Sustainability myth buster: Food miles, meat and plastic packaging

Most food carbon emissions come from the farm stage (fuels, fertilisers, feed, seasonality), with transport only making up a small percentage of the overall footprint – an average of five per cent. Some modes of transport do affect a product’s footprint more (air-freighted food produces the highest emissions) and shipping, while the most common mode, produces the least. Eating local and seasonal food has many benefits, including supporting local farmers and better agricultural practices, and it’s seasonality that has a more substantial influence on an item’s carbon footprint than transport itself. Food grown out of season usually requires more energy to produce, such as tomatoes.

Seasonal eating beats locality

A tomato grown in season in an open field in Spain has a lower carbon footprint than a tomato grown out of season in an industrial greenhouse in Britain, despite the added transport from Spain. In short, what you eat, and when you eat it, is generally more significant than where it was grown, provided it wasn’t transported by air.

Myth

Sustainable diets are more expensive

Reality

Eating more sustainably can simply mean fewer animal-based ingredients and more plants, which are cheaper and healthier (eating 30 different types of plants a week is also recommended for gut health). Legumes, beans, potatoes, vegetables and fruits are low-impact and generally more affordable. In fact, a recent study found that plant-based diets actually reduce food costs by up to one third. We have hundreds of plant-based recipes on our website, goodfood.com. Stick to what’s seasonally available and they’ll be even better value.

What counts as a plant

Fruit and vegetables (even potatoes – particularly if you eat the skin), wholegrains, pulses, seeds, nuts, mushrooms, beans, herbs and spices. (If you’re trying to eat 30 plants a week, then juice and oils don’t count as they don’t contain plant fibre.)

Myth

Plastic packaging should always be avoided

Reality

Plastic significantly increases the shelf life of food and can help to reduce food waste. For example, the packaging of a plastic-wrapped cucumber is only one per cent of its total footprint, but can prolong its shelf life from a few days by up to two weeks, thereby potentially halving wastage. Nevertheless, despite the storage benefits, plastic pollution and improper recycling do have significant ecological impacts so, given the choice, opt for loose, plastic-free produce, if you can.

Myth

Everyone should go meat and dairy-free immediately

Reality

It is widely agreed that avoiding meat and dairy is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet. Researchers from Oxford University say if everyone swapped just one red meat meal for a plant-based dinner each week, this could cut the UK’s carbon footprint by 50 million tonnes. If everyone occasionally shifted to lower-impact food, the broader impact would be more significant than a few people managing a complete shift.

Myth

UK supermarkets produce a lot of waste and throw away wonky fruit and vegetables

Reality

Food waste makes up 10 per cent of food emissions globally, but 70 per cent of UK food waste comes from households, compared to only two per cent from the retail sector. Most fruits and vegetables have a use by the food processing industry to make soups, stews, pies, juices, etc. Up to 20 million slices of bread are discarded daily by UK households. To help reduce food waste and minimise global emissions, plan your meals, buy only what you need, store items correctly, and take advantage of your freezer.

To discover the carbon footprint of thousands of products and ingredients download the free Reewild app.

Disclaimer: The carbon footprint scores provided for recipes use open-source data from Agribalyse and Poore and Nemecek (2018), the latter being the largest meta-analysis of food systems to date. These scores are for information purposes only. Readers should be aware of potential inaccuracies due to data limitations and variations in food systems. These carbon scores should be used cautiously, as individual factors may not be fully accounted for, and different branded products may produce differing emissions.