Lca PDF

Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041 www.elsevier.
com/locate/agsy
Assessing the sustainability of the US food system: a life cycle perspective

Martin C. Heller* and Gregory A. Keoleian
Center for Sustainable Systems, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 430 East University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115, USA Accepted 15 March 2002
Abstract The US food system, from eld to table, is at a crossroads for change. Improving the sustainability of this complex system requires a thorough understanding of the relationships between food consumption behaviors, processing and distribution activities, and agricultural production practices. A product life cycle approach provides a useful framework for studying the links between societal needs, the natural and economic processes involved in meeting these needs, and the associated environmental consequences. The ultimate goal is to guide the development of system-based solutions. This paper presents a broad set of indicators covering the life cycle stages of the food system. Indicators address economic, social, and environmental aspects of each life cycle stage: origin of (genetic) resource; agricultural growing and production; food processing, packaging and distribution; preparation and consumption; and end of life. The paper then oers an initial critical review of the condition of the US food system by considering trends in the various indicators. Current trends in a number of indicators threaten the long-term economic, social, and environmental sustainability of the US food system. Key trends include: rates of agricultural land conversion, income and protability from farming, degree of food industry consolidation, fraction of edible food wasted, diet related health costs, legal status of farmworkers, age distribution of farmers, genetic diversity, rate of soil loss and groundwater withdrawal, and fossil fuel use intensity. We suggest that eective opportunities to enhance the sustainability of the food system exist in changing consumption behavior, which will have compounding benets across agricultural production, distribution and food disposition stages. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Sustainability indicators; Food production and consumption; Social; Economic; Environmental assessment
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-734-764-1412; fax: +1-734-647-5841. E-mail address: css.info@umich.edu (M.C. Heller). 0308-521X/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0308-521X(02)00027-6
1008
M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041
1. Introduction Agricultural practices in the United States, as in much of the world, have changed dramatically over the past century. Today, farmers account for less than one percent of the US population yet still manage to adequately feed and clothe America while exporting some $50000 million in agricultural goods, more than six times (in real dollar value) what they did in 1940 (Hoag, 1999). The unprecedented yield increases of the Green Revolution era, however, were not gained without cost to environmental health. Similarly, industrial-model consolidation within agriculture and food processing in the US has had a profound aect on the socioeconomic face of the nation, especially in rural areas. Numerous indicators show that US agriculture is in a state of major transition: farms continue to grow in size while the number of farm operators decrease; the average age of farmers is on the rise; alternative methods of production, from biotechnology to organic, rally for broader acceptance. Today, agriculture is challenged by a paradigm shift from an emphasis on perpetual gains in productivity to one that embraces the concept of sustainability. Yet, despite more than a decade of developing and rening in the literature and broad use of the term, a widely accepted, pragmatic denition of sustainable agriculture does not exist (Hansen, 1996; Lewandowski et al., 1999; Sands and Podmore, 2000). Among those contributing to the development of a sustainable agriculture concept, including the US Department of Agriculture (USDA, 1996), there tends to be agreement that an appraisal of sustainability should integrate economic, social and environmental dimensions. Assessments of agricultures sustainability have ranged from focused indicators such as soil quality (e.g. Papendick and Parr, 1992 and accompanying special issue articles) to broader environmental indicators (Hess et al., 2000; Lewandowski et al., 1999; OECD, 2000; Sands and Podmore, 2000; Sulser et al., 2001) to the development of a more comprehensive set of social, economic, and environmental indicators (e.g. Reganold et al., 2001; Miranda, 2001). These eorts to assess sustainability in agriculture have centered on the supply side of agricultural production and have largely neglected the consumption patterns that comprise the balance of a food system. In general, a sustainable system is one that can be maintained at a certain state or quality on a long-term time horizon. This quality of the system can often be evaluated by following trends in certain indicators. When addressing sustainability, it is critical to keep in mind the ultimate societal need that is met by the system in question: in agriculture this is to provide necessary food and ber. The long-term future of agricultural production, therefore, can not be assessed without consideration of the consumption patterns and processes that drive production. In other words, a sustainable food system must simultaneously address production and consumption impacts and demands. A life cycle framework oers a systematic means of linking production and consumption. This paper introduces a set of economic, social and environmental indicators developed through a life cycle approach. It then provides an initial assessment of the US food system by examining trends with respect to these indicators.
1009
2. Framework and scope Life cycle assessment (LCA) is an analytical method used to evaluate the resource consumption and environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or activity (ISO, 1997). LCA provides a systems-based accounting of material and energy inputs and outputs at all stages of the life cycle: acquisition of raw materials, production, processing, packaging, use, and retirement. While the standard LCA method has been applied mainly to manufactured products, methodological challenges and bottlenecks arising in agricultural product aplications have been addressed by researchers (Sleeswijk et al., 1996; VITO, 1996, 1998), and the numbers of LCAs evaluating agricultural and food production processes are increasing (Andersson and Ohlsson, 1999; Moller et al., 1996; Sheehan et al., 1998; Wang et al., 1997). Even though a comprehensive LCA of the food system is not currently possible, using a life cycle framework does provide a systematic basis for developing indicators. Table 1 presents the full matrix of proposed sustainability indicators. The rows represent major stages of the food system; indicators for each stage are categorized into the triad of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. In many incidences, this division is somewhat arbitrary since particular indicators often address more than one aspect of sustainability. The divisions presented in Table 1 are maintained throughout the paper primarily for organizational purposes. Also identied in Table 1 are the primary stakeholders involved or inuential in each stage of the food system. Important in any systems-based assessment is a clear denition of the system boundaries observed. In this assessment, the system boundary considered is the food system of the US. Thus, while ber and other biomass production can be a signicant part of US agriculture, the focus here is on food productionproviding human sustenance. Given the national average level of much of the data used, however, the disaggregation of food from other agricultural production is not completely possible. Similarly, it is extremely dicult to establish rigorous geographic boundaries around the US food system: US exports and imports of agricultural products are both signicant. To be complete, many indicators should be corrected for agricultural trade ratios: this has not been attempted here. Furthermore, national balances on resource inputs such as fossil fuels also factor into an overall assessment of sustainability. For example, the US economy, including the food system, relies increasingly on imports of fossil energy sources (EIA, 2001a). Reversing this trend through the development of domestic renewable energies would likely increase energy costs and also create greater demand for US agricultural land, given the area intensity of biomass and other renewable sources. In this paper, however, we do not directly address the interplay between the food system and other elements of the US economy. The role of US agriculture in international relations and economies should also be considered in a rigorous assessment of the food system. Such discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Population and carrying capacity are key parameters in assessing the sustainability of the US food system. World population is currently growing at a rate of 1.2% and is expected to reach 9.3 billion
1010
Table 1 Life Cycle Sustainability Indicators for the Food System

Life cycle stage Stakeholders Indicators
Economic Origin of (genetic) resourceseed production, animal breeding Farmers Breeders Seed companies Degree of farmer/operator control of seed production/ breeding
Social Diversity in seed purchasing and seed collecting options Degree of cross-species manipulation
Environmental Ratio of naturally pollinated plants to genetically modied/ hybrid plants per acre Reproductive ability of plant or animal % of disease resistant organisms Rate of soil loss vs. regeneration Soil microbial activity, balance of nutrients/acre Quantity of chemical inputs/ unit of production Air pollutants/ unit of production Number of species/acre Water withdrawal vs. recharge rates No. of comtaminated or eutrophic bodies of surface water or groundwater % Waste utilized as a resource Energy input/ unit of production Ratio of renewable to non-renewable energy Portion of harvest lost due to pests, diseases
Agricultural growing and production
Farm operators Farm workers Ag. industry Ag. schools Government Animals
Rates of agricultural land conversion % Return on investment Cost of entry to business Farmer savings and insurance plans Flexibility in bank loan requirements to foster environmentally sustainable practices Level of govt support
Average age of farmers Diversity and structure of industry, size of farms, no. farms per capita Hours of labor/yield and/income Avg. farm wages vs. other professions No. of legal laborers on farms, ratio of migrant workers to local laborers, % Workers with health benets. No. of active agrarian community organizations % of ag. schools that oer sustainable ag. programs, encourage sustainable practices No. animals/unit, time animals spend outdoors (animal welfare)
(continued on next page)
Table 1 (continued) Life cycle stage Stakeholders Indicators
Economic Food processing, packaging and distribution Food processors Packaging providers Wholesalers Retailers Relative prots received by farmer vs. processor vs. retailer
Social Quality of life and worker satisfaction in food processing industry
Environmental Energy requirement for processing, packaging and transportation Waste produced/ unit of food % of waste and by products utilized in food processing industry % of food lost due to spoilage/ mishandling Energy use in preparation, storage, refrigeration Packaging waste/ calories consumed Ratio of local vs. non-local and seasonal vs. non seasonal consumption
Preparation and consumption
Consumers Food service Nutritionists/ Health professionals
Geographic proximity of grower, processor, packager, retailer Portion of consumer disposable income spent on food
Nutritional value of food product Food safety Rates of malnutrition Rates of obesity disease/conditions Health costs from diet related Balance of average diet % of products with consumer labels Degree of consumer literacy regarding food system consequences, product quality vs. appearance, etc. Time for food preparation Ratio of (edible) food wasted vs. donated to food gatherers
% of food dollar spent outside the home
End of life
Consumers Waste managers Food recovery & gleaning orgs
Ratio of food wasted to food consumed in the US $ Spent on food disposal
Amount of food waste composted vs. sent to landll/ incinerator/ waste water treatment
1011
1012
by 2050, while the US population is growing at a rate of 1.05% (UN, 2001). Population growth imposes additional stress on the system and there is an increasing recognition of the population limits (carrying capacity) that can be sustained by the biophysical system. The present analysis, however, does not directly explore such population dynamics. The assessment of the life cycle food system is conducted at a national scale, providing a directional overview of the sustainability of the US food system. Thus, while there can be signicant regional and temporal variations in indicators, this assessment oers the general direction in which the country as a whole is progressing. Some of the indicators presentedfor example, soil microbial activity per acre or quantity of chemical inputs per unit of productionmay be more appropriately evaluated at a regional or farm level when data are available.
3. Indicator assessment 3.1. Origin of resource Origin of resource here refers to the practices of seed production and animal breeding that are the raw materials for the food we consume. 3.1.1. Economic The control of genetic resources has undergone numerous social and cultural changes over the course of agricultural history, with recent shifts to legal, patent-like control of plant genetic resources. The US has three separate intellectual property systems that cover plants. The 1930 Plant Patent Act provides protection for new varieties of asexually produced plants. The 1970 Plant Variety Protection Act provides breeders with rights over the production, marketing, and sale of new varieties of sexually reproduced plants. In 1985, the US Patent and Trademark Oce began issuing utility patents for all plant innovations that met the standard industrial patenting criteria of novelty, utility and non-obviousness. The advent of biotechnology in agriculture has greatly increased the plant utility patent application rate as companies search for the strongest proprietary protection possible for their transgenic plants. Patent claims are often broad, covering entire species or even specic traits. The result has been sweeping patent claims of many food and industrial crops. For example, the company DNA Plant Technology claims ownership of all transgenic pepper plants (genus Capsicum) (Engler et al., 1993); Calgene Inc. has patented all genetically engineered plants of the Brassica family (Moloney and Radke, 1998); Escagenics holds patents on all transgenic coee plants (Adams and Zarowitz, 1994). 3.1.2. Social Like numerous other segments of the food system, the seed industry has undergone major restructuring and consolidation in recent years. According to a study conducted by the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) in 1998, the top 10 companies now control 32% of the $23,000 million in global commercial
1013
seed trade (RAFI, 1999). In certain markets, this consolidation is much higher: 40% of US vegetable seeds come from a single source while the top ve vegetable seed companies control 75% of the global vegetable seed market; 69% of the North American seed corn market is controlled by four companies (RAFI, 1999). While it is dicult to place a clear cut-o for the breakdown of competitive markets due to market concentration, a four-rm market concentration ratio (the market share of the four largest rms) of 40% is often adopted as a rule of thumb for the onset of oligopoly markets (OSullivan and Sherin, 1998; Scherer, 1971). Such market concentration places decision making for new products, adoption of new technologies, and prices in the hands of a few rms. It reduces farmers access to diverse genetic resource options and often leads to the elimination of seed varieties specialized for local conditions. Most genetically modied seed products have been granted utility patents, which introduces a level of legal control of genetic resources not previously available under Plant Variety Protection legislation. In addition, various companies are developing technology protection systems or genetic use restriction technology, genetically engineering plants to produce sterile seed or to require the use of an external chemical trigger to turn on or o a plants genetic traits. Such techniques create genetic control of genetic resources, providing some degree of genetic drift control but also preventing seed-saving. In 1998, Delta and Pine Land Seed Co. (D&PL) and the USDA patented the original sterile seed technology, now notoriously known as the Terminator. Despite immense worldwide attention and disapproval from farmers, governments, and NGOs, D&PL, along with the US Department of Agriculture, is continuing with development of Terminator technology (Kaiser, 2000; RAFI, 2000). 3.1.3. Environmental In addition to the social and economic consolidation prevalent in the seed industry, modern agricultural systems have also become increasingly genetically uniform. Only 1020 crops provide 8090% of the worlds calories (Brown, 1981). In the US, 42% of the soybeans, 43% of the corn, and 38% of the wheat grown in 1980 were dominated by the top six varieties (Duvick, 1984). Often, these varieties originate from an even smaller genetic base. For example, the hundreds of corn hybrids grown in the US are largely based on about 12 inbred lines that originated from a few open-pollinated varieties of a single race (although there are some 200 known races of corn) (Soule et al., 1990). Repeated warnings have been sounded from the research community about the extreme vulnerability associated with this limited genetic diversity (CAST, 1999; Wood and Lenne, 1999). Lack of biodiversity in crops leads to pest and disease susceptibility (Altieri, 1994; Brown, 1983; National Research Council, 1972). Recent large-scale trials in China demonstrated that mixing varieties of rice within a eld signicantly reduced the spread of a major fungal disease (Wolfe, 2000). Insucient crop genetic diversity led to the corn leaf blight in southern US in 1970 (CAST, 1999) and is partly responsible for outbreaks of Fusarium head blight in wheat and barley in the Red River Valley of Minnesota and the Dakotas (McMullan et al., 1997). Whats more, the forces driving genetic uniformity also lead to abandonment and loss of locally adapted varieties that are the
1014
necessary resources to meeting future plant breeding challenges. The highly specialized nature of intensive livestock production has driven similar trends towards genetic uniformity in domestic animals, made increasingly possible through reproductive technologies such as articial insemination, embryo transfer, in vitro fertilization, and now, cloning. The rate of adoption of genetically engineered (GE) crops has been the highest of any new agricultural technology (James, 1999). The major GE crops include soybeans, corn, cotton, rapeseed, and potatoes. Globally, the acreage planted to GE crops has risen from 1.7 million hectares (ha) in 1996 to 52.6 million ha in 2001. In the US alone, which leads global acreage of GE crops with 68% of the 2001 total, acreage has grown from 1.5 million ha in 1996 to 35.7 million in 2001 (James, 2001). This represents about 27% of US cropland. The current generation of pest-resistant and herbicide-tolerant GE crops have the potential to reduce chemical inputs and improve yields (US Senate Science Committee, 2000), as well as provide farmers with more forgiving pest management options. Yet, the environmental risks and benets of GE crops remain highly contested (Benbrook, 2001; Obrycki et al., 2001; Pretty, 2001; Wolfenbarger and Phifer, 2000), and must not be generalized but considered on an individual application and product basis (Pretty, 2001). Perhaps of greater concern is whether current biotechnological approaches can oer a systemsbased preventative solution to challenges in agriculture or will instead continue the therapeutic approach of addressing symptoms rather than the underlying problems (Benbrook, 2001; Lewis et al., 1997; Pretty, 2001). 3.2. Agricultural growing and production This stage encompasses what is typically considered farming. 3.2.1. Economic The land available for agriculture is an important indicator of its stability. According to the National Resources Conservation Service, cropland and pastureland (including CRP land) totaled 213.4 million ha in 1997, a 5% decrease from 1982 (NRCS, 1999). Cropland and pastureland (5.7 million ha) were converted to urban or built-up land over this 15-year period, amounting to over 50% of the decrease. A study conducted by the American Farmland Trust demonstrates that development has been occurring disproportionately on high quality farmland (Sorensen et al., 1997). The total US conversion of prime farmland to urban or built-up land between 1982 and 1992 translates into 18.5 ha every hour over those 10 years. An additional 108,000 ha (1.2 ha every hour) of unique farmland (soil and climatic conditions suitable for production of specic high-value food and ber crops) was also lost to development (Sorensen et al., 1997). As prime farmland is being developed, less stable non-prime farmland in arid regions is being added to the base, leading to increased erosion rates and irrigation demands (Harlin, 1995). Conventional economic measures of productivity demonstrate an increasing trend in the agricultural sector. The US Department of Agriculture reports an average annual growth in productivity of 1.89% from 1948 to 1996. This growth in productivity is
1015
attributed to investments in research and development, extension, education and infrastructure development (ERS, 2000b). Industrialization of agriculture has made production extremely capital intensive, leading to high cost of entry. An estimated $500,000 in assets is needed to support a farm household (ERS, 2000a). This, combined with return on investment considerably lower than can be received in other business ventures, is contributing to declining numbers of young farmers. Rates of return on farm business equity in 1998 were reported at 2.15%, and have averaged 0.3% since 1980 (3.8% since 1990) (ERS, 2000c). Some assistance programs have been initiated to help young farmers gain entry. For example, the Agricultural Credit Improvement Act of 1992 created a beginning farmer down payment farm ownership loan program and required USDAs Farm Service Agency to target a percentage of its farm operating and farm ownership loans to beginning farmers and ranchers (ERS, 2000a). Providing inexpensive food for Americans has long been a central tenet in US agricultural policy. Yet, as food processing, handling, and marketing have increased, the farmer has received smaller and smaller portions of the American food bill. USDA estimates that the farmers gross return on a consumers dollar spent on food in 1998 was 20 cents [(Elitzak, 1999a); in 1975 it was 40 cents (Elitzak, 1999b)]. The remaining 80% of the food bill is distributed among marketing labor, packaging, advertising and other categories (see Table 2). Indeed, the farm-to-retail price spreadthe price dierence between what consumers pay for food and what farmers receivehas been steadily increasing since the 1950s. The 1997 farm-to-retail price spread for a market basket of foods increased 4.7% over 1996 values. In this same year, farmers received 4.4% less for the food they produced (Elitzak, 1999b). Table 3 demonstrates the production costs and returns for a few agricultural commodities. Rising costs of production and falling commodity prices in recent years have led to negative net economic returns in major commodities. The returns are indicative of the general trends experienced in US agricultural production since
Table 2 Percent breakdown of what a dollar spent on food in 1999 paid for (USDA, 2000a) Farm value Marketing bill (total) Labor Packaging Transportation Energy Prots Advertising Depreciation Rent Interest (net) Repairs Business taxes Other costs 20 80 39 8.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 2.5 1.5 3.5 2.5
1016
Table 3 US average production costs and returns for various agricultural commodities (ERS, 2000d) Value of production less operating costsa 1996 Corn ($/planted acre) Soybeans ($/planted acre) Wheat ($/planted acre) Hogs ($/hundredweight gain)
a b
Value of production less total costsa,b 1999 77.21 101.67 43.27 6.15 1996 19.40 22.59 28.19 12.76 1997 28.92 32.94 49.45 7.65 1998 96.58 24.39 50.92 11.10 1999 130.60 71.02 72.65 12.77
1997 172.56 199.31 33.17 11.70
1998 108.57 143.85 56.86 8.27
212.39 129.56 56.83 7.03
Value of production excludes direct government payments. Total costs include operating costs plus various allocated overhead such as opportunity cost of unpaid labor and land, capital recovery of machinery and equipment, and taxes and insurance.
the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act eectively withdrew all price stabilization and price support programs (Doering, 1999). Nearly half (48%) of all farms reported a negative net cash return (net loss) in 1997. This may be an increasing trend: in 1987, 43% of farms had net losses and in 1992 it was 44%. Ninety-two percent of the farms reporting losses in 1997 were relatively small, with sales worth less than $50,000 (USDA, 1999a). Still, farm households in the US receive incomes on par with average US households. The 1997 average household income for farm operator households was $52,300. However, 89% of this household income comes from o-farm sources (USDA, 1999b). Indeed, 50% of farm operators in 1996 reported that farming was not their principal occupation (USDA, 1999a). Government payments to farmers have been rising sharply in more recent years. Government payments in 1999 and 2000 reached $21,500 million and $22,900 million, respectively, two consecutive years of record high payments (ERS, 2001). This is a nearly three-fold increase in assistance payments over the 3-year period from 1996 to 1999. About 35% of the direct government payments in 1997 went to the less than 7% of total farms that have sales greater than $250,000 (USDA, 1999b). The top 20% of government payment recipients received 84% of the payments from 1996 to 2000 (Environmental Working Group, 2002). 3.2.2. Social The social demographics of US farms have changed signicantly over the past 50 years. The general trends have been towards fewer numbers of larger farms (see Table 4). Yet, these average statistics do not reveal the full extent of farm consolidation. When classied by the total value of gross farm sales, the trend towards very large farms becomes more clear. In 1997, 3.6% of the farms had market value of over $500,000 of agricultural products; these large farms averaged 1066 ha, controlled 56.6% of the total market value, and used 19.4% of the total land in farms. On the other hand, 73.6% of farms sold less than $50,000 worth of agricultural products, constituted only 6.8% of the total 1997 sold product value and worked 28% of the farmland (USDA, 1999a). To put it another way, 9.5% of the farms and
M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041 Table 4 Number and size of farms in the US by year 1998a,d Number of farms (in 1000) Land in farms (in 1000 ha) Average farm size (ha) Farmland per capitac (ha/person)
a b
1017
1988a,d 2201 402,429 183 1.6
1974b,d 2314 411,578 178 1.9
1950b,e 5388 470,011 87.4 3.1
2192 385,976 176 1.4
USDA (1999b). US Department of Commerce (1977). c population statistics from (FAO 1999). d Since 1974, the denition of a farm used by the Census of Agriculture has been Any place from which $1000 or more of agricultural products were produced or sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census year. (USDA, 1999a). e To qualify as a farm in the 1950 Census, a place of three acres or more had to produce $150 worth of agricultural products for home use or sale. If less than three acres, $150 worth of agricultural products had to be produced for sale only.
38% of farmland account for three-quarters of the market value of agricultural products sold (USDA, 1999a). The farms that sold over $500,000 in products averaged $373,730 in net cash return (sales less expenses). Those selling less than $50,000 in products averaged a net loss in cash return of $850 (USDA, 1999a). Individuals, families or partnerships own the vast majority of farmsalmost 95%and the remaining are primarily family held corporations. Yet, the average incorporated farm is over four times larger (on an acreage basis) than the average family farm. An increasing trend of contractual agreements between producers and both suppliers of inputs and buyers of agricultural outputs presents additional changes in the organizational structure of agricultural production. Nearly one third of the crops and livestock produced by American farmers was grown or sold under contract in 1997 (ERSUSDA, 1999). Often under production contracts, the farmer does not own the commodity in question and agrees to particular production management conditions. Contractual arrangements are often praised as opportunities for farmers to reduce risks of price swings, share production costs, and secure income. Such opportunities must be considered in light of the growing consolidation within the food system, and among the buyers who are oering contracts with farmers. Fig. 1 shows the four rm concentration ratio for a number of agricultural markets. Many of the big buyers of US agricultural productsbeef packers, our milling, soybean crushingare highly concentrated by this indicator. The potential for non-competitive market control is exacerbated by contractual agreements, which, in many cases, also limit a farmers ability to make management choices that benet the local environmental, social, and economic condition. Vertical integration in the food system puts additional strain on market competition as the same rm or associated clusters of rms are engaged in production inputs, commodity purchasing, and food processing. Another prominent trend on Americas farms is the growing age of farm operators. According to the Census of Agriculture, the average age of farm operators in
1018
Fig. 1. Four rm concentration ratios for selected agricultural markets. Data from Heernan et al. (1999).
1997 was 54.3 years, and 61% of the operators were 55 and over. In 1954, only 37% of farmers were 55 and over. Comparatively, 11.7% of the civilian labor force was age 55 or above in 1997 (18% in 1954) (ERS, 2000a). Twenty percent of farm operators considered themselves retired in 1996, and the farms they operated averaged a negative income (USDA, 1998). While US agriculture has typically been characterized by older operators, there is a clear trend developing in the age of farmers. This trend is exacerbated by fewer young farmers: the percentage of farmers under 35 years of age dropped from 15% in 1954 to 7.8% in 1997 (ERS, 2000a). Farm labor has dropped signicantly over the past 50 years, from 9.9 million in 1950 to 2.8 million in 1998 (USDA, 1999b). Family workers, whether farm operators, paid, or unpaid workers, accounted for 69% of the farm labor in 1998, the remainder being hired farmworkers. The average wage rate for hired farmworkers was $7.47 per hour in 1998 (USDA, 1999b). This can be compared with 1998 average wage rates in other private industries that also involve hard labor: mining, $16.91; construction, $16.61; manufacturing, $13.49; food and kindred products, $11.80 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000) About 17% of hired farmworkers (those that do farm work for cash wages or salary) were less than 20 years old and over half (52%) were under 35, compared with 6 and 43% of all wage and salary workers, respectively (Runyan, 1998b). Fiftyseven percent had not completed high school, compared with 14% of all wage and salary workers. While nearly a tenth of all wage and salary workers were Hispanic in
1019
1996, this proportion grows to 36% of hired farmworkers. About three-quarters of Hispanic farmworkers were not US citizens. Overall, 28.4% of hired farmworkers were not US citizens, compared with 7% of all wage and salary workers (Runyan, 1998b). The current H2A guestworker program allows aliens to enter the US to perform seasonal agricultural labor, given that growers demonstrate to the Department of Labor that American workers are unavailable. Cumbersome paperwork and rigid requirements, however, drive many workers to enter illegally. The most recent National Agricultural Workers Survey conducted by the US Department of Labor estimated that, as of scal year 1998, 52% of the agricultural labor force lacked legal authorization to work (Mehta et al., 2000). Given the tight US labor market and low prices received for agricultural commodities, many US farmers, especially those growing delicate fruits and vegetables that require hand harvesting, are dependent on cheap, illegal migrant labor to harvest their crops. Farming has one of the highest work-related fatality rates of all occupations, according to the US Department of Labor (Runyan, 1998a). Farmers also face greater health risks from pesticides than the average population. 2,4-D and other chlorophenoxy herbicides have been implicated in cancer mortalities in wheat producing counties in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana (Schreinemachers, 2000). Studies showing that farmers appear to experience an excess of several cancers (lymphatic and hematopoietic system, connective tissue, lip, skin, brain, prostate, and stomach) as well as other chronic diseases have become the impetus for a federally funded, cross-agency Agricultural Health Study (National Cancer Institute, 1999). 3.2.3. Environmental The National Resources Inventory of the USDA (1999b) reports that 1700 megatonnes (Mt=million metric tonnes) of soil eroded from US land in 1997, 760 Mt from wind and 960 Mt from sheet and rill (caused by water) (NRCS, 1999). This 1700 Mt of soil would ll a freight car train loaded to capacity that would encircle the planet about seven times. Improvements have been made in recent years: the number reported for 1982 is 2780 Mt (NRCS, 1999). 45.3 million ha (30% of cropland) were determined to be excessively eroding in 1997 (erosion rates greater than that deemed tolerable), totaling to 1200 Mt of eroded soil per year (NRCS, 1999). If the 1700 Mt of topsoil lost in 1997 were evenly distributed over all of the US cropland, the average rate of erosion would be 9.9 t per ha per year. This translates into 2.5 cm of topsoil lost from all US cropland every 34 years. While under ideal situations where soil is supplemented with large amounts of fertile organic matter, 2.5 cm of soil can be rejuvenated in perhaps 30 years (Jackson, 1980), it has been estimated that under normal agricultural conditions, it takes between 200 and 1000 years to form 2.5 cm of soil (Pimentel et al., 1995). It should be quickly recognized that this practice is not sustainable. To address this erosion problem, various soil conservation policies have been implemented in the US over the past 60 years. Early policy focused on keeping the soil on the land to increase net farm income, but in the 1980s, policy goals began to
1020
shift towards reducing the o-site impacts of erosion, such as water quality impairment (Uri and Lewis, 1999). In 1985, the voluntary Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was established. The CRP allows the USDA to enter into 1015 year agreements with owners and operators in order to remove highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive cropland from production. Approximately 1.0 million ha will be enrolled into CRP in the year 2000, bringing the total CRP enrollment to about 13.6 million ha as of October 2000 (Oce of the Vice President, 2000). In addition, conservation tillage practices, including no-till, have increased in the past decade. In 2000, no-till was used on 21 million ha (17.5% of planted cropland), which was a three-fold increase over 1990 (ERSUSDA, 2001a). Conservation tillage leaves a cover of crop residues on the soil surface and reduces the number of times tillage equipment passes over a eld, which can signicantly reduce soil erosion. Still, soil erosion presents a substantial social cost, estimated at $29,700 million in 1997 (Uri and Lewis, 1999). Historically, animal manure and other farm refuse were used as nutrient sources, but today commercially manufactured chemical fertilizers are by far the major source of applied plant nutrients in the US. Commercial fertilizer accounted for 6.4% of total farm production expenses in 1997, and was applied to 25% of the total farmland (total farmland includes pastureland, rangeland, etc., which typically receives little to no fertilizer) (USDA, 1999a). Commercial fertilizer use for particular crops, such as corn, is very high: 98% of the acreage in the top 10 corn producing states received commercial fertilizer (ERS, 1997). Animal manure is still a major potential source of soil nutrients, but consolidation of conned livestock farms into large specialized production facilities with little associated cropland has made use of this source less economically feasible. The result has been not only underutilized manure nutrient resources in high-density livestock areas, but also major problems with soil and water pollution and stench. A recent study identied counties in the US where manure nutrient availability exceeds the total potential plant uptake and removal from all agricultural land in the county, including pastureland. Using 1992 Agricultural Census data, the study treated each US county as a single large farm (i.e. boundaries were placed at the county level) and assumed that all surveyed cropland and pastureland in the county could be used for manure disposal. Ignoring current applications of commercial fertilizers, the study found that 35 counties still had manure-based nitrogen levels that exceeded potential plant uptake and 112 counties showed excess levels of phosphorous (Kellogg and Lander, 1999). These reect areas of the country with high livestock densities but insucient cropland for manure disposal. There has been a clear increasing trend in these numbers with time: statistics from 1954 show only about six counties with excess nitrogen and 38 with excess phosphorous; in 1982 there were 17 counties exceeding uptake of nitrogen and 80 exceeding phosphorous. Soil erosion and nutrient leaching are among the primary sources of water pollution from agricultural production. The National Summary of Water Quality Conditions reported that agriculture is the leading source of pollution in the nations rivers, lakes, and wetlands (EPA, 1996). Siltation alters aquatic habitat, can suocate sh eggs and bottom-dwelling organisms, and in extreme cases, can interfere
1021
with drinking water treatment processes and recreational use of water. Agricultural runo of nutrients contributes to accelerated eutrophication, disrupting ecosystems and interfering with the health and diversity of native sh, plant, and animal populations. The Mississippi River is a critical example of the eects of agricultural nitrate runo on aquatic ecosystems. States in the Upper Mississippi River Basin (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio and Minnesota) have the highest percentage of total land in agriculture, the highest use of nitrogen fertilizers, and the greatest amount of articially drained soil in the country. As a result of these intensive agricultural practices, total nitrogen output to the Gulf of Mexico has increased 3- to 7-fold compared with presettlement outputs. The Gulf of Mexico is now the third largest hypoxia zone (oxygen decient dead zone due to nitrogen input) in the world, with the area uninhabitable by most aquatic organisms varying between 12,000 and 18,000 km2 in mid-summer (Keeney and Muller, 2000). A retrospective analysis suggests the nitrate ux into the Gulf from 1960 to 1998 could have been reduced by 33% with a 12% cut in nitrogencontaining fertilizer use in the Mississippi River basin (McIsaac et al., 2001). The use of chemical pesticides has made signicant contributions to the level and method of agricultural production in the US. Estimates claim that each dollar invested in pesticide control returns approximately $4 in crops saved (Pimentel et al., 1992). According to the Census of Agriculture, $7600 million were spent on agricultural chemicals in 1997, up from $4700 million in 1987 (USDA, 1999a). Average application rates appear to have decreased somewhat, however, from a two decade high of 2.0 kg/ha in 1987 to 1.3 kg/ha in 1996 (Kellogg et al., 1999). Interestingly, while pesticide use is generally seen as protable in terms of direct crop returns, it has not necessarily led to decreases in crop loss. Even with a 10-fold increase in insecticide use from 1945 to 1989, total crop losses from insect damage have nearly doubled from 7 to 13% (Pimentel et al., 1991). This rise in crop losses is partly caused by changes in agricultural practices such as abandoning crop rotations and increased crop homogeneity. Pimentel et al. (1992) estimated the environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. They considered human health impacts, animal poisonings and contamination of animal products, loss of natural pest enemies, the costs of pesticide resistance, honeybee and pollination losses, crop losses, shery and bird losses, groundwater contamination, and the cost of government regulations to prevent damage. Based on available data, they estimated the cost of pesticide use at $8000 million per year, $5000 million of which society pays in environmental and public health costs (Pimentel et al., 1992). One response from consumers to the societal cost of pesticide use has been the rapidly growing organic market in the US. Annual growth of organic food sales is expected to continue at a rate of 2024% over the next decade (ERSUSDA, 2000a). The acreage of certied organic cropland more than doubled from 1992 to 1997, but still only represented 0.2% of total cropland in the US (ERS, 2000e). While the US ranked third in total land area under organic management (behind Australia and Canada) in a recent world wide survey, numerous European countries have higher percentages of agricultural land in organics including: Austria at 8.4%, Denmark at 6%, Italy at 5.3%, Germany at 2.4% and Britain at 1.8% (Willer and Yusse, 2000).
1022
Agriculture also greatly aects the quantity of water consumed in the US, primarily through irrigation of crops and through livestock production. In 1995, 507 million m3 per day (134,000 million gallons per day) of freshwater were withdrawn for irrigation purposes (39% of total freshwater withdrawal), 185 million m3 per day of this from ground-water sources. Water consumption for livestock totaled 20.8 million m3 per day in 1995, 41% of which was from ground water (Solley et al., 1998). The concern is that, in certain regions of the country, withdrawal from groundwater sources is exceeding the natural recharge rate of aquifers. An excellent case-in-point is the Ogallala aquifer in the High Plains states. The Ogallala aquifer is largely a nonrenewable resource that has been mined at rates that greatly exceed recharge. Pumping from the aquifer is measured in feet per year while replacement, trickling in from the surface only, occurs at less than an inch a year (Opie, 1993). As water levels in the aquifer drop, pumping becomes more costly. Irrigation rates have decreased slowly over recent years, but current withdrawal rates still can not be sustained long into the future. Air pollutants from agricultural production are shown in Table 5. Agriculture makes a notable contribution to most criteria air pollutants. Of particular signicance are ammonia emissions, the majority of which (90%) is from livestock production. Also considerable is the atmospheric deposition of pesticides (not shown in table). For example, approximately 30% of the atrazine load entering Lake Michigan (amounting to nearly 3000 kg/yr) is associated with precipitation (Miller et al., 2000; Rygwelski et al., 1999); farther north in Lake Superior, atmospheric inputs account for 95% of the atrazine inputs (Schottler and Eisenreich, 1997). Agricultural activities were responsible for 7.7% of total US greenhouse gas emission in 1997 (EPA, 1999a). The sources of these emissions are detailed in Table 6. Methane is produced through enteric fermentation as part of the normal digestive processes in animals. Ruminant livestock are major producers of methane in the US: 19% of the total annual methane emitted in the US comes from livestock. Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils, accelerated by management practices, are
Table 5 Agricultural production contribution to criteria air pollutants (thousand metric tonnes) Pollutant 1980 Emission from ag. production VOC Nitrogen oxide Carbon monoxide Ammonia PM-10b PM-2.5b 522 1176 1406 na 272a na Percent of US total 2.2 5.2 1.3 na 4.1a na 1997 Emission from ag. production 581 1038 768 1895 4346 907 Percent of US total 3.3 4.9 1.0 65.7 14.3 12.0
Values compiled from (EPA, 1999b); includes emissions from agricultural chemical manufacturing. a Data from a signicantly contributing category not available. b Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10) and less than 2.5 microns (PM-2.5).
1023
Table 6 Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production (million metric tonnes of carbon equivalent; EPA, 1999a) Emission and source Methane Enteric fermentation (ruminant livestock) Manure management Rice cultivation Agricultural residue burning Nitrous oxide Manure management Agricultural soil management Agricultural residue burning Farm equipment Carbon dioxide Agricultural machinery, gasoline Agricultural machinery, diesel Total 1990 50.3 32.7 14.9 2.5 0.2 68.2 2.6 65.3 0.1 0.1 7.7 1.2 6.5 126.2 1997 54.1 34.1 17.0 2.7 0.2 77.3 3.0 74.1 0.1 0.1 8.9 2.2 6.7 140.4
also a signicant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Potentially signicant greenhouse gas contributions not included in these data are agricultures portion of electricity consumption and perhaps natural gas consumption in irrigation pumps. While plants grown in agriculture do uptake large amounts of carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, the great majority of this carbon is metabolized (as food and feed) and returned to the atmosphere. There is a potential for long-term sequestration of carbon in agricultural soils by altering soil and crop management practices (Lal, 2002; Rygwelski et al., 1999; West and Marland, 2002). Estimates of changes in carbon stocks on US agricultural soils based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) inventory methods indicate that the net eect of land use and management changes on agricultural soils from 1982 to 1997 has been an average annual increase in soil carbon storage of 21.2 Mt C/yr (Eve et al., 2002). For reference, total US greenhouse gas emissions for 2000 are estimated at 1906 Mt C equivalent, a 13.6% increase over 1990 (EIA, 2001b). Increasingly, research is recognizing the important role biodiversity plays in agroecosystems (CAST, 1999). Biodiversity, referring to all species of plants, animals and micro-organisms existing and interacting within an ecosystem, is responsible for various ecological services essential to agriculture, including recycling of nutrients, regulation of microclimate and local hydrological processes, suppression of undesirable organisms, and detoxication of noxious chemicals (Altieri, 1999). Modern agriculture has created an ecologically simplied system that is highly dependent on inputs. Biodiversity has suered in the wake of monoculture cropping of annuals and heavy pesticide application. There has been recent interest in Government agri-environmental payment programs which would compensate producers for maintaining benecial agricultural practices or mitigating adverse environmental impacts (ERSUSDA, 2000b). The
1024
eectiveness of such programs in providing a net benet will be greater if policymakers consider the full environmental impacts of modern food systems. The indicators suggested here may provide guidance in designing programs. 3.3. Food processing, packaging, and distribution This stage includes the conversion of raw foodstus into the products purchased by consumers. It also includes the packaging, transportation, and retailing of both processed and raw foods. 3.3.1. Economic Marketing of domestically grown and consumed food, including charges for transportation, processing and distribution, cost an estimated $498,000 million in 1999 (USDA, 2000a). That represents 80% of the $618,000 million that consumers spent on foods originating on US farms. Marketing costs rose 58% from 1989 to 1999, comprising 92% of the rise in consumer food expenditures over that decade (USDA, 2000a). The cost of labor comprised nearly half of the 1999 marketing bill. The remainder of the marketing cost is balanced between packaging, transportation, energy, advertising, business taxes, net interest, depreciation, rent, and repairs (Table 2). In 1997, food manufacturers (including the tobacco industry) received an after-tax prot return on stockholder equity of 19.8% (5.6% as a percentage of sales), a culmination of 5 years of increasing prots. Food retailers averaged a 17.3% return on stockholder equity in 1997 (1.6% of sales) (Elitzak, 1999b). Food retailing has, until the past few years, maintained competition between rms of equal economic power. Major mergers have changed this: the top ve grocery retailers controlled 42% of market share in early 2000 (Supermarket News, 2000), up from about 20% in 1993 (Tillotson, 2000). Supermarkets represented 24% of the food retail store types in 1998, but accounted for 77% of retail food sales (Davies and Konisky, 2000). The structure of food retailing is strongly aligned with the structure of the food distribution industry. Large corporate chain stores are typically organized around regional or national food distribution, with warehouses occupying the central position in the ow of goods. Retail stores are either a direct subsidiary of the distribution corporation or operate under a contractual relationship with a distributor. Retailers often charge food processors or shippers a slotting fee for delivery and stocking services, a relationship which may create an advantage for large food processors (ERSUSDA, 2001b). While it may be argued that superstores make shopping more convenient and reduce trips to multiple stores, they also displace local neighborhood groceries that would be accessible to more people by foot, bicycle, or public transportation. It is likely that a distribution-centered system also adds to delivery and personnel eciency. Yet, the sheer scale limits market access for smaller food processors, and tends to concentrate capital, removing it from local communities. Because of the sheer volume of sales handled, distribution-centered superstores are less likely to buy direct from local producers, instead relying on large concentrated growers and processors.
1025
Fig. 2. Life cycle energy use in supplying US food [sources and methodology detailed in Heller and Keoleian, (2000)].
On the other end of the retail food spectrum, the number of farmers markets, which provide consumers direct access to locally grown produce, has grown substantially over the last several decades. State reported farmers markets numbered 1755 in 1993, and more than 2746 in 1998, though some analysts claim that the total number, including those not reported, is more than double that gure (USDA, 1999b). Still, only 0.3% of the market value of agricultural products were sold directly to individuals for human consumption in 1997 (USDA, 1999a). 3.3.2. Social As mentioned earlier, labor is the dominant cost of food marketing. The total number of food marketing workers in 1999 (which includes labor used by assemblers, manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and eating places) was about 14.0 million (USDA, 2000a). This is an increase of about 16% from a decade earlier and ve times more than the number of farm workers in 1998. About 77% of the growth in food marketing employment over the 19891999 decade has occurred in away-fromhome eating places (USDA, 2000a). In 1997, eating and drinking places employed 56% of food marketing employment, while about 25% worked for foodstores, 12% for food manufacturers, and 7% for wholesalers (Elitzak, 1999b). Todays consumer is presented with a tremendous variety of food products. The average supermarket maintains over 400 fresh produce items, compared to 250 in the early 1980s and 150 in the mid-1970s. The assortment of processed foods has increased equally, if not more dramatically, with an emphasis on convenience foods snack foods, pre-cooked, and already prepared meals. Prepared and convenience
1026
foods accounted for 12.5% of at-home food expenditures in 1995 (Gallo, 1999). Often, processing of food removes important nutrients contained in the whole food products. For example, more than 98% of the 68 kg (150 pounds) of wheat our consumed per capita in 1997 was rened our, which loses most nutrients, including ber, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals, during processing (USDA, 1999b). Manufacturers add chemically synthesized replacements of ve nutrients (iron, niacin, thiamin, riboavin, and folate) in enriched our. Consumer preference is the main reason for this processing: whole grain our requires less processing, avoids the loss of nutrients and does not require that the nutrients be supplemented from other sources. It should be noted that much of the nutrient value in byproducts of food processing such as rened our is not lost from the food system but is typically fed to animals. Food manufacturers spent over $7000 million in advertising in 1997, nearly 10% of the total mass media advertising market. Twenty-two percent of this was spent on prepared and convenience foods, another 15.5% on confectionery and snacks, and an additional 10% on soft drinks and bottled water (Gallo, 1999). The connection between advertising and the food we eat will be further considered in the consumption section of this paper. Though the US food supply has been widely recognized as being very safe, government ocials, public health agencies, industry trade associations, and consumers are giving increasing attention to food safety. The latest data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 76 million people are sickened, 325,000 are hospitalized, and 5000 die annually from food poisonings in the US (Mead et al., 1999). While the years leading up to 19970 s national interagency Food Safety Initiative saw rises in foodborne illnesses (Collins, 1997; Tauxe, 1997), select monitoring begun in 1996 by the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) has found an overall decline in the incidence of bacterial foodborne infections (FoodNet, 2000). Good estimates of how many foodborne illnesses originate in the food processing, packaging and distribution stages are not available (other points of contamination could be at the farm itself or during preparation, either in restaurants or in the home). However, much of the Governments eort to improve food safety has focused on new regulations for the processing industry. For example, in 1996 the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA initiated its Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems for reducing pathogen contamination associated with meat and poultry products (FSIS, 1998). 3.3.3. Environmental The continuous supply of the diverse selection of foods that consumers have come to expect in the United States and in other developed countries relies heavily on processing and packaging to preserve food as well as transportation of fresh foods from production areas to those areas with limited growing seasons. An immediate environmental indicator of this practice is the energy consumed. The food and kindred products manufacturing sector accounts for about 16% of the total energy used in the food system (see Fig. 2). In general, the energy required for processing and packaging is much greater than the food energy provided by the product.
1027
Breakfast cereals, for example, which contain about 15,070 kJ of food energy per kilogram, require on average 65,630 kJ/kg to process and prepare (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996b). More than half of the energy consumption in food retail is used in refrigeration. While food retail only accounts for 2.6% of the total commercial building energy consumption, it is very energy intensive: food retail uses 2430 kJ/m2 whereas the average commercial building uses 1030 kJ/m2 (Davies and Konisky, 2000). Packaging is second only to the cost of labor in the food marketing bill: 8% of the food dollar goes into packaging. Thirty three percent of the total packaging expense is due to cardboard boxes, used extensively for shipping processed foods (i.e. packaging that does not go home with the consumer) (Elitzak, 1999b). Despite increased recycling eorts, food packaging is still a major contributor to municipal solid waste. About 10.3% (20.2 Mt) of the total municipal solid waste generated in 1997 can be directly attributable to food and beverage packaging; 30% of this was recovered (Franklin Associates Ltd., 1999). This number is an underestimate, however, because some of the packaging categories that could not be specically attributed to food and beverages but likely contained food packaging materials (such as plastic wraps and corrugated boxes) were omitted. A 1993 study found that the food retail industry generated 23.0 Mt of grocery packaging, and in that year, grocery packaging was more than one third of the total containers and packaging found in the municipal solid waste stream (Davies and Konisky, 2000). Recovery of grocery packaging, however, has also increased: in 1970, 0.78 Mt of grocery packaging waste was recovered whereas by 1993 it had increased to 7.6 Mt (Davies and Konisky, 2000). Food waste, or food discards, can also be substantial in the food processing and distribution stage. A study by the USDA Economic Research Service estimated food losses throughout the food system. They reported that 2.47 Mt of edible food, or 2% of the total edible food supply, were lost at the retail stage in 1995 (Kantor et al., 1997). Nearly half of the retail losses came from perishable items such as uid milk and other dairy products and fresh fruits and vegetables. The report mentions potential losses during processing and wholesaling due to frequent handling and spoilage, but these farm-to-retail losses were not measured. As mentioned earlier, however, the food processing industry does a reasonable job at nding value in byproduct streams, most often as animal feeds, so it is expected that true losses in food processing will be relatively small. 3.4. Preparation and consumption This stage may be considered the use phase of the food system, and includes storage and cooking as well as eating activities. 3.4.1. Economic The system described up until this point has a single primary function: to provide necessary nutrition to our society. Agricultural policy in the US has largely rested on providing an abundance of inexpensive food to US citizens. To this extent, US
1028
agriculture has been very successful. In 1999, the average US consumer spent only 10.4% of their disposable personal income on food (USDA, 2000a). Forty days of earnings are sucient for the average American to pay for his or her familys food bill for the entire year. And the cost of food to Americans has been decreasing: 11.6% of disposable income was spent on food in 1990; in 1970 it was 13.8%, and in 1930 it was 25% (USDA, 1998). Indeed, food in the US is more aordable than in many other countries, as can be seen in Table 7. There has also been a clear increasing trend in away-from-home food. Awayfrom-home meals and snacks accounted for 48% of the US food bill in 1999, up from 39% in 1979 (USDA, 2000a). A combination of increased discretionary income and lack of time and skill to prepare foods at home is likely responsible for this trend. While increases in away-from-home meals have fed a thriving restaurant industry that provides 7.6 million jobs (Elitzak, 1999b), eating away from home makes it more dicult to monitor personal nutritional intake. Food consumed away from home typically has a higher content of fat, saturated fats, and cholesterol. 3.4.2. Social Relatively inexpensive food in the US is of social benet because it makes food more accessible to poorer members of society. In addition, federal nutrition assistance programs, aimed at improving access to food for children and needy families, appropriated a total of $35,000 million in scal year 2000, reaching one out of every six Americans (USDA, 1999b). As a result of aordable food and food assistance, more than 90% of US households were food secure, meaning they had assured access at all times to enough food for an active healthy life. Still, 9.7% of US
Table 7 Portion of total personal consumption expenditures spent on food and alcoholic beverages consumed at home, by selected countries, 1994 (Putnam and Allshouse, 1999) Country United States United Kingdom Sweden France Australia Germany Japan Israel Switzerland Mexico South Africa Greece Venezuela India
a b c
Fooda (%) 7.4 11.2 14.6 14.8 14.9 17.3 17.6 20.5 24.4 24.5 27.5 31.7 38.2 51.3
Alcoholic beverages (%) 1.0 6.1 2.7 1.9 4.4
b c
b b
0.9
c b
2.5 6.5 2.9

b b
0.5
Food includes non-alcoholic beverages. Alcoholic beverages included in food. Food includes alcoholic beverages and tobacco.
1029
householdsabout 10 millionwere food insecure over the 19961998 period. Included in these were the 3.5% of households in which one or more household members were hungry at least some time during the year due to inadequate resources for food (Nord et al., 1999). A sustainable food system must be founded on a sustainable diet. In the most general sense, this would be a diet that matched energy intake with energy expenditure while supplying necessary nutrients for a healthy lifestyle. However, consumers make dietary decisions based also on economical, physiological, psychological, sociological, and even spiritual considerations (Furst et al., 1996). Eating becomes more than just a biological necessity, often being a focus of social, business, and family events or a simple act of pleasure. Nutritional problems of a century ago that resulted in deciency diseases such as scurvy and rickets have been replaced with problems of overindulgence: obesity, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hypertension. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys of 19771980 and 19881994 demonstrate that the prevalence of obesity is on the rise throughout the American population. The number of overweight individuals rose over the time between surveys from 25.4 to 34.9% among American adults, from 7.6 to 13.7% among children ages 611 years, and from 5.7 to 11.5% among adolescents (Nestle and Jacobson, 2000). Under an updated denition presented in the 2000 Dietary Guidelines (USDA, 2000b), 60% of males and 46% of females 20 years and over were overweight in 19941996 (Tippett and Cleveland, 1999). Increasingly, scientic studies conrm that Americas diet of high fat intakes and low intakes of whole, ber-containing foods such as whole grains, vegetables, and fruits has a signicant impact on our health, quality of life, and longevity. Diet is a signicant factor in the risk of coronary heart disease, certain types of cancer, and strokethe three leading causes of death in the United States (National Research Council, 1989). Estimates of diet-related medical costs, loss of productivity, and value of premature deaths reach $71,000 million per year (Fraza o, 1999). Estimates of the direct health care costs of obesity alone range from $39,000 million (Allison, 1999) to $52,000 million (Wolf and Colditz, 1998) annually. The prevalence of overweight and obese Americans was highlighted as a major agenda issue at the National Nutrition Summit in May of 2000 (Scannell et al., 2000). Multiple sources suggest that there has been a slight increase in food energy consumption by Americans over the past 20 years. The food energy available for consumption, based mainly on national disappearance of food, increased by about 15% from the 1978 value to 15,900 kJ (3800 kilocalories) per capita per day in 1994 (NASS, 1999). However, this value includes food that is wasted at the retail and consumer level, which may also be increasing. According to USDAs Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII), the surveyed caloric intake rose from 7762 to 8382 kJ between the 19771978 and 19941996 surveys (Tippett and Cleveland, 1999), an increase of only 8%. Survey-based data on food intake are typically plagued with underreporting by participants, and some of the increase in dietary intake may be due to improvements in data collection methods (Tippett and Cleveland, 1999). Increases in food energy intake alone do not easily account for the considerable change in the number of overweight Americans. The population also
1030
appears to be engaging in less physical activity (Nestle and Jacobson, 2000). Establishing trends in physical activity and energy expenditure in a population is very dicult, however, due a lack of reliable methodology (Troiano et al., 2001). Marked changes have occurred in US food consumption patterns over the past 25 years. While some of these changes reect dietary recommendations presented by professional science and health groups, others appear to arise from changes in lifestyle: faster paced life, more women in the workforce and single parent households, increased discretionary income. Consistent with health recommendations, Americans now consume two-fths more grain products and a fth more fruits and vegetables per capita than they did in 1970. They also eat leaner meat and drink lower fat milk. While red meat consumption decreased by 15% between 1970 and 1997, poultry has increased by 90%. Total annual meat consumption (red meat, poultry, sh) in 1999 reached a record high of 89.4 kg (197 pounds) boneless, trimmed-weight equivalent per person, 9 kg above 1970 levels (USDA, 2000a). While the health implications of such high meat consumption can be debated, the environmental and resource burdens of a meat-based diet greatly exceed those of a plantbased diet (see environmental indicators of consumption). Average annual use of added fats and oils remains near record-high levels. Per capita consumption of cheese increased two and a half times between 1970 and 1998 (USDA, 1999b). Per capita consumption of caloric sweetenersmainly sucrose and corn sweetenerscontinues to increase. Each American consumed a record average 69.9 kg (154 pounds) of caloric sweeteners in 199853 teaspoons per person per day. Of course, some of this is wasted in the food system or at home, but even if an assumed 40% is lost, the remaining 32 teaspoons still greatly exceeds the recommended maximum intake of 18 teaspoons for a person consuming a 11,700 kJ diet (six teaspoons for a 6700 kJ diet) (USDA, 1999b). Sugar has become Americas number one food additive, accounting for 16% of total caloric intake. Carbonated non-diet soft drinks, for which per capita consumption rose 51% between 1986 and 1998, account for more than a fth of the rened and processed sugars in the American diet (USDA, 1999b). As mentioned earlier, large sums of money are spent on advertising of food in the US. Food manufacturers spent $7000 million on advertising in 1997, whereas the US Department of Agriculture spent only $333.3 million on nutrition education, evaluation and demonstrations (Gallo, 1999). Foods that are intensely advertised tend to be the ones that are overconsumed relative to dietary recommendations. Confectionery and snacks, prepared and convenience foods, and soft drinks are all heavily advertised (relative to their share of the food-at-home budget) (Gallo, 1999). On the other hand, fruits and vegetables, for which Americans consume lower than recommended amounts, receive very little advertising. 3.4.3. Environmental According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the second most eective environmental choice that a consumer can make is to eat less meat and poultry (Brower and Leon, 1999). Pimentel calculates that providing a 15,000 kJ diet (28% from animal products) requires about 146,500 kJ of fossil energy whereas a
1031
15,000 kJ vegetarian diet (with more than sucient levels of protein) takes about 75,300 kJ of fossil energyalmost half that of the non-vegetarian diet. A lacto-ovo vegetarian diet (including milk and eggs) requires around 104,600 kJ of fossil energy (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996a). From an energy eciency standpoint alone, choosing a vegetarian diet, or at least one greatly reduced in animal products, signicantly reduces the environmental impact of our food system. Food is wasted at home and at food service establishments, amounting to 26% (41.2 Mt) of the edible food available for human consumption in the US. Fresh fruits and vegetables accounted for 19% of these losses, and an additional 18% was uid milk (Kantor et al., 1997). Examinations of household garbage by researchers at the University of Arizona concluded that large quantities of single food items entire heads of lettuce, half-eaten boxes of crackersaccounted for a larger share of household food loss than did plate scraps. They also found that specialty products such as sour cream, hot dog buns, or impulse items had a higher frequency in household garbage than did frequently purchased staples like bread, milk and cereal (Kantor et al., 1997). 3.5. End-of-life management This stage encompasses the management of food wastesfoods produced but not consumed. End-of-life management of food includes food recovery programs, composting, landll disposal and incineration. 3.5.1. Economic According to a report issued by the Economic Research Service of the USDA, retail, food service, and consumer food losses in 1995 totaled 43.7 Mt, or 27% of the total edible food supply (Kantor et al., 1997). This does not include pre-harvest, onthe-farm, and farm-to-retail losses. In its annual report of the US municipal solid waste stream, the EPA found that 10%20.1 Mtof the solid waste stream was food wastes in 1998 (EPA, 2000). The discrepancy in these two studies is mostly attributable to dierences in scope and denition: the EPA report only accounts for food that becomes part of municipal solid waste. Large amounts of food are fed to garbage disposals and treated along with municipal sewage, adding to the burden of wastewater treatment. While the absolute amount of food waste in the municipal solid waste stream has nearly doubled since 1960, the proportion of food in the total waste stream has remained relatively constant (EPA, 2000). Disposal of food waste generally occurs either through additions to landll, incineration, or by garbage disposals connected to sewer systems. All have associated costs. Nationwide, the weight-averaged tipping fee for landll disposal was $35/t in 1996 (Goldstein, 1997). If all of the 20.1 Mt of food waste discarded in 1998 were landlled at this rate, the cost to Americans would be $708 million annually. However, about 10% of municipal solid waste is incinerated, with an average tipping fee of $69.4/t (Goldstein, 1997). This brings the estimated cost of discarding food waste nationwide to $777 million. This only accounts for the food that is disposed of through municipal solid waste channels.
1032
3.5.2. Social The USDA Food Loss report did not estimate the share of food loss that was recoverable for human consumption (unrecoverable food loss would include diseased or otherwise unsafe produce and meat, spoiled perishables and plate waste from foodservice establishments) (Kantor et al., 1997). However, if a mere 5% of the 43.7 Mt of food loss were recovered, this would be enough to feed 4 million Americans every day. While signicant food recovery eorts are made in the US (USDA/ EPA, 1999), they do not reach 5%. As an example, an eective food rescue program in Ann Arbor, Michigan recovers an estimated 3.4% of edible food losses (Garvin et al., 2000). 3.5.3. Environmental Food losses can also be recovered in the system through composting. A 1997 nationwide survey found 214 commercial composting sites for food wastes, 3.7 times the number found in 1995. The 68 projects reporting mass data in this survey totaled to 327,000 t of food residuals processed annually (Goldstein and Block, 1997). The EPA reports 526,000 t of recovered food waste in 1998, though this number includes recovery of paper for composting (EPA, 2000). Model programs highlighted by the EPA demonstrate the enormous potential for waste reduction through food discard recovery (EPA, 1998). Still, food wastes are characterized by low levels of recovery: in 1998 less than 2.6% (by weight) of food wastes were recovered, making food wastes the second largest single source of discards (waste remaining after recovery) in the municipal solid waste stream (EPA, 2000). 3.6. Life cycle energy: food system energy demand Agriculture is ultimately a process of energy conversion: converting solar energy, along with various chemical and fossil energy inputs, into food energy that will sustain a human population. A series of technological changes in agriculture over the past century have greatly increased yields, but have also increased the amount of energy that is consumed in this conversion process. Pimentel calculates that the energy ratio (output energy divided by input energy, including inputs from human and animal labor) for producing corn in the US has decreased from 5.8 in 1910 to 2.5 in 1983 (Pimentel and Dazhong, 1990). Thus, while agricultural technology has allowed greater yields in terms of bushels per acre as well as bushels per man-hour of labor, more primary energy is consumed in producing the same amount of food. Agricultural production is not the only large consumer of energy in the US food system. Fig. 2 provides an estimate of the energy that goes into supplying food in the US. By our estimates, agricultural production of food in the US accounts for only 20% of the total energy consumed in the US food system. The manufacturing of chemical fertilizers and pesticides makes up almost 40% of the energy allocated to agricultural production. Another 25% is diesel fuel consumption. The transportation component of Fig. 2 is composed of energy in transporting raw and processed foods from manufacturing and distribution sites to areas of retail distribution, as well as the estimated energy consumed in household food
1033
shopping trips. Food is shipped large distances in the current system. One recent analysis found that produce arriving by truck at the Chicago, IL terminal market traveled an average distance of 2443 km (1518 miles) in 1998, a 22% increase over 1981 (Pirog et al., 2001). Another study found that the average pound of fresh produce arriving at the Jessup, MD terminal market (Washington DC area) in 1997 traveled 2712 km (1685 miles) (Hora and Tick, 2001). The packaging material component of Fig. 2 represents the feedstock and processing energy for food and beverage packaging. The value presented here is based on food related packaging material as it shows up in the municipal solid waste stream and is most certainly a conservative estimate because it does not include a number of packaging categories that can not be exclusively attributed to foods. While the recycling of glass, steel, and aluminum containers aids in reducing the energy requirements for making food packages out of these materials, food grade plastics must be virgin material. Household storage and preparation energy includes operation of refrigerators and freezers, energy for cooking (stoves, ranges and microwave ovens), operation of dishwashers, and the heating of water for dish washing. Over 40% of the food related household energy is consumed by refrigerators. Improvements in appliance eciencies have decreased refrigerator energy consumption over the past decade, but the number and size of refrigerators in American households continues to grow (EIA, 1995). In total, providing the 15,900 kJ of food energy available per capita per day in the US is estimated to consume 10.8 million TJ annually. This represents about 10% of the total energy consumed in the US (EIA, 2001a). By our estimates, therefore, it takes about 7.3 units of (primarily) fossil energy to produce one unit of food energy in the US food system. This value is somewhat lower than estimates reported by others. Pimentel and Pimentel (1996a) and Hall et al. (1986) both estimate 10 units of input energy per unit of output food energy.
4. Discussion and conclusions 4.1. Summary of ndings Numerous trends in the US food system threaten its economical, social, and environmental sustainability. Key trends presented in this paper are summarized in Table 8. The US food is highly productive and has a tremendous capacity for providing high quality, inexpensive food. Yet, many of the social and environmental indicators considered here fall outside conventional discussions of productivity, and existing trends in these indicators may challenge the ability to sustain productivity growth. The current system tends toward reliance on limited genetic resources that are rapidly moving out of public control and are managed by corporate interests. Farmers are shrinking in number and growing in age, with large percentages of agricultural producers unable to survive economically on income from farming ventures. Where eld practices have not been completely mechanized, producers are forced to
1034
Table 8 Summary of key trends threatening the sustainability of the US food system Economic Production Rapid conversion of prime farmland 84% of farm household income earned o-farm Increasing number of farms report a net loss (48% in 1997) Social 52% of farmworkers are illegal Age of farm operators increasing; declining entry of young farmers Environmental Depletion of topsoil exceeds regeneration Rate of groundwater withdrawal exceeding recharge in major agricultural regions Losses to pests increasing Reduction in genetic diversity
Consumption Costs of diet related diseases increasing
Obesity rates rising 26% edible food wasted Diet deviates from nutritional recommendations Relation with food and its origin has been lost Heavy reliance on fossil energy 7.3 units of energy consumed to produce one unit of food energy
Total system
Marketing is 80% of food bill Industry consolidation in food system threatens market competition
use low-wage, illegal labor. Soil erosion continues at rates greatly exceeding soil regeneration, and declines in fresh water availability threaten the sustainability of irrigation farming. The health and social costs of diet related diseases are accumulating, and a surprising amount of the edible food available in this country is lost at the consumer level. Heavy reliance on non-renewable energy poses additional environmental burdens and leaves the food system vulnerable to supply side price increases in fossil fuels. Prioritizing these indicators is challenging as it requires value judgement and public consensus. A number of the identied problems, however, are irreversible (e.g. fossil energy consumption, water withdrawal from conned aquifers, land conversion to built-up space) and may warrant preferential attention. 4.2. Implications of a life cycle perspective In this paper, we build on previous sustainability assessments of agricultural production by considering the full food system. Addressing sustainability challenges through a life cycle-based approach serves many important roles. First, a systems approach aids in reestablishing the connection between consumption behaviors and production practices. This connection has been largely lost from the American social consciousness. Food comes from the supermarket and little thought is given to the process of getting food to the market. The environmental movement has succeeded, to some extent, in establishing the link between consumption behaviors and environmental health, resulting in such behavioral changes as increased recycling.
1035
Establishing the link for the general public between food consumption and the related environmental and social burdens can create attitudes that lead to reduced food wastage. A reduction in food consumption and wastage can lead directly to improved health and a corresponding reduction in the environmental stress of agricultural production, food distribution, and disposition. Benets are compounded; for example, one calorie of food saved can result in a seven-fold reduction in the energy use across the life cycle. Direct marketing methods, especially those operating on the community supported agriculture model (SARE, 2000), help foster a consumer recognition of the link between production and consumption. However, maintaining a systems perspective is critical at all levels of food planning and policy. A life cycle perspective also assists in prioritizing improvement strategies, often revealing overlooked portions of the system. For example, discussion of the food systems dependence on fossil energy typically focuses on the consumption of fuels in operating tractors or the energy consumption in fertilizer manufacturing. Yet, the data in Fig. 2 suggest that food-related energy consumption in the home is of equal if not greater signicance. The life cycle indicators presented here enable a preliminary assessment of the US food system. This is not an end in itself, however. Further development and renement of a methodology for measuring progress through such sustainability indicators are needed. It is our hope that researchers, educators, business analysts, planners, and policymakers will use the life cycle framework to address the challenges at hand and move the food system towards sustainability. Reductionist eorts that focus on individual stages of the food system may not be successful in assuring long-term food security and system stability. A holistic approach aimed at reestablishing the connective role that food serves among personal health, environmental health, and societal well-being has the potential to advance the sustainability of our food system.
Acknowledgements Many of the indicators presented in this paper were identied in a workshop on A Life Cycle Perspective to Sustainable Agriculture Indicators organized by the Center for Sustainable Systems in February, 1999 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The workshop was funded through a grant from US EPA region V. Over 50 participants from academia, federal and state government, the farming community, and food industry representatives contributed to this workshop.
References
Adams, T.L., Zarowitz, M.A., 1994. Stably Transformed Coee Plant Cells and Plantlets. US Patent and Trademark Oce Appl. No. 988009; assignee: Escagenetics Co. Allison, D.B., 1999. The direct health care costs of obesity in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 89 (8), 11941199. Altieri, M.A., 1994. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems. Haworth Press, New York.
1036
Altieri, M.A., 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 74, 1931. Andersson, K., Ohlsson, T., 1999. Life cycle assessment of bread produced on dierent scales. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 4 (1), 2540. Benbrook, C., 2001. Do GM crops mean less pesticide use? Pesticide Outlook 12 (5), 204207. Brower, M., Leon, W., 1999. The Consumers Guide to Eective Environmental Choices. Three Rivers Press, New York. Brown, N. J., 1981. Biological Diversity: The Global Challenge. Proceedings of the US Strategy Conference on Biological Diversity (1618 November 1981), US Department of State Publication, 9262, pp. 2226. Brown, W.L., 1983. Genetic diversity and genetic vulnerabilityan appraisal. Economic Botany 37, 112. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000. Average hourly and weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private nonfarm payrolls by industry. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/ cesbtab3.htm; accessed: 17 May 2000. CAST, 1999. Benets of Biodiversity. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Task Force Report No. 133. Collins, J.E., 1997. Impact of Changing Consumer Lifestles on the Emergence/Reemergence of Foodborne Pathogens. Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (4), 471479. Davies, T., Konisky, D.M., 2000. Environmental implications of the foodservice and food retail industries. Resources for the future, Washington, DC. (Discussion paper 0011). Available from: http:// www.r.org/disc_papers/PDF_les/0011.pdf. Doering, O., 1999. Farmings Future. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 14 (3), 4248. Duvick, D.N., 1984. Genetic Deversity in Major Farm Crops on the Farm and in Reserve. Economic Botany 38 (2), 161178. EIA, 1995. Household Energy Consumption and Expenditures 1993. Energy Information Administration, US Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0321(93). Available from: ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/ pdf/consumption/032193.pdf. EIA, 2001a. Annual Energy Review 2000. Energy Information Administration, US Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0384(2000) Available from: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/multifuel/038400.pdf. EIA, 2001b. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2000. Energy Information Administration, US Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC. DOE/EIA-0573(2000). Elitzak, H., 1999a. Desire for Convenience Drives Marketing Costs. FoodReview 22 (3), 2325. Elitzak, H., 1999b. Food Cost Review, 195097. (Agricultural Economic Report 780) Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. Engler, D.E., Guri, A.Z., Lauritis, J.A., Schloemer, L.M.P., 1993. Genetically transformed pepper plants. US Patent and Trademark Oce Appl. No. 796152; assignee: DNA Plant Technology Co. Environmental Working Group, 2002. Farm Subsidy Database. Available from: http://ewg.org/farm/; accessed: 27 February 2002. EPA, 1996. National Summary of Water Quality Conditions. Oce of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/OW/resources/9698/sec_ one.pdf. EPA, 1998. Dont Throw Away That Food: Strategies for Record-Setting Waste Reduction (EPA-530-F98023). US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ osw. EPA, 1999a. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 19901997 (EPA 236-R-99003). US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/emissions/us1999/index.html. EPA, 1999b. National Air Pollutant Emission Trends Update, 19701997. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA, 2000. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 1998 (EPA530-F-00024). Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm.
1037
ERS, 1997. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 199697. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. (Agricultural Handbook No. 712). ERS, 2000a. The Aging of Farm Operators and Participation of Beginning Producers in Farming. Economic Research Service, USDA. Issues Center report Available from: http://www.econ.ag.gov:80/ whatsnew/issues/beginning/index.htm. ERS, 2000b. Agricultural Productivity. In: Anderson, W., Magleby, R., Heimlich, R. (Eds), Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 2000. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/emphases/harmony/issues/arei2000/. ERS, 2000c. Farm Business Balance Sheet and Financial Ratios. Economic Research Service, USDA. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/brieng/farmincome/fbsdmu.htm; accessed: 29 November 2000. ERS, 2000d. Farm Costs and Returns Home Page. Economic Research Service, USDA. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/brieng/farmincome/car/; accessed: 27 November 2000. ERS, 2000e. US Organic Agriculture. Economic Research Service, USDA. Available from: http:// www.ers.usda.gov/whatsnew/issues/organic/; accessed: 24 May 2000. ERS, 2001. National Farm Income Estimates Brieng Room. Economic Research Service, USDA. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/brieng/farmincome/Fius_txt.htm; accessed: 27 February, 2002. ERSUSDA, 1999. More Farmers Contracting to Manage Risk. Agricultural Outlook JanuaryFebruary, 67. ERSUSDA, 2000a. Marketing Organic Foods. Agricultural Outlook, JuneJuly (ERS-AO-272). ERSUSDA, 2000b. Rewarding Environmentally Friendly Farming. Agricultural Outlook, JuneJuly (ERS-AO-272). ERSUSDA, 2001a. Conservation Tillage Firmly Planted in US Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook, March (ERS-AO-279), pp. 56. ERSUSDA, 2001b. Marketing Fees Reect Supplier-Supermarket Relationship. Agricultural Outlook, March (ERS-AO-279). Eve, M.D., Sperow, M., Paustian, K., Follett, R.F., 2002. National-scale estimation of changes in soil carbon stocks on agricultural lands. Environmental Pollution 116, 431438. FAO, 1999. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available from: http://apps.fao.org/; accessed: May 15, 2000. FoodNet, 2000. 1999 Surveillance Results (Preliminary Report). Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/foodnet. Franklin Associates Ltd., 1999. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1998 Update, Prairie Village, KS. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/mswrpt98/ 98charac.pdf. Fraza o, E., 1999. High costs of poor eating patterns in the United States. In: Fraza o, E. (Ed.), Americas Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences, 1999. (Ed.), Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750.. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. FSIS, 1998. Pathogen Reduction and HACCP Systems. . .and Beyond. Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA. Available from: http://www.fsis.usda.gov:80/OA/background/bkbeyond.htm; accessed: 26 May 2000. Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C.A., Sobal, J., Falk, L.W., 1996. Food choice: a conceptual model of the process. Appetite 26 (3), 247265. Gallo, A.E., 1999. Food advertising in the United States. In: Fraza o, E. (Ed.), Americas Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750. Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division, USDA, Washington, DC. Garvin, L., Henry, N., Vernon, M., 2000. Community Materials Flow Analysis: A Case Study of Ann Arbor, Michigan. MS Thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Goldstein, N., 1997. The state of garbage in America. BioCycle 38 (4), 6067. Goldstein, N., Block, D., 1997. Nationwide inventory of food residuals composting. BioCycle 38 (8), 1997. 4636357.
1038
Hall, C.A.S., Cleveland, C.J., Kaufmann, R., 1986. Energy and Resource Quality. Wiley Interscience, New York. Hansen, J.W., 1996. Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept? Agricultural Systems 50, 117143. Harlin, J.M. (Ed.), 1995. Rangeland to cropland conversions in the western states: implications for soil loss and sustainability. In: Proceedings of Forum of the Association for Arid Land Studies XI (Lubbock, TX), International Center for Arid and Semiarid Land Studies. Heernan, W., Hendrickson, M., Gronski, R., 1999. Consolidation in the Food and Agriculture System. National Farmers Union. Available from: http://www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/whstudy.pdf. Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., 2000. Life Cycle-based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the US Food System (CSS0004). Center for Sustainable Systems, Ann Arbor, MI. Available from: http:// css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS_2000_4.pdf. Hess, G.R., Campbell, C.L., Fiscus, D.A., Hellkamp, A.S., McQuaid, B.F., Munster, M.J., Peck, S.L., Shafer, S.R., 2000. A conceptual model and indicators for assessing the ecological condition of agricultural lands. Journal of Environmental Quality 29, 728737. Hoag, D.L., 1999. Agricultural crisis in America: a reference handbook. ABC-CLIO, Inc, Santa Barbara, CA. Hora, M., 2001. Tick, J. (From Farm to Table: Making the Connections in the Mid-Atlantic Food System). Capital Area Food Bank, Washington, D.C. ISO, 1997. Environmental ManagementLife cycle assessmentPrinciples and Framework. The International Organization for Standardization, (Geneva. ISO 14040). Jackson, W., 1980. New Roots for Agriculture. Friends of the Earth, San Francisco. James, C., 1999. Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1999 (ISAAA Briefs No. 12). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY. Available from: http://isaaa.org/publications/briefs/Brief_12.htm. James, C., 2001. Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2001 (ISAAA Briefs No. 24 preview). International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY. Available from: http://isaaa.org/publications/briefs/Brief_24.htm. Kaiser, J., 2000. USDA to commercialize terminator technology. Science 289 (5480), 709710. Kantor, L.S., Lipton, K., Manchester, A., Oliveira, V., 1997. Estimating and addressing Americas food losses. Food Review 20 (1). Keeney, D., Muller, M., 2000. Nitrogen and the Upper Mississippi River. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN. Available from: http://www.iatp.org/foodsec/library/admin/uploadedles/showle.cfm?FileName=Nitrogen_and_the_Mississippi.doc. Kellogg, R.L., Lander, C.H., 1999. Trends in the potential for nutrient loading from conned livestock operations. In: Proceedings of The State of North Americas Private Land Conference (Chicago, IL, 1921 January, 1999), National Resources Conservation Service, USDA. Kellogg, R.L., Nehring, R., Grube, A., Plotkin, S., Goss, D.W., Wallace, S., 1999. Trends in the potential for environmental risk from pesticide loss from farm elds. In: Proceedings of the State of North Americas Private Land Conference (Chicago, IL, 1921 January, 1999), National Resources Conservation Service, USDA. Lal, R., 2002. Soil carbon dynamics in cropland and rangeland. Environmental Pollution 116, 353362. Lewandowski, I., Ha rdtlein, M., Kaltschmitt, M., 1999. Sustainable crop production: denition and methodological approach for assessing and implementing sustainability. Crop Science 39, 184193. Lewis, W.J., Lenteren, J.C.v., Phatak, S.C., III, J.H.T., 1997. A total system approach to sustainable pest management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94, 1224312248. McIsaac, G.F., David, M.B., Gertner, G.Z., Goolsby, D.A., 2001. Nitrate ux in the Mississppi River. Nature 414, 166167. McMullan, M., Jones, R., Gallenberg, D., 1997. Scab of wheat and barley: a re-emerging disease of devastating impact. Plant Disease 81, 13401348. Mead, P.S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L.F., Bresee, J.S., Shapiro, C., Grin, P.M., Tauxe, R.V., 1999. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases 5 (5), 607625. Mehta, K., Gabbard, S.M., Barrat, V., Lewis, M., Carrol, D., Mines, R., 2000. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 19971998 (Research Report No. 8). US Department of Labor., Available from: http://www.dol.gov/dol/asp/public/programs/agworker/report_8.pdf.
1039
Miller, S.M., Sweet, C.W., DePinto, J.V., Hornbuckle, K.C., 2000. Atrazine and nutrients in precipitation: results from the Lake Michigan mass balance study. Environmental Science & Technology 34 (1), 5561. Miranda, J.I., 2001. Multicriteria analysis applied to the sustainable agriculture problem. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 8 (1), 6777. Moller, H., Vold, M., Toresen, K., Ormstad, I., 1996. Life cycle assessment of pork and lamb meat. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Application of Life Cycle Assessment in Agriculture, Food and Non-Food Agro-Industry and Forestry: Achievements and Prospects (Brussels, Belgium, 45 April), VITO. Moloney, M.M., Radke, S., 1998. Transformation and Foreign Gene Expression in Brassica Species. US Patent and Trademark Oce appl. No. 415351; assignee: Calgene, Inc. NASS, 1999. Consumption and family living. In: Agricultural Statistics 1999. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, Washington, DC (Chapter XIII). National Cancer Institute, 1999. The Agricultural Health Study. Available from: http://aghealth.org/ index.html; accessed: 24 August 2001. National Research Council, 1972. Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. National Research Council, 1989. Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Nestle, M., Jacobson, M.F., 2000. Halting the obesity epidemic: a public health policy approach. Public Health Reports 115 (Jan/Feb.), 1224. Nord, M., Jemison, K., Bickel, G., 1999. Prevalence of Food Insecurity and Hunger, by State, 19961998 (Food Assistance and Nutrition Report No. 2). Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. NRCS, 1999. 1997 National Resources Inventory Summary Report. Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, DC. Obrycki, J.J., Losey, J.E., Taylor, O.R., Jesse, L.C.H., 2001. Transgenic insecticidal corn: beyond insecticidal toxicity to ecological complexity. BioScience 51 (5), 353361. OECD, 2000. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture; vol. 3: Methods and Results. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. Available from: (executive summary) http:// www.oecd.org/agr/env/exsum_e.pdf. Oce of the Vice President, 2000. Vice President Gore Announces Protection of 2.5 Million Acres of Environmentally Sensitive Farmland. Available from: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/news/releases/2000/ 05/wh05192000.htm. Opie, J., 1993. Ogallala: Water for a Dry Land. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. OSullivan, A., Sherin, S. M., 1998. Oligopoly and antitrust policy. In: Economics: Principles and Tools. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (Chapter 13). Papendick, R., Parr, J., 1992. Soil qualitythe key to a sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7 (1&2), 34. Pimentel, D., Acquay, H., Biltonen, M., Rice, P., Silva, M., Nelson, J., Lipner, V., Giordano, S., Horowitz, A., DAmore, M., 1992. Environmental and economic costs of pesticide use. BioScience 42 (10), 750760. Pimentel, D., Dazhong, W., 1990. Technological changes in energy use in US agricultural production. In: Carroll, C.R., Vandermeer, J.H., Rosset, P. (Eds.), Agroecology. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York. Pimentel, D., Harvey, C., Resosudarmo, P., Sinclair, K., Kurz, D., McNair, M., Crist, S., Shpritz, L., Fitton, L., Saouri, R., Blair, R., 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benets. Science 267, 11171123. Pimentel, D., McLaughin, L., Zepp, A., Lakitan, B., Kraus, T., Kleinman, P., Vancini, F., Roach, W.J., Graap, E., Keeton, W.S., Selig, G., 1991. Environmental and economic impacts of reducing US agricultural pesticide use. In: Pimentel, D. (Ed.), Handbook on Pest Management in Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 679718. Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M., 1996a. Energy use in fruit, vegetable, and forage production. In: Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M. (Eds.), Food, Energy, and Society. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO, pp. 131147.
1040
Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M., 1996b. Food processing, packaging, and preparation. In: Pimentel, D., Pimentel, M. (Eds.), Food, Energy, and Society. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, CO, pp. 186 201. Pirog, R., Pelt, T.V., Enshayan, K., Cook, E., 2001. Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, IA. Available from: http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/. Pretty, J., 2001. The rapid emergence of genetic modication in world agriculture: contested risks and benets. Environmental Conservation 28 (3), 248262. Putnam, J. J., and Allshouse, J. E., 1999. Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 197097 (Statistical Bulletin No. 965). Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. Available from: http:// www.ers.usda.gov/epubs/pdf/sb965/index.htm. RAFI, 1999. The Gene Giants. Rural Advancement Foundation International, Winnipeg, Canada. RAFI Communique Available from: http://www.ra.org/. RAFI, 2000. Suicide Seeds on the Fast Track. Rural Advancement Foundation International, Winnipeg, Canada. RAFI Communique 64, Available from: http://www.ra.org/. Reganold, J.P., Glover, J.D., Andrews, P.K., Hinman, H.R., 2001. Sustainability of three apple production systems. Nature 410, 926930. Runyan, J.L., 1998a. Injuries and Fatalities on US Farms. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. AIB-739, Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov:80/epubs/htmlsum/aib739.htm. Runyan, J.L., 1998b. Prole of Hired Farmworkers, 1996 Annual Averages (Agricultural Economic Report No. 762). Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. Rygwelski, K.R., Richardson, W.L., Endicott, D.D., 1999. A screening-level model evaluation of atrazine in the Lake Michigan basin. Journal of Great Lakes Research 25 (1), 94106. Sands, G.R., Podmore, T.H., 2000. A generalized environmental sustainability index for agricultural systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 79, 2941. SARE, 2000. Community Supported Agriculture. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. Available from: http://www.sare.org/csa/index.htm; accessed: September 14, 2000. Scannell, K.M., Conway, M.E., Gordner, R.L., Klein, L.J., Zorn, M., 2000. National Nutrition Summit: information resources. National Library of Medicine (US). Available from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ pubs/resources.html; accessed: July 12, 2001. Scherer, F.M., 1971. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Rand McNally & Company, Chicago. Schottler, S.P., Eisenreich, S.J., 1997. Mass balance model to quantify atrazine sources, transformation rates, and trends in the Great Lakes. Environmental Science & Technology 31 (9), 1997. 26163632625. Schreinemachers, D.M., 2000. Cancer mortality in four northern wheat-producing states. Environmental Health Perspectives 108 (9). 873363881. Sheehan, J., Camobreco, V., Dueld, J., Graboski, M., Shapouri, H., 1998. Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for use in an Urban Bus. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado. NREL/SR-58024089. Sleeswijk, A.W., Zeijts, R.K.H. v., Reus, J.A.W.A., Onna, M.J.G. M.-v., Leneman, H., Sengers, H.H.W.J.M., 1996. Application of LCA to Agricultural Products Report No. 130. Centre of Environmental Science Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. Solley, W.B., Pierce, R.R., Perlman, H.A., 1998. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995. US Department of the Interior, Denver, CO. US Geological Survey Circular 1200, Available from: http:// water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/html/. Sorensen, A.A., Greene, R.P., Russ, K., 1997. Farming on the Edge. American Farmland Trust, DeKalb, Illinois. Available from: http://www.farmlandinfo.org/cae/foe2/foetoc.html. Soule, J., Carre, D., Jackson, W., 1990. Ecological impact of modern agriculture. In: Carroll, C.R., Vandermeer, J.H., Rosset, P.M. (Eds.), Agroecology. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co, New York. Sulser, T.B., Duryea, M.L., Frolich, L.M., 2001. A eld practical approach for assessing biophysical sustainability of alternative agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems 68 (2), 113135. Supermarket News, 2000. Transitions at the Top, Supermarket News, 24 January, pp. 3S.
1041
Tauxe, R.V., 1997. Emerging foodborne diseases: an evolving public health challenge. Emerging Infectious Diseases 3 (4), 425434. Tillotson, J.E., 2000. Global supermarkets. Nutrition Today 35 (3), 7683. Tippett, K.S., Cleveland, L.E., 1999. How current diets stack up: comparison with dietary guidelines. In: Fraza o, E. (Ed.), Americas Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 750. Economic Research Service, Food and Rural Economics Division, USDA, Washington, DC. Troiano, R.P., Macera, C.A., Ballard-Barbash, R., 2001. Be physically active each day. How can we know? Journal of Nutrition 131 (Suppl. 2), 451S460S. UN, 2001. World Population Prospects: The 2000 Revision (ESA/P/WP.165) Population Division, Dept. of Economic and Social Aairs. United Nations, New York, NY. Uri, N.D., Lewis, J.A., 1999. Agriculture and the Dynamics of Soil Erosion in the United States. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 14 (2/3), 6382. US Dept. of Commerce, 1997. 1974 Census of Agriculture. US Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC. US Senate Science Committee, 2000. Seeds of opportunity: an assessment of the benets, safety, and oversight of plant genomics and agricultural biotechnology, Washington, DC. 106th Congress, 2nd session, Committee Print 106-B, 13 April 2000. USDA, 1996. Secretarys Memorandum 95006: Sustainable Development. US Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.usda.gov/agency/oce/oce/sustainable-development/secmemo.htm. USDA, 1998. Agriculture Fact Book 1998. US Dept. of Agriculture, Oce of Communications, Washington, DC. USDA, 1999a. 1997 Census of Agriculture. AC97-A-51 US Dept. of Agriculture. Available from: http:// www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volume1/vol1pubs.htm. USDA, 1999b. Agriculture Fact Book 1999. US Dept. of Agriculture, Oce of Communications, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.usda.gov:80/news/pubs/fbook00/factbook2000.pdf. USDA, 2000a. Agriculture Fact Book 2000. US Dept. of Agriculture, Oce of Communications, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.usda.gov:80/news/pubs/fbook00/factbook2000.pdf. USDA, 2000b. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. US Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.usda.gov/cnpp/DietGd.pdf. USDA/EPA, 1999. Waste Not, Want Not: Feeding the Hungry and Reducing Solid Waste through Food Recovery. US Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wastenot.htm. VITO, 1996. International Conference on Application of Life Cycle Assessment in Agriculture, Food and Non-Food Agro-Industry and Forestry: Achievements and Prospects. Proceedings (Brussels, Belgium, 45 April). VITO, 1998. International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in Agriculture, Agro-Forestry and Forestry. Proceedings (Brussels, Belgium, 34 December). Wang, M., Saricks, C., Wu, M., 1997. Fuel-Cycle Fossil Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Fuel Ethanol Produced from US Midwest Corn. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. West, T.O., Marland, G., 2002. Net carbon ux from agricultural ecosystems: methodology for full carbon cycle analyses. Environmental Pollution 116, 439444. Willer, H., Yusse, M., 2000. Organic Agriculture World-Wide: Statistics and Perspectives. Stiftung kologie & Landbau. Sonderausgabe Nr. 74. Available from: www.soel.de/inhalte/publikationen/ O s_74.pdf. Wolf, A.M., Colditz, G.A., 1998. Current estimates of the economic cost of obesity in the United States. Obesity Research 6, 97106. Wolfe, M.S., 2000. Crop strength through diversity. Nature 406, 681682. Wolfenbarger, L.L., Phifer, P.R., 2000. The Ecological Risks and Benets of Genetically Engineered Plants. Science 290 (5499), 20882093. Wood, D., Lenne, J.M., 1999. Agrobiodiversity: Characterization, Utilization, and Management. CABI Publishing, New York.

Lca PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lca PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041 www.elsevier.

Assessing the sustainability of the US food system: a life cycle perspective

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

Table 1 Life Cycle Sustainability Indicators for the Food System

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

Agricultural growing and production

(continued on next page)

Table 1 (continued) Life cycle stage Stakeholders Indicators

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

Social Quality of life and worker satisfaction in food processing industry

Preparation and consumption

Consumers Food service Nutritionists/ Health professionals

% of food dollar spent outside the home

Consumers Waste managers Food recovery & gleaning orgs

Ratio of food wasted to food consumed in the US $ Spent on food disposal

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

1997 172.56 199.31 33.17 11.70

1998 108.57 143.85 56.86 8.27

212.39 129.56 56.83 7.03

1988a,d 2201 402,429 183 1.6

1974b,d 2314 411,578 178 1.9

1950b,e 5388 470,011 87.4 3.1

2192 385,976 176 1.4

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

Alcoholic beverages (%) 1.0 6.1 2.7 1.9 4.4

2.5 6.5 2.9

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

Consumption Costs of diet related diseases increasing

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

M.C. Heller, G.A. Keoleian / Agricultural Systems 76 (2003) 10071041

Potrebbero piacerti anche