Environmental assessment · Scenario analysis
Food Systems & Environmental Footprints
Comparing the land, water, emissions, and eutrophication footprints of European, Western, and Mediterranean dietary patterns.
- Focus
- Food consumptionEnvironmental pressures
- Comparison
- Three dietary scenariosEuropean, Western, Mediterranean
- Indicators
- Four footprintsLand, water, GHGs, eutrophication
- Publication
- Nutrients · 2021Peer-reviewed article
The problem
Different food choices place different demands on land and water and generate different levels of emissions and nutrient pollution. The study assesses how the composition of a diet changes these environmental pressures.
Comparative assessment
Environmental footprints by food product.
TABLE 1 · GLOBAL AVERAGES
Environmental footprints of food
24 products · Four indicators · Values per kilogram of food
Scroll across the table to compare all four indicators.
| Food product | Land usem²/kg | Water useL/kg | GHG emissionskg CO₂ eq/kg | Eutrophicationg PO₄ eq/kg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pork meat | 17.36 | 1,796.00 | 7.00 | 76.38 |
| Beef meat | 326.21 | 1,451.00 | 60.00 | 301.41 |
| Poultry meat | 12.22 | 660.00 | 6.00 | 48.70 |
| Fish (farmed) | 8.41 | 3,691.00 | 5.00 | 235.12 |
| Milk | 8.95 | 628.00 | 3.00 | 10.65 |
| Cheese | 87.79 | 5,605.00 | 21.00 | 98.37 |
| Butter | 2.74 | 4,300.00 | 11.00 | 124.50 |
| Eggs | 6.27 | 578.00 | 4.50 | 21.76 |
| Bread | 3.85 | 648.00 | 1.40 | 7.16 |
| Pasta | 3.85 | 648.00 | 1.40 | 7.16 |
| Rice | 2.80 | 2,248.00 | 4.00 | 35.07 |
| Sugar | 2.04 | 620.00 | 3.00 | 16.92 |
| Olive oil | 26.31 | 2,142.00 | 6.00 | 37.26 |
| Other oils | 10.30 | 416.75 | 7.00 | 23.05 |
| Potatoes | 0.88 | 59.00 | 2.90 | 3.48 |
| Tomatoes | 0.80 | 370.00 | 1.40 | 7.51 |
| Onions | 0.39 | 14.00 | 1.20 | 3.24 |
| Other vegetables | 0.38 | 103.00 | 1.00 | 2.27 |
| Legumes | 8.58 | 327.33 | 0.70 | 10.25 |
| Apples | 0.63 | 180.00 | 0.40 | 1.45 |
| Oranges | 0.86 | 83.00 | 0.30 | 2.24 |
| Bananas | 1.93 | 115.00 | 0.70 | 3.29 |
| Other fruits | 0.89 | 154.00 | 0.50 | 2.43 |
| Nuts | 12.96 | 4,134.00 | 0.30 | 19.15 |
Key results
The modeled Mediterranean scenario had approximately 41% lower land use and 36% lower greenhouse-gas emissions than the European scenario. It also had the lowest water use and eutrophication potential of the three scenarios.
Scenario comparison based on Table 2; percentage differences calculated from the published values.
Analytical approach
Dietary scenarios
The study used FAO food-balance data for Europe and the United States (the Western scenario), averaged over 2008–2018, alongside a literature-based Mediterranean scenario. Foods were organized into 12 groups, and the three scenarios had comparable daily energy intake.
Footprint estimation
The analysis combined representative food quantities with published global-average life-cycle estimates of land use, freshwater withdrawals, greenhouse-gas emissions, and eutrophication potential.
Scenario comparison
Footprints were calculated per person per day to compare the scenarios and identify the food products contributing most to each indicator.
Practical relevance
The comparison shows which food groups drive each footprint and can inform food-system planning.
Interpreting the results
These scenarios use global-average footprint coefficients. They estimate environmental pressures, not observed biodiversity outcomes or the performance of a specific farm, supplier, or product.