Eating healthy can save money and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions compared to typical dietary choices, according to a groundbreaking global study. This research, conducted by the Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, examines the intersection of food costs, nutrition, and climate impact worldwide.
The study, published in Nature Food, challenges the prevailing notion that eco-friendly eating necessitates higher spending on premium products. Instead, it identifies locally available foods that meet basic nutritional needs with the lowest possible greenhouse gas emissions and monetary cost, comparing these diets with current consumption patterns.
Breaking Down the Findings
William A. Masters, a senior author and professor at the Friedman School, highlighted the study’s implications: “People can’t see or taste the emissions caused by each food, but everyone can see the item’s price—and within each food group, less expensive options generally cause less emissions.” This insight offers a potential win-win as governments and international organizations seek to reduce food system emissions without exacerbating food insecurity.
Researchers focused on identifying the most sustainable foods to meet nutritional requirements, based on the Healthy Diet Basket targets used globally by U.N. agencies and national governments. The study analyzed data on food availability, pricing, and associated greenhouse gas emissions, modeling five diet scenarios for each country.
In 2021, a typical healthy diet emitted 2.44 kg of CO₂-equivalent emissions per person per day and cost $9.96 globally. In contrast, a climate-optimized diet emitted only 0.67 kg and cost $6.95, while a cost-minimized diet emitted 1.65 kg and cost $3.68.
Understanding the Trade-offs
Elena M. Martinez, a lead author, explained, “In general, choosing less expensive options in each food group is a reliable way to lower the climate footprint of one’s diet.” However, the study also highlights trade-offs in specific food groups, particularly animal-source foods and starchy staples.
For animal-source foods, milk often emerges as the least expensive option, with lower emissions than beef and other meats. Yet, fish like sardines and mackerel offer even lower emissions at a moderate cost. In the realm of starchy staples, rice is typically the cheapest, although emissions are higher than slightly pricier wheat or corn due to methane emissions from rice paddies.
Implications for Policy and Consumer Choices
The findings aim to guide consumers, food companies, and policymakers toward more sustainable and affordable food choices. “At the grocery store, frugality is a helpful guide to sustainability,” Masters noted. While some emission reductions might require investments in new technologies, choosing less expensive food options can often reduce emissions.
This study is part of the Food Prices for Nutrition project and the Innovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions project, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK government. It provides a detailed analysis of how dietary choices can align with environmental and economic goals, offering a roadmap for future policy and consumer behavior.
Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funders and their institutions.
As the world grapples with climate change and food security challenges, this research underscores the potential for dietary shifts to contribute to both personal health and planetary well-being. By prioritizing cost-effective and low-emission foods, there is an opportunity to make meaningful progress in reducing the environmental impact of our diets.
