The idea of a healthy and eco-friendly diet is often associated with a high budget. Recent international research offers an unexpected perspective by establishing a close correlation between the price of staple products and their environmental impact. This view challenges established preconceptions about the cost of good food choices.
By analyzing data from 171 countries, a team of scientists sought to establish a novel equation. Their goal was to precisely quantify the links connecting the price, nutritional value, and greenhouse gas emissions of foods. The results provide a new reading of the available levers to simultaneously improve public health and the climate situation.
The apparent paradox of cost and emissions
In most food groups, the cheapest option is also the one whose production generates the fewest emissions. This phenomenon is explained by often simpler production logic, with limited processing and shortened supply chains. Raw foods, like some grains or legumes, perfectly embody this principle of beneficial frugality.
However, the study models extreme diets to identify points of tension. A diet designed solely to minimize financial cost reaches a higher level of emissions than a diet designed to minimize carbon footprint. This divergence reveals that the sole pursuit of the lowest price can lead to suboptimal choices from an environmental point of view.
The analysis shows that two categories of foods are responsible for the majority of this gap. Animal products and staple starches account, according to the researchers' calculations, for most of the emissions difference between these two extreme diets. The composition of the food basket is therefore a decisive parameter.
The specific trade-offs of certain categories
For animal products, the most economical choice is often milk, whose climate impact remains lower than that of red meats. Small fatty fish, like sardines, have an even better carbon balance for a moderate cost. These nuances demonstrate that alternatives exist even within this often-criticized category.
Regarding starches, a clear trade-off appears. Rice, although frequently very affordable, generates higher emissions than wheat or corn. This difference is mainly attributed to methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, emitted by bacteria in flooded rice paddies. Its low price does not reflect its environmental cost.
For fruits and vegetables, the finding is different. Their carbon footprint remains relatively stable, regardless of their market value. This indicates that policies aimed at improving the financial accessibility of these products could improve diet quality without increasing their climate impact. This is an important lever for action.
Article Author: Cédric DEPOND