The carbon footprint of food is bigger than you think
Every day we decide what to have for lunch or dinner, and most of the time we mainly think about taste, price, or how quickly we can prepare the meal. Few people realize, however, that these seemingly trivial decisions have a huge impact on the planet – in some cases even greater than flying by plane. Sound exaggerated? The numbers speak clearly, and it's worth taking a closer look.
When people hear "carbon footprint," most picture smoking chimneys, congested highways, or overcrowded airports. Yet according to an extensive study published in the journal Science in 2018, the food system accounts for approximately 26% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Its author, Joseph Poore from the University of Oxford, summarized the situation in words that have since traveled around the world: "Switching to a plant-based diet is probably the single biggest thing an individual can do to reduce their impact on the planet – more than cutting down on flights or buying an electric car." This study published in Science analyzed data from nearly 40,000 farms in 119 countries, and its conclusions remain among the most cited in the field to this day.
To understand why the carbon footprint of food is such a crucial topic, we first need to look at what actually hides behind every bite on our plate. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with food don't just come from cooking on the stove. They encompass the entire chain – from converting forests into agricultural land, through fertilizer production, livestock farming, food processing, packaging, and transportation, all the way to storage and ultimately waste disposal. And it's within this chain that surprises lurk that will force many of us to reconsider ingrained notions about what is and isn't "eco-friendly" food.
Take beef, for example. One kilogram of beef produces on average around 60 kilograms of CO₂ equivalent – a figure that includes methane from ruminant digestion, nitrous oxide from pasture fertilization, emissions from feed production, and deforestation for new pastures. For comparison: a return flight from Prague to Barcelona produces approximately 500 kilograms of CO₂ per person. This means that if someone eats just eight extra kilograms of beef per year above average, their "meat" carbon footprint equals one such flight. And the average Czech consumes around eight kilograms of beef annually, while total meat consumption in the Czech Republic hovers around 80 kilograms per person per year, according to data from the Czech Statistical Office.
But the carbon footprint of food isn't just about meat. Some foods we would intuitively consider harmless have a surprisingly high impact. Rice grown in flooded paddies produces significant amounts of methane – globally, rice paddies account for approximately 1.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions, which is comparable to the entire aviation industry. Chocolate, especially that originating from West Africa or South America, carries the burden of emissions from tropical rainforest deforestation. And cheese, a beloved staple of Czech cuisine, has a carbon footprint roughly three times higher than chicken, because producing one kilogram of cheese requires approximately ten liters of milk.
On the other hand, there are foods whose impact is surprisingly low. Legumes – lentils, beans, chickpeas – are among the most efficient sources of protein in terms of emissions. One kilogram of lentils produces approximately 0.9 kilograms of CO₂ equivalent, roughly seventy times less than one kilogram of beef. Moreover, thanks to symbiotic bacteria on their roots, legumes fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, actually reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers. Similarly low footprints are found in nuts, seasonal vegetables, and fruit grown in local conditions.
Try our natural products
What has a greater impact than an airplane – and why we don't know about it
The question of why the carbon footprint of food is discussed so little compared to transportation or energy is interesting in itself. Partly it's because emissions from the food system are diffuse – they don't come from one big smokestack but from millions of farms, warehouses, trucks, and home kitchens. Partly it's also because food is a deeply personal topic that touches on culture, tradition, and identity. Telling someone to fly less is more socially acceptable than telling them to eat less meat.
Yet the facts speak clearly. Our World in Data, run by researchers at the University of Oxford, shows in its overview of the environmental impacts of food that changing the composition of your diet has a much greater impact than where the food comes from. The popular notion that the key to sustainability is buying local food is appealing but somewhat misleading in terms of emissions. Transportation accounts for only about 6% of the total carbon footprint of food on average. For beef, it's actually less than 1%, because the vast majority of emissions occur directly on the farm.
This doesn't mean local food is pointless – it matters, and for several reasons: it supports the local economy, tends to be fresher, and buying it gives you a better understanding of where and how it was produced. But when it comes purely to reducing your carbon footprint, what we eat is more important than where it comes from. Paradoxically, a plant-based burger imported from abroad can have a smaller ecological impact than a beef steak from a local farmer.
Let's look at a concrete real-life example. Imagine the Novák family from Brno – two adults and two children. Mr. Novák loves grilling, and the family consumes beef approximately three times a week, along with regular cheese and dairy products. Their annual carbon footprint from food alone could be around six tons of CO₂ equivalent. If the family reduced beef to once a week, replaced some meat dishes with legumes, and reduced food waste, they could cut their "food" footprint by a third – approximately two tons of CO₂ per year. That's roughly equivalent to one return flight to Rome for the entire family of four. And it wouldn't require any radical lifestyle change – just more thoughtful shopping and a bit of experimentation in the kitchen.
What you can influence yourself
The good news is that unlike many other sources of emissions, the carbon footprint of food is something that truly everyone can influence. You don't have to wait for political decisions, you don't have to invest in solar panels, and you don't have to give up your car. You just need to start at your plate. And you don't have to become vegan – even partial changes have a measurable effect.
The first and most effective step is reducing consumption of beef and lamb. It doesn't have to mean eliminating them entirely, but perhaps shifting from daily consumption to once or twice a week. Replacing beef with chicken or fish reduces the carbon footprint of that meal by roughly five to ten times. Replacing it with legumes reduces it even more significantly.
The second crucial step is reducing food waste. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), approximately one-third of all food produced worldwide is thrown away. In the Czech Republic, estimates put this at around 80 kilograms of food per person per year. Every discarded yogurt, every wilted vegetable, and every stale bread roll represents unnecessary emissions – not only from production but also from decomposition in landfills, where organic waste produces methane.
The third step is consciously choosing foods according to season. Tomatoes grown in winter in heated greenhouses have a carbon footprint several times higher than those ripening in a field in summer. The same applies to fruit and vegetables transported by air – and here it's important to distinguish between sea and air freight. Bananas, although they come from the tropics, travel by ship, and their carbon footprint from transportation is surprisingly low. By contrast, fresh berries out of season often travel by plane, which dramatically increases their footprint.
Another factor worth mentioning is the way we eat and shop. Cooking at home from fresh ingredients generally has a lower carbon footprint than consuming highly processed foods that have gone through energy-intensive industrial production. Planning a weekly menu, shopping with a list, and properly storing food – these are all simple habits that save not only the planet but also your wallet.
An interesting role in the whole equation is also played by farming methods. Regenerative agriculture, which emphasizes soil health, crop rotation, and minimal tillage, can significantly reduce emissions from crop production while also increasing the soil's ability to store carbon. In the Czech Republic, more and more farmers and organizations are embracing this approach, which is an encouraging trend. Supporting such farms – whether through direct purchasing or choosing certified products – is another way consumers can contribute to change.
We also can't overlook the growing range of plant-based alternatives that you can now find in regular supermarkets and specialized online shops. Plant-based burgers, oat milk, tofu, or tempeh are no longer the domain of a narrow group of enthusiasts. Their taste qualities have improved dramatically in recent years, and for many people they represent a natural way to reduce the share of animal products in their diet without feeling like they're giving something up.
When we think about it, it's actually remarkable how much power we have as consumers. Every purchase is a vote – not just with our wallets, but also for a certain way of treating the landscape, animals, and natural resources. And while changing a country's energy mix or transforming the transportation system are processes that take decades, we can change the contents of our plate literally starting tomorrow.
The carbon footprint of food is a topic that deserves far more attention than it currently receives. It's not about shaming or moralizing – it's about understanding that our everyday decisions have real consequences, and that many of the most effective solutions to the climate crisis don't lie in the technologies of the future but on our dining table. And what has a greater impact than an airplane? Sometimes simply what we have for lunch.
