How to reduce your food footprint: if it's better for you, it's better for the planet

The Guardian

a day ago

Food production globally accounts for nearly 30% of greenhouse gas emissions, with the average Australian diet contributing more than 3kg of Co2 per person per day. And what's worse, we waste about 35% of the food we bring home. If we keep this up, it has been estimated the already unsustainable environmental cost of the food system will nearly double by 2050.
Calculating the precise impact your individual food choices have on the environment isn't simple, but research suggests the actions we can take to bring that impact down are – and they aren't just better for the environment, they're better for our health too.
A 2021 CSIRO study found that sticking to its healthy eating guidelines while choosing lower-carbon options could reduce the climate impact of our diets by as much as 42%. Another released last year, which conducted life-cycle assessments on more than 60 thousand products available on Australian shelves, found that switching to lower-emission options within similar categories could bring our food footprints down by an impressive 71%.
Prof Simone Pettigrew, program director of food policy at the George Institute for Global Health and an author of the latter study, says: 'There's four biggies that sit at the top of the list for being the least sustainable: traditional red meats, dairy products, and then to a lesser extent – but perhaps more upsettingly – coffee and chocolate.' Consumers, she says, can make a 'massive, massive difference' to the sustainability of their entire food basket simply by limiting or switching out those items.
In practical terms this might look like choosing poultry, seafood or kangaroo instead of lamb or pork, switching dairy milk for plant-based options, drinking just one less coffee a day or choosing sweet treats with low or no cocoa content. Even if we can do that some of the time, the difference can be significant, according to Pettigrew.
When it comes to carbohydrates and fresh produce, Pettigrew says a solid rule of thumb is the better it is for you, the better it probably is for the planet. Choosing fresh fruits and vegetables to snack on rather than processed biscuits or bars, for example, will dramatically reduce your diet's carbon footprint. And while there are production and processing differences between more nutritionally similar items such as pasta and rice, Pettigrew says overall they are largely comparable in terms of sustainability. 'Anything that is plant based is going to be much less environmentally costly than anything animal based.
'We understand it's hard for consumers to make really big changes in one hit, but it is relatively easy to make small incremental ones.'
If you already eat a healthy, plant-rich diet, limit your ultra-processed food intake and are keeping your coffee and chocolate habits in check, you've made a great start.
Beyond that, Dr Lilly Lim-Camacho, principal research scientist with CSIRO Agriculture and Food, says one of the most helpful things consumers can do to maximise these gains is to 'shop with intent'. Food waste accounts for more than a third of all household waste, so only purchasing what you need combined with small efforts such as 'learning how to use up leftover veggies in the crisper' and resisting impulse buying will not only make your diet significantly more sustainable, but healthier and more economical too.
She urges people to also keep in mind that wasting unhealthy food is doubly bad. 'Not only do discretionary foods create more emissions, our bodies don't actually need them.' Those emissions are essentially being wasted regardless of whether you consume the food or not, she suggests.
If you'd like to take things a step further, apps such as ecoSwitch, developed by the George Institute, get into the nitty gritty of comparing the carbon ratings associated with more specific items. This can help if you want to know, for example, which brand of tinned tomatoes or tofu is best. The George Institute study found that opting for near identical but lower-impact options alone could bring your food footprint down by 26%.
Neither Pettigrew nor Lim-Camacho want to take the fun out of food or expect consumers to forgo the odd burger or chocolate ice-cream, but agree that by prioritising our health we will naturally make better choices for the planet, and vice versa. 'It's a win-win,' says Pettigrew.
'There is always going to be an environmental cost to our food. But it's important for people to know that you actually can make an enormous difference if you want to.'