: 419–31. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022


163.
Sun Z, Behrens P, Tukker A, Bruckner M, Scherer L. Global human consumption threatens key biodiversity areas. Environ Sci Technol 2022; 56(12): 9003–14. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c00506


164.
Filazzola A, Brown C, Dettlaff MA, Batbaatar A, Grenke J, Bao T, et al. The effects of livestock grazing on biodiversity are multi-trophic: a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 2020; 23(8): 1298–309. doi: 10.1111/ele.13527


165.
Hayek MN, Garrett RD. Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population. Environ Res Lett 2018; 13(8): 084005. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aad401


166.
United Nations Development Programme & Climate and Clean Air Coalition. Global Methane Assessment: benefits and costs of mitigating methane emissions. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; 2020.


167.
González-García S, Belo S, Dias AC, Rodrigues JV, Costa RRd, Ferreira A, et al. Life cycle assessment of pigmeat production: Portuguese case study and proposal of improvement options. J Clean Product 2015; 100: 126–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.048


168.
Noya I, Villanueva-Rey P, González-García S, Fernandez MD, Rodriguez MR, Moreira MT. Life Cycle Assessment of pig production: a case study in Galicia. J Clean Product 2017; 142: 4327–38. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.160


169.
Staalstrøm A, Walday MG, Vogelsang C, Frigstad H, Borgersen G, Albretsen J, et al. Utredning av behovet for å redusere tilførslene av nitrogen til Ytre Oslofjord. Oslo: NIVA; 2022.


170.
Hellsten S, Dalgaard T, Rankinen K, Tørseth K, Kulmala A, Turtola E, et al. Nordic nitrogen and agriculture Policy, measures and recommendations to reduce environmental impact. TemaNord. 2017; 547: 94. doi: 10.6027/TN2017-547


171.
Leip A, Billen G, Garnier J, Grizzetti B, Lassaletta L, Reis S, et al. Impacts of European livestock production: nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity. Environ Res Lett 2015; 10(11): 115004. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115004


172.
Dalgaard T, Hansen B, Hasler B, Hertel O, Hutchings NJ, Jacobsen BH, et al. Policies for agricultural nitrogen management – trends, challenges and prospects for improved efficiency in Denmark. Environ Res Lett 2014; 9(11): 115002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/115002


173.
Reuters. EU okays $1.61 billion for Dutch government to buy out farmers, reduce nitrogen 2023. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-okays-161-bln-dutch-govt-buy-out-farmers-reduce-nitrogen-2023-05-02/ [cited 15 May 2023].


174.
Boezeman D, de Pue D, Graversgaard M, Möckel S. Less Livestock in North-western Europe? Discourses and Drivers Behind Livestock Buyout Policies. EuroChoices 2023; 22(2): 4–12. doi: 10.1111/1746-692x.12399


175.
Hallström E, Davis J, Håkansson N, Ahlgren S, Åkesson A, Wolk A, et al. Dietary environmental impacts relative to planetary boundaries for six environmental indicators – a population-based study. J Clean Product 2022; 373: 133949. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133949


176.
Tiainen J, Hyvönen T, Hagner M, Huusela-Veistola E, Louhi P, Miettinen A, et al. Biodiversity in intensive and extensive grasslands in Finland: the impacts of spatial and temporal changes of agricultural land use. Agric Food Sci 2020; 29(2): 68–97. doi: 10.23986/afsci.86811


177.
Bengtsson J, Bullock JM, Egoh B, Everson C, Everson T, O’Connor T, et al. Grasslands – more important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere 2019; 10(2): e02582. doi: 10.1002/ecs2.2582


178.
Sveriges Miljömål. Betesmarker och slåtterängar. Available from: https://www.sverigesmiljomal.se/miljomalen/ett-rikt-odlingslandskap/betesmarker-och-slatterangar/ [cited 5 June 2023].


179.
Karlsson J. Livestock as resource users and landscape managers: a food systems perspective. Doctoral thesis. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2022.


180.
Chang J, Ciais P, Gasser T, Smith P, Herrero M, Havlik P, et al. Climate warming from managed grasslands cancels the cooling effect of carbon sinks in sparsely grazed and natural grasslands. Nat Commun 2021; 12(1): 118. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20406-7


181.
Insights on European uptake of responsible, deforestation and conversion-free soy in 2020: IDH; 2022. Available from: https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/publication/european-soy-monitor-2020/ [cited 15 February 2023].


182.
Schilling-Vacaflor A, Lenschow A, Challies E, Cotta B, Newig J. Contextualizing certification and auditing: soy certification and access of local communities to land and water in Brazil. World Dev. 2021; 140: 105281. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105281


183.
Future in our hands & Rainforest Foundation Norway. Salmon on soy beans – deforestation and land conflict in Brazil. Oslo: Rainforest Foundation Norway and Future in Our Hands Framtiden i våre hender; 2018.


184.
Haskell C. Environmental advantages and potential of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) cultivation in Norway, with a special focus on C and N inventory. Ås: Norwegian University of Life Sciences; 2022.


185.
Faba bean production under Norwegian growing conditions: FoodProFuture; 2020. Available from: https://foodprofuture.no/2020/05/28/faba-bean-production-under-norwegian-growing-conditions/ [cited 15 February 2023].


186.
Ancient riddle solved: Danish researchers find a way to make faba beans safe for all to eat: Copenhagen Plant Science Centre; 2021. Available from: https://cpsc.ku.dk/news/ancient-riddle-solved-danish-researchers-find-a-way-to-make-faba-beans-safe-for-all-to-eat/ [cited 15 February 2023].


187.
Arnalds O, Gudmundsson J. Loftslag, kolefni og mold. Agricultural University of Iceland; 2020. Available from: https://www.lbhi.is/images/pdf/utgefid%20efni/fjolrit%20rannsoknastofnunar%20landbunadarins/rit_lbhi_nr_133_ok.pdf [cited 15 February 2023].


188.
Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Henriksson M, Sund V, Davis J. Greenhouse gas emissions from Swedish production of meat, milk and eggs 1990 and 2005. SIK report no 793. Lund: Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology; 2009.


189.
Soja i fodret till våra husdjur: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; 2001. Available from: https://www.slu.se
Published
2024-10-30
How to Cite
Harwatt , H., Benton , T. G., Bengtsson , J., Birgisdóttir , B. E., Brown , K. A., van Dooren , C., Erkkola , M., Graversgaard , M., Halldorsson , T., Hauschild , M., Høyer-Lund , A., Meinilä , J., van Oort , B., Saarinen , M., Tuomisto , H. L., Trolle , E., Ögmundarson , O., & Blomhoff , R. (2024). Environmental sustainability of food production and consumption in the Nordic and Baltic region – a scoping review for Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023. Food & Nutrition Research, 68. https://doi.org/10.29219/fnr.v68.10539
Section
Nordic Nutrition Recommendations

Most read articles by the same author(s)