Isn't local meat better than imported plants?
The short answer
Usually not. Transport is a small share of most foods' emissions, typically under 10%. What you eat matters far more than where it came from.
- Published
- Last reviewed
- Reviewer
- Editorial placeholder
- Status
- sample
Sample data. The figures and sources on this page are demonstration records showing how evidence will be presented. They are approximate and have not yet been through our review process. Read about how we will verify evidence.
The claim
“Food miles matter most, so a local steak is greener than avocados or lentils shipped across the world.”
Why this question comes up
- Transport is visible and easy to picture; methane from a cow's digestion is not.
- 'Buy local' campaigns emphasise food miles.
What the evidence says
Across the largest global dataset of food life-cycle assessments, transport averages around 5% of food emissions, and for beef it is a few percent.
The exception is air-freighted fresh produce, which can have a high transport footprint. Most imported plant foods travel by ship, which is very efficient per tonne.Source 1: Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers
Weighing the claim
What is true about the claim
- Air freight does matter. Out-of-season berries or green beans flown in can have a footprint comparable to some animal products.
- Local food has other benefits: freshness, supporting regional economies, less packaging.
What may be misleading
- Food miles conflate distance with emissions. A shipped lentil has a smaller transport footprint than a locally trucked steak because ships carry so much per litre of fuel.
- Even if transport were zero for beef, its emissions from methane and land would still dwarf those of shipped plant proteins.
What remains uncertain
- Precise transport footprints for specific products, which depend on route, mode and refrigeration.
Bottom line
Choosing what you eat has a much bigger effect than choosing where it came from. Avoid air-freighted produce, but do not assume local meat is low-impact.
Evidence strength
Why this rating: Transport shares are consistently small across many independent life-cycle studies.
Supported by multiple systematic reviews or large, consistent studies using different methods, with few plausible alternative explanations.
Claims behind this answerEach claim has its own record with rating, methodology and sources.
Per gram of protein, beef from dedicated beef herds produces roughly 25 to 60 times the greenhouse gas emissions of beans, peas or tofu.
Beef is in a different league from plant proteins on emissions. Chicken and eggs sit in between.
Reducing meat and dairy consumption, especially beef and lamb, is one of the largest ways an individual's diet can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Yes. Animal foods produce most of food's emissions, and beef and lamb produce the most per gram of protein. Eating less of them lowers a diet's footprint substantially.
Sources
Each source links to our record of what it found, its limitations and what we used it for, with a link to the original.
- 1Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers
Joseph Poore, Thomas Nemecek (2018). Science.