Choosing food that is both healthy and good for the planet can be confusing. Here are five myths to help you make better choices. “Organic beef”, “GMO-free” and “100 percent natural” are just some of the countless claims designed to attract the attention of environmentally conscious consumers in supermarkets. However, while people are willing to spend more on these labels, not enough thought is often given to how much these attributes actually contribute to the environmental sustainability of a food item. It’s understandable why consumers are confused.
Determining the environmental impact of different food products is highly complex – it depends on how much resources and energy they consume, how many greenhouse gases they emit, how they affect the biodiversity of the area where they are produced, how and how far they are transported to market, and what amount and type of waste they generate. Despite this, the basic characteristics of diets that can benefit both human health and the planet are clear.
At least half of our daily calorie intake should come from fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds, while significantly limiting red meat and energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods such as sugar and refined grains. Unfortunately, the typical Western diet is far from this ideal and many economic, political and social factors contribute to this discrepancy, making it a difficult issue to address.
However, tackling the psychological barriers that prevent people from consuming in a more sustainable way can help improve their behaviour. The first step towards doing this is to address consumers’ lack of knowledge about what makes food environmentally friendly.
Here are five common food myths that need to be busted:
Myth 1: “The environmental impact of meat is overstated”
Animal husbandry is one of the most environmentally-damaging activities in food production, as it emits high greenhouse gases, uses extensive resources, and causes pollution. As a result, the most impactful change a person can make to reduce their dietary ecological footprint is to limit animal-based foods, especially beef. Many people underestimate the environmental impact of meat, eggs, and dairy and doubt the environmental benefits of replacing them with plant-based alternatives.
In addition, there is a widespread but incorrect belief that reducing car and plane travel, saving electricity, recycling, and avoiding plastic are more important for a person’s climate footprint than reducing animal-based food consumption. Specifically, adopting a plant-based diet can reduce a person’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20 to 30 percent, while other actions may reduce them by 5 to 15 percent.
Dispelling these misconceptions and shifting to a more plant-based diet could significantly promote environmental sustainability.
Myth 2: “Organic and local are always sustainable”
People often assume that organic and local production is the gold standard for sustainability because it can reduce chemical use and minimize transportation emissions. However, this approach needs more nuance. For example, organic tomatoes grown in open fields may have a greater impact on the environment due to increased use of fuel and machinery.
Similarly, tomatoes grown locally, particularly in heated greenhouses, may be less sustainable than those grown in distant unheated greenhouses because they require more energy. Consumer misconceptions are particularly problematic when they believe that purchasing organic meat from a local butcher can substantially reduce the environmental impact of meat production.
The environmental benefits of organic and local meat are limited compared to the environmental harm caused by consuming plant-based foods.
Myth 3: “What is natural is good”
Humans have a ‘natural bias’, believing that what is natural is inherently good. As a result, foods without preservatives, additives, artificial ingredients or high levels of processing are often perceived as superior. It is important to critically evaluate this belief. For example, genetically modified (GM) crops are often viewed negatively due to the belief that anything altered by humans, particularly at the genetic level, must be unsafe for society and the environment.
However, some GM crop varieties can contribute to more sustainable agricultural practices by increasing yields, reducing pesticide use and improving resource efficiency. It is essential to evaluate any new food technologies based on their actual environmental impacts, rather than dismiss them because of their perceived unnaturalness.
Myth 4: “Good for me, good for the planet”
Healthy foods are often automatically assumed to be environmentally friendly. However, the nutritional quality of a food and its environmental impact are not necessarily related. For example, even though strawberries are highly nutritious, their environmental impact depends on whether they are grown locally or in a distant country, on a farm or in a heated greenhouse.
Similarly, while eating more plant-based foods is better for the environment, they may not always provide the same nutritional benefits as their animal counterparts. For example, plant-based foods are more likely to be incomplete sources of protein because they have lower digestibility and because they lack some of the nine essential amino acids needed by humans. Achieving a truly sustainable diet requires careful consideration of both nutritional value and ecological footprint.
Myth 5: “Budget cuts are needed to preserve the planet”
Many consumers believe that eating in an environmentally friendly way is expensive. However, scientific calculations show that a more sustainable diet is cheaper than the current Western diet. In high-income countries, plant-based diets are the most economical, with vegetarians and vegans cutting food costs by up to a third. Flexitarians who reduce their meat intake can save 14 percent on food costs.
However, costs can vary between countries: in low-income countries, where diets rely on cheap starchy staples, increasing intake of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes may not be affordable. Even in high-income countries, low-income families in food deserts may have limited access to fresh produce. In addition to changes in consumer behavior, the public would also benefit from economic and policy interventions to make a truly sustainable diet affordable and accessible to all.
