Our health, our environment: The Ecological Footprint of what we eat

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The research demonstrates that transitioning from an average UK diet to one based on nutritional recommendations can reduce the Ecological Footprint by 22%. Further reductions are possible through vegetarianism, sourcing local food, and choosing organic produce, with a 'best diet' combining all four criteria achieving a 44% reduction. The study also highlights the high environmental burden of livestock production and the potential for school meal programs, such as Scotland's 'Hungry for Success', to provide both health and environmental benefits.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Adopting a diet that follows nutritional recommendations reduces the food Ecological Footprint by 22% compared to the average UK diet, decreasing from 0.82 global hectares (gha) to 0.64 gha per person, despite the healthy diet involving higher total tonnes of food consumed.
  • Meat consumption is the primary driver of the Ecological Footprint in the average UK diet, accounting for 46% of the impacts, largely due to the land required for fodder and energy used in the supply chain.
  • A healthy vegetarian diet can reduce the Ecological Footprint by 40% compared to a healthy low-meat diet that also meets nutritional standards.
  • Sourcing food locally within the UK rather than relying entirely on imports could reduce the per capita food Footprint by 57%.
  • The 'best diet'—defined as one that is simultaneously healthy, vegetarian, local, and organic—can reduce the UK food Footprint by approximately 44% per capita.
  • Analysis of Scottish school menus shows that the 'Hungry for Success' (H4S) menu has a 42% lower Ecological Footprint than the pre-campaign menu, partly because it contains half the amount of animal products.
  • While UK-specific data is limited, a comprehensive study in Australia found that total energy intensity in conventional farming systems was 56% higher and greenhouse gas intensity was 211% higher than in organic farming.

Cite the original document

APA
Frey, S., & Barrett, J. (2007). Our health, our environment: The Ecological Footprint of what we eat. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/our-health-our-environment-ecological-footprin.pdf
Chicago
Frey, Sibylle, and John Barrett. Our health, our environment: The Ecological Footprint of what we eat. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2007. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/our-health-our-environment-ecological-footprin.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Frey |first1=Sibylle |last2=Barrett |first2=John |title=Our health, our environment: The Ecological Footprint of what we eat |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=May 2007 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/our-health-our-environment-ecological-footprin.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{frey2007our, author = {Frey, Sibylle and Barrett, John}, title = {{Our health, our environment: The Ecological Footprint of what we eat}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2007}, month = may, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/our-health-our-environment-ecological-footprin.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated