Skip to content
The Balance of Health

Compare your food

Beef vs tofu

Two protein-rich foods often used in the same dishes. The environmental gap between them is among the largest of any pair of foods.

Compare by

Same amount of protein from each food. Fairer for protein foods. That is 385 g of beef against 625 g of tofu.

Greenhouse gas emissions

kg CO₂e per 100 g protein

Beef has about 19 times the emissions of Tofu, so Tofu has the lower impact here.

Beef: Roughly about 230 km of driving (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 2024)

Tofu: Roughly about 12 km of driving (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 2024)

All greenhouse gases released producing the food, from land clearing to retail, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents.

Calculation basis
  • Beef: Poore & Nemecek (2018), OWID version accessed 2026-09-06; life-cycle assessment through retail, per kg retail weight.
  • Tofu: Poore & Nemecek (2018), OWID version accessed 2026-09-06; life-cycle assessment through retail, per kg retail weight.
Tofu: Global average

Land use

m² per 100 g protein

Beef has about 57 times the land of Tofu, so Tofu has the lower impact here.

Beef: Roughly about 0.48 tennis courts (International Tennis Federation, 2024)

Tofu: Roughly about 0.01 tennis courts (International Tennis Federation, 2024)

Farmland needed to produce the food, including grazing and land for animal feed.

Calculation basis
  • Beef: Poore & Nemecek (2018), OWID version accessed 2026-09-06; life-cycle assessment through retail, per kg retail weight.
  • Tofu: Poore & Nemecek (2018), OWID version accessed 2026-09-06; life-cycle assessment through retail, per kg retail weight.
Tofu: Global average

Water pollution (eutrophication)

g PO₄e per 100 g protein

Beef has about 30 times the pollution of Tofu, so Tofu has the lower impact here.

Nutrient run-off from fertiliser and manure that causes algal blooms and dead zones, in phosphate equivalents.

Calculation basis
  • Beef: Poore & Nemecek (2018), OWID version accessed 2026-09-06; life-cycle assessment through retail, per kg retail weight.
  • Tofu: Poore & Nemecek (2018), OWID version accessed 2026-09-06; life-cycle assessment through retail, per kg retail weight.

Protein

g per 100 g protein

Beef and Tofu are about the same.

Protein content of the food as eaten.

Fibre

g per 100 g protein

Tofu contains fibre; Beef contains none.

Dietary fibre. Animal foods contain none.

Saturated fat

g per 100 g protein

Beef has about 2.8 times the sat. fat of Tofu, so Tofu has the lower impact here.

Saturated fat content. Higher intakes raise LDL cholesterol.

Animals slaughtered

animals per 100 g protein

Beef involves slaughtered animals; Tofu involves none.

Approximate number of animals slaughtered for this amount of food. Small fractions mean one animal yields many portions. Zero for plant foods; dairy and eggs involve animals indirectly.

Calculation basis
  • Beef: Approximate retail yield per animal inverted; yield assumptions are illustrative, not counts of individual animals spared. 227 kg carcass × assumed 70% retail yield: roughly 160 kg per animal.
  • Tofu: Approximate retail yield per animal inverted; yield assumptions are illustrative, not counts of individual animals spared.
Methodology, sources and caveats
  • Environmental values use retail-weight averages, converted to the basis you choose. Nutrition can use cooked weight; preparation and proxy assumptions are listed below. Farms vary widely around these averages; thin lines on the bars show the reported range where the source gives one.
  • Where a food has figures for more than one country or production system, the default is the all-systems figure for your country (or the global average). The figure menu under a chart lets you choose another; the source and geography update with it.
  • Nutrient values are reference composition figures. Preparation and variety change them, and absorption differs between plant and animal sources (see the nutrient panel).
  • No single metric tells the whole story. A food can score well on emissions and poorly on water, or well on protein and poorly on fibre.
  • Freshwater use: Water use matters mainly where water is scarce. A litre in a rainy region is not equivalent to a litre in a drought-prone one, so treat this as indicative only.
  • Scarcity-weighted water use: Scarcity weighting depends on where each food is actually grown. Global figures blend many regions; country figures are shown where a source provides them.
  • Animals slaughtered: Dairy and eggs are shown as zero because no animal is slaughtered per unit sold, but both systems involve animals; this metric only counts direct slaughter.
  • Beef: Nutrition uses cooked ground beef; footprint uses retail weight, without a cooking-yield adjustment. FDC 174036 is a candidate reference pending confirmation.
  • Tofu: Nutrition is an approximate firm-tofu composition, with an assumed 350 mg calcium per 100 g. FDC 172475 has 683 mg; brands and coagulants vary.

Sources: Poore et al. (2018); Service (2024); Nations (2024). See how we rate evidence.

Beef: sources and nutrients · Tofu: sources and nutrients

In short, per 100 g of protein

  • Beef has about 19 times the emissions of Tofu, so Tofu has the lower impact here.
  • Beef has about 57 times the land of Tofu, so Tofu has the lower impact here.
  • Beef has about 30 times the pollution of Tofu, so Tofu has the lower impact here.
  • Beef and Tofu are about the same.
  • Tofu contains fibre; Beef contains none.
  • Beef has about 2.8 times the sat. fat of Tofu, so Tofu has the lower impact here.
  • Beef involves slaughtered animals; Tofu involves none.

Change the basis above to see how the picture shifts by serving, weight or calorie. Build your own comparison in the full tool.