Bir Üniversite Kantininde Satılan Yiyeceklerin Karbon Ayak İzi ve Su Ayak İzi Değerlerinin Belirlenmesi: İstanbul Örneği

Öz

Küresel düzeyde hem açlık hem de obezite artışıyla birlikte, dünya nüfusunun büyümesi yeterli ve dengeli beslenme hedeflerine ulaşmayı güçleştirmektedir Bu durum, sürdürülebilir kalkınma hedefleri doğrultusunda hem çevresel hem de toplumsal açıdan dengeli besin sistemleri kurulmasını ve çevreye duyarlı diyetlerin teşvik edilmesini zorunlu kılmaktadır. Sürdürülebilir besin sistemlerinin çevresel etkisinin ölçülmesinde ekolojik, su ve karbon ayak izleri gibi göstergeler hayati önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışma, İstanbul’daki bir üniversitenin kantininde en çok satılan 18 yiyeceğin karbon ve su ayak izi değerlerini hesaplayarak çevresel etkileri karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Eylül–Kasım 2024 tarihleri arasında gerçekleştirilen çalışmada, satılan yiyeceklerin bir porsiyon için reçeteleri alınmış olup, reçetelerde yer alan her besin ile kalori hesabı yapılmıştır. Kantinlerde satılan yiyeceklerin karbon ayak izi ve su ayak izlerinin hesaplaması için, ilk öncelik olarak Türkiye ve Akdeniz bölgesine özgü besinlerin ayak izi değerlerini içeren veri tabanları kullanılmıştır. Belirtilen veri tabanlarında istenilen besinlere ulaşılamaması durumunda, yeni veri tabanları gözden geçirilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonucunda, karbon ayak izi ve su ayak izi sırasıyla en yüksek sosis spesiyelde (2066,2 g CO₂-eşd, 2863,0 litre), en düşük beyaz peynirli tostta (361,4 g CO₂-eşd, 372,5 litre) bulunmuştur. Elde edilen bulgular, üniversite kantinlerinde satılan yiyeceklerin çevresel etkilerinin göz ardı edilemeyecek düzeyde olduğunu ortaya koymakta ve sürdürülebilirlik odaklı yiyecek tercihlerinin yapılması gerektiğini vurgular niteliktedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• karbon ayak izi
• su ayak izi
• sürdürülebilir beslenme

Determining The Carbon Footprint and Water Footprint Values of Foods Sold in A University Canteen: An Example From Istanbul

Öz

With the global increase in both hunger and obesity, the growth of the world's population is making it difficult to achieve adequate and balanced nutrition goals. This situation necessitates the establishment of nutritionally balanced food systems that are environmentally and socially sustainable, as well as the promotion of environmentally conscious diets, in line with sustainable development goals. Indicators such as ecological, water, and carbon footprints are of vital importance in measuring the environmental impact of sustainable food systems. This study aims to compare the environmental impacts of the 18 most popular foods sold in a university cafeteria in Istanbul by calculating their carbon and water footprint values. Conducted between September and November 2024, the study obtained recipes for one serving of each food item, and calculated the calories of the foods. To calculate the carbon footprint and water footprint of foods sold in canteens, databases containing the footprint values of foods specific to Turkey and the Mediterranean region were used as a first priority. If the desired foods could not be found in the specified databases, new databases were reviewed. The results of the study showed that the highest carbon footprint and water footprint were found in the sausage speciality (2066.2 g CO₂-eq, 2863.0 litres), while the lowest were found in the white cheese toast (361.4 g CO₂-eq, 372.5 litres). The findings reveal that the environmental impacts of foods sold in university canteens are significant and cannot be ignored, emphasizing the need for sustainability-focused food choices.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• carbon footprint
• water footprint
• sustainable nutrition

Kaynakça

1. FAO. (2023). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023. https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/ (Erişim Tarihi 10.05.2025)
2. WHO. (2024). World Obesity Atlas. https://www.worldobesity.org/news/world-obesity-atlas-2024 (Erişim Tarihi 10.05.2025).
3. UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). (2017). World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100. https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100 (Erişim Tarihi 12.05.2025)
4. Fanzo, J., Rudie, C., Sigman, I., Grinspoon, S., Benton, T. G., Brown, M. E., Covic, N., Fitch, K., Golden, C. D., Grace, D., Hivert, M. F., Huybers, P., Jaacks, L. M., Masters, W. A., Nisbett, N., Richardson, R. A., Singleton, C. R., Webb, P., & Willett, W. C. (2022). Sustainable food systems and nutrition in the 21st century: A report from the 22nd annual Harvard Nutrition Obesity Symposium. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 115(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab419
5. Gibas-Dorna, M., & Zukiewicz-Sobczak, W. (2024). Sustainable nutrition and human health as part of sustainable development. Nutrients, 16(2), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16020225
6. Jones, A. D., Hoey, L., Blesh, J., Miller, L., Green, A., & Shapiro, L. F. (2016). A systematic review of the measurement of sustainable diets. Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 7(4), 641–664. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.115.011015
7. da Silva, J. T., Garzillo, J. M. F., Rauber, F., Kluczkovski, A., Rivera, X. S., da Cruz, G. L., Frankowska, A., Martins, C. A., da Costa Louzada, M. L., Monteiro, C. A., Reynolds, C., Bridle, S., & Levy, R. B. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions, water footprint, and ecological footprint of food purchases according to their degree of processing in Brazilian metropolitan areas: A time-series study from 1987 to 2018. The Lancet. Planetary Health, 5(11), e775–e785. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00272-8
8. Hatjiathanassiadou, M., Souza, S. R. G. d., Nogueira, J. P., Oliveira, L. d. M., Strasburg, V. J., Rolim, P. M., & Seabra, L. M. J. (2019). Environmental impacts of university restaurant menus: A case study in Brazil. Sustainability, 11(19), 5157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195157

9. Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Murthy, A., Galli, A., Evans, M., Neill, E., Mancini, M. S., Martindill, J., Medouar, F.-Z., Huang, S., Wackernagel, M., & Zebrowski, J. (2018). Ecological footprint accounting for countries: Updates and results of the national footprint accounts, 2012–2018. Resources, 7(3), 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7030058
10. Verones, F., Moran, D., Stadler, K., Kanemoto, K., & Wood, R. (2017). Resource footprints and their ecosystem consequences. Scientific Reports, 7, 40743. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40743
11. Rosenzweig, C., Mbow, C., Barioni, L. G., Benton, T. G., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, M., Liwenga, E. T., Pradhan, P., Rivera-Ferre, M. G., Sapkota, T., Xu, Y., & Cramer, W. (2020). Climate change responses benefit from a global food system approach. Nature Food, 1(2), 94-97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0014-3
12. Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A. D., Travis, R. C., Bradbury, K. E., & Key, T. J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change, 125(2), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1
13. Bryant, C. (2022). Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products. Future Foods, 6, 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100174
14. Aceves-Martins, M., Denton, P., & de Roos, B. (2023). Ready meals, especially those that are animal-based and cooked in an oven, have lower nutritional quality and higher greenhouse gas emissions and are more expensive than equivalent home-cooked meals. Public Health Nutrition, 26(3), 1–9. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023001234
15. Ivanova, D., Barrett, J., Wiedenhofer, D., Macura, B., Callaghan, M., & Creutzig, F. (2020). Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environmental Research Letters, 15(9), 093001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589
16. Choręziak, A., & Rzymski, P. (2025). The Carbon Footprint of Diets with Different Exclusions of Animal-Derived Products: Exploratory Polish Study. Nutrients, 17(8), 1377. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17081377
17. Kovacs, B., Miller, L., Heller, M. C., Olivier, J., Chandaria, T., & Harris, J. (2021). The carbon footprint of dietary guidelines around the world: a seven country modeling study. Nutrition Journal, 20(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-021-00676-y
18. Mekonnen, M. M., & Gerbens-Leenes, W. (2020). The water footprint of global food production. Water, 12(10), 2696. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102696
19. Water Footprint Network. (2020). Available online: https://www.waterfootprint.org/water-footprint-2/what-is-a-water-footprint/ (Erişim Tarihi 17.05.2025)
20. Aydoğdu, G. S., & Gezmen Karadağ, M. (2025). The two dimensions of nutrition for the planet: Environment and health. Current Nutrition Reports, 14(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-025-00642-3
21. Vanham, D., Guenther, S., Ros-Baró, M., & Bach-Faig, A. (2021). Which diet has the lower water footprint in Mediterranean countries? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 171, 105631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105631
22. Grosso, G., Mateo, A., Rangelov, N., Buzeti, T., & Birt, C. (2020). Nutrition in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals. European Journal of Public Health, 30(Suppl_1), i19–i23. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa036
23. Al-Awwad, N. J., Al-Sayyed, H. F., Zeinah, Z. A., & Tayyem, R. F. (2021). Dietary and lifestyle habits among university students at different academic years. Clinical Nutrition ESPEN, 44, 236–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2021.04.002
24. Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011). The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(5), 1577-1600. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011
25. Blas, A., Garrido, A., Unver, O., & Willaarts, B. (2019). A comparison of the Mediterranean diet and current food consumption patterns in Spain from a nutritional and water perspective. Science of the Total Environment, 664, 1020-1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.428
26. Heller, M. C., & Keoleian, G. A. (2015). Greenhouse gas emission estimates of US dietary choices and food loss. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(3), 391-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12174
27. Drewnowski, A., Rehm, C. D., Martin, A., Verger, E. O., Voinnesson, M., & Imbert, P. (2015). Energy and nutrient density of foods in relation to their carbon footprint. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 101(1), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.114.092486
28. Jay, J. A., D’Auria, R., Nordby, J. C., Rice, D. A., Cleveland, D. A., Friscia, A., Wesel, E. (2019). Reduction of the carbon footprint of college freshman diets after a food-based environmental science course. Climatic Change, 154, 547-564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02419-z
29. Clark, M., Springmann, M., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Macdiarmid, J. I., Fanzo, J., Bandy, L., & Harrington, R. A. (2022). Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(33), e2120584119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120584119
30. González-Santana, R. A., Gómez-Urios, C., Blesa, J., Cortés, C., Esteve, M. J., & Frígola, A. (2025). Assessment of the Nutritional Composition and Environmental Impact of Menus Served in a University Cafeteria During an Academic Year. Dietetics, 4(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/dietetics4010002
31. Karaçil Ermumcu, M. Ş., Aloğlu, B., Akdağ, N., Köroğlu, N. B. (2024). Türkiye Beslenme Rehberinde Yaş Gruplarına Özgü Önerilen Menülerin Yaşam Döngüsü Göstergeleriyle İncelenmesi: Su ve Karbon Ayak İzi. Fenerbahçe University Journal of Health Sciences, 4(1), 144-164. https://doi.org/10.56061/fbujohs.1257481
32. Saleki, N., Kulaksiz, S.B., Arslan, F.N., & Guney Coskun, M. (2023). The evaluation of menus’ adherence to sustainable nutrition and comparison with sustainable menu example in a Turkish university refectory. Nutrition & Food Science.
33. Volanti, M., Arfelli, F., Neri, E., Saliani, A., Passarini, F., Vassura, I., & Cristallo, G. (2022). Environmental Impact of Meals: How Big Is the Carbon Footprint in the School Canteens? Foods, 11(2), 193. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11020193
34. Harris, F., Moss, C., Joy, E. J. M., Quinn, R., Scheelbeek, P. F. D., Dangour, A. D., & Green, R. (2020). The Water Footprint of Diets: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 11(2), 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmz091
35. Roy, R., Rangan, A. M., Hebden, L., Louie, J. C. Y., Tang, L. M., Kay, J., & Allman-Farinelli, M. A. (2017). Dietary contribution of foods and beverages sold within a university campus and its effect on diet quality of young adults. Nutrition, 34, 118–123. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:21642987
36. El Ansari, W., Stock, C., & Mikolajczyk, R. T. (2012). Relationships between food consumption and living arrangements among university students in four European countries - a cross-sectional study. Nutrition journal, 11, 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-11-28
37. Fresán, U., Craig, W. J., Martínez-González, M. A., & Bes-Rastrollo, M. (2020). Nutritional Quality and Health Effects of Low Environmental Impact Diets: The "Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra" (SUN) Cohort. Nutrients, 12(8), 2385. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12082385
38. Rose, D., Heller, M. C., Willits-Smith, A. M., & Meyer, R. J. (2019). Carbon footprint of self-selected US diets: nutritional, demographic, and behavioral correlates. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 109(3), 526–534. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqy327