Estimating the climate impacts of procurement for food is medicine programs: a mini review of carbon accounting tools
医薬品としての食品プログラムにおける調達の気候影響の推定：炭素会計ツールのミニレビュー (AI 翻訳)
K. Battaglia, T. Griffin, N. Blackstone
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本ミニレビューは、食品を医療として提供するプログラムにおける調達戦略の気候影響を評価するため、二つの代表的な農場炭素会計ツール（Cool Farm ToolとCOMET-Farm）を分析した。両ツールとも、代替的な農業慣行（有機、再生型等）による排出削減や炭素隔離の正確な評価に限界がある。現状ではスクリーニング用途に限られ、改善には詳細な農場データと代替戦略の組込みが必要である。
English
This mini-review evaluates two on-farm carbon accounting tools (Cool Farm Tool and COMET-Farm) for their utility in assessing climate impacts of procurement in Food is Medicine programs. Both tools show significant limitations in accurately representing emissions and carbon sequestration under alternative farming practices (organic, regenerative). They are currently suitable only for screening, and improvements require extensive farm-level data and inclusion of alternative strategies.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
In the global GX context
This review highlights the limitations of widely used carbon accounting tools for evaluating climate-smart procurement in healthcare initiatives. It underscores the need for better tool accuracy to align food procurement with climate goals, relevant to global discussions on supply chain decarbonization and SDGs.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Researchers can note the specific limitations of Cool Farm Tool and COMET-Farm in capturing emissions from alternative agriculture, pointing to areas for methodological improvement.
🏢実務担当者:Practitioners in food procurement or carbon accounting should be cautious in using these tools for decision-making without supplementary measurements.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Food is Medicine (FIM), an emerging area of healthcare focused on healthy food provisioning, is rapidly expanding, but its environmental implications remain uncertain. Some FIM initiatives incorporate procurement preferences (e.g., practice-verified “soil health” approaches), yet the prevalence and degree of such sourcing across produce prescription programs is not well established or required. Accordingly, this mini-review uses a previously defined evaluation framework to analyze two widely used on-farm carbon accounting tools, Cool Farm Tool and COMET-Farm, for their utility in estimating on-farm emissions and soil organic carbon (SOC) outcomes in FIM procurement contexts where alternative production practices (i.e., organic, regenerative and/or polyculture) are explicitly used. We find that both have significant limitations for evaluating climate impacts of alternative procurement strategies utilized by FIM programs. Cool Farm Tool relies on IPCC Tier 1 methods to estimate GHG emissions and SOC at the crop level. COMET-Farm has a more comprehensive approach and relies on IPCC Tier 1–3 methods to estimate emissions and SOC at the farm-level. Both tools are limited in crop coverage and ability to accurately represent carbon sequestration in alternative management systems. Presently, these tools can be used for screening purposes in specific contexts in conjunction with additional measurement. Moving forward, improving the accuracy of both tools would require extensive farm-level data collection on fruit and vegetable production and the inclusion of alternative production strategies. Advancing these tools is essential for guiding FIM procurement decisions toward more climate-resilient food systems to achieve SDG 2 and 13.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2026.1709189first seen 2026-05-06 00:46:51
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。