Survey: Should Food Labelling Show Water Footprint?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 04.23.08
We have noted that it takes 2500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. An Australian academic has suggested that there should be water labelling on food to let us know how much water has been used in producing it. "The majority of water consumption is by agricultural industries and in particular things like rice and also meat production. I think perhaps if consumers knew the quantities of water embedded in those products they might question or they might change their purchasing decisions.”
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
More information is power to make a decision yes. However, it can also mislead. Many products use an amount of water that may seem outrageous when just looking at how much water it takes to produce it, but in many products, that water is recycled and reused in the production process for more of the same product. I think the water footprint would definitely have to take that into consideration.
Seems pretty silly to me. Its not like a using a gallon of water in Michigan has the same environmental impact as a gallon of water in Arizona. Plus, the whole concept of "consuming water" is spurious, in as much as water doesn't actually go away, it just gets moved around in the water cycle.
I think it would be AWESOME to show the carbon footprint of the product. At least the production anyway.
The shipping and collection of raw materials would probably be too difficult.
Water, I don't care about. If you're in a desert, sure. Otherwise, I don't see the point.
Water is infinitely renewable. The problem is when industries dump toxins in it.
Super. Pretty soon we'll need a DVD-R on a pack of Tik-Taks to contain all the information we are deemed... or maybe required to know before purchase.
So far, in just the last few months, I am up to health (at least 3 versions here in the UK), carbon footprint, airmiles,Fairtrade, Organics (I think they are now fighting it out) and now water.
And you know what? Even with 75g of C02 on my pack of crisps I have no clue what it means, what to compare it to or what I can do (drive to another shop?)
It will make the weekly shopping a fun event.
But at least a whole new raft of green saviours can score funding on the back of it.
Will the last guy actually doing something to help spare the future please stop pedalling before they leave.
Here in East Texas we only get 35 to 42 inches of rain a year and there are lots of cows being raised for milk production and beef. I am not in the cattle business but I have never seen the cattle have any water other than stock ponds. These ponds collect the natural rain water and in the process slow down erosion and silting in of the larger water reservoir. I am sure that when or if they are moved to a feed lot they would have to have supplemental water. So my answer is other. I think a cow may use 2500 gallons but knowing this does not give me their carbon footprint or any useful information.
Super. Pretty soon we'll need a DVD-R on a pack of Tik-Taks to contain all the information we are deemed... or maybe required to know before purchase.
So far, in just the last few months, I am up to health (at least 3 versions here in the UK), carbon footprint, airmiles,Fairtrade, Organics (I think they are now fighting it out) and now water.
And you know what? Even with 75g of C02 on my pack of crisps I have no clue what it means, what to compare it to or what I can do (drive to another shop?)
It will make the weekly shopping a fun event.
But at least a whole new raft of green saviours can score funding on the back of it.
Will the last guy actually doing something to help spare the future please stop pedalling before they leave.
A 'water footprint' on products is a good idea as although water is a recyclable resource, it's extraction, pumping, cleaning etc takes up a lot of energy... usually fossil fuel. Waste water treatment works use a lot of energy too, to make the water clean enough to put back in the rivers.
Many areas of the world have relatively little fresh water and these areas may be exporting 'virtual water' with their cut flowers, green beans or beef.
Consumer choice is important and if you see one variety of potato with a third of the water footprint of another (some varieties need irrigation, others are drought tolerant), choosing the lower footprint would be the ethical choice.
I look forward to other cosumers knowing more about water footprints as well as the carbon footprint of a product.