Cargando…

A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications

BACKGROUND: Infant formula requires mass production by the dairy industry, with plastic and other waste and degradation of land and waterways. Millions of babies, two thirds globally, now have milk formula, with breastfeeding in dramatic decline in Asia. ECONOMIC COST EXTERNALITIES AND COMMERCIAL IN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Smith, Julie P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882342/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31798668
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13006-019-0243-8
_version_ 1783474137316982784
author Smith, Julie P.
author_facet Smith, Julie P.
author_sort Smith, Julie P.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Infant formula requires mass production by the dairy industry, with plastic and other waste and degradation of land and waterways. Millions of babies, two thirds globally, now have milk formula, with breastfeeding in dramatic decline in Asia. ECONOMIC COST EXTERNALITIES AND COMMERCIAL INCENTIVES: Economic thinking clarifies that markets are not perfect - price incentives can lead to excessive and inefficient environmental damage. Market prices paid to produce or use a commodity may not reflect its true resource costs. The ongoing global transition in infant and young child feeding (IYCF) toward milk formula use makes urgent the investigation of its environmental costs, including greenhouse gas (GHG) implications. Socially vulnerable populations are also particularly exposed to climate change risks, but have the least voice and agency. THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCACY: Few question the scale of the baby food industry, especially in major food exporting countries. Breastfeeding advocacy non-government organisations have led the investigations, and exposed the inequitable vulnerabilities. A ground-breaking study in 2016 showed emissions from just six Asia Pacific countries were equivalent to 6 billion miles of car travel. Each kilogram (kg) of milk formula generated 4 kg of (carbon dioxide (CO(2)) equivalent) greenhouse gas during production. Much of this was from unnecessary toddler formula. Recent research reveals that if looking at the full product lifecycle, including consumer use, GHG emissions per kg are actually three times higher than these pioneering estimates. Environment and health harms combined with economic evidence highlight the place for a strong public health response on this issue. CONCLUSION: Formula feeding is a maladaptive practice in the face of contemporary global environmental and population health challenges. Breastfeeding protection, support and promotion helps to safeguard planetary and human health by minimising environmental harm. It is a beneficial response to concerns about disease burdens and climate change. Breastfeeding populations are more resilient in emergencies. Effective and cost-effective policies and interventions exist for increasing breastfeeding and reducing unnecessary use of formula. Implementing such measures presents a rare opportunity to both reduce the greenhouse gas problem and improve human nutrition, health, and health equity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6882342
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68823422019-12-03 A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications Smith, Julie P. Int Breastfeed J Commentary BACKGROUND: Infant formula requires mass production by the dairy industry, with plastic and other waste and degradation of land and waterways. Millions of babies, two thirds globally, now have milk formula, with breastfeeding in dramatic decline in Asia. ECONOMIC COST EXTERNALITIES AND COMMERCIAL INCENTIVES: Economic thinking clarifies that markets are not perfect - price incentives can lead to excessive and inefficient environmental damage. Market prices paid to produce or use a commodity may not reflect its true resource costs. The ongoing global transition in infant and young child feeding (IYCF) toward milk formula use makes urgent the investigation of its environmental costs, including greenhouse gas (GHG) implications. Socially vulnerable populations are also particularly exposed to climate change risks, but have the least voice and agency. THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCACY: Few question the scale of the baby food industry, especially in major food exporting countries. Breastfeeding advocacy non-government organisations have led the investigations, and exposed the inequitable vulnerabilities. A ground-breaking study in 2016 showed emissions from just six Asia Pacific countries were equivalent to 6 billion miles of car travel. Each kilogram (kg) of milk formula generated 4 kg of (carbon dioxide (CO(2)) equivalent) greenhouse gas during production. Much of this was from unnecessary toddler formula. Recent research reveals that if looking at the full product lifecycle, including consumer use, GHG emissions per kg are actually three times higher than these pioneering estimates. Environment and health harms combined with economic evidence highlight the place for a strong public health response on this issue. CONCLUSION: Formula feeding is a maladaptive practice in the face of contemporary global environmental and population health challenges. Breastfeeding protection, support and promotion helps to safeguard planetary and human health by minimising environmental harm. It is a beneficial response to concerns about disease burdens and climate change. Breastfeeding populations are more resilient in emergencies. Effective and cost-effective policies and interventions exist for increasing breastfeeding and reducing unnecessary use of formula. Implementing such measures presents a rare opportunity to both reduce the greenhouse gas problem and improve human nutrition, health, and health equity. BioMed Central 2019-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6882342/ /pubmed/31798668 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13006-019-0243-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Commentary
Smith, Julie P.
A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications
title A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications
title_full A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications
title_fullStr A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications
title_full_unstemmed A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications
title_short A commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications
title_sort commentary on the carbon footprint of milk formula: harms to planetary health and policy implications
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882342/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31798668
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13006-019-0243-8
work_keys_str_mv AT smithjuliep acommentaryonthecarbonfootprintofmilkformulaharmstoplanetaryhealthandpolicyimplications
AT smithjuliep commentaryonthecarbonfootprintofmilkformulaharmstoplanetaryhealthandpolicyimplications