Labels, meat-for-plant swaps can cut grocery carbon bill

Australians’ grocery bills have a hidden carbon cost akin to the average emissions of 17 million cars on the road, but researchers say a simple switch could make all the difference when it comes to improving shopping basket sustainability.

But one major medical research institute based in Sydney says replacing meat with a plant-based alternative can trim down carbon costs. But it says without a suitable labelling scheme, consumers are unlikely to understand the full impact of their weekly shop.

Meat products, which take up just 10% of the average shopping basket, accounted for half of emissions in the average grocery buy, while fruits and vegetables account for just 5% of emissions and a quarter of purchases.

“Dietary habits need to change significantly if we are to meet global emissions targets, particularly in high-income countries like Australia, the UK, and US,” says Allison Gaines, an epidemiologist from Imperial College London who is also based at the George Institute for Global Health in Sydney.

Gaines led a study published today in the journal Nature Food, which finds an average 26% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is possible through environmentally friendly shopping trolley substitutions.

“Consumers are increasingly aware of the environmental impact of the food system and willing to make more sustainable food choices [but] have lacked reliable information to identify the more environmentally friendly options,” Gaines says.

Among other findings, total Australian food-related greenhouse gas emissions were more than 31m tonnes – about the carbon output of 14 million passenger vehicles on Australian roads per year.

Call for food systems overhaul through labelling

Climate labelling is being pushed by the George Institute as a viable way to address slow progress in lowering the carbon costs of food systems in Australia and abroad.

Its researchers co-signed an editorial comment in the ANZ Journal of Public Health advocating for consumer-focused initiatives as a “partial solution” to address limited progress in making food more sustainable.

Chief among those is the introduction of carbon food labelling, which they say can help consumers make informed choices on product purchases and prompt industry change.

They also acknowledge the risk of a poorly designed system being introduced. Last year, Cosmos highlighted the ease with which companies have exploited soft labelling regulations, saying “industry interests continue to dominate community [health and climate] welfare”.

The George Institute’s food policy program director Simone Pettigrew points to the organisation’s “Ecoswitch” smartphone app which allows consumers to understand the carbon impact of products on supermarket shelves, but she says the deficit of standardised rules for product labelling is holding back improvement in carbon reduction.

“There is currently no standardised framework for regulating the climate or planetary health parameters of our food supply, but by using studies like this, we can develop innovative ways to help consumers make informed choices and create a movement for positive change,” Pettigrew says.