When it comes to eating sustainably, most of us have blind spots. New research from the University of Nottingham found that people’s assumptions about which foods are worst for the environment often don’t match the science.
In the study, 168 adults were asked to group supermarket foods into categories based on how much they thought each one affected the planet. Their choices revealed a few clear patterns and some surprises.
People tended to see meat, dairy and highly processed foods as the biggest offenders. But they frequently overestimated the environmental toll of processed products and underestimated the impact of crops that require a lot of water, such as nuts. Many were also surprised to learn how much higher the impact of beef is compared with chicken.
“We designed an online task to engage people with the topic and provide an interactive and visual way of investigating their understanding of the environmental impact of food,” said lead author Daniel Fletcher, a postdoctoral researcher at the university’s School of Psychology.
Fletcher said the experience prompted many participants to rethink their shopping habits after learning how foods really compared in environmental impact.
“What was clear from the study is that there are a lot of misconceptions around this which really supports the need for environmental impact labelling which would help people to be more informed to make sustainable food choices,” added co-author Professor Alexa Spence.
The researchers say that simple “eco grades” on food packaging could make it easier for consumers to compare products and make choices that align with their values.
The research was published in the Journal of Cleaner Production and supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) through the Smart Data Research UK program.