Study Reveals Surprising Gaps in How People Understand Food's Environmental Impact

Most People Misjudge the Environmental Impact of What They Eat

When it comes to understanding how food affects the environment, most people are working with an incomplete picture. A new study reveals that widespread assumptions about which foods are most damaging to the planet are frequently off the mark — and that clearer labeling could be the key to fixing that.

The research, published in the Journal of Cleaner Production and conducted by psychologists at the University of Nottingham, found that people consistently misjudge the environmental footprint of everyday foods. The study is the first of its kind to examine these perceptions across a broad range of products typically found in a standard grocery shop.

Why Our Food Choices Have a Real Environmental Cost

Food production is one of the leading contributors to environmental damage worldwide. From greenhouse gas emissions to land degradation and biodiversity loss, what ends up on our plates has consequences that extend far beyond the dinner table.

Scientists assess a food's environmental impact through a method called life cycle assessment — a comprehensive "cradle-to-grave" analysis that tracks everything from the fertilizers and water used during production to the emissions and waste generated afterward. This approach measures multiple indicators, including CO₂ equivalent emissions, land use, and water consumption, giving a fuller and more accurate picture of a product's true environmental cost.

How the Study Was Conducted

Funded by UKRI's Smart Data Research UK initiative, the study recruited 168 participants from across the United Kingdom. Researchers asked them to independently sort a wide range of supermarket products into environmental impact categories of their own design.

Participants were then shown scientifically derived environmental impact estimates for each product and asked whether the findings were higher or lower than they had anticipated. The responses revealed a clear and consistent pattern of misunderstanding.

The Most Common Misconceptions

The study identified two main factors that people rely on when judging a food's environmental impact: whether it originates from animals or plants, and how heavily processed it is. Based on these mental shortcuts, most participants assumed that meat, dairy, and highly processed foods were automatically the worst offenders.

However, reality is considerably more nuanced. Several key misconceptions emerged from the data:

• Processed foods were overestimated. Participants tended to assume that high levels of processing automatically translate to high environmental impact — which is not always accurate.
• Nuts were underestimated. Many participants failed to account for the significant water demands of nut cultivation, leading them to underrate the environmental footprint of these seemingly "healthy" choices.
• Beef's impact was underappreciated. Participants were frequently caught off guard by just how dramatically beef outpaces other meats, such as chicken, in terms of environmental damage.

These gaps suggest that relying on broad categories — animal versus plant, natural versus processed — leads people to oversimplify a genuinely complex issue.

The Case for Environmental Impact Labels

Lead author Daniel Fletcher, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Nottingham's School of Psychology, noted that the study was designed to engage participants in an interactive way while revealing the limits of their existing knowledge.

"We found participants would be willing to change their purchasing behavior based on this task, reporting intentions to decrease or increase their future consumption of products for which they were surprised by how high or low the scientifically estimated environmental impact was," Fletcher explained.

He added that people appear to struggle when comparing the environmental impact of animal-based products against heavily processed ones, viewing the two categories as too distinct to evaluate side by side. A standardized grading system — such as an A-to-E environmental impact label — could make those comparisons far more intuitive for everyday shoppers.

Professor Alexa Spence, co-author of the study, emphasized the broader significance of the findings: "What was clear from the study is that there are a lot of misconceptions around this, which really supports the need for environmental impact labeling. It would help people to be more informed and make genuinely sustainable food choices."

A Path Toward Smarter, Greener Eating

The takeaway from this research is not that consumers are careless — it is that they are working without the right tools. When people are shown accurate environmental data, many express a genuine willingness to adjust their habits. The challenge lies in making that information accessible, digestible, and present at the point of purchase.

As pressure mounts on individuals, retailers, and policymakers to address the environmental cost of food systems, straightforward labeling could prove to be one of the most practical and impactful steps forward.