Browsing by Author "Tuomisto, Hanna L."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Incorporation of novel foods in European diets can reduce global warming potential, water use and land use by over 80%
(2022-04) Mazac, Rachel; Meinilä, Jelena; Korkalo, Liisa; Järviö, Natasha; Jalava, Mika; Tuomisto, Hanna L.
A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
Global food systems face the challenge of providing healthy and adequate nutrition through sustainable means, which is exacerbated by climate change and increasing protein demand by the world's growing population. Recent advances in novel food production technologies demonstrate potential solutions for improving the sustainability of food systems. Yet, diet-level comparisons are lacking and are needed to fully understand the environmental impacts of incorporating novel foods in diets. Here we estimate the possible reductions in global warming potential, water use and land use by replacing animal-source foods with novel or plant-based foods in European diets. Using a linear programming model, we optimized omnivore, vegan and novel food diets for minimum environmental impacts with nutrition and feasible consumption constraints. Replacing animal-source foods in current diets with novel foods reduced all environmental impacts by over 80% and still met nutrition and feasible consumption constraints. The environmental impacts of more sustainable diets vary across regions. Using linear optimization, this study compares the reductions of global warming potential, water use and land use associated with the replacement of animal-sourced foods with novel or plant-based foods in European diets. Three diet types were considered to meet nutritional adequacy and consumption constraints.
Review and expert survey of allocation methods used in life cycle assessment of milk and beef
(2022-02) Kyttä, Venla; Roitto, Marja; Astaptsev, Aleksi; Saarinen, Merja; Tuomisto, Hanna L.
A2 Katsausartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
Purpose: Beef and dairy production systems produce several by-products, such as fertilizers, bioenergy, hides, and pet foods, among which the environmental impacts arising from production should be allocated. The choice of allocation method therefore inevitably affects the results of life cycle assessment (LCA) for milk and beef. The aims of this study were to map out the different allocation methods used in dairy and beef LCA studies and to clarify the rationale for selecting a certain method. Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify the different allocation methods used in LCA studies of milk and beef production and the products using beef by-products as a raw material. The justifications for the use of different methods in the studies were also collected. To map out the perspectives of LCA practitioners and further clarify the reasoning behind the use of certain allocation methods, a mixed method survey with quantitative questions and qualitative explanatory fields was sent to the authors included in the literature review. Results and discussion: The literature review showed that the most commonly used allocation method between milk and meat was biophysical allocation, which is also the recommended method in LCA guidelines of milk production. Economic allocation was the second most common method, although the rationale for using economic allocation was weak. By-products, such as inedible body parts, were not considered in milk studies and were taken into account in only a small number of beef studies. This might be because most of the studies have cradle-to-farm gate system boundaries. According to the survey, a significantly higher share of LCA practitioners would allocate impacts also to these by-products. Conclusions: The allocation is usually done between milk and meat, and other by-products are not taken into account. Since these materials are an unavoidable part of production and there are numerous uses for them, these outputs should be recognized as products and also taken into consideration in LCA studies.
Selected social impact indicators influenced by materials for green energy technologies
(2024-10-29) Rahimpour, Saeed; El-Wali, Mohammad; Makarava, Iryna; Tuomisto, Hanna L.; Lundström, Mari; Kraslawski, Andrzej
A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
The social risks of green energy transition are underexplored. One of the important questions is which materials used in green energy technologies offer the greatest social benefits, such as ensuring decent living conditions, and which pose the most social risks. To address this issue, we develop a dynamic material-energy flow model integrating system dynamics, social life cycle assessment, and geometallurgical approaches. The analysis focuses on critical materials: Rare Earth Elements, Nickel, Silicon, Graphite, Magnesium, Gallium, Germanium, Indium, Aluminum, Cobalt, Lithium, Zinc, and Tellurium used in wind turbines, electric vehicles, lithium-ion batteries and solar photovoltaic panels. We assess their social impact on work safety, gender equality, informal employment, labor income share, employment rate, and child labor—key issues addressed by Sustainable Development Goals 1, 5, and 8. Here we show that Aluminum production for electric vehicles, wind turbines and solar photovoltaic panels generates the most jobs and income opportunities, while extraction of Cobalt, Lithium, Silicon, and Zinc carry the highest social risks.
Transition to cellular agriculture reduces agriculture land use and greenhouse gas emissions but increases demand for critical materials
(2024-01-31) El Wali, Mohammad; Rahimpour Golroudbary, Saeed; Kraslawski, Andrzej; Tuomisto, Hanna L.
A1 Alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä aikakauslehdessä
Cellular agriculture, that is, the production of cultured meat and microbial proteins, has been developed to provide food security for a growing world population. The use of green energy technologies is recommended to ensure the sustainability of changing traditional agriculture to a cellular one. Here, we use a global dynamic model and life-cycle assessment to analyze scenarios of replacing traditional livestock products with cellular agriculture from 2020 to 2050. Our findings indicate that a transition to cellular agriculture by 2050 could reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 52%, compared to current agriculture emissions, reduce demand for phosphorus by 53%, and use 83% less land than traditional agriculture. A maximum 72% replacement of livestock products with cellular agriculture using renewable energy is possible based on the 2050 regional green energy capacities. A complete transition can be achieved but requires 33% of the global green energy capacities in 2050. Further, the accelerated demand for critical materials will not exceed their primary production capacities, except for tellurium. We conclude that a transition to cellular agriculture is possible with environmental benefits and provide a benchmark to study different alternatives to animal-based diets.