Danish numbers challenge British study on the climate footprint of organic eggs

An organic egg has nearly twice the climate impact of a cage egg, according to a new British study. This does not align well with recent Danish figures, which show that an organic egg emits about 15% more greenhouse gases than a cage egg, which is somewhat lower than the British figures indicate. The Danish data come from the industry organization Danish Eggs in a written response to LandbrugsAvisen. In 2021, Danish Eggs commissioned consulting firm Blonk Consultants to calculate the environmental impact of Danish production of cage eggs, scrap eggs, free-range eggs, and organic eggs. The numbers were calculated based on production data from 2000 to 2020 and were a so-called screening life cycle analysis, which includes the process from feed and hen production to when the eggs leave the farm. Here, the corrected 2020 figures showed that 1 kg of cage eggs emits 1.42 kg of CO2 equivalents, while 1 kg of organic eggs emits 1.63 kg. However, these figures exclude land use change (LUC). When LUC is included, organic eggs suddenly become the most climate-friendly of all eggs. However, the calculation here is so uncertain that the figure should be read with significant caution. Jørgen Nyberg Larsen, sector manager for Danish Eggs, assesses that the climate footprint today would be even lower, as the calculation was based on production in 2020. The British data are even older; here, researchers used data dating back to 2009-2010, which they acknowledge as a limitation of their findings in the British newspaper The Guardian. New figures are on the way However, fresh data for Danish production may soon be available. The Center for Innovation in Organic Farming is currently conducting an analysis that, based on various scenario calculations, will show differences in the climate impact when converting from conventional to organic poultry production. The results are expected later this year. "We are conducting the analysis based on existing data in the field, but the data foundation is narrow and lacks an update. This applies to the entire organic production, especially the poultry sector, which is small compared to pig and cattle production, and where there is no prospect of a climate tax on production," says chief consultant Julie Cherono Schmidt Henriksen in a press release. When calculating the climate impact per kg of product, scrap eggs and conventional cage eggs have a lower climate footprint than eggs from organic production because conventional production is more intensive. "But if you calculate the climate impact based on the total climate burden of the entire production system, we expect the result to look very different," assesses Julie Cherono Schmidt Henriksen. She looks forward to delving into the analysis the center is conducting to get an updated result in a Danish context. "Factors such as self-sufficiency with feed instead of imported feed, and an increased share of grass and cover crops in production, which also increases carbon storage in the soil, will give organic production a different outcome. When considering overall sustainability, there are also considerations of animal welfare and biodiversity in organic production, which differ from conventional systems. If these factors are not included, or if a standard based on conventional production is used to measure organic production, the results will not be accurate. These are two different production systems, and therefore we also need different measures to reduce the climate impact, which is a challenge for the entire animal production," she elaborates. Does not provide a complete picture Lee Holdstock, head of regulation and trade at the British organic certification scheme Soil Association Certification, believes the study illustrates some significant trade-offs involved in converting to organic, but also points out that it does not give the full picture of environmental costs. "Although intensive systems may have lower emissions per unit of production because the birds utilize feed more efficiently, this only reflects part of the picture. A truly sustainable food system must also consider impacts on nature, soil health, water quality, the use of synthetic additives, and animal welfare," Lee Holdstock told The Guardian, which reports on the British study. Harriet Bartlett from Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, who contributed to the study, agrees that it does not provide the full picture. The study measures four environmental indicators: greenhouse gases, acidification, eutrophication, and land use. Pesticide load and biodiversity are not included. "Organic farming might perform better in terms of pesticide toxicity and perhaps also in terms of biodiversity on the farm," she told The Guardian. The authors conclude that a shift away from cage systems likely results in both higher environmental impact and significant welfare consequences, in the sense that more animals would need to be slaughtered to maintain production levels in a cage-free system. They do not recommend maintaining cage production but advise policymakers to be aware of the implications for environmental impact and mortality when transitioning. Therefore, they suggest initiating measures to improve productivity and reduce mortality in cage-free systems. Additionally, they point out that people, especially in countries with high egg consumption, should consider reducing their intake, as over-consumers already have a higher intake than dietary guidelines recommend.