Abstract
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to food consumption complement production-based or territorial accounts by capturing carbon leaked through trade. Here we evaluate global consumption-based food emissions between 2000 and 2019 and underlying drivers using a physical trade flow approach and structural decomposition analysis. In 2019, emissions throughout global food supply chains reached 30 ±9% of anthropogenic GHG emissions, largely triggered by beef and dairy consumption in rapidly developing countries—while per capita emissions in developed countries with a high percentage of animal-based food declined. Emissions outsourced through international food trade dominated by beef and oil crops increased by ~1 Gt CO2 equivalent, mainly driven by increased imports by developing countries. Population growth and per capita demand increase were key drivers to the global emissions increase (+30% and +19%, respectively) while decreasing emissions intensity from land-use activities was the major factor to offset emissions growth (−39%). Climate change mitigation may depend on incentivizing consumer and producer choices to reduce emissions-intensive food products.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The LULUC, agricultural and beyond-farm emissions data are curated by the FAO and freely available from FAOSTAT77. Population data used in this study are obtained from World Population Prospects of the United Nations83. Data of monetary values for transport and food-related sectors are obtained from the GTAP database74. Supplementary methods, discussion, figures, tables and datasets used in the analysis can be found in the Supplementary Information files. More detailed results are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request. Source data are provided with this paper.
Code availability
Code developed for data processing in MATLAB is available in the Supplementary Information files.
References
Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).
Tubiello, F. N. et al. Pre-and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 14, 1795–1809 (2022).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Agrifood Systems—Global, Regional and Country Trends, 2000–2020. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief Series No. 50 (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/food-agriculture-statistics/data-release/data-release-detail/en/c/1616127/
How to Feed the World in 2050 (FAO, 2019); https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf
The Future of Food and Agriculture—Alternative Pathways to 2050 (FAO, 2018); https://www.fao.org/global-perspectives-studies/resources/detail/en/c/1157074/
Clark, M. A. et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5 ° and 2 °C climate change targets. Science 370, 705–708 (2020).
Bajželj, B. et al. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 924–929 (2014).
Dhakal, S. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 2 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).
Peters, G. P. From production-based to consumption-based national emission inventories. Ecol. Econ. 65, 13–23 (2008).
Hong, C. et al. Global and regional drivers of land-use emissions in 1961–2017. Nature 589, 554–561 (2021).
Xu, X. et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat. Food 2, 724–732 (2021).
Hubacek, K., Feng, K., Minx, J., Pfister, S. & Zhou, N. Teleconnecting consumption to environmental impacts at multiple spatial scales: research frontiers in environmental footprinting. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 7–9 (2014).
Hubacek, K., Feng, K., Chen, B. & Kagawa, S. Linking local consumption to global impacts. J. Ind. Ecol. 20, 382–386 (2016).
Wiedmann, T. & Lenzen, M. Environmental and social footprints of international trade. Nat. Geosci. 11, 314–321 (2018).
Barrett, J. et al. Consumption-based GHG emission accounting: a UK case study. Clim. Policy 13, 451–470 (2013).
Liu, Z. et al. Four system boundaries for carbon accounts. Ecol. Modell. 318, 118–125 (2015).
Davis, S. J. & Caldeira, K. Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 5687–5692 (2010).
Feng, K. et al. Outsourcing CO2 within China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 11654–11659 (2013).
Hong, C. et al. Land-use emissions embodied in international trade. Science 376, 597–603 (2022).
Sandström, V. et al. The role of trade in the greenhouse gas footprints of EU diets. Glob. Food Secur. 19, 48–55 (2018).
Li, M. et al. Global food-miles account for nearly 20% of total food-systems emissions. Nat. Food 3, 445–453 (2022).
Cucurachi, S., Scherer, L., Guinée, J. & Tukker, A. Life cycle assessment of food systems. One Earth 1, 292–297 (2019).
Hubacek, K. & Feng, K. Comparing apples and oranges: some confusion about using and interpreting physical trade matrices versus multi-regional input–output analysis. Land Use Policy 50, 194–201 (2016).
Behrens, P. et al. Evaluating the environmental impacts of dietary recommendations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 13412–13417 (2017).
Kastner, T., Kastner, M. & Nonhebel, S. Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1032–1040 (2011).
Kastner, T. et al. Cropland area embodied in international trade: contradictory results from different approaches. Ecol. Econ. 104, 140–144 (2014).
Bruckner, M. et al. FABIO—the construction of the food and agriculture biomass input–output model. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 11302–11312 (2019).
Foong, A., Pradhan, P., Frör, O. & Kropp, J. P. Adjusting agricultural emissions for trade matters for climate change mitigation. Nat. Commun. 13, 3024 (2022).
Kim, B. F. et al. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Glob. Environ. Change 62, 101926 (2020).
Detailed Trade Matrix, Trade Dataset, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/TM
Emissions, Climate Change Dataset, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT
Tubiello, F. N. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: building the evidence base. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 065007 (2021).
Tubiello, F. N. et al. Methods for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Food Systems. Part III: Energy Use in Fertilizer Manufacturing, Food Processing, Packaging, Retail and Household Consumption (FAO, 2021); https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7473en
Le Tourneau, F.-M. Is Brazil now in control of deforestation in the Amazon? Cybergeo https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.27484 (2016).
Soares-Filho, B. et al. Cracking Brazil’s forest code. Science 344, 363–364 (2014).
Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L. L., Munger, J. & Gibbs, H. K. Brazil’s Amazon soy moratorium reduced deforestation. Nat. Food 1, 801–810 (2020).
Mataveli, G. et al. Science‐based planning can support law enforcement actions to curb deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12908 (2022).
Cohn, A. S. et al. Cattle ranching intensification in Brazil can reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by sparing land from deforestation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7236–7241 (2014).
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
Yip, C. S. C., Lam, W. & Fielding, R. A summary of meat intakes and health burdens. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 72, 18–29 (2018).
Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).
Vinci, C. European Union Beef Sector: Main Features, Challenges and Prospects (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2022); https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733676/EPRS_BRI(2022)733676_EN.pdf
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Questions and Answers (European Commission, 2022); https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_21_3661
Fuchs, R., Brown, C. & Rounsevell, M. Europe’s Green Deal offshores environmental damage to other nations. Nature 586, 671–673 (2020).
Fuchs, R. et al. Why the US–China trade war spells disaster for the Amazon. Nature 567, 451–454 (2019).
The State of the World’s Forests 2022. Forest Pathways for Green Recovery and Building Inclusive, Resilient and Sustainable Economies (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/3/cb9360en/cb9360en.pdf
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Making Available on the Union Market as Well as Export from the Union of Certain Commodities and Products Associated with Deforestation and Forest Degradation and Repealing Regulation (EU) No. 995/2010 (European Commission, 2021); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52021PC0706
Moran, D. et al. Quantifying the potential for consumer-oriented policy to reduce European and foreign carbon emissions. Clim. Policy 20, S28–S38 (2020).
Villoria, N., Garrett, R., Gollnow, F. & Carlson, K. Leakage does not fully offset soy supply-chain efforts to reduce deforestation in Brazil. Nat. Commun. 13, 5476 (2022).
Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H. & Haberl, H. Rapid growth in agricultural trade: effects on global area efficiency and the role of management. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 034015 (2014).
World Economic Situation and Prospects 2022 (United Nations, 2022); https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/world-economic-situation-and-prospects-2022/
Dalin, C., Wada, Y., Kastner, T. & Puma, M. J. Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade. Nature 543, 700–704 (2017).
Technical Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities (FAO, 2003); https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/methodology/tcf.pdf
Chepeliev, M. Incorporating nutritional accounts to the GTAP Data Base. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. https://doi.org/10.21642/JGEA.070101AF (2022).
Food Balances, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team et al.) (IPCC, 2014); https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf
Davis, S. J., Burney, J. A., Pongratz, J. & Caldeira, K. Methods for attributing land-use emissions to products. Carbon Manage. 5, 233–245 (2014).
Saikku, L., Soimakallio, S. & Pingoud, K. Attributing land-use change carbon emissions to exported biomass. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 37, 47–54 (2012).
Land Use-Land, Inputs and Sustainability Dataset, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/RL
Production, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
Crop Residues, Climate Change Dataset, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GA
Burning-Crop Residues, Climate Change Dataset, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GB
Fertilizer Use by Crop (FAO, 2006).
Conant, R. T., Berdanier, A. B. & Grace, P. R. Patterns and trends in nitrogen use and nitrogen recovery efficiency in world agriculture. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 27, 558–566 (2013).
IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Enteric Fermentation, Climate Change Dataset, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GE
Manure Management, Climate Change Dataset, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GM
Manure Left on Pasture, Climate Change Dataset, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GP
Osei-Owusu, A. K., Kastner, T., de Ruiter, H., Thomsen, M. & Caro, D. The global cropland footprint of Denmark’s food supply 2000–2013. Glob. Environ. Change 58, 101978 (2019).
Herrero, M. et al. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 110, 20888–20893 (2013).
Kalt, G., Kaufmann, L., Kastner, T. & Krausmann, F. Tracing Austria’s biomass consumption to source countries: a product-level comparison between bioenergy, food and material. Ecol. Econ. 188, 107129 (2021).
de Ruiter, H. et al. Total global agricultural land footprint associated with UK food supply 1986–2011. Glob. Environ. Change 43, 72–81 (2017).
Energy Use, Climate Change Dataset, FAOSTAT Online Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GN
Aguiar, A., Chepeliev, M., Corong, E. L., McDougall, R. & van der Mensbrugghe, D. The GTAP Data Base: version 10. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. https://doi.org/10.21642/JGEA.040101AF (2019).
Su, B. & Ang, B. W. Structural decomposition analysis applied to energy and emissions: some methodological developments. Energy Econ. 34, 177–188 (2012).
Muñoz, P. & Hubacek, K. Material implication of Chile’s economic growth: combining material flow accounting (MFA) and structural decomposition analysis (SDA). Ecol. Econ. 65, 136–144 (2008).
FAOSTAT Database (FAO, 2022); https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
Tubiello, F. N. et al. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015009 (2013).
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006); https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/
Marques, A. et al. Increasing impacts of land use on biodiversity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 628–637 (2019).
Wood, R. et al. Global sustainability accounting—developing EXIOBASE for multi-regional footprint analysis. Sustainability 7, 138–163 (2014).
Stadler, K. et al. EXIOBASE 3: developing a time series of detailed environmentally extended multi‐regional input–output tables. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 502–515 (2018).
World Population Prospects 2022 (United Nations, 2022); https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/
Acknowledgements
We thank T. Kastner for providing the code for the PTF approach. We thank the support from Greenpeace Germany for the initial data analysis, modelling and discussions as part of the project ‘Outsourced Environmental Degradation of the EU’. This research is also supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72243004, 72174111), the Shandong Natural Science Foundation of China (ZR2021MG013), the major programme of the National Social Science Foundation of China (21ZDA065), the United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UoB Policy Support Fund PSF-16). For the purpose of open access, a CC BY public copyright licence is applied to any Author Accepted Manuscript arising from this submission. Y.L., Y.H., D.W. and Y.Z. acknowledge the funding support by the China Scholarship Council Ph.D. programme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Y.L., Y.S. and K.H. designed the research. Y.L. performed the analysis with support from Y.H., D.W. and Y.Z. on analytical approaches and visualization. Y.L. led the writing with efforts from H.Z., Y.S. and K.H. Y.S. and K.H. supervised and coordinated the overall research. All co-authors reviewed and commented on the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Food thanks Francesco Tubiello and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Methods, Discussion, Figs. 1–11 and Tables 1–16.
Supplementary Datasets
All data of calculated results and uncertainty ranges in this study.
Supplementary Code 1
Zip file containing code necessary to recreate the results of the analysis.
Source data
Source Data Fig. 1
Source data for creating Fig. 1.
Source Data Fig. 2
Source data for creating Fig. 2.
Source Data Fig. 3
Source data for creating Fig. 3.
Source Data Fig. 4
Source data for creating Fig. 4.
Source Data Fig. 5
Source data for creating Fig. 5.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, Y., Zhong, H., Shan, Y. et al. Changes in global food consumption increase GHG emissions despite efficiency gains along global supply chains. Nat Food 4, 483–495 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00768-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00768-z
This article is cited by
-
Tracking emissions from food systems
Nature Food (2023)