What we have seen in the sustainability reports noted in the section above are generally pledges made by the companies involved in the supply of chocolate products. How can progress of these goals be monitored and assessed?

​

This question is becoming increasingly important in agricultural industries because, according to Our World In Data (another great resource!), agriculture, forestry and land use directly contributes 18.4% of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (this includes carbon dioxide). What's more, the food system in its entirety (including refridgeration and shipping, packaging and processing) is estimated to be responsible for around 25% of all GHG emissions. While we are diving into Our World In Data, the area of land required to grow 100g of protein is relatively high for dark chocolate - 137.9 square-metres are needed - with only lamb & mutton and beef herd production requiring more space to produce the same amount of protein.

​

With the caveat that this is a Very brief review of the literature (and please correct me if anyone reading this knows more!), it seems as though a full 'life-cycle' assessment of chocolate products is relatively rare. There are lots of papers thinking about particular steps such as the raw materials production (this includes cocao and often sugar and palm oil too), or emissions due to transportation or manufacturing. But full assessments of the environmental impacts from seed to the end-of-life of a product are apparently rare. Without knowing these pathways, how can the companies understand, assess and address their impacts? (I have listed some papers below from researchers doing the assessments. Check these out if you are keen to learn more!)

​

A case study for assessing the green credentials of chocolate products

To show how complex this really is, here's a mini case study from one publication by Bianchi et al (2020). 

 

At risk of sounding like a snippet from ChatGPT... The study compares the production of dark, milk and white choccolate, where cocoa beans are grown in Indonesia, Ghana or Ecuador and the manufacturing process is completed in Italy. The researchers take what is called a cradle to grave approach to assess chocolate brands, considering the mass and energy of emissions needed throughout the process.

 

The 3 chocolate types in question are assumed to have different ingredients and all are considered in the analysis. 

​

Dark chocolate is assumed to be:

• 28% cocoa butter,

• 42% cocoa liquor,

• 16% cocoa powder, and

• 14% sugar.

​

Milk chocolate is assumed to be: 

• 15% cocoa butter,

• 25% cocoa liquor,

• 20% milk, and

• 40% sugar.

 

While, white chocolate is assumed to be: 

• 35% cocoa butter,

• 20% milk, and

• 45% sugar.

​

In an effort to improve the ability to assess and regulate production of items including chocolates, there is an International Organization for Standardization. This is an independent, non-governmental international organization where experts can agree standards for a huge array of different products. In our case study, the researchers compare the products using the mass produced (comparing the efforts needed to produce 1 kilogram of product) and also calorie intake (compraing the efforts needed to produce 1kcal). 

​

The study looks at the raw material production (see ingredients listed above), transport, product maunfacture and product waste management.

​

Getting more technical... the study compares:

• the acidification potential (a process where soils become more acidic which has environmental complications);

• the eutrophication potential (a process where excess nutrients are washed into waterways leading to the dense growth of algae and plants, these die leading to excess carbon dioxide that ultimately starves water life of oxygen causing dead zones);

• the global warming potential (the warming of our atmosphere that creates changing climate conditions that will be difficult to adapt to for many species - including us humans);

• abiotic depletion – elements (a method to measure how much a space may have changed in relation to the presence of different elements relative to a reference year);

• abiotic depletion – fossil fuels (a method to measure how much a space may have changed in relation to the presence of different fossil fuels relative to a reference year) - both abiotic depletion metrics try to understand the scarcity of a resource and the likely impact for future generations;

• photochemical oxidant creation potential (this is a bit more complicated... when the sun hits volatile organic compounds and nitrogen, ozone can be produced. This is sometimes known as smog and is more common in summer. Certain practices can create more of this ozone and it can be damaging to the environment and our lungs);

• net water use (a very precious entity we will learn more about in March!) and;

• cumulative energy demand (a way of understanding how much energy is needed for a process).

​

Phew! A lot of information is clearly needed to assess these production pathways. The study, like many, has to make certain assumptions about the 'average' situation e.g. how many trees per a unit area of land, or how much fertilizer is applied? The work assumes traditional methods and low fertilizer use in both Ecuador and Ghana, while either a monoculture or agroforestry, high fertilizer methods in Indonesia. Even so, this type of analysis gives us a better idea of what the cost of making chocolate - or any other product for that matter - really is. 

​

What do the researchers conclude?

• Broadly speaking, that cocoa farming is relatively expensive environmentally compared to other foods. This is because the yield per area is relatively low (most of the seed pod is not used, and cacao trees grow under forest canopies so the trees per area ratio is relatively small - except in monocultures), and the use of fertilizer/pesticide relatively high (these lead to issues for soils and waterways such as acidification and eutrophication). 

• Generally, the use of chemicals has increased because demand for chocolate has increased placing pressure on producers to grow grow grow. Across the board, fertilizer and pesticide use are depleting abiotic elements and fossil fuels. In fact the authors state:

"For every analyzed case, synthesis and usage of fertilizers are the main sources of environmental impacts".

• Monoculture in Indonesia has a high cost for acidification and eutrophication of soils and waterways driven by the high emissions required for this type of culture.

• Irrigation needs for growing cocoa in Ghana render these practices expensive in terms of their use of water. But Ghanaian dark chocolate looks like it has the least negative impacts and the researchers attribute this to:

"the application of N-free fertilizers and the absence of diesel consumption in agricultural machinery".

• Dark chocolate is the least environmentally costly type according to this study and this is largely due to the estimated high costs of producing the milk ingredients that are needed for milk or white chocolate.

​

What next?

What we need, and what is out of our hands as community members, is more research quantifying the full impact of companies for the full range of brands sold, a clear message for consumers on these costs so we can make informed decisions on what we are eating, and regulations enforcing companies to stick to making products in sustainable ways. The standards can be set by experts (International Organization for Standardization) and these standards can be measurable and comparable to give clear messages on how well companies are doing in their efforts to be environmentally sustainable. Legislation could be used to ensure these efforts are funded from the profits of the companies perhaps. Any product falling short could be heavily taxed and the money raised from these taxes could be given back to the farmers to prevent further deforestation and exploitation of the workforce - particularly of children. 

​

In addition to full assessment of product pathways, what else can companies do? CocoaLife, the innovation from Mendelez International, does look good (with the priviso of potential greenwashing, if you know more reach out to us!). Take a look here at the Ghanaian set up - a country where CocoaLife has been active since 2012. The initiative trains community members and farmers in 'Good Environmental Practices', distributes seeds for shade trees which increases the biodiversity of crops (a good thing for nature), and sets up child protection committees among other activites.

​

Some research on the life cycle assessment of chocolate brands

Ntiamoah & Afrane 2009 - this looks at Ghanaian chocolate 

Recanati et al 2018 - this looks at an Italian dark chocolate from cradle to grave

Bianchi et al 2020 - this is our case study paper detailed above

Konstantas et al 2018 - the looks at chocolate coming to the UK

Boakye-Yiadom et al. 2021- this looks at Ghanaian chocolate 

Miah et al. 2018 - this looks at different convectionary products as well as chocolate

Garcia-Herrero et al. 2019 - this looks at the opinions of consumers on ethical chocolates

Perez Neira 2016 - this looks at Ecuadorian chocolate 

​

In other news!

FINE! We owe our first 50 AUD this week ... we had a muffin that we thought was fruit but was definitely laced with yummy chocolate so... we will be donating to https://www.rainforest4.org/ - this is an organisation that conserves and regenerates areas of the Daintree Rainforest in Queensland, Australia. The cocoa grown in Australia comes from this region of the country.