Sustainability Science

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01279-9

SPECIAL FEATURE: ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Globally-Consistent National Pathways towards Sustainable Food and Land-use Systems

Organic agriculture in a low‑emission world: exploring combined

measures to deliver sustainable food system in Sweden
Shyam Basnet1   · Amanda Wood1 · Elin Röös2 · Torbjörn Jansson2 · Ingo Fetzer1 · Line Gordon1

Received: 7 February 2022 / Accepted: 16 December 2022

© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
In the EU, including Sweden, organic farming is seen as a promising pathway for sustainable production, protecting human
health and animal welfare, and conserving the environment. Despite positive developments in recent decades, expanding
organic farming to the Swedish national target of 30% of farmland under organic production remains challenging. In this
study, we developed two scenarios to evaluate the role of organic farming in the broader context of Swedish food systems: (i)
baseline trend scenario (Base), and (ii) sustainable food system scenario (Sust). Base describes a future where organic farm-
ing is implemented alongside the current consumption, production and waste patterns, while Sust describes a future where
organic farming is implemented alongside a range of sustainable food system initiatives. These scenarios are coupled with
several variants of organic area: (i) current 20% organic area, (ii) the national target of 30% organic area by 2030, and (iii) 50%
organic area by 2050 for Sust. We applied the ‘FABLE (Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land-use and Energy) Calculator’
to assess the evolution of the Swedish food system from 2000 to 2050 and evaluate land use, emissions and self-sufficiency
impacts under these scenarios. Our findings show that expanding organic farming in the Base scenarios increases the use of
cropland and agricultural emissions by 2050 compared to the 2010 reference year. However, cropland use and emissions are
reduced in the Sust scenario, due to dietary changes, reduction of food waste and improved agricultural productivity. This
implies that there is room for organic farming and the benefits it provides, e.g. the use of fewer inputs and improved animal
welfare in a sustainable food system. However, changing towards organic agriculture is only of advantage when combined
with transformative strategies to promote environmental sustainability across multiple sections, such as changed consump-
tion, better production and food waste practices.

Keywords  Organic farming · FABLE pathway · Sweden

Introduction such a sustainable future are diverse and include dietary

shifts, reductions in food loss and waste (FLW) and changes
One of humanity’s greatest challenges will be to produce to food production.
enough nutritious and healthy food for a growing global One proposed production-side solution is a transforma-
population while also securing environmental, social and tion of the agro-sector to organic farming (FAO 2018). The
economic sustainability. The proposed pathways to achieve International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
(IFOAM) defines organic agriculture as “a production sys-
tem that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems and people.
Handled by Katya Perez-Guzman, International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis, Austria. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles
adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs
* Shyam Basnet with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition,
[email protected] innovation and science to benefit the shared environment
1
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University,
and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for
Stockholm, Sweden all involved” (IFOAM 2008). Organic agriculture is based
2
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala,
on agroecological practices, such as varied crop rotations,
Sweden biological diversity, natural predators and organic fertilizers.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Sustainability Science

Research shows that organic farming causes lower envi- et al. 2017, 2022; Bowles et al. 2019; García-Oliveira et al.
ronmental impacts [energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) 2020).
emissions, nutrient pollution] per unit of land (Tuomisto In this paper, we also take a food system approach to look
et al. 2012), better soil quality (Meemken and Qaim 2018), at production and consumption of organic food in Sweden.
improved animal welfare (Vaarst and Alrøe 2012), reduced Under the aim of achieving 30% organic agriculture area, as
chemical use (Pekala 2020) and greater profitability for set out by the National Food Strategy target, we ask the fol-
farmers (Reganold and Wachter 2016). However, organic lowing questions: What are the environmental and economic
agriculture also produces lower yields, which is a disad- consequences of expanding organic farming? What other
vantage when a growing population is to be fed without modifications to the food system are necessary to improve
unacceptable expansion of agricultural land (Reganold and the sustainability of organic production? In this way, we
Wachter 2016; Muller et al. 2017; Meemken and Qaim 2018; contribute to the idea that argues that organic agriculture
Seufert 2019). Therefore, organic farming potentially causes will likely to expand, but in combination with other food
higher unit production costs, higher consumer prices and system changes.
higher land use and related negative environmental impacts We use the Swedish food system as a case study to
(Meemken and Qaim 2018). explore these questions. Sweden, like many countries, faces
In Sweden, the national government has set targets for the several major food system challenges. The current dietary
amount of agricultural land area under organic production pattern includes substantial amounts of animal products and
starting in 1994. The first of which was to expand organic processed foods (FAO 2019). Moberg et al. (2020) showed
farming to 10% of total agricultural land by 2000. This target that the average Swedish diet transgresses five out of six
has recently been increased to 30% by 2030 (Pekala 2020). food system planetary boundaries, thus showing a high
In line with these targets, organic area in Sweden has nearly global impact on many relevant Earth system processes. The
tripled in the past 15 years, now covering 611 kha (~ 20%) National Food Strategy has recently highlighted organic pro-
of agricultural land, and organic production of milk and duction and consumption on the political agenda as one solu-
beef increased to 17% and 20% of Swedish gross produc- tion to supply healthier foods and to improve environmental
tion, respectively (Statistics Sweden 2021). sustainability (Swedish Government 2017).
Sweden also has consumption targets for increasing the In this study, we construct several scenarios that dif-
demand for organic food. The Green Public Procurement fer regarding (i) the national target for the area of organic
(GPP) act targets 60% of all food procured by the public cropland, and (ii) whether or not there is a shift towards
sector to be organic by 2030 (Swedish Government 2017). a sustainable food system in terms of dietary shifts, FLW
However, public sector consumption only represents 4% reductions, and increased agricultural productivity. The sce-
of total food consumption (Röös et al. 2021). At the local narios are evaluated using a numerical model that allows us
level, municipal governments such as those in Malmö and to compute a range of sustainability impacts, including GHG
Södertälje aim for increasing consumption with a complete emissions and land use, as well as food self-sufficiency. In
supply of organic foods to the public sector. Looking beyond our analysis, we are able to separate the impact of organic
the public sector, demand for organic foods has also grown production from that of other food systems interventions
steadily—with an annual growth rate of almost 8% between that span production, consumption and waste interventions.
2015 and 2018 (EkoWeb 2020). The country is however a
net importer of organic foods (European Commission 2010),
which can explain in part the efforts made by the national Methods
government to expand domestic organic farming.
Several studies have analysed the potential consequences Modelling approach
of expanding organic farming (Foley et al. 2011; Reganold
and Wachter 2016; Muller et al. 2017; Seufert and Raman- To model our scenarios, we used a modelling calculation
kutty 2017; Karlsson and Röös 2019; Smith et al. 2019; Bar- tool developed by the international FABLE (Food, Agricul-
bieri et al. 2021). Organic farming can be seen as a solution ture, Biodiversity, Land-use and Energy) Consortium. The
for a cultivated planet to provide healthy food (Foley et al. ‘FABLE Calculator’ uses a spatio-temporal national simu-
2011). However, many concerns, including the availability lation approach for articulating sustainable food and land
of organic fertilizers, such as manure, compost and green use system pathways in the national context.1 The ‘FABLE
biomass, and the total land area required, remain unresolved. Calculator’ models the combination of several scenarios
Several studies show that a combination of changes in vari-
ous parts of the food system, including dietary change, pro-
ductivity improvement and FLW reduction, are needed to 1
 Details on ‘FABLE Calculator’ of version 2020 can be found at
reach environmental targets (Bryngelsson et al. 2016; Röös https://​www.​abstr​act-​lands​capes.​com/​fable-​calcu​lator.

13
Sustainability Science

Fig. 1  Schematic diagram of
modelling food system (Source:
Authors’ own)

representing different policies (e.g. National Food Strategy, pastures and other natural lands in protected areas (PAs) (see
2030 Agenda, Green Deal, Farm-to-Fork, EU Biodiversity Mosnier et al. 2019, 2020 for further details).
Strategy, etc.) and changes in the drivers of food systems,
such as dietary changes, productivity growth and biodiver- Organic production
sity. This calculator also enables the analysis of potential
trade-offs in terms of land use, food consumption, trade and In the ‘FABLE Calculator’, organic production differs from
GHG emissions for the period 2000–2050 (see Mosnier et al. conventional farming with respect to yields, application of
2020 for details). An overview of the modelling framework, agricultural inputs, such as synthetic fertilizers and plant
describing the food and land-use system in the ‘FABLE Cal- protection materials, and livestock stocking density. In our
culator’ is shown in Fig. 1. scenarios, yield differences were determined using the data
As illustrated in Fig. 1, the model is driven by demand available in the Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruks-
(food consumption, exports and animal feed). Consumption verket 2006, 2022a) (see Appendix 3 for details). The higher
in turn is influenced by population growth and affluence. yield gaps were observed for some of the major cereal crops,
Domestic food production is based on this demand, tak- such as wheat, barley and rye, in the range of 38–41%. Pulses
ing into account food that is imported. Thus, food demand, (e.g. peas and beans) and temporary grasses have the lowest
including food loss and waste, moderates agricultural pro- yield differences, ranging from 14 to 24% (see Table SI_1
duction. By considering agricultural productivity develop- on Supplementary Information for details). However, these
ments in the context of climate change, this calculator cal- differences can vary depending on crop types, geographical
culates the cropland and semi-natural pastures required for locations, soil quality and available inputs, such as irriga-
supplying the food demand. tion, green manure and compost.
In the modelling process, the ‘FABLE Calculator’ uses In terms of applying mineral fertilizers and chemical
a relatively simple parametric method for estimating food pesticides, we assumed a 100% reduction in organic agri-
demands, using the caloric intake in kcal/person/year avail- culture. The application of agro-ecological practices, such
able in FAO Food Balance Sheets (FBS). The model com- as biofertilizers, organic fertilization, crop rotation and inter-
putes the supply of food commodities from domestic produc- cropping with legumes and manure from animals consuming
tion and trade, and maintains a balance between supply and only organic fodder, is considered the source of soil nutrients
demand for each food commodity. for organic farming. To integrate organic agriculture into
The model calculates environmental impacts on outcome the ‘FABLE Calculator’, the total organic area required to
variables, including cropland use and GHG emissions, as achieve the scenario target of 30% or 50% of total agricul-
well as food self-sufficiency due to changing food demand tural land2 is explicitly defined in the model. Aggregated
as a result of dietary shift, FLW and domestic food pro- areas for organic crops are then allocated between different
duction. The cropland use and freshwater consumption are crops (e.g. organic wheat and organic barley shown in Fig. 2)
reported based on their annual domestic production require- in proportion to their share of total cropland. The organic
ments. The GHG emissions are cumulative emissions from harvest is supplied to the market for domestic consumption,
agricultural production and changes in land use at a national and the remaining food demand comes from conventional
level. We calculated GHG emissions using emission factors
applied to crop harvest areas and animal herd size. Effect on
biodiversity is estimated by the national area of semi-natural 2
  As most fallow land was retained as part of the set-aside program,
we fixed it constant at the 2010 level.

13
 Sustainability Science

Model variables and data sources

Food production

We considered yearly data on crop production, livestock

farming and crop acreages from the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for the period
2000–2015 (FAO 2019). These data are originally supplied
by the Swedish Board of Agriculture, but they are harmo-
nized in FAOSTAT with the FBS on food consumption,
trade, feed, processing and other non-food purposes. The
missing information on cultivated areas for organic crops
was directly collected from the Swedish Board of Agricul-
ture (Statistics Sweden 2021).
This study excludes FBS items with small quantities (e.g.
Fig. 2  Modelling framework to conventional and organic food supply spices) or items not considered food (e.g. alcohol). Most of
the FBS items are reported in terms of primary equivalents,
i.e. the quantity of raw products. For example, wheat prod-
production. Based on the productivity developments, the ucts (e.g. wheat flour and bread) are reported in terms of
model calculates the total conventional areas required to raw wheat required for their production. For oilseeds crops,
produce residual food demand.3 Thus, the model considers we accounted for the link between oil and cake (co-product)
conventional and organic crops to be grown separately, such using processing coefficients. The same rule applies to beef
as conventional wheat and organic wheat, and their aggrega- and milk production of the dairy animals. At present, the
tion is reported as cropland use. ‘FABLE Calculator’ contains 15 aggregates of agri-food
For organic livestock farming, we considered milk and products, including 9 plants and 6 animal aggregates (see
beef production. We assumed a 15% lower stocking den- Appendix 1 for details).
sity for organically grown cattle (Finch et al. 2014), lead-
ing to 2.97 grazing livestock unit per hectare of pasture- Food consumption
land. These cattle have 15% more exposure to grazing and
consume 40% less concentrate feed (Gaudaré et al. 2021; Information on dietary intake is used to calculate per capita
Länsstyrelsen 2021a, b) (see Appendix  3 for details). consumption of food items. The calorie content of food
Likewise, feed used in organic animal husbandry was products was also obtained from the FAOSTAT (FAO 2019).
assumed to be based on feed ingredients of exclusively For defining the current diet, we collected the per capita food
organic origin. For example, organic rapeseed meal and intake of various food commodities available for 2017. We
organic grasses (e.g. clover leys) are fed to the livestock selected this year to harmonize with the productivity and
that produce organic milk and beef. In line with the target trade developments.
for organic agricultural land, we have also increased the
targets for organic grasslands and organic dairy and beef Food waste
production to 30% or 50% for the associated scenarios.
As the current share of organic agricultural land is almost To account for food waste for each food products, we col-
equivalent to the share of organic milk and beef produc- lected their shares at the supermarket, retail and household
tion, we have assumed that manure from organically man- level reported in 2010 (FAO 2011). About 25% of the har-
aged animals would provide sufficient soil nutrients for vested cereal grains was recorded as food waste at the house-
organic farming. hold level, while only 2% was recorded in supermarkets.
For fruits and vegetables, food waste was reported at 19%
in households and 10% in supermarkets. For details on food
waste, see Appendix 2.

Food trade

We collected exports and imports of raw food commodities

3
  We refer the residual food demand to the rest of the food demand from FAOSTAT. FAOSTAT transforms processed products
after the supply of organic food.

13
Sustainability Science

into raw product equivalents and reports the aggregate vol- and Development) (OECD/FAO 2019). They are estimated
ume of traded raw items. by the OECD-AGLINK model, based on the unit require-
ment of these crop products for ethanol and biodiesel
Feed requirements production.4 In 2010, Sweden’s biofuel production used
8.5 k tons of wheat, 13.9 k tons of maize, and 189.6 k tons
National accounts on animal feed were not detailed, often of rapeseed oil and 1.5 k tons of sugar beet (FAO 2019). In
aggregated, and sometimes lacking for a few ingredients. the sustainable food system scenarios, we assumed moderate
For example, national statistics represent only the amounts growth in biofuel supply from agriculture.
sold by the feed industry, but do not record the amounts of
feed used on farms. We collected estimated data on feed Emission factors
requirements from Cederberg et al. (2009) and updated with
the farm survey data in Västra Götaland County of Sweden The emission factors for crop harvest areas were collected
(Länsstyrelsen 2021a, b). Complementary data were col- from the FAO country database for Swedish agriculture
lected from Herrero et al. (2013), which were calculated (FAO 2019). These data include emissions of nitrous oxide
based on the weighted average of production systems. ­(N2O) and carbon dioxide (­CO2) from energy use, syn-
thetic fertilizer application and crop residue management.
Land use For organic farming, the emission factors per unit of out-
put are collected from Smith et al. (2019) and converted
We collected information on land use in agriculture, forestry, them into emissions per unit area using the organic yields of
semi-natural pastures and other land types such as urban Statistics Sweden (2021).5 For some crops (e.g. oats, pota-
areas from the FAOSTAT (FAO 2019). The data on crop- toes and onions), the emission factors per unit of output
land use for conventional and organic crop harvests were ­(CO2e ­tonne−1) are slightly higher in the organic production
obtained from the Swedish Board of Agriculture (Jordbruks- system, but for some others (e.g. wheat, barley, rye, triti-
verket 2022b). cale, milk and beef) they are lower in organic production
(Smith et al. 2019). Lower yield and nutrient leaching are the
Protected areas major causes of emissions in the organic production system.
The emission factors for the livestock sector are collected
Data on nationally designated Protected Areas (PAs) were from Cederberg et al. (2009), supplemented by Herrero
collected from the World Database on Protected Areas et al. (2013). This information includes emissions of ­N2O
(UNEP–WCMC and IUCN 2019). These data were available and methane (­ CH4) from enteric fermentation and livestock
in various land cover classes, such as cultivated land, grass- manure. The carbon stock in forest biomass is obtained from
lands, shrubs with tree mosaic and herbaceous vegetation, the FAO database (FAO 2019). For cropland and pasture,
and urban areas. We aggregated these land cover classes we collected emission factors from Lindgren and Lundblad
into five land-use categories, namely cropland, forest, pas- (2014). We assume a biomass carbon stock in other land
tureland, urban areas and other lands, and excluded water cover types equivalent to 30% of the forest biomass carbon
and snow-covered land. This dataset is used to calculate the stock following recommendations by Mosnier et al. (2019).6
coverage of PAs for each ecoregion. In Sweden, we have a Information on the C ­ O2 savings of biofuels relative to fossil
total of 4 ecoregions, namely Baltic and Sarmatic mixed fuels is collected from RFA (2008). The emission factors
forests, and Scandinavian taiga and Montane Birch forests. and the sequestration changes with land use and land-use
Currently, the PAs occupy 15% of the total terrestrial area, changes are used to compute GHG emissions across all sce-
with extensive forest cover. This study focused on the expan- narios (see Table SI.2 on Supplementary Information for
sion of the network of PAs into forest and other types of details on emission factors).
land covered with (semi-)natural vegetation. The PAs was
assumed to provide habitat for flora and fauna for the con-
servation and restoration of biodiversity. 4
  The model adopted the climate change mitigation scenario, namely
2-degree scenario (2DS), developed by the International Energy
Bioenergy production Agency (IEA). This scenario assumes a 50% probability of limit-
ing future global average temperature to an increase of 2 °C by 2100
The present study also assumes an increased demand for (OECD 2019).
5
agricultural commodities in bioenergy production. We col-   There are no emissions of synthetic fertilizers from organic farm-
ing. Emissions from cattle manure are accounted for under the head-
lected estimates of demand for crop products, such as wheat, ing ‘livestock sector emissions’.
maize, sugar beet and rapeseed, and of bioenergy production 6
  The FABLE Consortium made this assumption due to the lack of
from the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation reliable national information.

13
 Sustainability Science

Climate change year for developing scenarios for computing GHG emissions
from food production and consumption in Sweden.
Representative Concentration Paths (RCPs) are the most Finally, we assumed that Sweden meets its commitment
recent atmospheric concentration scenarios adopted by the to the Convention on Biological Diversity, thus expanded the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for protected areas (PAs) to 30% of terrestrial land and inland
the fifth assessment report in 2014. This study assumes the waters by 2030. In contrast, we assumed low ambitions to
RCP2.6 scenario (see Appendix 3 for more information), reduce the climate impacts of agriculture, given the current
which can reduce crop yields in Sweden by 1.4% by 2050 lack of political will. More scenario details are available in
from 2010 level. As changes in the effect of ­CO2 fertilization Appendix 3.
over time have yet to be fully explored (Wang et al. 2020),
we have excluded the fertilization effect on measuring the Sustainable food system scenarios
environmental impacts.
This set of scenarios explores various targets for organic
Demographics production in combination with a food systems approach
to improving sustainability. The changes, compared to the
Historical observations on population, gender composition baseline trends, included in all these scenarios are (1) a shift
and age structure were collected from UN (2017). In this towards more a sustainable diet, (2) reduction in FLW and
study, we adopted the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) (3) improved crop and livestock productivity. The shifts
that represents the low challenges in climate change mitiga- towards a more sustainable diet were made in consulta-
tion and adaptation: SSP1. In the Swedish context, the SSP1 tion with relevant public sector agencies. The dietary shifts
projects the national population to reach 12.97 million by included a decrease in animal source foods (red meat, poul-
2050 (see Appendix 3 for details). try, eggs and dairy) and an increase in vegetables, root veg-
etables, legumes and temperate fruits (see Appendix 3 for
Scenario development details). FLW was halved across the value chain, in line with
the Sustainable Development Goal Target 12.3 (Flanagan
We developed two sets of scenarios that we call baseline sce- et al. 2019).
narios and sustainable food system scenarios. Within each Productivity shifts for crops and livestock were based on
of those sets, we varied the target level for organic cropland expected yield growth. We calculated annual yield growth
area. Moreover, we ran additional computations to explore in Sweden with recently available data in the Swedish Board
the individual and combined contribution of various changes of Agriculture (Jordbruksverket 2006, 2022a) from 2000 to
to food production, consumption and waste to sustainability. 2010 at − 1.3% to 5.1%, depending on the products. The
There are two baseline scenarios: Base20 corresponds to lowest growth was recorded for rye and the highest for
organic farming remaining at the current 20% of total agri- potatoes. For the baseline scenarios—Base20 and Base30,
cultural land. In Base30, we explore the impacts of pursuing we truncated negative growth to zero to avoid a declining
organic agriculture as the only sustainability strategy. Thus, trend and higher growth to 1.5% to curb exponential growth
we include the expansion of organic agriculture in line with in long-term yields. Jonasson (2018) also predicted simi-
the current government target to reach 30% organic area by lar yield growth of 0.5% per year for cereals, 1% per year
2030, and no further expansion beyond that point. for milk and eggs and 1.5% per year for pork until 2045.
In both baseline scenarios, we assume a continuation of As in Clark et al. (2020), we assumed that the yields are
historical trends in population, GDP growth, food produc- 50% higher than the maximum yield observed in the period
tion, consumption, food waste, trade and land-use. For most 2000–2010. This equates to approximately 1% yield growth
parameters, a reference year of 2010 was used, because in per year up to 2050 (see Appendix 3 for details).
the numerical model (described below) variables such as In addition to local production, the Swedish National
protected areas, animal feed requirements, FLW and agri- Food Strategy 2016/2017 also promotes the consumption
cultural inputs in biofuel production were available for 2010. and exports of Swedish food, including organic products.
However, we used a base year of 2017 to account for per In the sustainability scenarios, we assumed a 30% increase
capita consumption, as this was the latest information availa- in food exports from 2017 to 2030.7 The amount of imports
ble at the FAO Food Balance Sheets (FBS). We also used the
same reference year for food imports and exports, because
7
these were the most recent agricultural trade data (Statistics   Based on personal communication with the Swedish Board of Agri-
Sweden 2021). Previous studies (e.g. Jonasson 2018; Natur- culture and the Swedish Trade agencies, we assumed moderate export
growth with a 30% increase between 2017 and 2050. It applies to all
vårdsverket 2019; Wirsenius 2019) also used 2017 as base products exported in 2017. We have no trade for organic foods, as we
lack historical observations on their trade.

13
Sustainability Science

Table 1  Major variables differ across scenarios

Variables Baseline scenario Sustainable food system scenario
Base20 Base30 Sust20 Sust30 Sust50

Organic agricultural land 20% 30% 20% 30% 50%

Crop and livestock yield Business-as-usual trend Moderate growth
Livestock stocking No change in permanent pasture 15% fewer livestock on pasture
Food loss and waste No change in the current state 50% reduction by 2050
Imports Stable at the 2017 levels Reduce imports
Exports No changes in trade policy 30% increase from 2017 levels
Dietary composition Current dietary intake More intake of plant-based foods
Biofuels and bioenergy Stable demand as 2010 Moderate growth
Biodiversity PAs in 17% of land by 2030 PAs in 30% of land by 2030

Fig. 3  Land use in simulation a) Cropland use b) Semi-natural pasture land

scenarios 700

2800
600

500
2400

in 1000 ha
in 1000 ha

400

2000 300
2000 2010 2030 2050 2000 2010 2030 2050

Hist.Obs Base20 Hist.Obs. Base20

Base30 Sust20 Base30 Sust20
Sust30 Sust50 Sust30 Sust50

depends on consumer preferences for the diet, population (iii) we extend the growth of organic agriculture linearly
growth, domestic supply and other factors. The sustainability from 30% in 2030 to 50% in 2050 (hereafter referred
scenarios are coupled with an import development adapted to as “Sust50”).
to dietary transition. In recent years, the trend is a decline in
beef consumption combined with a slight increase in domes- Given that the National Food Strategy 2016/2017 is
tic beef production. If this trend continues, there will be already in place to implement transformative actions towards
even smaller share of beef imports in consumption. As the a sustainable food system, we assumed that the 2050 target
study diet was designed to reduce beef consumption, we also of 50% organic agricultural land in the baseline scenarios
assumed to reduce beef imports (see Appendix 3 for details). (e.g. current level of per capita consumption) would be less
To explore the role of organic agriculture as part of the probable case.
mix of sustainability solutions, we created three variations Table 1 summarizes the descriptions of the variants of
of the sustainability scenario as: baseline and sustainable food system scenarios.

(i) we test only the sustainability measures detailed

above, with the current 20% organic acreage (here- Results
after referred to as “Sust20”).
(ii) we increase the current target linearly to 30% organic This section presents the outcomes of the baseline and sus-
agricultural land by 2030 (hereafter referred to as tainability scenarios with variations in the area of organic
“Sust30”). agricultural land. We describe the impacts of each scenario

13
 Sustainability Science

Fig. 4  Changes in cropland use

across scenarios 3000 Base Base20 Base30 Sust20 Sust30 Sust50
year

93 402
2500 230
202
202
284
229 406 768
2000

in: thousand hectares

202
1137 267
970
970
1500 363
890
788
1000 620
707 739 637
407 356
222
500
309 275 275 275 275 275

189 200 200 200 200 200

0
2010 2050 2050 2050 2050 2050
Other tyes of cropland Grazing area
Grass harvest area (Conventional) Crop harvest area (Conventional)
Grass harvest area (Organic) Crop harvest area (Organic)

on cropland and pasture land use, agricultural emissions and lowest land use is found in Sust20, where there is no expan-
food self-sufficiency. sion of organic area and the sustainable food system changes
are included.
Agricultural land use With regard to the use of semi-natural pastures, the base-
line and sustainability scenarios have divergence effects. In
Projected cropland area includes both conventional and the baseline scenarios, including Base20 and Base30, the use
organic areas for crop and livestock production. The base- of pastures is estimated to increase to 586 kha (in Base20)
line scenario (Base20), which assumes 20% organic agri- and 599 kha (in Base30) in 2050, which are 28% and 31%
cultural land (i.e. current organic area), projects a cropland higher than the 2010 level, respectively. In 2010, the use of
area of 2.61 million hectares by 2030, which is slightly semi-natural pastures for livestock grazing was reported to
(− 1.4%) lower than the 2010 reference year (2.64 million 457 kha (Statistics Sweden 2021). The baseline scenarios
hectares according to Statistics Sweden 2021) (see Base20 (Base20 and Base30) assume constant per capita consump-
in Fig. 3a). In 2050, cropland area remains relatively close to tion of the current Swedish diet available at FAO (2019) for
the 2010 reference year (2.63 million hectares). In this sce- the period 2020–2050. As the current diet contains relatively
nario, food demand increases as population grows, but crop larger shares of animal origin products, such as beef, pork
yield improvements prevent a larger land use expansion. and milk, the growing population would require more supply
In the Base30 scenario, which assumes the expansion of these foods, leading to increase in animal herd sizes. This
of organic farming to 30% of the utilized agricultural area has a positive impact, as cattle grazing would help maintain
(UAA) by 2030, requires 2.71 million hectares of cropland semi-natural pastures that are rich in biodiversity. In Swe-
by 2050. This is 3.1% higher than the projected cropland in den, undergrazing and abandonment of semi-natural pas-
the Base20 scenario and the difference is due to the expan- tures is the predominant problem (Kumm 2003). To preserve
sion of organic agricultural land. As the sustainability meas- these pastures, Swedish farmers receive an agri-environmen-
ures such as dietary transition, reducing FLW and improving tal payment under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy for
agricultural productivity, are adopted in the Sust30 scenario, regular grazing. However, an increase in livestock would
cropland area decreases to 2.28 million hectares in 2050 (see also release more GHGs and could have adverse effects on
Fig. 3a). This is about 16% less cropland requirement than the environment. The sustainability scenarios, including
the Base30 scenario. This is mainly attributed to the dietary Sust20, Sust30 and Sust50, use less pasture land for grazing,
transition, which can alone reduce the cropland use by 9.7%, as the livestock production are expected to decrease with
followed by productivity growth and FLW reduction. The the reduced consumption of animal products. In the same

13
Sustainability Science

Fig. 5  Changes in crop acreage 1000 140.0

in the Sust30 
120.0
800 2010 2030
100.0

in 1000 ha
600 80.0

60.0
400
40.0
200
20.0

0 0.0

Grass (conv.)

Cereals (Organic)
Cereals (conv.)

Grass (Organic)

Oilseeds (Organic)
Vegetables (total)
Fruits (total)

Pulses (conv.)

Sugar crops (total)

Potato (Organic)
Oilseeds (conv.)

Potato (conv.)

Pulses (Organic)
way, production capacities, such as agroclimatic conditions they account for only 0.75% of total arable land, i.e. around
and biophysical properties, can affect food supply and con- 15 kha in 2010. Because of more consumption of vegetables,
sumption patterns, while food tends to be locally produced. the Sust30 scenario increases their cultivation to 21 kha in
In the sustainability scenarios—Sust20, Sust30 and Sust50, 2030, which is 40% higher than the 2010 level (see Fig. 5).
changes in cereals harvest area and grass cultivation are Likewise, the cultivated areas of leguminous crops, such
largely responsible for reduction in cropland use in 2030 and as peas and beans, are expected to increase in the sustain-
2050 (Fig. 4). Altogether, these crops (cereals and temporary ability scenarios. The cultivated areas for these crops were
grasses) explain 54% of the changes in cropland between reported to 36 kha in 2010, which is expected to increase
2010 and 2050, due to increase in their productivities. Sub- to 73 kha in 2030 in the Sust30 scenario. The total use of
stantial share in the reduction of crop harvest area (52%) cropland for conventional and organic production of oilseed
is attributed to decrease in the planted areas of temporary crops and temporary grasses decreases noticeably between
grasses (e.g. clover). The dietary transition in the sustain- 2010 and 2050.
ability scenarios reduces demand for animal products, which
reduces the livestock production activities (e.g. cultivation Emissions
of grasses). During this period, areas under organic crops,
including cereals, pulses and temporary grasses, is increased We calculated emissions and removals from agricultural
by 1.2 times of the 2010 level in the Sust30 scenario and it is production, land use changes and biofuel savings by pairing
extended to 3.8 times in the Sust50 scenario. In these scenar- their emission intensities. In the present study, we have esti-
ios, some of the conventional areas are converted to organic mated the agricultural emissions to 5.60 MtCO2e in 2030,
production, while a small share of the conventional crop and reach 5.55 MtCO2e in 2050 in the Base20 scenario
harvest area is abandoned by agriculture. The conventional (Fig. 6a), which are 1% and 5% higher than the estimates
crop harvest areas are reduced by 24% and 55% of the 2010 by FAO (2018).8 The differences in the absolute emission
level in the Sust30 and Sust50 scenario by 2050. In 2050, the estimates are due to differences in model assumptions, such
organic crop production area is expanded to 768 kha, while as expansion of organic farming, yield improvement, dietary
it is shrunk to 620 kha in conventional farming (see Fig. 4). transition and SSP pathways. Note that we have estimated
Due to reduced feed demand, the cultivation of temporary a decreasing trend in agricultural emissions after 2030 that
grasses is also decreased over the same period. is possible thanks to yield increases even though we have a
In the sustainability scenarios, the cultivated areas of constant per capita consumption and a growing population.
fruits, vegetables and pulses are expected to increase for The expansion of organic farming in the Base30 sce-
both conventional and organic production. In the Sust30 sce- nario would further increase the GHG emissions to 5.65
nario, the cultivated areas for fruits can increase to 12 kha MtCO2eq in 2050 (see Base30 in Fig. 6a), which is merely
in 2030, which is 3 times higher than the 2010 level (see
Fig. 5). This is particularly observed with apples and other
temperate fruits. In Sweden, tomatoes, onions, cabbage, car- 8
  FAO (2018) estimated the CO2e emissions for Swedish agriculture
rots and lettuce are commonly grown vegetables, although to be 5.57 MtCO2e by 2030 and 5.30 MtCO2e by 2050.

13
 Sustainability Science

Fig. 6  Emissions in the food a) cumulative agricultural CO2e emissions b) changes in CO2e emissions 2010-2050
production system 7 0

Base20

Base30

Sust20

Sust30

Sust50
6
-1

in MtCO2e

in MtCO2e
-2
4

-3
3

2 -4
2000 2010 2030 2050

Hist. Est. Base20 Base30 Crop Livestock

Sust20 Sust30 Sust50 Land use change Biofuel saving

1.7% higher than the Base20 scenario. In the Base30 sce- production. This implies that self-sufficiency is mainly
nario, the livestock sector is the largest source of emissions influenced by the consumption pattern and the volume of
(4.08 MtCO2e/year in 2050), while biofuel serves as a sink domestic production. We expect improved food self-suffi-
(− 0.41 MtCO2e/year). In the Base30 scenario, we observe ciency as we move towards a sustainable food system. As
an increase in GHG emissions in the agriculture sector by can be seen the horizontal bars approaching to the vertical
0.44 MtCO2e between 2010 and 2050 (see Fig. 6b). The dashed line in Fig. 8a, Sust30 can improve self-sufficiency
land-use changes to shrubland and other vegetations were ratios for some food commodities, such as cereals, fruits,
the removals of GHG emissions. vegetables, milk, beef, pork and eggs over the 2010–2050
The sustainability scenarios, including Sust20, Sust30 and period. For cereal grains, food self-sufficiency is expected to
Sust50, lead to a 30–40% reduction in the net agricultural increase, due to higher domestic production (see Fig. 8b). In
emissions by 2050, comparing to the 2010 level (Fig. 6a). case of animal origin products, such as milk, beef and pork,
Assuming that the three sustainability measures—dietary their self-sufficiencies can improve by 2050 (see Sust30 in
shifts, reducing FLW and improving productivity, are pro- Fig. 8a) with the reduction in their imports, which has been
gressively adopted so as to be fully adopted by 2050, the largely affected by their reduced consumption (see Fig. 8b).
GHG emissions from crop and livestock production can On overall, the self-sufficiency ratios for most of the food
decrease to 4.03 MtCO2e in 2050, which is 34% lower than commodities are expected to improve in the sustainability
the 2010 level (see Sust20 in Fig. 6a). Due to the adoption scenarios, compared to the baseline scenarios.
of the sustainability measures, even if we expand the current Within the sustainability scenarios—Sust20, Sust30
organic acreages to 30% of the UAA, i.e. in the Sust30 sce- and Sust50, the self-sufficiency ratios for most food
nario, the GHG emissions can still reduce by 45% in 2050,
comparing to the Base30 scenario. This shows that the food
GHG Emissions and Removals: Organic future scenario (Sust50)
system approach can provide space for expanding organic
farming with reduced emissions. However, it requires the 7

adoption of these sustainability measures—dietary shifts, 6

FLW reduction and productivity improvement. The complete 5
adoption of these measures would even provide a leeway for 4
in MtCO2e

the expansion of organic farming up to 50% by 2050, with- 3

out exceeding the emissions estimates in the Base20 sce- 2
nario (see Sust50 in Fig. 7). The decrease in GHG emissions
1
is primarily attributable to lower animal production, espe-
0
cially pork and beef, and regeneration of natural vegetation. 2010 2030 2050
-1

Food self‑sufficiency -2

Crop Livestock Land use change Biofuel saving

The concept of food self-sufficiency describes the degree
to which a country can meet its food demand with domestic Fig. 7  GHG emissions and removals: organic future scenario (Sust50)

13
Sustainability Science

Fig. 8  Food self-sufficiency (a) food self-sufficiency ratios

with their demand and supply in
2050 (Sust30). a Food self-suf- Vegetables
ficiency ratios. b Food demand
Oilcake
and supply in 2050 (Sust30).
Note: In b, the first bar repre- Sugars
sents demand for consumption,
exports, feed and biofuels, while Oilseeds
the second bar shows supply by
production and imports Eggs
Roots
Beef
Pulses
Poultry
Pork
Milk
Temperate…
Cereals

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

2010 2050 (Base30) 2050 (Sust30)

b) food demand and supply in 2050 (Sust30)

7000 400

6000 350

300
5000
250
4000
in 1000 ton

200
3000
150
2000
100
1000 50

0 0
2010

2050

2010

2050

2050
2010

2050

2010

2010

2050

Cereals Milk Beef Chicken Pork

Consumption Biofuel
Exports Production
Feed Imports

commodities would remain unchanged with increased implementing sustainability measures would significantly
adoption of organic farming. Aggregate domestic produc- affect the food self-sufficiency ratios (as seen in Base30
tion does not change remarkably between these sustain- and Sust30 in Fig. 8a). This is mainly motivated by three
ability scenarios. Rather, it would change the shares of the sustainability measures—dietary change, reducing FLW
organic and conventional area. However, when compar- and improving yields.
ing the sustainability and baseline scenarios, we see that

13
 Sustainability Science

Discussion species live. Previous studies have shown that low levels of
cattle grazing is desirable for biodiversity, given that many
Agricultural land use red listed species have evolved to live in such pastures
(Waldén and Lindborg 2016; Nilsson et al. 2013).
In the baseline scenarios (i.e. adopting no sustainability
strategies), the expansion of organic area would require
more cropland. Thus, this study confirms earlier results Emissions
that expanding organic farming would require more crop-
land (Reganold and Wachter 2016; Muller et al. 2017; The increased agricultural production in the baseline
Seufert and Ramankutty 2017; Karlsson and Röös 2019). scenarios would release more GHGs. Expanding organic
We find an increased use of cropland in Sweden already farming in this scenario releases somewhat more GHG
in the baseline scenarios, if the current per capita food emissions, as emission savings from reduced fertilizer
consumption remains unchanged, and achieving the 30% application in organic production are offset by increased
target requires expanding the cultivated agricultural land emissions from land use. Historically, GHG emissions
beyond the 2010 reference year (2.64 million hectares in from the agriculture sector in Sweden were reduced
2010; Statistics Sweden 2021). Previous studies (e.g. Erb between 1990 and 2018 despite a strong expansion of
et al. 2016; Muller et al. 2017; Barbieri et al. 2021) also organic production (Swedish Environmental Protection
argue that organic farming alone cannot feed the growing Agency 2019; Ritchie and Roser 2020). That reduction
population and poses a threat to forests and grasslands, if was explained by a reduction in the number of animals
extended worldwide. (mainly dairy cows and hogs), improved manure manage-
In contrast, our sustainable food system scenarios sug- ment practices, less use of nitrogen-based mineral ferti-
gest that dietary shifts combined with food waste reduc- lizers and reduced crop acreage (Swedish Environmen-
tions can significantly reduce cropland use, leaving room tal Protection Agency 2019). However, not all of those
for organic farming to expand. In such a food system, it developments continue in our baseline, such as manure
would be possible to expand organic farming to 50% of management practices.
the UAA by 2050, without increasing the cumulative use The sustainability scenarios demonstrate the potential
of cropland. Previous studies (Röös et al. 2017; Spring- for reducing GHG emissions from agriculture in Sweden.
mann et al. 2018; Clark et al. 2020) have shown similar The decrease in GHG emissions is primarily attributable to
results of reduced cropland use through various mitigation lower animal production and reduction in land use. Assum-
strategies. Röös et al. (2017) also argue for improving the ing that the strategies to reduce unhealthy food consumption
food system, in particular dietary transition, reducing FLW (dietary transition) and FLW, are progressively adopted so
and increasing productivity, to feed the growing popula- as to be fully adopted by 2050, we find a 55% reduction in
tion with the currently available arable land. Along with GHG emissions from 2010 to 2050. This is broadly in line
these strategies, Karlsson and Röös (2019) also suggested with previous research that has identified dietary shifts as
reducing food-feed competition, to increase significantly a key lever to reduce emissions (Tukker et al. 2011; Til-
the share of organic production in Sweden. In the present man and Clark 2014; Springmann et al. 2018; Clark et al.
study, we also considered more exposure of livestock to 2020). Increasing the share of organic production within the
grazing and feeding less concentrate grains as the efforts sustainability scenarios increases emissions compared to
to strengthen the sustainability scenarios. maintaining current levels of organics because of increased
The baseline scenarios project increased use of semi- crop acreage and livestock farming. Nevertheless, even after
natural pastures for livestock grazing, as a result of expansion of organically cropped areas to 30% in 2030 and
increased animal herd size. However, expansion of pas- 50% in 2050, the emissions would still be lower than in the
ture land will require policy incentives, and thus it is more business-as-usual scenario.
likely that stocking density just increases. That would not In the Nationally Determined Commitments (NDCs)
be ideal, since intensive grazing on semi-natural pas- to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
tures can have adverse effects on flora and fauna diversity Change (UNFCCC), Sweden has committed to reduce GHG
(Kleijn and Sutherland 2003). On the other hand, in the emissions by 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 from energy,
sustainability scenarios, we see less semi-natural pasture industrial processes, agriculture, forestry and other land
land use, but also lower livestock stocking densities. This use (EU 2015), and zero net GHG emissions by 2045. In
presents a bit of a trade-off, in that remaining pasture land the light of our results, it is difficult to see how a strong
might be better preserved with lower stocking densities, expansion of organically farmed area could be reconciled
but we would also lose pastures where many red listed with those climate ambitions unless combined with dietary
changes, improving productivity and reducing FLW.

13
Sustainability Science

Food self‑sufficiency land-use systems, and does not represent the entire economy
of the country. As a result, this model does not account for
In the National Food Strategy 2016/2017, the government knock-on effects in other sectors of the economy. Medium-
emphasized for improving food self-sufficiency by increas- level trade scenarios have been assumed to be less sensitive
ing domestic food production (Swedish Government 2017). to economic growth and climate change outside of Swe-
This includes improving agricultural productivity, dietary den. Despite uncertainties and limitations, our study indi-
shifts to plant-based foods, and promotion of organic farm- cates that organic farming can be part of a food system with
ing. About half of the Swedish food consumption is pro- increased protection of natural resources and animal welfare
duced domestically, accounting for 55–60% of food self- if combined with mitigation measures such as dietary shift,
sufficiency, down from 75% in 1988 (LRF 2021). The reducing FLW and improving productivity. The latter meas-
sustainability scenarios improve the self-sufficiency ratios ures provide some leeway to expand organic farming without
for most of the food commodities in 2050 for most products. exceeding the current state of cropland use and GHG emis-
The food self-sufficiency can improve either by increasing sions. Previous studies (Erb et al. 2016; Muller et al. 2017;
domestic production or reducing consumption. In case of Springmann et al. 2018; Conijn et al. 2018; Barbieri et al.
plant-based foods such as cereals, pulses and potato, the 2021) also suggested these triple actions to operate the food
self-sufficiency ratios are improved by increased domestic system in the safe space of planetary boundaries.
production, whereas for animal products, reduced demand We expect that this study helps policymakers identify
associated with dietary shifts is the main driver. Therefore, potential constraints and opportunities for the expansion
our results are consistent with previous studies (Beltran-Pea of organic agriculture in Sweden. In particular, our results
et al. 2020), finding that the food self-sufficiency ratios can would support a further expansion to Sweden’s national
improve in the sustainability scenarios combining a low- organic production target, so long as it is part of a pack-
carbon diet, improving productivity and reducing FLW. age of food system strategies. This study could also become
The expansion of organic farming would have no signifi- relevant for other EU countries, as the EU’s Farm-to-Fork
cant impact on cumulative domestic production. The new strategy under the Green Deal policy also aims to expand
entrants in organic farming were initially practitioners of the organic agriculture.
conventional production system. Their transition to organic
farming would only change the mode of production and use
more cropland to compensate for lower organic yields. Con- Conclusions
sequently, food self-sufficiency ratios would not be very dif-
ferent as organic farming expands. The promotion of organic This study showed that the expansion of organic farming
farming together with the adoption of sustainability meas- towards the National Food Strategy goal may require more
ures may motivate consumers to demand more local foods, cropland and result in higher GHG emissions in the baseline
which would improve food self-sufficiency. scenarios. However, it would be possible to expand organic
agriculture on available farmland if the current Swedish
Study limitations and contributions diet (defined by FAO consumption data) is transformed to a
low-carbon diet, yield increased by 50%, and FLW reduced
This is modelling study that explores an uncertain future. by 50%. These sustainability measures can greatly reduce
The results may deviate from other studies for several rea- the expansion of cultivated land into natural habitats and
sons, such as availability of input data, model structure and semi-natural pastures. The adoption of these sustainability
uncertainties in scenario representations. All of our calcu- measures with lower livestock stocking densities can reduce
lations are based on the FAO food balance sheets, which the current intensive grazing on semi-natural pasture land.
record the food availability. Thus, the model results may Integrating the sustainable measures in the food system
contain differences in the level of food consumption com- is critical to reduce food demand and to increase the pro-
pared to other studies. Blue foods, including fish and other duction efficiency of cropland per unit of organic produc-
sea foods, have been considered only to calculate calorie tion. However, none of the individual strategies alone can
intake, but the model excludes aquaculture on the production reduce the conventional cropland and allows for the expan-
side. For GDP and population growth, we considered the sion of organic farming. Policy incentives for transforming
SSP1 scenario as a sustainable path to long-term economic the broader food system are thus necessary to contribute
growth and demographic change. Deviation from this sce- to achieving the national food policy goal of expanding
nario may have a moderate impact on the outcomes of the organic agriculture without other negative environmental
pathway. consequences. As the ‘FABLE Calculator’ can be tailored
Lastly, the ‘FABLE Calculator’ is an input–output model, to the national context by including open access data on
representing the AFOLU sectors relevant to food and national food balances, agricultural production and land

13
 Sustainability Science

use trends, this study can be extended to other countries in

the EU. Such study can identify the constraints and oppor-

Vegetable oils Roots (%)

tunities of expanding organic farming in different places,
as a part of the EU’s F2F strategy, and evaluate the poten-

17
7
tial implications for food security in the global context.

(%)
Appendix 1: Details of the agri‑food

1
4
aggregates in the model

Pulses (%)
Animal products Plant-based products

Bovine meat Cereal grains (rice, Grass (temporary

1
4
Milk maize, wheat, pastures)
Eggs oats, barley, rye,
Pork meat triticale, sorghum,

Nuts (%)
Poultry meat millet and other
Other ruminant meat cereals)

1
4
Pulses (peas, beans,
groundnut, nuts and
other pulses)
Fruits (apple, banana,

Grains (%)
grape, lemon,
orange, other
citrus, coconut,

25
2
date, grapefruit,
pineapple, plantain
and other fruits), Fruits and veg-
Vegetables (tomato, etables (%)
onion, olive,
piment, other veg-
Appendix 2: Food waste situation in 2010, by food product

10
etables) 19
Oil crops (rape-
seeds, soybeans,
sunflower, sesame,
Milk (%)

cotton and other

oilseed crops)
1
7

Root tuber crops

(potato, cassava,
Fish (%)

yams, sweet potato

and other tuber
11

crops)
9

Sugar crops (sugar

beet, sugarcane)
Poultry (%)

Beverages and
spices (coffee, tea,
tobacco, clove,
11

cocoa, pepper and

4

other spices)
Beef (%)

11
4

Unit: % of total quantity

Source: FAO (2011)

Supermarket retail
Consumption

13
Sustainability Science

Appendix 3: Underlying assumptions for baseline and sustainable food system scenarios

Instrument Baseline scenarios Sustainable food system scenarios

Crop productivity for the key crops in Medium pace of crop yield growth, the current business- Crop yields improve more moderately,
the country (in t/ha) as-usual trend. By 2050, yield of major crops increases equivalent to 50% of the maximum yields
as below while that for other crops remains the same: observed in 2000–2010. By 2050, yield of
Conventional production system: major crops increases as below:
 8.4 t/ha for wheat [5.4 t/ha] Conventional production system:
 5.3 t/ha for barley [4.1 t/ha]  8.7 t/ha for wheat
 4.8 t/ha for oats [3.5 t/ha]  6.1 t/ha for barley
 6.7 t/ha for rye [4.9 t/ha]  5.4 t/ha for oats
 3.6 t/ha for peas [2.6 t/ha]  7.6 t/ha for rye
 19.3 t/ha for apple [15.7 t/ha]  4.0 t/ha for peas
 39.5 t/ha for potato [30.1 t/ha]  23.1 t/ha for apple
 68.3 t/ha for sugar beet [50.3 t/ha]  45.9 t/ha for potato
 3.2 t/ha for rapeseed [2.5 t/ha]  75.4 t/ha for sugar beet
 26.2 t/ha for vegetables [18.8 t/ha]  3.7 t/ha for rapeseed
Note: Brackets are for 2010 yields  29.8 t/ha for vegetables
Organic production system: Organic production system:
 3.7 t/ha for wheat [2.7 t/ha]  4.6 t/ha for wheat
 2.3 t/ha for barley [2.2 t/ha]  3.3 t/ha for barley
 2.2 t/ha for oats [2.1 t/ha]  3.2 t/ha for oats
 3.6 t/ha for rye [2.2 t/ha]  4.6 tha for rye
 2.2 t/ha for peas [1.8 t/ha]  2.8 t/ha for peas
 2.61 t/ha for beans [2.0 t/ha]  2.95 t/ha for beans
 19.9 t/ha for potato [14.9 t/ha]  22.4 t/ha for potato
 1.2 t/ha for rapeseed [0.8 t/ha]  1.5 t/ha for rapeseed
Source: Observations in 2000–2010 were collected from Source: Authors’ calculation with a 50%
Jordbruksverket (2006, 2022a) and FAO (2019) higher of maximum yields observed in
Projected yields were calculated based on scenario defini- 2000–2010
tion
Livestock productivity for the key The current trend growth is assumed. By 2050, livestock Moderate growth is favoured for the
livestock products in the country production reaches: low-GHG production system. By 2050,
(in t/head) Conventional production system: livestock production reaches:
 99 kg/head for beef [86 kg/head] Conventional production system:
 27 kg/head for chicken [20 kg/head]  129 kg/head for beef
 61 kg/head for eggs [50.5 kg/head]  28 kg/head for chicken
 9.6 t/head for milk [7.4 t/head]  76 kg/head for eggs
 221 kg/head for pork [168 kg/head]  12.1 t/head for milk
Note: Brackets are for 2010 yields  228 kg/head for pork
Organic production system: Organic production system:
 97 kg/head for beef [86 kg/head]  126 kg/head for beef
 8.8 t/head for milk [7.4 t/head]  11.1 t/head for milk
Source: Observations in 2000–2010 were collected from Source: Authors’ calculation based on yield
FAO (2019) and Statistics Sweden (2021). Projected growth assumptions by 50% of maximum
yields were calculated based on scenario definition yields observed in 2000–2010
Pasture stocking rate (animal units/ No change in the management of the permanent pasture Less grazing livestock id expected on
ha pasture) area the pasture. Ruminant stocking density
Average ruminant livestock stocking density is 3.49 live- reduced by 15% to 2.97 livestock units/ha
stock units/ha pasture land of pasture
Post-harvest losses No change in the current state of post-harvest losses. Con- Halve the post-harvest losses by 2050
stant share of losses in post-harvest handling after 2010 compared to 2010 base year. Regulatory
frameworks, R&D, and investment for
improved storage and processing

13
 Sustainability Science

Instrument Baseline scenarios Sustainable food system scenarios

Trade No policy changes, stable imports of the 2017 levels Change in consumption and increase
Share of consumption which is remain by 2050 for major food commodities. For pro- national production reduce imports. By
imported for key imported products duction feasible commodities, the import shares of total 2050, the import shares reduce:
(%) consumption reduce:  Up to 15% for chicken, mutton, tropical
 Up to 15% for pork, milk, chicken, eggs, potato and fruits and cereals
rapeseeds  25% for other fruits and vegetables,
 25% for beef and mutton oilseeds
 35–50% for apple, beans and other fruits and oilseeds  35–45% for apple, tomato, potato, rape-
 60–100% for tropical fruits, vegetables, cereals, and seeds
soybeans  60–100% for beef, pork, milk and beans
Source: Authors’ calculation based on scenario definition Source: Authors’ calculation
Evolution of exports for key exported No major changes in trade policy. Stable exports of the No major changes in trade policy, increase
products (1000 tons) 2017 levels by 2050 as: exports by 30% of the 2017 levels by 2050
 446 k tons of barley as follows:
 706 k tons of wheat  556 k tons of barley
 270 k tons of oats  917 k tons of wheat
 56 k tons of rye  351 k tons of oats
 47 k tons of peas  73 k tons of rye
 47 k tons of sugar beet  61 k tons of peas
Source: FAO (2019)  47 k tons of sugar beet
Source: Authors’ own based on scenario
definition
Food: Average dietary composition Current dietary intake in Sweden, according to FAO More sustainable and healthy diets. Live-
(daily kcal per commodity group) statistics for 2017. By 2050, the average daily calorie stock products’ share decreases with more
consumption reaches to 2875 kcal and is: consumption of plant-based foods such as
 300 g/cap/day for cereals fruits, vegetables, pulses, and nuts
 470 g/cap/day for dairy milk By 2050, the average daily calorie con-
 20 g/cap/day for vegetable oils sumption/cap reaches to 2663 kcal and is:
 92 g/cap/day for added sugars  300 g/cap/day for cereals
 154 g/cap/day for red meat (pork and beef)  400 g/cap/day for dairy milk
 395 g/cap/day for fruits and vegetables  21 g/cap/day for vegetable oils
 135 g/cap/day for fish and poultry  31 g/cap/day for added sugars
 34 g/cap/day for eggs  91 g/cap/day for red meat (pork and beef)
 16 g/cap/day for pulses and nuts  625 g/cap/day for fruits and vegetables
 144 g/cap/day for roots  116 g/cap/day for fish and poultry
 10 g/cap/day for animal fat  17 g/cap/day for eggs
Source: FAO (2019)  87 g/cap/day for pulses and nuts
 200 g/cap/day for roots
 2 g/cap/day for animal fat
Source: based on conversations with stake-
holders from the public sectors
Share of food consumption which is No change in the current state of food loss and waste. Regulatory frameworks, R&D and invest-
wasted at the household level (%) Constant share of food waste after 2010 ment for improved storage and process-
ing, and consumer awareness drastically
reduce food loss and waste in 2050 by
50% compared to the share in 2010. How-
ever, a breakthrough in technology may be
required for a 50% reduction in food loss
and waste (Searchinger et al. 2018)
Biofuels: Targets on biofuel and/or Assume a no change (stable biofuel demand as 2010) OECD-AGLINK Scenario, moderate
other bioenergy use growth in the supply of biofuels from
agriculture. By 2050, biofuel production
accounts for:
 4109 kt of wheat production
 4107 kt of corn production
 12,187 kt of sugar beet production
 8854 kt of rapeseed production
Biodiversity: Protected areas (% of Better management of PAs. PAs are extended to 17% of Protected areas are extended to 30% of
total land) terrestrial and inland water by 2030 and remain stable terrestrial land by 2030 and remain stable
afterward afterward. These additional areas are
protected to make them unavailable for
agricultural expansion

13
Sustainability Science

Instrument Baseline scenarios Sustainable food system scenarios

Population SSP1: Incentives to influence demographics in the direction which is supposed to improve the sustain-
ability of the system. 12.8 million population is projected
GDP growth SSP1: Medium level of economic growth with a focus on environment sustainability and resource
efficiency
Land constraints on agricultural Free expansion of productive land under the total land boundary. No constraint on the expansion of
expansion agricultural land outside beyond existing protected areas and under the total land boundary
Afforestation No active afforestation. 28 million ha forest areas will be maintained by 2050
Climate change: Crop model and By 2100, global GHG concentration leads to a radiative forcing level of 2.6 W/m2 (RCP 2.6). Impacts
climate change scenario of climate change on crop yields are computed by the crop model GEPIC using climate projections
from the climate model HadGEM2-E without C ­ O2 fertilization effect

Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplemen- Clark MA, Domingo NGG, Colgan K et al (2020) Global food sys-
tary material available at https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/s​ 11625-0​ 22-0​ 1279-9. tem emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate
change targets. Science 370(6517):705–708. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
Funding  Open access funding provided by Stockholm University. 1126/​scien​ce.​aba73​57
Conijn JG, Bindraban PS, Schröder JJ, Jongschaap REE (2018) Can our
Data availability  Data were derived from the FAOSTAT Statistical global food system meet food demand within planetary bounda-
Database, available at https://​www.​fao.​org/​faost​at/​en/#​home. Addi- ries? Agric Ecosyst Environ 251:244–256. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
tional information was collected from the Swedish Board of Agricul- 1016/J.​AGEE.​2017.​06.​001
ture available in the public domain: Statistical Database at https://j​ ordb​ EkoWeb (2020) Ekologisk livsmedelsmarknad: Rapport om den ekolo-
ruksv​erket.​se/​om-​jordb​ruksv​erket/​jordb​ruksv​erket​soffi​ciella-​stati​stik/​ giska branschen. EkoWeb.nu, Lidköping. http://​www.​ekoweb.​nu/​
stati​stikd​ataba​sen. attac​hments/​67/​68.​pdf
Erb KH, Lauk C, Kastner T et al (2016) Exploring the biophysical
Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- Commun. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​ncomm​s11382
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long EU (2015) Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of the EU and
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, its Member States. European Union (EU), Riga
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes European Commission (2010) An analysis of the EU organic sector.
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated Rural Development, Brussels
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in FAO (2011) Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not prevention. Rome. https://​www.​fao.​org/3/​i2697e/​i2697e.​pdf
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will FAO (2018) The future of food and agriculture – Alternative pathways
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a to 2050. Rome. https://​www.​fao.​org/3/​I8429​EN/​i8429​en.​pdf
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. FAO (2019) FAOSTAT Statistical Database. Rome. https://​www.​fao.​
org/​faost​at/​en/#​home
Finch HJS, Samuel AM, Lane GPF (2014) Grazing management. In:
Finch HJS, Samuel AM, Lane GPF (eds) Lockhart & Wiseman’s
References crop husbandry including grassland, 9th edn. Woodhead Publish-
ing, Sawston, pp 499–512
Barbieri P, Pellerin S, Seufert V et al (2021) Global option space for Flanagan K, Lipinski B, Goodwin L (2019) SDG target 12.3 on food
organic agriculture is delimited by nitrogen availability. Nat Food loss and waste: 2019 progress report. Washington DC
2:363–372. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s43016-​021-​00276-y Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA et al (2011) Solutions for a
Beltran-Pea A, Rosa L, D’Odorico P (2020) Global food self-suffi- cultivated planet. Nature 478:337–342. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​
ciency in the 21st century under sustainable intensification of natur​e10452
agriculture. Environ Res Lett 15:095004. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​ García-Oliveira P, Fraga-Corral M, Pereira AG et al (2020) Solutions
1748-​9326/​AB9388 for the sustainability of the food production and consumption sys-
Bowles N, Alexander S, Hadjikakou M (2019) The livestock sector and tem. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10408​398.​
planetary boundaries: a ‘limits to growth’ perspective with dietary 2020.​18470​28
implications. Ecol Econ 160:128–136. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ Gaudaré U, Pellerin S, Benoit M et al (2021) Comparing productivity
ecole​con.​2019.​01.​033 and feed-use efficiency between organic and conventional live-
Bryngelsson D, Wirsenius S, Hedenus F, Sonesson U (2016) How can stock animals. Environ Res Lett 16:24012. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of techno- 1088/​1748-​9326/​abd65e
logical and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Herrero M, Havlík P, Valin H et al (2013) Biomass use, production,
Policy 59:152–164. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.f​ oodpo​ l.2​ 015.1​ 2.0​ 12 feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global live-
Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Henriksson M et al (2009) Greenhouse gas stock systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:20888–20893. https://​
emissions from Swedish production of meat, milk and eggs 1990 doi.​org/​10.​1073/​PNAS.​13081​49110/-/​DCSUP​PLEME​NTAL
and 2005. The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, SIK
Report No 793, Gothenburg

13
 Sustainability Science

IFOAM (2008) Definition of organic agriculture. https://​www.​ifoam.​ Mosnier A, Penescu L, Perez-Guzman K et al (2020) FABLE calculator
bio/​why-​organ​ic/​organ​ic-​landm​arks/​defin​ition-​organ​ic. Accessed 2020 update. International Institute for Applied Systems Analy-
15 Sept 2022 sis (IIASA), Luxenburg and Sustainable Development Solutions
Jonasson L (2018) Scenarier för jordbrukets klimatpåverkan med Network (SDSN), Paris. https://p​ ure.i​ iasa.a​ c.a​ t/i​ d/e​ print/1​ 6934/7/​
livsmedelsstrategin och ändrad konsumtion, pp 1–2. Lantbrukse- 210108_​FABLE​Calcu​lator_​Docum​entat​ion_​final_​clean.​pdf
konomen, Eringsboda. https://d​ ocpla​ yer.s​ e/1​ 76129​ 927-S ​ cenar​ ier-​ Muller A, Schader C, El-Hage Scialabba N et al (2017) Strategies for
for-​jordb​r ukets-​klima​tpave​rkan-​med-​livsm​edels​strat​egin-​ochan​ feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat
drad-​konsu​mtion.​html Commun 8:1290. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41467-​017-​01410-w
Jordbruksverket (2006) Skörd för ekologisk och konventionell odling Naturvårdsverket och Jordbruksverket (2019) Minskade utsläpp av
2005. https://​jordb​r uksv​erket.​se/​om-​jordb​r uksv​erket/​jordb​r uksv​ växthusgaser från jordbruket med ökad produktion? Scenarier till
erkets-​offic​iella-​stati​stik/​jordb​ruksv​erkets-​stati​stikr​appor​ter/​stati​ 2045 för utsläpp och upptag av växthusgaser inom jordbrukssek-
stik/​2022-​02-​25-​skord-​for-​ekolo​gisk-​och-​konve​ntion​ell-​odling-​ torn. Stockholm/Jönköping. https://​s3.​eu-​north-1.​amazo​naws.​
2005--​spann​mal-​trind​sad-​oljev​axter-​matpo​t atis-​och-​slatt​erval​ com/​ekofa​kta/​uploa​ds/​f iles/​1bc07​fe6-​7878-​4882-​b8e1-​4129a​
l--​slutli. Accessed 2 Sept 2022 ad779​ae.​pdf
Jordbruksverket (2022a) Skörd för ekologisk och konventionell odling Nilsson SG, Franzén M, Pettersson LB (2013) Land-use changes, farm
efter län, gröda och odlingsform. År 2009–2021. https://statis- management and the decline of butterflies associated with semi-
tik.sjv.se/PXWeb/pxweb/sv/Jordbruksverketsstatistikdatabas/ natural grasslands in southern Sweden. Nat Conserv 6:31–48
Jordbruksverketsstatistikdatabas__Skordar__Ekologiskskord/ OECD (2019) Global mitigation potential of biofuels in the transport
JO0608H01.px/?rxid=5adf4929-f548-4f27-9bc9-78e127837625. sector. In: Enhancing the mitigation of climate change though
Accessed 2 Sept 2022 agriculture. OECD Publishing, Paris, pp 107–132. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
Jordbruksverket (2022b) Ekologisk areal, andel ekologisk areal och 10.​1787/​e9a79​226-​en
antal företag med ekologiskt brukad jordbruksmark efter län OECD/FAO (2019) OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019–2028.
och ägoslag. År 2005–2021 [Dataset]. https://statistik.sjv.se/ OECD Publishing, Paris/Food and Agriculture Organization of
PXWeb/pxweb/sv/Jordbruksverketsstatistikdatabas/Jordbruks- the United Nations, Rome. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1787/​19991​142
verketsstatistikdatabas__Ekologisk produktion__1Ekologiskt Pekala (2020) Market analysis of organic foods in the Nordic and Baltic
odladjordbruksmark/JO0104C06.px/?rxid=5adf4929-f548-4f27- countries. The Nordic Council of Ministers. Copenhagen. https://​
9bc9-78e127837625. Accessed 26 Aug 2022 doi.​org/​10.​6027/​TN2019-​540
Karlsson JO, Röös E (2019) Resource-efficient use of land and ani- Reganold JP, Wachter JM (2016) Organic agriculture in the twenty-first
mals—environmental impacts of food systems based on organic century. Nat Plants 2:15221. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​NPLAN​TS.​
cropping and avoided food-feed competition. Land Use Policy 2015.​221
85:63–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​landu​sepol.​2019.​03.​035 RFA (2008) Feeding the future: the role of the US ethanol industry
Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri- in food and feed production. In: Renewable Fuels Association
environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? (RFA), Washington DC. https://​www.​feedi​pedia.​org/​node/​13763.
J Appl Ecol 40:947–969. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/J.​1365-​2664.​ Accessed 18 Dec 2021
2003.​00868.X Ritchie H, Roser M (2020) ­CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. In:
Kumm K-I (2003) Sustainable management of Swedish seminatural Our world in data. https://o​ urwor​ ldind​ ata.o​ rg/c​ o2-a​ nd-o​ ther-g​ reen​
pastures with high species diversity. J Nat Conserv 11:117–125. house-​gas-​emiss​ions. Accessed 16 Dec 2021
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1078/​1617-​1381-​00039 Röös E, Bajželj B, Smith P et al (2017) Greedy or needy? Land use and
Länsstyrelsen (2021a) Bidragskalkyler för ekologisk produktion 2021. climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures.
Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götaland, Göteborg. https://w ​ ww.l​ ansst​ yrel​ Glob Environ Change 47:1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gloen​
sen.​se/​downl​oad/​18.​54b7e​e3b17​84afc​127a2​857c/​16195​03786​ vcha.​2017.​09.​001
491/​Bidra​gskal​kyler-​eko-​2021.​pdf Röös E, Larsson J, Resare Sahlin K et al (2021) Policy options for
Länsstyrelsen (2021b) Bidragskalkyler för konventionell produktion sustainable food consumption-review and recommendations for
2021. Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götaland, Göteborg. https://​www.​ Sweden. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg
lansst​ yrels​ en.s​ e/d​ ownlo​ ad/1​ 8.5​ 4b7ee​ 3b178​ 4afc1​ 27a28​ 57e/1​ 6195​ Röös E, Mayer A, Muller A et al (2022) Agroecological practices in
03834​389/​Bidra​gskal​kyler-​konv-​2021.​pdf combination with healthy diets can help meet EU food system
Lindgren A, Lundblad M (2014) Towards new reporting of drained policy targets. Sci Total Environ 847:157612. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
organic soils under the UNFCCC—assessment of emission factors 1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2022.​157612
and areas in Sweden. Uppsala Searchinger et al (2018) Creating a sustainable food future: a menu
LRF (2021) Självförsörjning. In: Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund (LRF) of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. World
(In English: Swedish Federation of Farmers). https://​www.​lrf.​se/​ Resources Report. https://​resea​rch.​wri.​org/​wrr-​food
polit​ikoch​paver​kan/​foret​agarv​illkor-​och-​konku​r rens​kraft/​natio​ Seufert V (2019) Comparing yields: organic versus conventional agri-
nell-​livsm​edels​strat​egi/​sjalv​forso​rjning/. Accessed 13 Jan 2022 culture. Encycl Food Secur Sustain. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/B ​ 978-
Meemken E-M, Qaim M (2018) Organic agriculture, food security, and 0-​08-​100596-​5.​22027-1
the environment. Annu Rev Resour Econ 10:39–63. https://​doi.​ Seufert V, Ramankutty N (2017) Many shades of gray—the context-
org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev-​resou​rce-​100517-​023252 dependent performance of organic agriculture. Sci Adv 3:1–14.
Moberg E, Potter HK, Wood A et al (2020) Benchmarking the Swedish https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​SCIADV.​16026​38/​SUPPL_​FILE/​16026​
diet relative to global and national environmental targets—iden- 38_​SM.​PDF
tification of indicator limitations and data gaps. Sustainability Smith LG, Kirk GJD, Jones PJ, Williams AG (2019) The greenhouse
(switz) 12:1–22. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su120​41407 gas impacts of converting food production in England and Wales
Mosnier A, Penescu L, Thomson M, Perez-Guzman K (2019) Docu- to organic methods. Nat Commun 10:4641. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
mentation FABLE calculator. International Institute for Applied 1038/​s41467-​019-​12622-7
Systems Analysis (IIASA), Luxenburg and Sustainable Develop- Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D et al (2018) Options for
ment Solutions Network (SDSN), Paris. https://​www.​abstr​actla​ keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature
ndsca​pes.​com/_​files/​ugd/​89a4db_​970e7​8be1f​aa4eb​6a6ba​62c8e​ 562:519–525. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41586-​018-​0594-0
f0550​c5.​pdf?​index=​true

13
Sustainability Science

Statistics Sweden (2021) Jordbruksverkets statistikdatabas. https://s​ tati​ UNEP–WCMC and IUCN (2019) Protected planet: the world database
stik.​sjv.​se/​PXWeb/​pxweb/​sv/​Jordb​r uksv​erkets%​20sta​tisti​kdata​ on protected areas (WDPA). In: UN Environment Programme
bas/?​rxid=​5adf4​929-​f548-​4f27-​9bc9-​78e12​78376​25. Accessed (UNEP)-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and
15 Dec 2021 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). https://​
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (2019) National inventory www.​prote​ctedp​lanet.​net/​en. Accessed 18 Dec 2021
report Sweden 2021: greenhouse gas emission inventories 1990– Vaarst M, Alrøe HF (2012) Concepts of animal health and welfare in
2019. Stockholm. https://​unfccc.​int/​docum​ents/​271847 organic livestock systems. J Agric Environ Ethics 25:333–347.
Swedish Government (2017) En livsmedelsstrategi för Sverige - fler https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10806-​011-​9314-6
jobb och hållbar tillväxt i hela landet. Regeringens proposition Waldén E, Lindborg R (2016) Long term positive effect of grass-
2016/17:104. Swedish Government, Stockholm land restoration on plant diversity—success or not? PLoS One
Tilman D, Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmental sustain- 11:e0155836. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 371/J​ OURNA
​ L.P
​ ONE.0​ 15583​ 6
ability and human health. Nature 515:518–522. https://​doi.​org/​ Wang S, Zhang Y, Ju W et al (1979) (2020) Recent global decline of
10.​1038/​natur​e13959 ­CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis. Science
Tukker A, Goldbohm RA, de Koning A et al (2011) Environmen- 370:1295–1300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​abb77​72
tal impacts of changes to healthier diets in Europe. Ecol Econ Wirsenius (2019) Utsläpp av växthusgaser från svensk produktion och
70:1776–1788. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecole​con.​2011.​05.​001 konsumtion av mat år 2045. Institutionen för Rymd-, geo- och
Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2012) Does miljövetenskap, Chalmers Tekniska Högskola, Göteborg. https://​
organic farming reduce environmental impacts?—a meta-analysis resea​rch.​chalm​ers.​se/​publi​cation/​515057
of European research. J Environ Manag 112:309–320. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/J.​JENVM​AN.​2012.​08.​018 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
UN (2017) World population prospects: the 2017 revision. United jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Nations (UN), Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Popu-
lation Division. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248. https://w ​ ww.​
un.o​ rg/d​ evelo​ pment/d​ esa/p​ ublic​ ation​ s/w
​ orld-p​ opula​ tionp​ rospe​ cts-​
the-​2017-​revis​ion.​html

13