Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 10;222:436–445. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.043

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Ratio between the carbon footprint of breastfeeding (CFPBF) and feeding breast milk substitute (BMS) (CFPCons) under different assumptions on amount of BMS wasted at the consumer stage. Solid lines represent the comparison using the default dry mass allocation method and dashed lines the alternative fat-and-protein allocation method. Values above zero mean that feeding BMS has a higher carbon footprint than breastfeeding, and vice versa. The cases of United Kingdom, China, Brazil and Vietnam are represented by blue circles, red squares, yellow diamonds and green triangles, respectively. The symbols at the bottom of the diagram indicate the country-average, consumption-stage food waste used to estimate BMS waste levels in the default calculations.