IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p4726-d541832.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Circular Reuse of Chickpea Cooking Water to Produce Vegan Mayonnaise Reduce Environmental Impact Compared with Egg Mayonnaise?

Author

Listed:
  • Sophie Saget

    (Department of Botany, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, D02 PN40 Dublin, Ireland)

  • Marcela Costa

    (School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor LL57 2DG, UK)

  • David Styles

    (School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor LL57 2DG, UK
    Bernal Institute, School of Engineering, University of Limerick, V94 T9PX Limerick, Ireland)

  • Mike Williams

    (Department of Botany, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, D02 PN40 Dublin, Ireland)

Abstract

Consumers are increasingly asking for foods that are healthier, more humane, and environmentally sustainable. Recently, chickpea cooking water—aquafaba—has gained popularity as a potential egg substitute that complies with these criteria. However, research on the environmental impact of this ingredient is lacking. We performed a comparative attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) of mayonnaise made with aquafaba as the emulsifying agent, and traditional mayonnaise made with egg yolk. The vegan mayonnaise was found not to be as environmentally sustainable as the egg-based product. The vegan mayonnaise had a significantly ( p < 0.05) lower impact across 4 categories, but a significantly higher impact across 8 categories out of 16, including climate change and resource-use-energy-carriers. The majority of categories under which vegan mayonnaise underperformed were related to the electricity needed for aquafaba processing. These impacts can be mitigated with a “cleaner” electricity grid, or onsite renewable electricity generation. Substituting the Mexican grid, where the aquafaba is currently processed, for the Canadian grid, where the mayonnaise is produced, reduced the carbon footprint of the vegan mayonnaise by 37%, making it similar to the egg-based product. As sunflower oil production was linked to extensive environmental burdens, we performed additional sensitivity analyses around oil processing, sunflower production, and other vegetable oils. Our study shows that substituting egg yolk with aquafaba could cause an increase in the environmental footprint of mayonnaise due to high processing costs, illustrating that vegan options do not always have a smaller environmental footprint, and can represent a trade-off in their comparatively more humane and healthier offer.

Suggested Citation

  • Sophie Saget & Marcela Costa & David Styles & Mike Williams, 2021. "Does Circular Reuse of Chickpea Cooking Water to Produce Vegan Mayonnaise Reduce Environmental Impact Compared with Egg Mayonnaise?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4726-:d:541832
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4726/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/4726/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy D. Searchinger & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Beringer & Patrice Dumas, 2018. "Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change," Nature, Nature, vol. 564(7735), pages 249-253, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henrik B. Møller & Peter Sørensen & Jørgen E. Olesen & Søren O. Petersen & Tavs Nyord & Sven G. Sommer, 2022. "Agricultural Biogas Production—Climate and Environmental Impacts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Jiali He & Xiangfei Liu & Xuetong Wang & Xueyang Li & Linger Yu & Beibei Niu, 2024. "Spatiotemporal Evolution of Territorial Spaces and Its Effect on Carbon Emissions in Qingdao City, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Elena Tamburini & Mattias Gaglio & Giuseppe Castaldelli & Elisa Anna Fano, 2020. "Is Bioenergy Truly Sustainable When Land-Use-Change (LUC) Emissions Are Accounted for? The Case-Study of Biogas from Agricultural Biomass in Emilia-Romagna Region, Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-20, April.
    4. Maurer, Rainer, 2023. "Comparing the effect of different agricultural land-use systems on biodiversity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Liudmila Tripolskaja & Asta Kazlauskaite-Jadzevice & Eugenija Baksiene & Almantas Razukas, 2022. "Changes in Organic Carbon in Mineral Topsoil of a Formerly Cultivated Arenosol under Different Land Uses in Lithuania," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Debuschewitz, Emil & Sanders, Jürn, 2021. "Bewertung der Umweltwirkungen des ökologischen Landbaus im Kontext der kontroversen wissenschaftlichen Diskurse," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317076, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Bellassen Valentin & Drut Marion & Antonioli Federico & Brečić Ružica & Donati Michele & Ferrer-Pérez Hugo & Gauvrit Lisa & Hoang Viet & Knutsen Steinnes Kamilla & Lilavanichakul Apichaya & Majewski E, 2021. "The Carbon and Land Footprint of Certified Food Products," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 113-126, December.
    8. Marian Gil & Mariusz Rudy & Paulina Duma-Kocan & Renata Stanisławczyk & Anna Krajewska & Dariusz Dziki & Waleed H. Hassoon, 2024. "Sustainability of Alternatives to Animal Protein Sources, a Comprehensive Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-27, September.
    9. Dupoux, Marion, 2019. "The land use change time-accounting failure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    10. Enrico Balugani & Beike Sumfleth & Stefan Majer & Diego Marazza & Daniela Thrän, 2022. "Bridging Modeling and Certification to Evaluate Low-ILUC-Risk Practices for Biobased Materials with a User-Friendly Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, February.
    11. Jonathan E. Barnsley & Chanjief Chandrakumar & Carlos Gonzalez-Fischer & Paul E. Eme & Bridget E. P. Bourke & Nick W. Smith & Lakshmi A. Dave & Warren C. McNabb & Harry Clark & David J. Frame & John L, 2021. "Lifetime Climate Impacts of Diet Transitions: A Novel Climate Change Accounting Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, May.
    12. Adam C. Castonguay & Stephen Polasky & Matthew H. Holden & Mario Herrero & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Cecile Godde & Jinfeng Chang & James Gerber & G. Bradd Witt & Edward T. Game & Brett A. Bryan & Brendan, 2023. "Navigating sustainability trade-offs in global beef production," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 6(3), pages 284-294, March.
    13. Dumas, Patrice & Wirsenius, Stefan & Searchinger, Tim & Andrieu, Nadine & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien, 2022. "Options to achieve net-zero emissions from agriculture and land use changes in Latin America and the Caribbean," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12385, Inter-American Development Bank.
    14. Lei Hua & Rong Ran & Mingjuan Xie & Tingrou Li, 2024. "The capacity of land carbon sinks in poverty-stricken areas in China continues to increase in the process of eradicating extreme poverty: evidence from a study of poverty-stricken counties on the Qing," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 17253-17280, July.
    15. Yang Liu & Yang Yang & Zhijie Wang & Shaoshan An, 2022. "Quantifying Water Provision Service Supply, Demand, and Spatial Flow in the Yellow River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-12, August.
    16. Reeya Ghose Roy & Leanne Camilleri & Sandro Lanfranco, 2024. "The “Ruined Landscapes” of Mediterranean Islands: An Ecological Framework for Their Restoration in the Context of SDG 15 “Life on Land”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-14, November.
    17. Adriana Liute & Maria Rosa De Giacomo, 2022. "The environmental performance of UK‐based B Corp companies: An analysis based on the triple bottom line approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 810-827, March.
    18. Fabio G. Santeramo & Monica Delsignore & Enrica Imbert & Mariarosaria Lombardi, 2023. "The Future of the EU Bioenergy Sector: Economic, Environmental, Social, and Legislative Challenges," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 17(1), pages 1-1–52, April.
    19. Ning Geng & Xiaoqing Zheng & Xibing Han & Xiaonan Li, 2024. "Towards Sustainable Development: The Impact of Agricultural Productive Services on China’s Low-Carbon Agricultural Transformation," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-25, June.
    20. Yuan Gong & Xin Geng & Ping Wang & Shi Hu & Xunming Wang, 2024. "Impact of Urbanization-Driven Land Use Changes on Runoff in the Upstream Mountainous Basin of Baiyangdian, China: A Multi-Scenario Simulation Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:4726-:d:541832. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.