Brazilian cuisine: comparison of

environmental, economic and nutritional

performance of two typical Brazilian dishes

Mirelly Lopes da Costa, Gabrielli do

Carmo Martinelli, Maycon Jorge Ulisses
Saraiva Farinha, Luciana Virginia Mario
Bernardo, et al.
Environment, Development and
Sustainability
A Multidisciplinary Approach to the
Theory and Practice of Sustainable
Development

ISSN 1387-585X

Environ Dev Sustain

DOI 10.1007/s10668-020-00707-z

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Nature B.V.. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived
in electronic repositories. If you wish to
self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Environment, Development and Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00707-z

Brazilian cuisine: comparison of environmental, economic

and nutritional performance of two typical Brazilian dishes

Mirelly Lopes da Costa1 · Gabrielli do Carmo Martinelli1 ·

Maycon Jorge Ulisses Saraiva Farinha1 · Luciana Virginia Mario Bernardo2 ·
Carla Heloisa de Faria Domingues1 · Everton Vogel3 · Clandio Favarini Ruviaro1

Received: 2 August 2019 / Accepted: 27 March 2020

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
Brazilian cuisine is influenced by the diversity of geographical conditions, production of
local ingredients and the multicultural character of foreign and native folks. In view of this
context, we analyze sustainability issues in relation to the preparation of rice with jerky
(“Arroz carreteiro”), and rice with chicken (“Galinhada”). This study is divided into two
stages: environmental and economic analysis of food production process by life cycle anal‑
ysis and nutritional assessment in comparison with the recommendations of the Worker’s
Feeding Program (PAT) issued by the Ministry of Labor and Employment. In environmen‑
tal terms, while a portion of Arroz carreteiro emits 2.08 kg of ­CO2eq, a portion of Galin‑
hada emits 1.34 kg ­CO2eq. Regarding acidification potential, the value found for Arroz
carreteiro was 0.028 kg S­ O2eq and for Galinhada was 0.011 kg S ­ O2eq. Regarding eutrophi‑
cation potential, the value for Galinhada was 0.005 kg P ­ O4eq and for Arroz carreteiro was
0.014 kg ­PO4eq. In economic terms, Galinhada has a lower cost than Arroz carreteiro.
Regarding the nutritional aspect, both preparations presented values close to those recom‑
mended by the PAT. However, both preparations exceeded the protein needs and Galinhada
exceeded sodium needs. The content of fibers was low, reaching only around 20% of the
PAT. The results of the dishes analyzed are consistent with the values found in similar
environmental studies with regard to ­CO2eq emissions, and they provide good amounts of
nutrients as required for a main meal. However, they need to be balanced with other prepa‑
rations to reach the values recommended.

Keywords Food consumption · Cultural feeding · Life cycle analysis · Eating habits

* Clandio Favarini Ruviaro

clandioruviaro@ufgd.edu.br
1
Agribusiness Postgraduate Program, Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD), Dourados,
Mato Grosso Do Sul CEP 79804‑970, Brazil
2
University of Oeste Paraná-Unioeste, Toledo, PR, Brazil
3
PhD Program for Agricultural Sciences: Agricultural Economics, Georg-August-Universität
Göttingen, GZG, Göttingen, Germany

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Author's personal copy
M. L. da Costa et al.

1 Introduction

In contemporary times, changes in eating habits have occurred mainly due to the new
lifestyle that the modern population has been experiencing (Calderón et al. 2010). Given
this, this recently acquired habit requires practicality, minimum time spent preparing
daily meals, not to mention the importance of prioritizing nutritional quality and food
price (Headey and Alderman 2019; Webb et al. 2014; Wunderlich et al. 2018).
Because of this, in recent decades, it is increasingly common for daily meals to be
eaten away from home (Machado-Rodrigues et al. 2018). An example of this is Brazil,
as a large part of the working population eats at least one of their daily meals away
from home (Donato 2009). Still, the study by Bezerra and Sichieri (2010) points to a
frequency of 35% in out-of-home food consumption, while household spending in the
out-of-home dining sector accounted for 42.8% in urban areas and 27, 3% in rural areas
between 2008 and 2009 (Brazil 2011; Silva et al. 2015; Schlindwein et al. 2016).How‑
ever, out-of-home consumption does not reach all classes, specifically low-income ones.
Although food production is currently meeting population demand, food insecurity still
affects about 800 million people worldwide, at least one in nine people suffer from food
insecurity (FAO 2015; IFAD and WFP 2015). Unfortunately, in Brazil, this situation
does not differ from the rest of the world, since access to food occurs at an uneven pace.
The challenge increases as the world’s population grows. The estimated number of
9.8 billion people by the year 2050 is a 30% increase over the current population (FAO
2017). Other factors, such as increase in per capita income and urbanization, espe‑
cially in developing countries, are expected to increase food demand by more than 70%
(Alexandratos and Bruinsma 2012; Saath and Fachinello 2018). This context indicates
that increasing nutritional demand from the world population in the future may imply
increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions if no measures to reduce these are taken
in the food production process.
However, concern is intensifying as food production now accounts for approximately
29% of global (GHG) emissions (Vermeulen et al. 2012). The agri-food supply chains
are known to depend on uncontrollable weather events that may negatively influence
yield and prices (Saronga et al. 2016). Thus, we can list the absence or excess of rain,
erosion, eutrophication and loss of biodiversity (Lobell et al. 2011; Hughes 2000;
Hansen et al. 2001; Travis 2003; Parmesan and Yohe 2003).
Although Brazil is one of the countries that has a significant share in agricultural
production, inappropriate land use can reduce yields (Duffy et al. 2017; Ghisellini et al.
2016). The country is among the largest rice producers, being the most consumed cereal
in the world (FAO 2013; USDA 2018). According to the latest Household Budget Sur‑
vey—POF 2008/2009, it was identified that the annual per capita household consump‑
tion of rice in Brazil represents 26.5 kg (IBGE 2010). Its demand is estimated at 11.7
million tons in the country, contributing largely to the domestic supply and food secu‑
rity of the population.
Cattle raising in Brazil is also a highlight. In 2018, 10.96 million tons of carcass
equivalent were produced, exceeding the total volume produced in 2017 by approxi‑
mately 13%, while in 2018, the annual consumption of beef was 42.12 kg. Between
2017 and 2018, livestock increased to 8.7% its share of the Brazilian total GDP (ABIEC
2019).
Since 2010 Brazil leads the world exports of poultry, while occupying the second
position in production, with a total volume of 12.86 million tons in 2018, in which

13
 Author's personal copy
Brazilian cuisine: comparison of environmental, economic…

68.1% were destined to the market and 31.9% for exports (ABPA 2019). In 2018, the
consumption of this source of protein in the country reached the average of 41.99 kg per
person (ABPA 2019).
Due to the relevance that these meat and cereal have for the country, especially
from the nutritional and economic point of view, two typical dishes stand out in the
Brazilian cuisine, Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada (Brasil 2014). In this research, the
object of analysis is related to the food culture of Brazil. Specifically, in the Brazilian
Center–West region, the most frequently consumed typical dish is Galinhada (38%) and
Arroz carreteiro (24%). These dishes are consumed at least once a week (Chaves et al.
2009). Typical dishes of a given region should be analyzed based on the tripod nutri‑
tional value, impacts on the environment and economic factors. This should be done
since these meals are traditionally accepted.
Moreover, the cultural rescue of local identity through the encouragement of typical
dishes acts as a tool to foster local land development. Such incentive stimulates coop‑
eration between local actors, participatory management, networking, public authorities,
institutions and the market. In addition, it keeps economic resources within the region,
allowing an increase in job opportunities and income for the local population (Zaneti
2016).
With this in mind, we compared the environmental, economic and nutritional perfor‑
mance of two typical dishes of the Brazilian cuisine, namely Arroz carreteiro and Galin‑
hada. Analyzing performance on these three perspectives is important not only locally. This
is because over the years, the government has been encouraging worldwide the mitiga‑
tion of greenhouse gases caused by agriculture and livestock, e.g., United Nations Frame‑
work Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), e REDD program (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation), besides worrying about the efficiency of the use of natural resources, e.g.,
The Water–Energy–Food Nexus, a new approach in support of food security and sustain‑
able agriculture (FAO 2014). And finally, in 2019 The Lancet Commission report launched
The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition and climate change (Swinburn et al.
2019a, b).
However, despite the public policies mentioned above, studies that analyze dietary pat‑
ters to make them more sustainable are incipient. According to FAO (2010), a sustainable
diet must: (1) be of low environmental impact, (2) contribute to nutritional food security
and (3) provide a healthy life for present and future generations (Burlingame and Dernini
2012). However, the breadth and the complexity of this issue make it difficult to develop
quantitative tools for evaluating the sustainability of diets (Jones et al. 2016). One option
considered by authors from several countries is life cycle assessment (LCA). Previous stud‑
ies have used the LCA method to analyze the impacts of diets and the production of food
for consumption. Some examples can be mentioned: (1) comparing integrated production
chains for the production of chicken-based dishes (Davis and Sonesson 2008); (2) evalua‑
tion of fish-based dishes (Zufia and Arana 2008); (3) average diet of Spanish people includ‑
ing human excretion (Muñoz et al. 2010); (4) evaluation of environmental impacts related
to the direct consumption of vegetable protein compared with its conversion into animal
protein in two European countries (Davis et al. 2010); (5) production of canned food by the
industry (Calderón et al. 2010); and (6) use of the input product matrix with LCA to evalu‑
ate the carbon footprint in Finnish food chains (Virtanen et al. 2011).
However, to date, the environmental, economic and nutritional performance of Brazilian
cuisine has not been analyzed, specifically when considering the “Arroz carreteiro” and the
“Galinhada.” This paper is structured as follows: Sect. 2 presents the area of study and the

13
 Author's personal copy
M. L. da Costa et al.

Fig. 1  Geographical location of the municipality of Dourados, MS. Location of study area: Eco Sol Bistro.
Source: Google Earth, 2019

life cycle assessment methodology; Sects. 3 and 4 present the results and discussions; and
Sect. 5 presents some limitations of our research and further recommendations.

2 Methods

2.1 Study area

The restaurant used to conduct this case study is called the “Bistro Eco Sol” Experimental
Restaurant. The establishment is located in the city of Dourados-MS, state of Mato Grosso
do Sul, situated on the grounds of the Social and Solidarity Technologies Incubator of the
Federal University of Grande Dourados (ITESS/UFGD), located on the Dourados/Itahum
Highway, km 12—Unit II (Fig. 1).
The restaurant’s meals are prepared by women from the “Lagoa Grande” and Quilombo
“Picadinha” settlements, both located in the municipality of Dourados, Mato Grosso do
Sul, with support of the university’s professors, technicians and academics. Food quality
protocols, as well as a planning, cost management and marketing strategies are developed
together within the team. Meals are served three times a week, during lunch.

13
 Author's personal copy
Brazilian cuisine: comparison of environmental, economic…

Fig. 2  Meal life cycle. Source: Adapted from Schmidt Rivera et al. (2014)

In this space, meals are produced and marketed based on typical foods of the regional
and Brazilian cuisine, among them Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada. These two dishes were
chosen for analysis because they are main courses and with greater acceptance. The menu
consists of main course, salad buffet, natural juice, dessert and coffee. The storage system
follows the Just In Time—JIT—minimum storage model (Rossetti et al. 2008).
The Eco Sol Bistro has a capacity to serve approximately 70 meals a day, so consumers
must make reservations in advance. By prioritizing food produced by family farmers with‑
out the use of pesticides, the public is diverse, composed of public servants and students.

2.2 Life cycle assessment

The life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology was used for the development of this
research. LCA has become one of the most widely used tools for assessing several impacts
of diets and food commodities (Heller et al. 2013; Jones et al. 2016). The LCA proposed
in this study follows a structure composed of four phases according to the norms of the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO): (a) definition of objective and scope,
(b) life cycle inventory, (c) life cycle impacts assessment, and (d) interpretation of results.
These phases were considered in an integrated way, allowing constant adaptations during
the execution of the project (ISO 14040, 2006).
We seek to analyze the environmental impacts of the production of two typical Brazilian
dishes, the Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada. For this purpose, “one portion of ready-to-eat
Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada” was defined as the functional unit (FU). The FU is recur‑
rent in LCA studies on the production of meals (Davis et al. 2010; Saarinen et al. 2012).
The portion of Arroz carreteiro weighted 410 g. It is a dish containing white rice, beef,
charque (beef jerky), onion, garlic, oil and salt. The portion of Galinhada weighted 458 g.
It consists of white rice, chicken, onion, garlic and salt. As the FU was fixed for a ready-to-
eat meal, the systems boundaries were “from cradle to the restaurant table.” The production
flow of ready-to-eat meals consisted of the following phases: production and raw material
processing, preprocessing or manufacturing, distribution and preparation and consumption

13
 Author's personal copy
M. L. da Costa et al.

of the ingredients used in the production of meals. The inputs of resources for these phases
and, later, the emissions from the outputs of these resources were analyzed (Fig. 2).

2.2.1 Life cycle inventory

The inventory was performed in two stages. The first stage consisted of collecting data for
the production of the dishes at the restaurant. At this stage, the all ingredients for the prepa‑
ration and conservation of the dishes were taken into account. With the help of a nutrition‑
ist, technical cards were elaborated for the production of Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada.
In this technical card, the per capita quantities of each ingredient for the production of
meals, the steps of its production and size of a portion were recorded, as inputs and outputs
were collected on site in 2016 (Akutsu et al. 2005).
The weight of the ingredients used in the meals was obtained using precision scales.
The consumption of liquefied Petroleum gas (LPG), electricity and water were measured
at the end of each restaurant’s operation day. The water consumption was measured using a
hydrometer. It is noteworthy that the restaurant has a standardized weekly menu, facilitat‑
ing the quantitative survey of inputs and outputs per serving (e.g., once a week is served
rice with beef (“Arroz carreteiro”) and the next day chicken (“Galinhada”).
At the second stage, impact factors related to each ingredient and resource used to pro‑
duce the dishes were identified. This stage was carried out through bibliographic surveys
and international inventory databases. The processes and respective emissions for the pro‑
duction and transportation of the ingredients were consulted in the literature and the data‑
bases Ecoinvent3, LCA Food DK and Agri-footprint. For the transportation of ingredients
to the restaurant, it was assumed that all ingredients were transported to the distribution
center of the city of Dourados, MS, using large 32-t Lorry trucks, assuming an EURO3
category. From the distribution center to the restaurant, the ingredients were transported
using light commercial vehicles. Due to the lack of information on the origin of the ingre‑
dients to calculate transportation, it was assumed that the production site of rice was Rio
Grande do Sul, chicken and onion was Santa Catarina, beef was Mato Grosso do Sul, salt
was Rio Grande do Norte, and soybean oil and garlic was São Paulo (Fig. 3).
The inventory data allowed a complete evaluation of the global warming potential for a
100-year horizon (GWP-100). Performing the LCA allowed a screening1 for eutrophication
potential (EP)2 and acidification potential (AP)3 of each meal. The screening was used for
EP and AP due to the lack of information on ingredients with the lowest participation in
the final weight of the dishes (garlic, salt, oil). In order to analyze the categories described
above, the CML 2 baseline 2000 v2.05/World 1995 method was used in the SimaPro®
software.

1
Screening LCA is considered a shorter form of the full LCA. It is the first step before conducting a LCA
in accordance with the standards of ISO (European Commission—Joint Research Center—Institute for
Environment and Sustainability 2010).
2
Eutrophication is characterized by excessive plant and algal growth due to the increased availability of
one or more limiting growth factors needed for photosynthesis (Schindler 2006).
3
Acidification is a consequence of acids being emitted to the atmosphere and subsequently deposited in
surface soils and waters (La Rosa 2016).

13
 Author's personal copy
Brazilian cuisine: comparison of environmental, economic…

Fig. 3  Production location of the ingredients used for the dishes

2.3 Life cycle costing: LCC

The life cycle costing as applied in this study follows the methodology proposed by
Swarr et al. (2011) and Hunkeler et al. (2008). In addition, the assumptions disclosed
by ISO 14040/44 for conducting an LCA (ISO 14040, 2006) were followed. The eco‑
nomic data for the evaluation of LCC were collected together with the inventory for the
performance of the LCA. The functional unit at this stage also followed the proposal
of environmental analysis. A portion of each meal contained 410 g for Arroz carreteiro
and 458 g for Galinhada. The scope, however, considered as the beginning of the analy‑
sis the purchase of ingredients at the wholesale center of the city of Dourados (MS).
Thus, the LCC in this study is characterized from “cradle to consumption,” including
the purchase of raw materials at the wholesale center, transportation to the restaurant,
preparation and consumption in the restaurant. By using the LCA methodology for food
objects, as in the case of this research, it is necessary to complement the analysis of
environmental issues with nutritional aspects (Heller et al. 2013).

2.3.1 Calculation of life cycle costing

The estimate of the life cycle costing of Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada from the cradle
to the grave has been adapted according to the proposal of Rivera and Azapagic (2016)
(1).
LCCCG = CRM + CM + CW (1)

13
 Author's personal copy
M. L. da Costa et al.

where ­LCCCG = Total cost for producing a meal from the cradle to the grave; CRM = Cost of
raw material (ingredients for dishes); CM = Cost of the preparation of the dish in the restau‑
rant; CW = Cost of waste disposal.
Similarly, the calculation of added value also was adapted from Rivera and Azapagic
(2016) (2).
AV = PV − LLCCG (2)
where AV = Added Value; PV = Meal marketing price; L
­ LCCG = CRM + CM.

2.4 Nutritional analysis

For the nutritional analysis of the dishes, the technical card of each preparation containing
information on a portion ready for consumption was consulted and compared to a standard
recommendation in Brazil.
The energy, macronutrients and fiber contents of each food were verified for both prepa‑
rations. The nutritional content was calculated for per capita amounts using Eq. (4) based
on the centesimal values of the respective foods as recommended by the Brazilian Table of
Chemical Composition of Foods (NEPA—UNICAMP 2011).
PCC = PCA × CCpc ∕ 100 (4)
where PCC = Per capita content; PCA = Per capita amount; C ­ Cpc = Centesimal composi‑
tion per capita.
Subsequently, the nutritional content of each preparation was verified (5).
PCCP = ΣPCC (5)
where PCCP = Per capita content of the preparation; PCC = Per capita content of dishes.
Following the nutritional analysis, a comparison was made between the per capita
nutritional content of each preparation and the values recommended by the Worker’s Food
Program of the Ministry of Labor and Employment (PAT) (Brazil 2006, 2020). The com‑
parison of adequacy followed the PAT’s recommendation thresholds, using Eq. (6). To
be considered adequate the nutrient under consideration must be between the minimum
value of 30% and the maximum value of 40% as suggested by PAT (Brazil 2006). Although
PAT recommends verifying the sodium content, its content was calculated only for Galin‑
hada, since it was not possible to identify the contents of this mineral in the Charque after
desalting.
APMn = VF × 100∕MRn Mm (6)
where ­APMn = Adequacy percentage; VF = Value found; ­MRnMm = Minimum requirement
for main meal.
Finally, verification of the average daily energy requirements was carried out based on
the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO 2001), and carbohydrate,
protein, lipid and sodium were verified based on the World Health Organization (WHO
2003) and fibers were determined by the Brazilian Society of Cardiology (SBC 2007).

13
 Author's personal copy
Brazilian cuisine: comparison of environmental, economic…

Table 1  Cradle to grave life cycle inventory for a portion of Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada
Arroz carreteiro Galinhada Reference

Input
Rice (g) 100 100 Coltro et al. (2016)
Beef (g) 110 – Agri-Footprint
Chicken meat (g) – 250 LCA Food DK
Onion (g) 10 12.5 LCA Food DK
Soy oil (g) 5 – Beer et al. (2007)
Garlic (g) 0.82 0.8 Samavatean et al. (2011)
Salt (g) 1.4 3 Biswas et al. (2016)
Water for preparation (L) 0.450 0.187 Ecoinvent3
Water (washing) (L) 11.28 11.28 Ecoinvent3
LPG (g) 0.062 0.062 Singh et al. (2014)
Electricity (kW/h) 0.030 0.092 Ecoinvent3
Output
Serving portion (g) 410 458
Waste water (L) 11.55 11.28
Waste from the preparation (g) – 96

Table 2  Life cycle impacts Impact category Unit Arroz carreteiro Galinhada
related to the production and
consumption of Arroz carreteiro
Global Warming kg ­CO2eq 2.081 1.344
and Galinhada
Potential (GWP-
100)
Eutrophication kg ­PO4eq 0.014 0.005
Acidification kg ­SO2eq 0.028 0.011

3 Results

In this section, we present the results for the environmental, economic and nutritional per‑
formance of the two dishes under study.

3.1 Environmental impact assessment

Table 1 shows the life cycle inventory to produce one portion of Arroz carreteiro and Gal‑
inhada. These data serve as a parameter to prepare the inventory in order to determine the
inputs and outputs of typical dishes of the Midwest.
The results of the life cycle impacts of Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada, regarding the
production and consumption of these two preparations in the restaurant, were obtained
from information identified in the life cycle inventory (Table 2).
For the production of a portion of Arroz carreteiro under the conditions evaluated,
2.08 kg of ­CO2eq is emitted. For the production of a portion of Galinhada, 1.34 kg C ­ O2eq
is emitted. The greatest difference in this category of impact is the source of animal protein
used for the preparation. While bovine protein (110 g) emitted 1.5 kg C ­ O2eq, the chicken
portion (250 g) emitted 0.78 kg C ­ O2eq. Such disparity between emissions from different

13
 Author's personal copy
M. L. da Costa et al.

Table 3  Determination of amount and values of ingredients for Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada
Flow or activity Arroz carreteiro Galinhada Cost US$/unit References

Ingredient Rice (kg) 0.1 0.1 0.76 Primary ­dataa

Beef (brisket) 0.055 – 3.82
Charque (kg) 0.055 – 9.21
Chicken meat (kg) – 0.250 2.05
Onion (kg) 0.010 0.013 0.61
Soy oil (kg) 0.005 – 0.86
Garlic (kg) 0.002 0.001 7.00
Salt (kg) 0.001 0.003 0.53
Water for preparation (L) 0.450 0.187 –
Production LPG (kg) 0.33 0.33 0.089
Electricity (kW/h) 0.03 0.03 0.004
Water (washing) (L) 0.13 0.13 0.53
Labor (h) 0.041 0.041 2.12
Waste collection (month) – – –
Utensils (unit) 1 1 0.003
Equipment (unit) 1 1.50 0.013
Other Hygiene and cleaning supplies 1 1 0.008
(unit)
Office supplies (unit) 1 1 0.008
a
Purchase price in the regional market

sources of animal protein is explained by the production characteristics of both types of

animals.
In addition to animal protein, rice production and LPG consumption for the preparation
of dishes were also relevant. Rice production emitted 0.18 kg of ­CO2eq for both dishes
as both use the same amount of rice. For LPG consumption, the same quantities (0.34 kg
­CO2eq) were used for Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada. Thus, LPG burning for meal prepa‑
ration was the second most important element for GWP, accounting for ~ 25% of the emis‑
sions for Galinhada and ~ 16% of the emissions for Arroz carreteiro.
Regarding the acidification potential (AP), the results show that Galinhada has a lower
impact potential than Arroz carreteiro. The value found for Galinhada was 0.011 kg and
for Arroz carreteiro was 0.028 kg. This also occurs for eutrophication potential (EP). The
value for Galinhada was 0.005 kg and for Arroz carreteiro was 0.014 kg.

3.2 Economic impact assessment

In both dishes, it is important to check the unit cost of each ingredient, as it is possible to
compare which component has the greatest financial attractiveness for the investor. Table 3
shows the relation of the value of food components needed for the preparation of dishes
that makes up the life cycle costing.
Under the conditions evaluated in this study, the cost for the production of a portion of
Arroz carreteiro was US$ 0.96. The cost for the production of a portion of Galinhada was
US$ 0.76. The difference in costs between a portion of Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada

13
 Author's personal copy
Brazilian cuisine: comparison of environmental, economic…

Table 4  Nutrition information of Galinhada and Arroz carreteiro

Macro‑ Minimum Maximum Galinhada Arroz carreteiro
nutrient, require‑ require‑
sodium and ment (30%) ment (40%) Value APMn (%) APMx (%) Value APMn (%) APMx (%)
fiber

Energy 680.0 906.7 616.0 90.6 67.9 623 91.6 68.7

(kcal)
Carbohy‑ 110.5 147.3 79.9 72.3 54.2 80.2 72.6 54.4
drate (g)
Protein (g) 21.3 28.4 34.9 163.8 122.9 31.7 148.8 111.6
Lipid (g) 17.0 22.7 15.3 90.0 67.5 17.7 104.1 78.1
Fibers (g) 7.5 12.7 1.9 24.8 14.7 1.91 25.5 15.1
Sodium 600.0 800.0 1,306.0 217.7 163.3 NA* NA* NA*
(mg)

APMn = Minimum adequacy percentage; PAMx = Maximum adequacy percentage

was US$ 0.21. The ingredients are the main factors responsible for raising food production
costs (Ribal et al. 2014).
The value of Charque (US$ 9.21/kg) increased the costs of production of Arroz car‑
reteiro compared to chicken meat (US$ 2.05/kg), making the chicken cheaper in relation to
the ingredients. There is a similarity of ingredients and quantities in the production of the
dishes. The dishes differ only in relation to soybean oil, which is used only in rice. It repre‑
sents an additional cost for this preparation.
The labor cost was distributed according to the total number of preparations served.
We considered labor cost equal for both dishes, i.e., a fixed cost. LPG costs were similar
for both dishes since they took on average the same preparation time. As meals are sold at
a single price (US$ 3.16) regardless of the dish, the added value was higher for Galinhada
due to its lower cost of production when compared to Arroz carreteiro. It is evident that
meal studies should take into account all the costs required to produce a product (Kiefer
2002).

3.3 Nutritional impact assessment

When the study analysis involves food, an important aspect to consider is the nutritional
information of the food, so, Table 4 shows the results of nutritional analysis of the ingredi‑
ents used in the composition of each preparation.
In relation to the nutritional adequacy percentage of Galinhada, energy, carbohydrate
and fiber contents were below the expected minimum. The lipid content was within the
margin, and protein and sodium values extrapolated the maximum recommended value.
On the other hand, energy, carbohydrate, lipid and fiber contents of Arroz carreteiro
were below the minimum expected, and the protein content was above the recommended
maximum value. The adequacy percentages were verified exclusively for a preparation of
a menu of five items. The values used as a parameter refer to the recommended for full
meals. In this sense, the other preparations should be rich in elements below the minimum
recommendation and, in no case, should contribute to increase the contents of elements
that extrapolate the maximum recommendations.

13
 Author's personal copy
M. L. da Costa et al.

Although the results found do not demonstrate nutritional adequacy in 100% of the
cases, the findings of this study are consistent with the results of researches carried out by
Maillot et al. (2010) and Stylianou et al. (2016). The authors aimed to analyze current diets
versus recommended diets. They showed that many recommended diets are elaborated only
based on dietary guidelines in order to facilitate the meeting of nutritional recommenda‑
tions. The authors questioned the efficacy for not taking into account socioeconomic fac‑
tors and food preferences of the population. In terms of food and nutritional security, there
is an appreciation of food based on regional food habits as a means of integrating the soci‑
oeconomic and cultural factors of a location into a healthy diet (Brazil 2006).

4 Discussion

4.1 Nexus between obesity, undernutrition and climate change

Over the past 5 years, the focus of studies has not only on meeting food demands, but also
on how food systems influence environmental, economic and nutritional issues. The sub‑
ject of sustainable diets is increasingly discussed in global science (Scott 2018). According
to the UN, the next decade will be known as the “Decade of Nutrition” in support of sus‑
tainable development (Monteiro 2018).
The current eating patterns, especially the consumption of ultra-processed foods, pre‑
sent several risks of chronic diseases for humans, e.g., intrinsically unbalanced nutritional
profile (excess sodium, sugar and unhealthy fat) (Monteiro et al. 2019). Although the
majority of the Brazilian population eat low processed food (Brasil 2014), the new eating
patterns are already affecting young children. Per example, Relvas et al. (2018) found that
43.1% of the mothers sampled in their study fed their infants with ultra-processed foods.
Furthermore, not only human health and well-being are affected by our consumption
patterns, but the entire biosphere as well.
However, in the country, there is an attempt at government intervention through the
Food Guide for the Brazilian Population, with the following basic recommendations: To
give preference to the consumption of (1) fresh or minimally processed foods; care and
attention (2) culinary ingredients processed foods; and finally, avoid ingesting (3) ultra-
processed foods. Mainly by the consumption of ultra-processed foods and beverages, as
well as beef and dairy products, which productions are sometimes associated with high
environmental burden (Swinburn et al. 2019a, b). Besides, the production and consumption
of ultra-processed foods require large use of natural resources and generate high amounts
of waste (Monteiro 2018).
In Brazil, the production of conventional chicken is made using high-density systems
(~ 40 kg of meat/m2) and short production cycles (around 40 days) (Ribeiro and Naas
2005). On the other hand, the production process of beef is longer. The beef cattle producer
must slaughter animals close to 794 days of age (15–27 months of age) (Gottschall et al.
2009).
This study presents emissions of 2.08 kg of C ­ O2eq for Arroz carreteiro and 1.34 kg
­CO2eq for Galinhada. In contrast, a ready meal containing roasted chicken, vegetables and
an accompanying sauce, considered popular in the United Kingdom, emits about 2.3 kg of
­CO2eq (Schmidt Rivera et al. 2014). Pulkkinen et al. (2014) have identified values ranging
from 0.6 to 2.8 kg of ­CO2eq per meal in a simplified carbon footprint assessment of 105
complete meals in Finland, with a mean of 1.21 kg of ­CO2eq. Although environmental

13
 Author's personal copy
Brazilian cuisine: comparison of environmental, economic…

awareness in the gastronomic sector has been increasing (Jungbluth et al. 2014), the envi‑
ronmental performance of food service delivery is still little explored (Myung et al. 2012).
The preparation phase of meals may represent up to 25% of greenhouse gas emissions
(Jungbluth et al. 2014). In this context, restaurants can be considered hotspots for reduc‑
ing emissions since they determine the menu choice served to customers. The owner’s
decision to offer dishes with lower emissions can reduce the overall environmental impact
from food (Filimonau and Krivcova 2017). Thus, restaurants should be instructed observe
the source of their ingredients and to pay attention to the production systems of their raw
material (Pulkkinen et al. 2014). Different origins, forms of cultivation and system process‑
ing in food production chain can change environmental impacts. Hence, depending on the
choice of raw material used for the preparation of a meal, the impacts may be higher or
lower (Ribal et al. 2014). In addition, consumers should be made aware of the impact of
their food choice through government actions (Brasil 2014; Filimonau and Krivcova 2017).
This study has limitations because it characterizes a case study and only analyzes two
types of dishes from the Midwest region. However, the values found in this study serve
as a local parameter, in order to contribute to the emergence of local public policies, to
encourage greater consumption by typical regional foods, avoiding the ingestion of ultra-
processed foods. Besides, the nutritional comparison from our typical dishes with the PAT
recommendation could be complemented by including a whole meal into the analysis.
Although the bulk of the nutrients are in the main dishes, the inclusion of the side dishes
could have slightly changed some of the results. Future studies should also consider includ‑
ing international standards in their analysis.

5 Conclusion

A dish considered typical in a certain region carries with it the cultural values acquired in
its creation, often with habits imported from other countries. However, such transformed
values characterize a locality and are able to cover other regions and become of great rep‑
resentativeness for a country. Arroz carreteiro and Galinhada are part of the Brazilian daily
eating habits. Because these dishes are commonly consumed, analyses evidencing their
relationship with sustainability are necessary considering three aspects: environmental,
economic and nutritional.
In environmental terms, Arroz carreteiro contributes at a greater extent to environmen‑
tal impacts compared to Galinhada. While a portion of Arroz carreteiro emits 2.08 kg of
­CO2eq, a portion of Galinhada emits 1.34 kg ­CO2eq. Rice production, an ingredient pre‑
sent in both preparations, emits 0.18 kg of C ­ O2eq for both dishes. The consumption of
LPG (equivalent quantities for both dishes) emits 0.34 kg ­CO2eq. The main contributor to
the CO2eq difference of both dishes was the type of meat used: beef emits 1.5 kg ­CO2eq
and the chicken portion emits 0.78 kg ­CO2eq.
There are no parameters indicating values considered harmful or not to the environment.
Therefore, we compared the results of this study with similar studies in order to evaluate
the differences in the values found here with results found by other studies. In conclusion,
the typical Brazilian dishes analyzed here have C ­ O2eq emissions equivalent with dishes
from other countries. Economically, through life cycle costing, Galinhada has a lower cost
of production than Arroz carreteiro. Galinhada is more advantageous to the restaurant. The
disparity in the final value of costs lies mainly in the cost of the ingredients used in the
preparations, more precisely the value of beef in relation to chicken.

13
 Author's personal copy
M. L. da Costa et al.

Nutritionally, in relation to the respective percentage of dish adequacy, energy and car‑
bohydrate contents approached the values recommended by the PAT for both preparations.
The lipid content reached the expected value, fiber contents were below the minimum
expected for Galinhada and Arroz carreteiro, and protein and sodium exceeded the recom‑
mended maximum value. Therefore, they should be balanced with other side dishes which
should be part of the main meal.
The preparation of meals that only aim to adapt nutrients as recommended by nutri‑
tional guidelines do not reach large populations due to a limitation of factors essential for
consumer choice, especially price and cultural attractiveness of the dish. Typical dishes
should be better analyzed by nutritionists and chefs regarding both the culture in eating
these foods and the possibility of influencing local development. Typical dishes of a certain
location are produced using ingredients cultivated sometimes in the region, reducing costs
with logistics, which contributes to the reduction in the final cost of the dish. It also posi‑
tively influences other factors, such as reduction in the emission of C ­ O2eq by transports
and generation of jobs and income for the local population.
It is intended that for future studies the limit of the system be expanded, considering
typical dishes from different regions of the analyzed. In addition, another functional unit
should be used, making the study probabilistic and not just a case study.

References
ABIEC, A. B. das I. E. de C. (2019). Perfil da Pecuária no Brasil, Relatório anual 2019. Retrieved Decem‑
ber 28, 2019, from https​://www.abiec​.com.br/contr​ole/uploa​ds/arqui​vos/sumar​io201​9port​ugues​.pdf.
ABPA, A. B. de P. A. (2019). Relatório Anual 2019. Retrieved December 28, 2019, from https​://clean​drodi​
as.com.br/wp-conte​nt/uploa​ds/2019/05/RELAT​O%C3%ACRIO​-ANUAL​-ABPA-2019.pdf.
Akutsu, R. C. C. A., Botelho, R. B. A., Camargo, E. B., Oliveira, K. E. S., & Araújo, W. M. C. (2005).
A ficha técnica de preparação como instrumento de qualidade na produção de refeições. Revista de
Nutrição, 18(2), 277–279.
Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA
Working paper.
Baldwin, C., Wilberforce, N., & Kapur, A. (2011). Restaurant and food service life cycle assessment and
development of a sustainability standard. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(1),
40–49.
Beer, T., Grant, T., & Campbell, P. K. (2007). The greenhouse and air quality emissions of biodiesel blends
in Australia. Clayton South: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
Bezerra, I. N., & Sichieri, R. (2010). Características e gastos com alimentação fora do domicílio. Revista de
Saúde pública, 44(2), 221–229.
Biswas, D., Szocs, C., & Inman, J. J. (2016). Making choices for a sequence of healthy and unhealthy
options. In M. Obal, N. Krey, & C. Bushardt (Eds.), Let’s get engaged! Crossing the threshold of mar-
keting’s engagement era. Developments in marketing science: Proceedings of the academy of market-
ing science. Cham: Springer.
Brasil. (2006). Programa de alimentação do trabalhador—PAT. Retrieved March 13, 2020, from https​
://189.28.128.100/nutri​cao/docs/legis​lacao​/porta​ria66​_25_08_06.pdf.
Brasil. (2014). Dietary guidelines for the Brazilian population. Ministério da Saúde, Secretaria de Atenção
à Saúde, Departamento de Atenção Básica, 2 edn.Brasília: Ministério da Saúde.
Brasil. (2020). Programa de alimentação do trabalhador-PAT. Retrieved March 13, 2020, from https​://traba​
lho.gov.br/pat.
Burlingame, B., & Dernini, S. (Eds.). (2012). Sustainable diets and biodiversity: Directions and solutions
for policy, research and action. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization, © FAO.
Calderón, L. A., Iglesias, L., Laca, A., Herrero, M., & Díaz, M. (2010). The utility of life cycle assessment
in the ready meal food industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(12), 1196–1207.
Chaves, L. G., Mendes, P. N. R., De Brito, R. R., & Botelho, R. B. A. (2009). O programa nacional de
alimentação escolar como promotor de hábitos alimentares regionais. Revista de Nutrição, 22(6),
857–866.

13
 Author's personal copy
Brazilian cuisine: comparison of environmental, economic…

Coltro, L., Marton, L. F. M., Pilecco, F. P., Pilecco, A. C., & Mattei, L. F. (2017). Environmental profile of
rice production in Southern Brazil: A comparison between irrigated and subsurface drip irrigated crop‑
ping systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 153, 491–505.
Davis, J., & Sonesson, U. (2008). Life cycle assessment of integrated food chains—A Swedish case study of
two chicken meals. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(7), 574–584.
Davis, J., Sonesson, U., Baumgartner, D. U., & Nemecek, T. (2010). Environmental impact of four meals
with different protein sources: Case studies in Spain and Sweden. Food Research International, 43(7),
1874–1884.
Donato, D. R. (2009). Restaurante por quilo: uma área a ser abordada. São Paulo.
Duffy, E., Godwin, C. M., & Cardinale, D. J. (2017). Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as
strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature, 549, 261–264.
European Commission—Joint Research Centre—Institute For Environment and Sustainability. (2010).
International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook—General guide for life cycle assess-
ment—Detailed guidance. First edition March 2010. EUR 24708 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office
of the European Union.
FAO. (2014). The water-energy-food nexus a new approach in support of food security and sustainable
agriculture. Retrieved December 24, 2019, from https​://www.fao.org/3/a-bl496​e.pdf.
FAO. (2017). O Futuro da Alimentação e da Agricultura -Tendências e Desafios. Roma: FAO.
FAO. (2019). The states of food security and nutrition in the world. Retrieved December 24, 2019, from
https​://www.fao.org/state​-of-food-secur​ity-nutri​tion/en/.
FAO; IFAD; WFP. (2015). The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Meeting the 2015 international hun-
ger targets: Taking stock of uneven progress. FAO, IFAD and WFP. Retrieved from https​://www.fao.
org/3/a4ef2​d16-70a7-460a-a9ac-2a65a​53326​9a/i4646​e.pdf.
Filimonau, V., & Krivcova, M. (2017). Restaurant menu design and more responsible consumer food choice:
An exploratory study of managerial perceptions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 516–527.
Ghisellini, P., Setti, M., & Ulgiati, S. (2016). Energy and land use in worldwide agriculture: an application
of life cycle energy and cluster analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 18, 799–837.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1066​8-015-9678-2.
Gottschall, C. S., Canellas, L. C., Marques, P. R., & Bittencourt, H. R. (2009). Relações entre idade, peso,
ganho médio diário e tempo médio de permanência de novilhos de corte confinados para abate aos 15
ou 27 meses de idade. Semina: Ciências Agrárias, 30(3), 717–726.
Hansen, A. J., Neilson, R. P., Dale, V. H., Flather, C. H., Iverson, L. R., Currie, D. J., et al. (2001). Global
change in forests: Responses of species, communities, and biomes. BioScience, 51, 765–779.
Headey, D. D., & Alderman, H. H. (2019). The relative caloric prices of healthy and unhealthy foods dif‑
fer systematically across income levels and continents. The Journal of Nutrition, 149(11), 2020–2033.
https​://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxz15​8.
Heller, M. C., Keoleian, G. A., & Willett, W. C. (2013). Toward a life cycle-based, diet-level framework for
food environmental impact and nutritional quality assessment: A critical review. Environmental Sci-
ence and Technology, 47(22), 12632–12647.
Hughes, L. (2000). Biological consequences of global warming: Is the signal already apparent? Trends in
Ecology Evolution, 15, 56–61.
Hunkeler, D., Lichtenvort, K., & Rebitzer, G. (2008) (eds.). Environmental life cycle costing. SETAC, Pen‑
sacola, FL (US) in collaboration with CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
IBGE, I. B. de G. e E. (2010) (ed.). Pesquisa de orçamentos familiares, 2008–2009. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.
INCRA—Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária. (2017). Incra nos Estados—Informações
gerais sobre os assentamentos da Reforma Agrária. Retrieved November 21, 2019, from https​://paine​
l.incra​.gov.br/siste​mas/index​.php.
ISO 1440. (2006). ISO 1440 Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework.
London: British Standards Institution.
Jones, A. D., Hoey, L., Blesh, J., Miller, L., Green, A., & Shapiro, L. F. (2016). A systematic review of the
measurement of sustainable diets. Advances in Nutrition, 7(4), 641–664.
Jungbluth, N., Keller, R., König, A., & Doublet, G. (2014). One Two We—Life cycle management in can‑
teens together with suppliers, customers and guests. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference
on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector.
Kiefer, N. M. (2002). Economics and the origin of the restaurant. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administra-
tion Quarterly. Food & Beverage, 43, 58–64.
La Rosa, A. D. (2016). Life cycle assessment of biopolymers. Biopolymers and Biotech Admixtures for Eco-
Efficient Construction Materials. https​://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-10021​4-8.00004​-X.
Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W., & Costa-Roberts, J. (2011). Climate trends and global crop production since
1980. Science, 333(6042), 616–620.

13
 Author's personal copy
M. L. da Costa et al.

Machado-Rodrigues, A. M., Gama, A., Mourão, I., Nogueira, H., Rosado-Marques, V., & Padez, C. (2018).
Eating away from home: A risk factor for overweight in children. European Journal of Clinical Nutri-
tion. https​://doi.org/10.1038/s4143​0-018-0165-3.
Maillot, M., Vieux, F., Amiot, M. J., & Darmon, N. (2010). Individual diet modeling translates nutrient
recommendations into realistic and individual-specific food choices. The American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, 91, 421–430.
Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., Costa Louzada, M. L., & Pereira Machado, P. (2019). Ultra-
processed foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system. Rome, FAO. Retrieved
December 24, 2019, https​://www.fao.org/3/ca564​4en/ca564​4en.pdf.
Monteiro, C. A., Cannon, G., Moubarac, J.-C., Levy, R. B., Louzada, M. L. C., & Jaime, P. C. (2017). The
UN decade of nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public
Health Nutrition, 21(01), 5–17. https​://doi.org/10.1017/s1368​98001​70002​34.
Muñoz, I., i Canals, L. M., & Fernández-Alba, A. R. (2010). Life cycle assessment of the average Spanish
diet including human excretion. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(8), 794–805.
Myung, E., McClaren, A., & Li, L. (2012). Environmentally related research in scholarly hospitality jour‑
nals: Current status and future opportunities. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31,
1264–1275.
NEPA—UNICAMP. Tabela Brasileira de Composição de Alimentos—TACO. (2011). Campinas: NEPA-
UNICAMP (pp. 1–161). Retrieved February 20, 2016, from https​://www.unica​mp.br/nepa/taco/tabel​
a.php?ativo​=tabel​a.
Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural
systems. Nature, 421, 37–42.
Pulkkinen, H., Roininen, T., Katajajuuri, J., & Maija Järvinen, M. (2014). Development of Climate Choice
Lunch concept for restaurants based on carbon footprinting. In Proceedings of the 9th international
conference on life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector. Rita Schenck and Douglas Huizenga, Edi‑
tors American Center for Life Cycle Assessment. LCA FOOD.
Relvas, G. R. B., dos Buccini, G. S., & Venancio, S. I. (2018). Ultra-processed food consumption among
infants in primary health care in a city of the metropolitan region of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Jornal de
Pediatria. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2018.05.004.
Ribal, J., Fenollosa, L., Segovia, P. G., Clemente, G., Escobar, N., & Sanjuán, N. (2014). Designing healthy,
climate friendly and affordable school lunches. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on
life cycle assessment in the agri-food sector. Rita Schenck and Douglas Huizenga, Editors American
Center for Life Cycle Assessment. LCA FOOD.
Ribeiro, A. M. C. L., & Naas, I. A. (2005). Evaluating two systems of poultry production: Conventional and
free-range. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science, 7(4), 2015–2220.
Rivera, X. C. S., & Azapagic, A. (2016). Life cycle costs and environmental impacts of production and con‑
sumption of ready and home-made meals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 214–228.
Rossetti, E. K., Barros, M. S., Tódero, M., Junior, S. D., & Camargo, M. E. (2008). Sistema just in time:
Conceitos imprescindíveis. Revista Qualit@s, 7(2), 1–6.
Saarinen, M., Kurppa, S., Virtanen, Y., Usva, K., Mäkelä, J., & Nissinen, A. (2012). Life cycle assessment
approach to the impact of home-made, ready-to-eat and school lunches on climate and eutrophication.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 28, 177–186.
Saath, K. C. O., & Fachinello, A. L. (2018). Crescimento da demanda mundial de alimentos e restrições do
fator terra no Brasil. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 56(2), 195–212.
Samavatean, N., Rafiee, S., & Mobli, H. (2011). An analysis of energy use and estimation of a mechani‑
zation index of garlic production in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Science. https​://doi.org/10.5539/jas.
v3n2p​198.
Saronga, N. J., Mosha, I. H., Kessy, A. T., et al. (2016). “I eat two meals per day” impact of climate vari‑
ability on eating habits among households in Rufiji district, Tanzania: A qualitative study. Agriculture
& Food Security, 5, 14. https​://doi.org/10.1186/s4006​6-016-0064-6.
Schindler, D. W. (2006). Recent advances in the understanding and management of eutrophication. Limnol-
ogy and Oceanography, 51, 356–363.
Schlindwein, M. M., Monteiro, A. B., & da Costa, J. S. (2016). efeitos de variáveis socioeconômicas sobre
o consumo alimentar na região centro-oeste do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Gestão e Desenvolvimento
Regional, 12(1), 1–6.
Schmidt Rivera, X. C., Espinoza, O. N., & Azapagic, A. (2014). Life cycle environmental impacts of
convenience food: Comparison of ready and home-made meals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73,
294–309.
Scott, C. (2018). Sustainably sourced junk food? Big Food and the Challenge of Sustainable Diets Global
Environmental Politics, 18(2), 93–113. https​://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00458​93-113.

13
 Author's personal copy
Brazilian cuisine: comparison of environmental, economic…

Silva, T., Lamounier, M. A. T., & de Carvalho, T. N. (2015). Food service-O Mercado da Alimentação Fora
do Lar. Revista Pensar Gastronomia, 1(2), 1–6.
Singh, P., Gundimeda, H., & Stucki, M. (2014). Environmental footprint of cooking fuels: A life cycle
assessment of ten fuel sources used in Indian households. The International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 19, 1036–1048. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1136​7-014-0699-0.
Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia—SBC. (2007). IV Diretriz Brasileira sobre dislipidemia e prevenção
de aterosclerose (p. 88). Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, Rio de Janeiro.
Stylianou, K. S., Heller, M. C., Fulgoni, V. L., Alexi, S., Ernstoff, A. S., Keoleia, G. A., et al. (2016). A life
cycle assessment framework combining nutritional and environmental health impacts of diet: A case
study on milk. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21, 734–746.
Swarr, T. E., Hunkeler, D., Klöpffer, W., Pesonen, H. L., Ciroth, A., Brent, A. C., et al. (2011). Environ‑
mental life-cycle costing: A code of practice. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(5),
389–391.
Swinburn, B. A., Kraak, V. I., Allender, S., Atkins, V. J., Baker, P. I., Bogard, J. R., et al. (2019a). The
global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: The Lancet Commission report. The
Lancet, 393(10173), 791–846.
Swinburn, B. A., Kraak, V. I., Allender, S., Atkins, V. J., Baker, P. I., Bogard, J. R., et al. (2019b). The
global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: The lancet commission report. Lancet,
393, 791–846. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0140​-6736(18)32822​-8.
Travis, J. M. (2003). Climate change and habitat destruction: A deadly anthropogenic cocktail. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 270, 467–473.
UNEP- United Nations Environment Programme. (2010). Assessing the environmental impacts of consump-
tion and production: Priority products and materials. Retrieved March 18, 2016, from https​://www.
unep.fr/share​d/publi​catio​ns/pdf/DTIx1​262xP​A-Prior​ityPr​oduct​sAndM​ateri​als_Repor​t.pdf.
United Nations. (2017). World population prospects. Retrieved May 20, 2018, from https​://esa.un.org/unpd/
wpp/publi​catio​ns/files​/wpp20​17_keyfi​nding​s.pdf.
USDA (United StatesDepartmentofagriculture). (2018). Grain and feed update. Retrieved December 24,
2019, from https​://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recen​t%20GAI​N%20Pub​licat​ions/Grain​%20and​%20Fee​d%20
Upd​ate_Brasi​lia_Brazi​l_10-4-2018.pdf.
Vermeulen, S., Campbell, B., & Ingram, J. (2012). Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 37, 195–222.
Virtanen, Y., Kurppa, S., Saarinen, M., Katajajuuri, J. M., Usva, K., Mäenpää, I., et al. (2011). Carbon foot‑
print of food—Approaches from national input–output statistics and a LCA of a food portion. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1849–1856.
Webb, F. J., Khubchandani, J., Doldren, M., Balls-Berry, J., Blanchard, S., Hannah, L., et al. (2014). Afri‑
can-American womens’ eating habits and intention to change: A pilot study. Journal of Racial and
Ethnic Health Disparities, 3(1), 199–206.
World Health Organization—WHO. (2001). Mental Health: new understanding, new hope (pp. 1–169).
Retrieved February 7, 2016, from https​://www.who.int/whr/2001/en/whr01​_en.pdf/.
World Health Organization—WHO. (2003). Solários—Riscos e Orientações (pp. 1–19). Retrieved February
15, 2016, from https​://www.who.int/uv/publi​catio​ns/Sunbe​ds_Portu​guese​_versi​on.pdf/.
Wunderlich, S., Gatto, K., & Smoller, M. (2018). Consumer knowledge about food production systems
and their purchasing behavior. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20, 2871. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1066​8-017-0021-y.
Zaneti, T. B. (2016). A Cozinha Gaúcha: um resgate dos sabores e saberes da Gastronomia do Rio Grande
do Sul. Ágora., 18(1), 28–42.
Zufia, J., & Arana, L. (2008). Life cycle assessment to eco-design food products: Industrial cooked dish case
study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1915–1921.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13