Which Foods Have the Lowest Carbon Footprint?

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Our eating habits are making us and the planet increasingly unhealthy.” Ours is a lose–lose situation; “a global transformation of the food system is urgently needed.” “In consideration of the mounting evidence regarding the environmental effects of foods,” for the 2015 to 2020 U.S. Dietary Guidelines, the scientific advisory committee “included for the first time a chapter focused on food safety and sustainability,” concluding: “a dietary pattern that is higher in plant­based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal­based foods is [not only] more health promoting [but also] associated with lesser environmental impact…” Despite unprecedented public support, this and other sustainability language was not surprisingly vanished from the final Dietary Guidelines published jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

They’re not even sufficiently sticking to the science on healthy eating either, including no, or too lax, limits for animal-source foods, despite the available evidence. Even if they ignored planetary health altogether and just stuck to the latest evidence on healthy eating, it would have knock-on environmental benefits. Replacing animal-source foods with plant-based ones would not only improve nutrition and help people live longer, but could reduce greenhouse gas emissions up to 84 percent.

In general, plant-based foods “cause fewer adverse environmental effects” by nearly any measure. In terms of carbon footprint, all the foods that are the equivalent of driving more than a mile per serving are animal products. Here are the greenhouse gas emissions from various foods. Even though something like a lamb chop or farmed fish may be the worst, eating chicken still causes like five times the global warming than even something like tropical fruit. Though the climate superstars are legumes (beans, split peas, chickpeas, and lentils).

“For example, in the United States, substituting beans for beef at the national level could [alone] deliver up to 75 percent of the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target and spare an area of land 1.5 times the size of California” (not to mention the health benefits). And it’s not just greenhouse gases. Kidney beans required “approximately 18 times less land, 10 times less water, 9 times less fuel, 12 times less fertilizer, and 10 times less pesticide[s].”

So yeah, according to the prestigious EAT-Lancet Commission, more plant-based may be better, but even a shift towards a healthier dietary pattern “emphasising whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes without necessarily [eating strictly-plant-based], would be beneficial.” In Europe, for example, just “halving the consumption of meat, dairy…, and eggs… would achieve [up to] a 40 percent reduction in nitrogen emissions” and greenhouse gas emissions and require about a fifth less land. “In addition, the dietary changes would also lower health risks,” reducing cardiovascular mortality, their leading cause of death.

Note, however, that “minimizing environmental impacts does not necessarily maximize human health.” Yes, animal products, dairy, eggs, fish, and other meat releases significantly more greenhouse gas per serving than foods from plants; eating added sugar and oil isn’t going to do your own body any favors.

In California, including more animal products in your diet requires an additional 10,000 quarts of water a week. So, that’s like taking 150 more showers a week. Even just skipping meat on weekdays could conserve thousands of gallons a week compared to eating meat every day, and cut your daily carbon footprint and total ecological footprint by about 40 percent.

Some countries are actually doing something about it. “The Chinese government,” for example, “has outlined a plan to reduce its citizens’ meat consumption by 50 percent,” whereas much of the rest of the world appears to be doing the complete opposite, pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into subsidizing the meat, dairy, and egg industries. We can certainly all try to do our part; however, an obstacle to dietary change may be “consumers’ underestimation of the environmental impacts of different types of food,” but may be aided by labeling. For example, imagine picking up a can of a beef noodle soup and seeing this. The carbon footprint of a single half-cup serving is like leaving a light on for 39 hours straight. And not some eco-bulb, an old-school 100-watt hot incandescent, compared to a meat-free vegetable soup—a difference of 34 light-bulb hours. You can imagine someone getting on your case for unnecessarily leaving on a light for 34 minutes, but this is 34 hours just eating a different half cup of soup.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

• An appetite for destruction. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9:179.
• Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447-492.
• Blackstone NT, El-abbadi NH, Mccabe MS, Griffin TS, Nelson ME. Linking sustainability to the healthy eating patterns of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(8):e344-e352.
• Springmann M, Wiebe K, Mason-d'croz D, Sulser TB, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(10):e451-e461.
• Alvarez JB, Preble MG. Disrupting the meat industry: tissue culture beef. Harvard Business School Case 515-001, November 2014.
• Stoll-Kleemann S, O'Riordan T. The sustainability challenges of our meat and dairy diets. Environment. 2015;57(3):34-48.
• Harwatt H. Including animal to plant protein shifts in climate change mitigation policy: a proposed three-step strategy. Clim Policy. 2019;19(5):533-41.
• Sranacharoenpong K, Soret S, Harwatt H, Wien M, Sabaté J. The environmental cost of protein food choices. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(11):2067-73.
• Westhoek H, Lesschen JP, Rood T, Wagner S, De Marco A, Murphy-Bokern D, et al. Food choices, health and environment: effects of cutting Europe's meat and dairy intake. Glob Environ Change. 2014;26(1):196-205.
• Health at a Glance: Europe 2018: State of Health in the EU Cycle. OECD/EU. 2018. OECD Publishing, Paris.
• Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature. 2014;515(7528):518-22.
• Marlow HJ, Harwatt H, Soret S, Sabaté J. Comparing the water, energy, pesticide and fertilizer usage for the production of foods consumed by different dietary types in California. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(13):2425-32.
• Ruini LF, Ciati R, Pratesi CA, Marino M, Principato L, Vannuzzi E. Working toward Healthy and Sustainable Diets: The "Double Pyramid Model" Developed by the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition to Raise Awareness about the Environmental and Nutritional Impact of Foods. Front Nutr. 2015;2:9.
• Milman O, Leavenworth S. China's plan to cut meat consumption by 50% cheered by climate campaigners. Guardian. June 2016.
• Camilleri AR, Larrick RP, Hossain S, Patino-Echeverri D. Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9:53-8.
• Camilleri AR, Larrick RP, Hossain S, Patino-Echeverri D. Consumers underestimate the emissions associated with food but are aided by labels. Supplementary Information. Nat Clim Chang. 2019;9:53-8.

Video production by Glass Entertainment

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

• animal products
• beans
• chickpeas
• climate change
• dairy
• eggs
• environment
• fish
• fruit
• grains
• legumes
• lentils
• meat
• nuts
• Plant-Based Diets
• seafood
• split peas
• USDA
• vegans
• vegetables
• vegetarians