Environmental impact of foods: the Green-Score A+ products

What the plate really weighs

Our food is one of the heaviest items in our environmental footprint. For France, the statistics department of the Ministry of Ecological Transition estimates it at around22%of the carbon footprint of household consumption in 2017, or nearly 2.1 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per person per year. It is the third largest item, behind transport (30%) and housing (23%).

The good news is that it is an area where you can act at every meal. The question is which levers really matter, and what theGreen-Scoretells us about this. To understand how this score is built, seeUnderstanding the Green-Score.

What weighs most: production, not transport

People often assume the distance a food travels matters most. The data suggest the opposite. In the French food footprint, agriculture is the largest contributing sector, with61%of food-related emissions according to the ministry, far ahead of industry (16%).

Globally, Our World in Data, drawing on the study by Poore and Nemecek published in Science in 2018, indicates that transport accounts for around5%of food system emissions. For most foods, it weighs less than 10% of the footprint, and land use and on-farm emissions make up more than 80% of the footprint of most products.

A telling example: shipping beef by boat over 9,000 km adds around 0.2 kg of CO2 equivalent per kilo, compared with around 60 kg for the beef itself. Choosingwhatto eat therefore matters far more thanwhereit comes from.

Orders of magnitude by food family

The figures below come from the study by Poore and Nemecek (2018), as reported by Our World in Data. They are global averages in kg of CO2 equivalent per kg of product: they vary widely by country and production method, and should not be applied directly to a specific product.

• Beef (average): around 60 kg, the highest of the products studied (around 100 kg for suckler herd beef, 33 kg for dairy herd beef).
• Lamb and cheese: more than 20 kg each.
• Pork: around 12 kg.Poultry: around 10 kg.
• Peas: around 1 kg, the lowest value cited.
• Avocado: around 2.5 kg, used as an example for transport.

Expressed per 100 g of protein, the differences remain clear: around 50 kg of CO2 equivalent for suckler herd beef (17 kg for dairy herd beef), 10.8 for cheese, 5.7 for chicken, 2.0 for tofu, 0.8 for pulses and 0.4 for peas. The sources consulted give no per-kilo value for cereals, fruit and vegetables or fish: it is best not to put a figure forward for them. Keep the general hierarchy in mind: animal products, especially ruminant meats and cheeses, weigh far more than plant proteins.

Air freight, season and packaging

Air freight.Air freight accounts for only0.16%of food tonne-kilometres, but a kilometre by air emits around 50 times more than by ship. It is therefore marginal in volume and heavy per product: it is better to avoid perishable goods flown in out of season than to rule out every product shipped by sea.

Season.It matters mainly through the production method. Our World in Data cites studies where heated greenhouse tomatoes in Sweden consumed ten times more energy than tomatoes imported from southern Europe. Local does not always mean more sober: an open-field product in season is a good habit. To know what to buy, seeFruit and vegetables in season, month by month.

Packaging.In the Green-Score, it counts as a penalty ranging from 0 to -15 points, depending on its recyclability.

What does a Green-Score A+ mean?

The Green-Score has seven classes, from A+ (very low impact, 90 to 100 points out of 100) to F (very high impact, less than 15 points). The letters A+ and F were added in September 2024.

The calculation starts from a life cycle analysis of the product's category (0 to 100 points), then adds bonuses and subtracts penalties (according to the Open Food Facts page, up to 25 points in each direction):

• Bonuses: farming practice labels (up to +20, for example organic), local sourcing (0 to +15), environmental policy of the country of origin (-5 to +5).
• Penalties: packaging (0 to -15), palm oil unless certified 100% RSPO Segregated or Identity Preserved (-10), capping at E for products containing at least 30% wild fish or seafood from overfished stocks.

The Open Food Facts documentation does not list any products rated A or A+. One can simply note that, since the score falls as the category's impact rises, products with a low starting impact (see the hierarchy above) begin with a clear advantage. For how the former Eco-Score has evolved, seeThe Eco-Score becomes the Green-Score: what changes.

Practical tips to reduce your impact

• Vary your proteins: occasionally replacing red meat or cheese with pulses, eggs or chicken reduces your footprint. A 2008 US study cited by Our World in Data estimates that replacing red meat and dairy products with plant-based foods one day a week avoids 0.46 t of CO2 equivalent per household per year.
• Build most meals around plants: pulses, cereals, vegetables and seasonal fruit are at the low end of the impact scale.
• Avoid fragile products flown in, and favour open-field seasonal produce over heated greenhouse produce.
• Look at the packaging: less over-packaging and recyclable materials improve the rating.
• Do not waste: a discarded food has had its entire impact for nothing.

The same logic applies inPalm oil: real dangers?, where the issue is primarily environmental.

Pitfalls to be aware of

A Green-Score A or A+ says nothing about nutritional quality or the level of processing. A product can have a low environmental impact while being very sugary, very salty or ultra-processed. Conversely, a very healthy food may be rated poorly for the environment.

• For nutritional health, seeUnderstanding the Nutri-Score: calculation, A to E ratings and limits.
• For the degree of processing, seeUnderstanding the NOVA classification.
• To compare them, seeAll scores compared: Nutri-Score, NOVA, Green-Score.

Other limits acknowledged by Open Food Facts: life cycle analysis covers biodiversity poorly, average values are used when manufacturers do not provide the origin or packaging materials, and the score is presented as still young. It is currently deployed for products sold in France.

On Yumiq, the Green-Score is one indicator to read alongside the others: the product page shows the number of additives detected (harmless, to watch, risky), the Yumiq-Score penalises controversial additives assessed by EFSA and ANSES, and the Yumiq star requires the absence of a risky additive.

Key takeaways

• Food accounts for around 22% of the carbon footprint of French households.
• Agricultural production weighs far more than transport.
• Animal products have, on average, a much higher impact per kilo than plant foods.
• A favourable Green-Score says nothing about nutritional value: cross-check it with the Nutri-Score and NOVA.

Sources

• Our World in Data - Environmental impacts of food production
• Our World in Data - You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local
• Poore & Nemecek, Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers, Science, 2018
• Ministry of Ecological Transition - Notre alimentation, c'est combien de gaz à effet de serre? (How much greenhouse gas does our food represent?)
• Open Food Facts - Green-Score, methodology and calculation
• Open Food Facts - Green-Score: environmental impact of food products