Environmental Impact Protein Chicken Eggs Fish Tofu Beef

→ Open the Data Explorer in a new tab.

---

Food, free energy and h2o: this is what the United Nations refers to equally the 'nexus' of sustainable development. Equally the world's population has expanded and gotten richer, the need for all three has seen a rapid increase. Non only has demand for all three increased, simply they are too strongly interlinked: food production requires water and energy; traditional free energy production demands water resource; agronomics provides a potential free energy source.

This article focuses on the environmental impacts of food. Ensuring everyone in the world has access to a nutritious diet in a sustainable way is one of the greatest challenges we face up. Nosotros comprehend the human aspects of nutrient and nutrition in various entries, including hunger and undernourishment, micronutrient deficiency, food per person, diet compositions and obesity.

Environmental impacts of food and agriculture

What are the environmental impacts of food and agriculture?

The visualization here shows a summary of some of the main global impacts:

• Food accounts for over a quarter (26%) of global greenhouse gas emissions^one;
• Half of the globe's habitable (water ice- and desert-costless) land is used for agriculture;
• seventy% of global freshwater withdrawals are used for agricultureⁱⁱ;
• 78% of global ocean and freshwater eutrophication (the pollution of waterways with food-rich pollutants) is acquired by agriculture³;
• 94% of mammal biomass (excluding humans) is livestock. This means livestock outweigh wild mammals by a factor of 15-to-1.^iv Of the 28,000 species evaluated to be threatened with extinction on the IUCN Red List, agriculture and aquaculture is listed as a threat for 24,000 of them.⁵

Food, therefore, lies at the heart of trying to tackle climate change, reducing water stress, pollution, restoring lands dorsum to forests or grasslands, and protecting the world's wild animals.

One-half of the earth's habitable land is used for agronomics

For much of human history, most of the world'southward state was wilderness: forests, grasslands and shrubbery dominated its landscapes. Over the concluding few centuries, this has changed dramatically: wild habitats accept been squeezed out by turning it into agricultural land.

If we rewind 1000 years, it is estimated that simply 4 meg square kilometers – less than iv% of the globe'south ice-costless and non-arid land expanse was used for farming.

In the visualization we see the breakdown of global land area today. 10% of the globe is covered by glaciers, and a further 19% is barren state – deserts, dry common salt flats, beaches, sand dunes, and exposed rocks.⁶ This leaves what we telephone call 'habitable land'. Half of all habitable land is used for agriculture.⁷

This leaves merely 37% for forests; xi% as shrubs and grasslands; 1% as freshwater coverage; and the remaining ane% – a much smaller share than many suspect – is built-up urban area which includes cities, towns, villages, roads and other human infrastructure.

There is also a highly diff distribution of land use between livestock and crops for human consumption. If nosotros combine pastures used for grazing with land used to grow crops for beast feed, livestock accounts for 77% of global farming land. While livestock takes up most of the world'due south agronomical land it but produces eighteen% of the world's calories and 37% of total protein.⁸

The expansion of agriculture has been ane of humanity's largest impacts on the environment. Information technology has transformed habitats and is 1 of the greatest pressures for biodiversity: of the 28,000 species evaluated to be threatened with extinction on the IUCN Red List, agriculture is listed as a threat for 24,000 of them.⁹ Just nosotros also know that we can reduce these impacts – both through dietary changes, by substituting some meat with plant-based alternatives and through technology advances. Ingather yields have increased significantly in recent decades, pregnant we have spared a lot of country from farm production: globally, to produce the same amount of crops as in 1961, we demand just thirty% of the farmland.

With solutions from both consumers and producers, nosotros have an important opportunity to restore some of this farmland back to forests and natural habitats.

Land use footprint of nutrient

How do the state footprint of different food products compare? Which foods used the most and least land in their production?

Nosotros tin can look at these comparisons based on mass: the land used to produce ane kilogram of food product.

Simply it'south also important to look at these comparisons in terms of nutritional units: this gives a measure out of how low or high-impact unlike foods are in supplying protein or energy/calories.

In the visualizations here nosotros evidence the land footprint of foods, measured in meters squared (chiliadⁱⁱ) per kilogram, 100 grams of protein, and per thousand kilocalories. These charts are interactive then you tin can add and remove products using the 'add food' push.

Distribution of land employ for foods

Most charts which compare the land footprint of different nutrient products look at the average value for each. This is a useful comparison, just could mask large differences in land footprints depending on where and how they are produced.

Permit's take a look at the full range of state footprints for protein-rich foods.

This is shown in the visualization. The data is from the largest meta-assay of global nutrient systems to date, published in Science by Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018).¹⁰ In this report, the authors looked at data across more than 38,000 commercial farms in 119 countries. Land use here is measured in meters squared (m²) of agricultural and – which includes pasture and land for crops or animal feed – per 100 grams of protein.

The visualization shows the median footprint – highlighted past a small white circle for each nutrient production.

Just since at that place are big differences between producers, this nautical chart also shows the full spectrum of land use – from the lowest to highest producers. The pinnacle at each signal in the bend represents the amount of global production with that specific footprint.

The median footprint for beef is 104 k² per 100 grams of poly peptide. But the range beyond producers is huge: spanning from 7 m² to 369 mⁱⁱ.

The state use of foods are largely dependent on the intensity of farming. This is certainly truthful for crops: higher yields mean they demand less land. But as well for livestock: animals fed on crops with very high yields volition need less land.

Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the earth'southward greenhouse gas emissions

When it comes to tackling climate change, the focus tends to be on 'clean free energy' solutions – the deployment of renewable or nuclear energy; improvements in energy efficiency; or transition to low-carbon transport. Indeed, energy, whether in the class of electricity, oestrus, transport or industrial processes, account for the majority – 76% – of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.¹¹

Only the global food system, which encompasses production, and post-subcontract process such every bit processing, and distribution is as well a key contributor to emissions. And information technology's a problem for which we don't all the same have feasible technological solutions.

The visualization shown here – based on data from the meta-analysis by Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), published in Scientific discipline – summarizes food'due south share of full emissions and breaks it downwards past source.¹²

Food is responsible for approximately 26% of global GHG emissions.

At that place are 4 primal elements to consider when trying to quantify nutrient GHG emissions. These are shown past category in the visualization:

Livestock & fisheries account for 31% of nutrient emissions.
Livestock – animals raised for meat, dairy, eggs and seafood production – contribute to emissions in several means. Ruminant livestock – mainly cattle – for case, produce methane through their digestive processes (in a process known as 'enteric fermentation'). Manure management, pasture direction, and fuel consumption from fishing vessels also fall into this category. This 31% of emissions relates to on-farm 'product' emissions only: it does not include land use change or supply chain emissions from the product of crops for animal feed: these figures are included separately in the other categories.

Crop production accounts for 27% of food emissions.
21% of food's emissions comes from crop production for straight human consumption, and half-dozen% comes from the production of animal feed. They are the direct emissions which result from farm production – this includes elements such every bit the release of nitrous oxide from the awarding of fertilizers and manure; methane emissions from rice production; and carbon dioxide from agricultural machinery.

Land employ accounts for 24% of food emissions.
Twice as many emissions outcome from land use for livestock (xvi%) as for crops for human consumption (8%).¹³Agronomical expansion results in the conversion of forests, grasslands and other carbon 'sinks' into cropland or pasture resulting in carbon dioxide emissions. 'Land use' here is the sum of state use change, savannah burning and organic soil cultivation (plowing and overturning of soils).

Supply chains account for xviii% of food emissions.
Food processing (converting produce from the farm into final products), transport, packaging and retail all crave free energy and resource inputs. Many assume that eating local is key to a low-carbon nutrition, withal, transport emissions are oft a very small percentage of food's total emissions – just half dozen% globally. Whilst supply concatenation emissions may seem high, at 18%, it'south essential for reducing emissions by preventing food waste. Food waste matter emissions are large: one-quarter of emissions (3.3 billion tonnes of CO₂eq) from nutrient production ends up every bit wastage either from supply chain losses or consumers. Durable packaging, refrigeration and food processing can all help to prevent nutrient waste. For case, wastage of candy fruit and vegetables is ~14% lower than fresh, and eight% lower for seafood.¹⁴

Reducing emissions from food production will be 1 of our greatest challenges in the coming decades. Unlike many aspects of energy production where viable opportunities for upscaling low-carbon energy –  renewable or nuclear free energy –  are bachelor, the ways in which nosotros can decarbonize agriculture are less articulate. We demand inputs such as fertilizers to meet growing food demands, and we can't stop cattle from producing methyl hydride. Nosotros will need a menu of solutions: changes to diets; food waste material reduction; improvements in agricultural efficiency; and technologies that brand low-carbon nutrient alternatives scalable and affordable.

You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local

People across the world are becoming increasingly concerned about climate change: 8-in-10 people see climate modify as a major threat to their country.¹⁵

Equally I have shown before, food product is responsible for one-quarter of the earth's greenhouse gas emissions.

There is rightly a growing awareness that our nutrition and food choices take a significant impact on our carbon 'footprint'. What tin you practice to really reduce the carbon footprint of your breakfast, lunches, and dinner?

'Eating local' is a recommendation you hear often – even from prominent sources, including the United nations. While it might make sense intuitively – after all, transport does lead to emissions – it is ane of the near misguided pieces of advice.

Eating locally would only have a pregnant impact if transport was responsible for a large share of food's terminal carbon footprint. For nearly foods, this is not the case.

GHG emissions from transportation make upwardly a very small amount of the emissions from food and what yous consume is far more important than where your food traveled from.

Where do the emissions from our food come from?

In the visualization we run into GHG emissions from 29 unlike food products – from beef at the peak to nuts at the bottom.

For each product you can see from which stage in the supply chain its emissions originate. This extends from land use changes on the left, through to send and packaging on the right.

This is data from the largest meta-assay of global nutrient systems to date, published in Science past Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018).

In this study, the authors looked at information across more than 38,000 commercial farms in 119 countries.^sixteen

In this comparing nosotros wait at the total GHG emissions per kilogram of food production. CO₂ is the most of import GHG, merely non the only one – agriculture is a large source of the greenhouse gases marsh gas and nitrous oxide. To capture all GHG emissions from food production researchers therefore express them in kilograms of 'carbon dioxide equivalents'. This metric takes business relationship not but CO_ii but all greenhouse gases.¹⁷

The most important insight from this report: there are massive differences in the GHG emissions of different foods: producing a kilogram of beef emits 60 kilograms of greenhouse gases (CO₂-equivalents). While peas emits just i kilogram per kg.

Overall, animal-based foods tend to take a higher footprint than found-based. Lamb and cheese both emit more than xx kilograms CO_ii-equivalents per kilogram. Poultry and pork have lower footprints just are nevertheless higher than almost establish-based foods, at half-dozen and 7 kg CO₂-equivalents, respectively.

For most foods – and peculiarly the largest emitters – most GHG emissions result from land apply change (shown in dark-green), and from processes at the farm stage (brown). Farm-stage emissions include processes such as the application of fertilizers – both organic ("manure direction") and synthetic; and enteric fermentation (the product of methane in the stomachs of cattle). Combined, land employ and subcontract-stage emissions account for more than 80% of the footprint for virtually foods.

Transport is a pocket-sized correspondent to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it's much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it'due south 0.v%.

Non only send, only all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, ship, retail and packaging – mostly account for a modest share of emissions.

This data shows that this is the case when nosotros look at private food products. But studies besides shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets beyond the EU. Nutrient transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.¹⁸

Related content:

Eating local only slightly reduces your emissions

Eating local beef or lamb has many times the carbon footprint of most other foods. Whether they are grown locally or shipped from the other side of the earth matters very little for total emissions.

Send typically accounts for less than 1% of beef'southward GHG emissions: choosing to eat local has very minimal effects on its full footprint. You might recollect this effigy is strongly dependent on where in the world you live, and how far your beef will have to travel, but in the 'dropdown box' below I work through an instance to show why it doesn't make a lot of divergence.

Whether you buy information technology from the farmer next door or from far away, it is not the location that makes the carbon footprint of your dinner large, just the fact that it is beefiness.

Example: how much does distance traveled bear on the footprint of beef?

In a written report published in Environmental Scientific discipline & Engineering science, Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews (2008) investigated the relative climate touch on of nutrient miles and food choices in households in the US.^xix Their analysis showed that substituting less than one solar day per calendar week's worth of calories from beef and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a establish-based alternative reduces GHG emissions more ownership all your food from local sources.

Past analysing consumer expenditure data, the researchers estimated that the average American household's food emissions were around 8 tonnes of CO₂eq per yr. Food transport accounted for simply 5% of this (0.4 tCO_iieq).²⁰ This means that if we were to take the example where we assume a household sources all of their food locally, the maximum reduction in their footprint would exist 5%. This is an extreme example because in reality at that place would still exist small transport emissions involved in transporting food from producers in your area.

They estimated that if the average household substituted their calories from red meat and dairy to craven, fish or eggs just one twenty-four hours per week they would save 0.3 tCO₂eq. If they replaced it with plant-based alternatives they would salve 0.46 tCO_iieq. In other words, going 'ruby meat and dairy-gratuitous' (not totally meat-free) one 24-hour interval per week would achieve the same as having a diet with zero food miles.

There are also a number of cases where eating locally might in fact increment emissions. In most countries, many foods can but be grown and harvested at certain times of the year. Merely consumers want them yr-round. This gives u.s. 3 options: import goods from countries where they are in-season; use energy-intensive production methods (such every bit greenhouses) to produce them year-round; or employ refrigeration and other preservation methods to shop them for several months. There are many examples of studies which show that importing often has a lower footprint.

Hospido et al. (2009) judge that importing Spanish lettuce to the United kingdom during winter months results in three to eight times lower emissions than producing it locally.²¹ The same applies for other foods: tomatoes produced in greenhouses in Sweden used 10 times equally much energy every bit importing tomatoes from Southern Europe where they were in-season.²²

The impact of transport is small for most products, but there is one exception: those which travel by air.

Many believe that air-freight is more than common than it actually is. Very little nutrient is air-freighted; it accounts for only 0.16% of food miles.²³ Simply for the few products which are transported by air, the emissions tin can be very high: it emits 50 times more than CO₂eq than boat per tonne kilometer.²⁴

Many of the foods people presume to come by air are actually transported past boat – avocados and almonds are prime examples. Shipping i kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the Britain would generate 0.21kg CO₂eq in ship emissions.²⁵ This is simply around 8% of avocados' full footprint.²⁶ Fifty-fifty when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products.

Which foods are air-freighted? How exercise we know which products to avoid?

They tend to exist foods which are highly perishable. This means they need to be eaten before long afterwards they've been harvested. In this case, transport past boat is too slow, leaving air travel as the only viable option.

Some fruit and vegetables tend to fall into this category. Asparagus, dark-green beans and berries are common air-freighted goods.

It is often hard for consumers to identify foods that have travelled by air because they're rarely labeled as such. This makes them difficult to avoid. A full general rule is to avert foods that have a very brusque shelf-life and take traveled a long style (many labels have the country of 'origin' which helps with this). This is especially true for foods where there is a strong accent on 'freshness': for these products, transport speed is a priority.

So, if yous want to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, avoid air-freighted foods where you can. But beyond this, y'all can have a larger difference by focusing on what you eat, rather than 'eating local'. Eating less meat and dairy, or switching from ruminant meat to chicken, pork, or plant-based alternatives will reduce your footprint by much more.

Less meat is nearly always better for your carbon footprint than sustainable meat

What is the best way to reduce the carbon footprint of our nutrition?

I have shown previously that what we choose to eat has the largest bear on, making a bigger difference than how far our food has traveled, or how much packaging information technology's wrapped in. This is because just a pocket-size fraction comes from ship and packaging and most of our food emissions come from processes on the farm, or from state employ modify.

Regardless of whether you compare the footprint of foods in terms of their weight (e.g. ane kilogram of cheese versus one kilogram of peas); poly peptide content ; or calories, the overall determination is the same: plant-based foods tend to accept a lower carbon footprint than meat and dairy. In many cases a much smaller footprint.

As an example: producing 100 grams of poly peptide from peas emits merely 0.four kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂eq). To become the aforementioned amount of protein from beef, emissions would be virtually 90 times higher, at 35 kgCO_iieq.²⁷

Merely it comes with the caveat that comparisons are fabricated based on global averages.

Many argue that this overlooks the big variation in the footprints of foods beyond the world. Using global averages might requite us a misleading picture for some parts of the globe or some producers. If I source my beef or lamb from depression-impact producers, could they take a lower footprint than plant-based alternatives?

The testify suggests, no: plant-based foods emit fewer greenhouse gases than meat and dairy, regardless of how they are produced.

Let'due south take a look at the full range of footprints for protein-rich foods.

Protein-rich foods account for the majority of our dietary emissions. In European diets, meat, dairy and eggs account for 83%. That'due south why I focus on them here.

In the visualization we encounter the range of carbon footprints for these foods. This data is from the largest meta-analysis of global food systems to engagement, published in Science by Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018).²⁸ In this study, the authors looked at data across more than 38,000 commercial farms in 119 countries.

All greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are measured in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per 100 grams of protein; this metric takes account of not only carbon dioxide but as well the range of other greenhouse gases – this is further explained in the footnote.²⁹ To make reading less repetitive, I refer to it as 'kgCO₂eq' beneath.

The visualization shows the median footprint – highlighted by a minor white circle for each nutrient production.

But since in that location are big differences between producers, this nautical chart also shows the full spectrum of emissions – from the lowest to highest producers. The top at each signal in the curve represents the amount of global production with that specific footprint.

The median footprint for beef is 25 kgCO_twoeq.³⁰ But some producers have a much higher footprint: ten pct emit more than 105 kgCO_twoeq per 100 grams. At the other terminate, some are much lower. X per centum emit less than ix kgCO₂eq. We encounter from the height of the bend that near beef product lies in the range between 17 to 27 kgCO₂eq.

How exercise the distributions betwixt plant-based and meat-based sources compare?

Plant-based protein sources – tofu, beans, peas and nuts – take the lowest carbon footprint. This is certainly true when you compare average emissions. Simply information technology's however truthful when you compare the extremes: there'due south not much overlap in emissions between the worst producers of constitute proteins, and the best producers of meat and dairy.

Permit's compare the highest-touch producers (the top ten per centum) of establish-based proteins with the lowest-touch on producers (the bottom ten percent) of meat and dairy.

The pea producers with the highest footprint emit just 0.viii kgCO₂eq per 100 grams of protein.³¹ For nuts it is 2.4 and for tofu, 3.five kgCO₂eq. All are several times less than the everyman affect lamb (12  kgCO₂eq) and beef (9 kgCO₂eq). Emissions are too lower than those from the all-time cheese and pork (4.5 kgCO₂eq); and slightly lower or comparable to those from the lowest-footprint chicken (2.4 kgCO₂eq).³²

If you want a lower-carbon nutrition, eating less meat is nigh always better than eating the most sustainable meat.

This is also truthful for the differences between meat products. Chicken, eggs, and pork about always have a lower footprint than beef and lamb: there is some, but not much overlap betwixt the worst poultry and pork producers, and the best beefiness and lamb producers. The earth's highest impact chicken and pork have a footprint of 12 and 14 kgCO₂eq. This is similar to, or only slightly higher than, the world'due south best beefiness and lamb.

Regardless of where you get your beefiness or lamb from, substituting with craven and pork is likely to reduce your carbon footprint.

More than sustainable meat production tin can still make a large difference

Eating less meat, or switching to lower bear on meats such as craven, eggs or pork is the most effective style for individuals to reduce their dietary footprint.

Just if yous want to eat meat, so the choice of meat also matters. Consumers can have an impact, simply and then can nutrient producers.

The earth is not going to carelessness livestock farming completely – at least not any fourth dimension soon. And there are a number of reasons we wouldn't want it to: it is non only an of import source of income for many, but can as well be a key source of nutrition in local settings. Peculiarly in lower-income countries where diets lack multifariousness, pocket-size amounts of meat and dairy can be an essential source of protein and micronutrients.

Globally, greenhouse gas emissions are massively skewed towards high-impact producers. This tin exist seen at the bottom of our visualization. The reddish curve shows the sum of all poly peptide products.

Most of the protein we produce is relatively low-impact: 75% of production has a footprint between -3 and 11 kgCO₂eq per 100 grams of protein. This creates just 30% of poly peptide'due south emissions.

High-impact production – with a footprint greater than 11 kgCO₂eq – produces merely 25% of our protein, merely lxx% of its emissions. To put this 'high-impact product' in context: the summit quarter of protein product emits more than 5 billion tonnes of CO₂eq each year. This is more than than the EU's total annual greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors.³³

Much of this skew, as we've already discussed, comes from the differences between plant-based sources and meats such equally beef and lamb. Merely a lot comes from the big variations in footprint for specific products.

In that location is much more variation in the footprints of beef, lamb, dairy, and aquaculture production than for other foods. This is because there are large differences in the intensity and practices used in ruminant livestock, and fish farming across the world. This is different from poultry and grunter farming: 61% of pork, 81% of chicken and 86% of eggs are produced intensively in industrial-farm settings.³⁴ These systems are very similar wherever they are in the world.

One factor which explains a lot of the variation for beefiness is whether information technology's sourced from a dairy herd (where the cattle as well produce milk) or a herd dedicated to beefiness production. Just under one-half (44%) of the globe'south beefiness comes from the dairy sector. And it produces 60% lower emissions because its footprint is shared with dairy co-products.

Geography also plays a function in the large variations nosotros encounter for beefiness, lamb and aquaculture: farming approaches are often adopted in line with local weather condition such equally soil fertility, terrain and temperature.³⁵ Opportunities for food producers to reduce emissions are therefore very specific to local conditions.

Only there are some general recommendations that are clear from the research: improving degraded pasture; improving lifetime animal productivity; increasing oxygen flow in aquaculture ponds, particularly in warm climates; and fugitive the conversion of forests and peatlands for agriculture will all brand a departure.³⁶ Land use alter can play a big role in the concluding emissions; this ways beefiness from South America often has a high footprint due to deforestation. Proficient pasture quality is also important: climate has a potent touch on on this, simply effective management practices can also make a difference; New Zealand, France and the Britain are some examples where footprints are oftentimes lower.

If we want to reduce the emissions from our food, at that place is massive scope for both consumers and producers. For producers, agreement and adopting all-time farm and country direction practices can mitigate the highest impacts of production.

Every bit consumers, the biggest difference we can make is to eat more plant-based sources of protein such as tofu, basics, peas, and beans. This is the case regardless of where you are in the globe.

The carbon footprint of European union diets: where do emissions come from?

We've previously looked at the breakdown of carbon footprints for dissimilar nutrient products. But our diets are made upwardly of a broad range of foods – do these findings hold true when we expect at realistic diets?

Let's take a concrete example.

Vilma Sandström et al. (2018) compared greenhouse gas emissions from the average nutrition across countries in the European Wedlock.³⁷ In this written report the researchers quantified the emissions from nutrient production, land-utilize modify and trade (i.e. transport) for each food group.³⁸

In the ii visualizations here we come across comparisons of the carbon footprint of the average European union diets: firstly the total emissions from each source in the supply chain and secondly, shown equally the breakdown past food item.

The conclusions we tin can draw from this are the same.

We run across that the majority of emissions result from state use change, or emissions at the subcontract level – either methane emissions from cattle; direction of manure; or use of fertilizer. Nutrient transport accounted for just half dozen% of emissions.

When broken down past food items, dairy, meat and eggs dominate. They business relationship for 83% of GHG emissions from the average EU nutrition. Just 17% results from plant-based foods. Well-nigh of the variation between countries comes from how much meat and dairy products they swallow.

What Europeans ate has the biggest affect on their footprint. We come across this conspicuously in this visualization when we look at the footprint of the average European diet by source and by food type side-by-side.

Unless y'all've cut it out completely, eating less meat and dairy products volition have a much larger impact on your carbon footprint than eating locally. The climate benefits of eating locally are much smaller than people think.

Carbon footprint of food products

We accept previously looked at the comparisons in carbon footprint of nutrient products based on mass: the greenhouse gas emissions from one kilogram of food product.

But it's also important to expect at these comparisons in terms of nutritional units: this gives a mensurate of how low or high-impact unlike foods are in supplying protein or free energy/calories, for instance.

In the visualizations here nosotros evidence the carbon footprint of foods every bit measured per 100 grams of protein, and per 1000 kilocalories. These charts are interactive and then you can add and remove products using the 'add food' button.

Breakdown of where food system emissions come from

To see where (both by stage in the food chain and geographically) in the nutrient system emissions come from, nosotros can draw on the results of the study by Monica Crippa and colleagues, published in Nature Food.³⁹

This study adds a lot of value because it not just quantifies the breakdown of emissions by stages of the supply concatenation, it as well provides a global perspective of each country'southward contributions to food emissions. Its big drawback is that it does non provide a breakdown of emissions past product (eastward.g. how much of emissions come from cereals; beefiness; craven; palm oil).

In the nautical chart  we run into the breakup of emissions from the food system. This was 34% of full greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The majority of emissions – over two-thirds – came from land use change and the on-subcontract production of the food itself. The remainder came from supply concatenation emissions and consumer cooking and waste.

Each stage of the supply chain – processing, transport, packaging and retail – accounted for a similar amount. Each was around 5% of food emissions. Transport was responsible for 4.8% of food emissions. Here we prove this breakdown by road, rail, aircraft and aviation. Most transport comes from local and regional trade in trucks; it accounts for 3.9% of food emissions. What'south surprising is the small-scale fraction from aviation – just 0.02%. This is considering very little of our nutrient is flown. Every bit I covered in a related article, the fact that not much of our food is flown means that the climate benefits of 'eating local' are much smaller than we mayhap might look.

Related chart:

Which countries produce the most emissions from food?

There are large differences in nutrient emissions across the world. This study allocates emissions to the countries where they are produced. This does non tell us the emissions of consumers within a given country. If Brazil cuts down its forests to produce beef that is exported to the Usa, these emissions are allocated to Brazil. This is how countries report their emissions to the United nations Framework Convention on Climate Alter (UNFCCC) and how emissions targets are set. Only it would as well be useful to see emissions based on where they are consumed. Afterwards all, we know from our related work on deforestation and trade that some tropical deforestation is driven by demand by consumers in rich countries.

In the map nosotros see the share of global nutrient emissions that are produced in each country. The largest emitters are countries that nosotros might expect, either considering they have a large population size or are large agronomical producers. In that location are five countries which each contribute more than 5% to global emissions: China (13.eight%); Indonesia (8.8%); U.s.a. (8.2%); Brazil (7.4%); and India (6.3%). There is then a big gap betwixt the pinnacle five and the rest. Russia is side by side, merely accounts for just 2.6%. [You lot can see each country's emissions in absolute terms here ].

It'due south also interesting to run across the differences in how much each land'south food emissions contribute to its full emissions. You observe a global map of this here. We see a very strong rich-poor land divide. High-income countries tend to have free energy-intensive manufacture or service-based economies. Food systems can contribute as fiddling every bit 10% to total emissions. Lower income countries tend to have more than agricultural-based economies. This means nutrient systems account for a larger share of emissions of each of these countries. Food accounts for more eighty% of emissions in many countries beyond Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Asia.

It's useful for united states of america to understand the global distribution of emissions from food product. Just, as I mentioned, many of united states are too interested in how much of a role we play as consumers. We want to know what our carbon footprint is, and how we tin reduce it. An important next step for this work is to quantify nutrient emissions based on where they are consumed.

If you are interested in how you can reduce the emissions from your diet, I cover this in my related piece of work here.

Water footprint of nutrient

How practice the water footprints of different food products compare? Which foods used the about and least freshwater in their product?

We can look at these comparisons based on mass: the freshwater withdrawals required to produce one kilogram of food product.

But it's as well important to look at these comparisons in terms of nutritional units: this gives a measure of how depression or high-affect different foods are in supplying poly peptide or energy/calories.

In the visualizations here we show the h2o footprint of foods, measured in liters (L) per kilogram, 100 grams of poly peptide, and per 1000 kilocalories. These charts are interactive then you can add together and remove products using the 'add food' button.

Scarcity-weighted h2o footprint of nutrient

The water footprint of food products gives a useful indicator of their environmental impact. But freshwater scarcity varies across the world: some regions have abundant water resources (meaning agricultural water demands have little bear on) whilst others experience severe water stress.

Nosotros tin besides look at h2o footprints in terms of scarcity-weighted freshwater utilise. Scarcity-weighted h2o use represents freshwater use weighted by local h2o scarcity.

How does the scarcity-weighted h2o footprint of unlike food products compare?

We tin can look at these comparisons based on mass: the scarcity-weighted h2o required to produce one kilogram of food product.

Just it's also important to expect at these comparisons in terms of nutritional units: this gives a measure out of how low or high-bear on different foods are in supplying protein or energy/calories.

In the visualizations here nosotros show the scarcity-weighted h2o footprint of foods, measured in liters (L) per kilogram, 100 grams of poly peptide, and per 1000 kilocalories. These charts are interactive so you can add and remove products using the 'add together nutrient' button.

Eutrophying emissions from food

Eutrophication – the pollution of water bodies and ecosystems with backlog nutrients – is a major ecology problem. The runoff of nitrogen and other nutrients from agricultural production systems is a leading contributor.

How do different food products contribute to eutrophication? We can compare these impacts by looking at eutrophying emissions – they correspond runoff of excess nutrients into the surrounding surround and waterways, which bear on and pollute ecosystems with nutrient imbalances. They are measured in kilograms of phosphate equivalents.

Nosotros tin wait at these comparisons based on mass: the eutrophying emissions from the product of ane kilogram of nutrient product.

But it'due south also important to wait at these comparisons in terms of nutritional units: this gives a measure of how low or loftier-impact unlike foods are in supplying protein or free energy/calories.

In the visualizations here we testify the eutrophying emissions of foods, measured in grams of phosphate equivalents (gPO₄eq) per kilogram, 100 grams of protein, and per thou kilocalories. These charts are interactive so yous tin add together and remove products using the 'add nutrient' button.

Very piddling of global food is transported past air; this greatly reduces the climate benefits of eating local

People often think that eating 'local' – buying foods which are produced shut to home – is one of the most effective ways to reduce our carbon footprint.

This is certainly true for foods that are transported by airplane. But the reality is that very picayune of our food is.

Well-nigh food travels past bounding main, non past air

One uncomplicated way to compare the ways of transport for nutrient is to sum up how many kilometers planes with food freight travel; and compare this to how how many kilometers trains, and ships, and trucks do.

Simply this does not give the complete motion-picture show because a boat can behave much more food for a given distance than a truck can. To give an informative comparing, we utilise a metric called 'food miles'; this is calculated equally the distance each transport method covers multiplied by the quantity of nutrient transported (past mass). This gives us a comparison of food miles in tonne-kilometers.

The chart hither shows the share of global 'food miles' by transport method. This data is sourced from the work of Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek, published in the journal Science in 2018.⁴⁰

As the data here shows, but 0.16% of food miles come from air travel. Nigh – most 60% – comes past boat.

Y'all can see this information in absolute terms, in tonne-kilometers, hither.

Whether food travels by bounding main or air makes all the difference

Transporting nutrient past air emits effectually 50 times as much greenhouse gases equally transporting the same amount by sea. More specifically, 0.023 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO_iieq) per tonne-kilometer past ocean, versus 1.13 kilograms CO₂eq by air. We see these emission factors for different transport modes in the table.

For food that is transported by sea, transportation doesn't really add much to the carbon footprint. Since most of our nutrient is transported past sea, ship emissions only account for half-dozen% of the carbon footprint of nutrient, on boilerplate.⁴¹

But for those food items that travel by air, travel distance does have a large touch on. We should avert air-freighted appurtenances where we can.

Emission factors for freight by transport mode (kilograms of CO₂eq per tonne-kilometer) ⁴²

Send mode	Ambience transport (kg COtwoeq per tonne-kilometer)	Temperature-controlled send (kg COtwoeq per tonne-kilometer)
Road Transport	0.two	0.2 to 0.66
Runway Transport	0.05	0.06
Body of water / Inland Water Transport	0.01	0.02
Air Send	1.thirteen	1.13

Which foods are air-freighted? How do nosotros know which products to avoid?

Foods which are air-freighted tend to be those which are highly perishable. This means they demand to be eaten soon later they've been harvested. In this case, transport by boat is as well slow, leaving air travel as the only feasible option.

Some fruit and vegetables tend to fall into this category. Asparagus, green beans and berries are common examples of air-freighted appurtenances.

Information technology is ofttimes hard for consumers to place foods that accept travelled by air, since they're rarely labeled as such. This makes them hard to avoid. A full general rule is to avoid foods that have a very short shelf-life and have traveled a long way (many labels accept the country of 'origin' which helps with this). This is particularly true for foods where in that location is a strong emphasis on 'freshness': for these products, transport speed is a priority.

Instance: how does the footprint of vegetables change if they travel across the world past airplane vs. boat?

Food waste is responsible for six% of global greenhouse gas emissions

Nutrient product accounts for around one-quarter – 26% – of global greenhouse gas emissions.⁴³ This is a lot, only it's slightly easier to digest when we remind ourselves that food is a basic human demand.

What's harder to brand sense of is the amount of greenhouse gas emissions which are caused in the production of food that is never eaten.

Around one-quarter of the calories the world produces are thrown abroad; they're spoiled or spilled in supply bondage; or are wasted by retailers, restaurants and consumers.⁴⁴ To produce this food we need country, h2o, energy, and fertilizer inputs. It all comes at an environmental price.

Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), in their big meta-assay of global nutrient systems, published in Science, estimated how much of our greenhouse gas emissions come from wasted nutrient.⁴⁵

In the visualization here I show the emissions from wasted food in the context of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The written report by Poore and Nemecek (2018) found that almost 1-quarter – 24% – of food's emissions come up from nutrient that is lost in supply bondage or wasted by consumers. Almost 2-thirds of this (15% of nutrient emissions) comes from losses in the supply chain which result from poor storage and handling techniques; lack of refrigeration; and spoilage in ship and processing. The other 9% comes from nutrient thrown away past retailers and consumers.

This means that food wastage is responsible for around six% of total global greenhouse gas emissions.⁴⁶ In fact, information technology's likely to exist slightly college since the analysis from Poore and Nemecek (2018) does not include food losses on the farm during production and harvesting.

To put this in context: it's effectually 3 times the global emissions from aviation.⁴⁷ Or, if we were to put information technology in the context of national emissions, it would be the world's third largest emitter.⁴⁸ Only China (21%) and the U.s.a. (13%) emitted more.⁴⁹

Dairy vs. plant-based milk: what are the environmental impacts?

Milk is a dietary staple across many countries in the globe. But dairy can contribute a lot to the greenhouse gas emissions of our food. In typical EU diets, information technology accounts for but over i-quarter of the carbon footprint, sometimes as much as one-third.⁵⁰

Growing sensation of this ways many are looking to constitute-based alternatives. In the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, surveys suggest one-quarter of adults at present beverage some non-dairy milks (although not always exclusively). It'southward fifty-fifty more popular in younger demographics with one-third of 16 to 23-year-olds opting for them.⁵¹

There is now a range of 'plant-based' milk alternatives available, including soy, oat, almond, rice, and coconut. This raises ii mutual questions: are institute-based milks really better for the environment, and which is all-time?

In the nautical chart here we compare milks across a number of environmental metrics: land use, greenhouse gas emissions, h2o use, and eutrophication – the pollution of ecosystems with excess nutrients. These are compared per liter of milk.⁵² At the end of this article I address some of the differences in the nutritional quality of these milks, which is important to consider in certain populations.

Moo-cow's milk has significantly college impacts than the plant-based alternatives across all metrics. It causes around three times as much greenhouse gas emissions; uses around ten times as much country; 2 to xx times every bit much freshwater; and creates much higher levels of eutrophication.

If you desire to reduce the ecology footprint of your diet, switching to plant-based alternatives is a good option.

Which of the vegan milks is best? Information technology really depends on the touch we care well-nigh about. Almond milk has lower greenhouse gas emissions and uses less land than soy, for example, but requires more h2o and results in higher eutrophication.

All of the alternatives have a lower impact than dairy, but at that place is no clear winner on all metrics.

Common FAQs on this topic:

How does the nutritional contour of dairy compare with constitute-based milks?

In the figures above we expect at the comparison of milks per liter. A liter of dairy milk is non comparable to a liter of establish-based milk in terms of its nutritional profile.

Dairy milk tends to be higher in calories, and chiefly, contains more protein. 100ml of cow's milk will incorporate around 3.4 grams of protein, versus 0.5 grams in almond milk. The protein in dairy is also a more than 'complete' poly peptide source, which ways it has the full profile of essential amino acids.⁵³

Virtually plant-based milks accept a similar calcium content to cow's milk – almond and cow's milk both accept around 120 milligrams per 100ml, for case.

One of the benefits of plant-based milks is that they are often fortified with vitamins and minerals. Vitamin D, for case, is oftentimes added. Cow's milk naturally contains very little vitamin D, although it is possible to purchase fortified varieties. Vitamin B₁₂ is one micronutrient that only occurs in animal products; vegans are therefore at chance of deficiency without supplementation. However, most plant-based milks are now fortified with vitamin B₁₂.

From a nutritional perspective, the replacement of dairy with plant-based milks is unlikely to exist a concern for those with a diverse diet, and for those who do not rely on milk as an important source of protein. It is possible to meet these requirements from other foods – such as a combination of legumes, meat substitutes, and grains. However, for certain demographics – especially young children, and those on lower incomes with poor dietary variety – this might be an inappropriate switch.

The average person in many lower-income countries gets almost of their calories from cheap, energy-dense crops similar cereals and tubers (similar cassava). This can be more than than three-quarters of an individual'southward calorie intake. These diets do non provide the multifariousness of nutrients needed for proficient health – they are likely to exist deficient in a number of micronutrients, and poly peptide (in one case we adjust for quality). Without access to foods that are fortified with vitamins and minerals, oft pocket-size amounts of fauna protein – such equally milk – provide one of the few sources of consummate protein and micronutrients in their diet.

In such cases, removing dairy from a person's nutrition without sufficient replacements could take a negative impact on health and diet. For near people in middle-to–high income countries, still, this is unlikely to be an issue.

---

---

I've heard that soy is linked to deforestation in the Amazon. Is this a business organisation for soy milk?

One of the largest concerns nearly alternatives such every bit soy milk is that they drive deforestation in the Amazon region. Information technology's true that the growing demand for soy has been i of the drivers of Brazilian land-use change. Although, by far, the largest commuter has been pasture for beef product.

Merely, it'due south of import to note what this soy is used for. 95% of Brazilian soy is used for fauna feed.⁵⁴ Globally, more than three-quarters of soy, by mass, is used for beast feed. The other main co-product is soybean oil. This means that very little of Amazonian state-use pressures from soy take been driven by crops for direct human consumption; most is for animal feed.

Another cistron to consider here, especially for European consumers, is that most of Brazil's soy ingather is genetically modified (some estimates put this figure at 94%). There are strict regulations on the apply of GM soy for direct human food in the European Spousal relationship. Most of the soy consumed in Europe is produced in Europe.

Soy yields are similar in the EU as they are in Brazil and the rest of South America – 3 tonnes per hectare in France versus 2.9 tonnes in Brazil. In fact, some European union countries accept higher yields, such equally Espana (3.3 tonnes) and Italy (4 tonnes). Then the environmental touch of European union soy will be lower than in Southward America.

duryeacamuctued96.blogspot.com

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

Share :