Neither the flavors, nor the calories or saturated fat, nor the possible allergens. Not even the ingredients that go against —if that is the case— the vegetarian or vegan philosophy of those who eat. Some people, when it is their turn to choose the menu, look at another key detail: the CO2 emitted throughout the production chain that has made it possible for that food to reach their plate. The practice is becoming more common. And, of course, it has already given rise to a few labels… And an effort by the industry to show that its products are respectful of the environment.
The phenomenon is so important that The New York Times (TNYT) has not hesitated to include it among the food trends it detects for 2023.
New sensitivity at the table. That we are increasingly aware of the “climate footprint” of the food industry is nothing new. The debate has been raging for some time and has leaked into the political sphere. That sensitivity is not limited to discussion forums, however. Some have made it a priority when deciding what ends up in their shopping cart.
“It’s no longer about eating sustainably. A new generation wants food from companies that are actively healing the planet through carbon-reducing agriculture, stricter animal welfare policies, and equitable treatment for those who grow and process food,” reflects veteran reporter Kim Severson in The New York Times.
…And new labels, of course. New trends often lead to new vocabulary. And this, of course, is no exception. When it comes to referring to those who apply climate awareness at the table, there is an extensive nomenclature that —as Axios points out— basically varies depending on where the diner focuses. Some terms are already a few years old. Perhaps the best example would be that of “climatarian” or “climarian” —an alternative proposed by the Fundeu for the English climatarian—, a diet that seeks to reverse climate change.
Those who practice a climarian diet focus —according to the Barcelona Culinary Hub— on vegetable products, such as lentils, beans, fruit or cereals, and of local origin. Chicken is even included on the list for those who eat meat as an alternative to beef, which requires more land and water. The basic idea is clear: that the food that is ingested has generated the smallest possible footprint of carbon dioxide and get the most out of what is consumed.
the list goes on. Another term is the “reductarian movement”, which according to the definition of the Reducetarian Foundation itself is made up of “individuals who have committed to eating less meat – red meat, poultry, fish and shellfish – as well as less dairy products and eggs regardless of degree or motivation. As a food option, it offers an alternative to those who do not want to dig up animal products from their tables. Its promoters also highlight that it proposes a flexible, healthy and sustainable approach.
The approach is similar to that applied by the “sustenatarios”, translation of the English sustainatarian, who set environmental sustainability as a priority, in addition to justice with animals and other humans. Basically —Urbandictionary details— they have a vegetarian diet, although they occasionally consume meat as long as it meets a series of requirements. The philosophy is transferable to the purchase of clothing or other fair trade goods.
… And, indeed, it continues. To this broad lexicon is also added the term “regenivore” (regenivore), which TYNT associates not only with the search for sustainable food, but also with products from companies that work in favor of the environment. A regenerivore could thus be defined —Natural Grocers specifies— as a person who “eats in a way that supports the change from degrading, stripping and paralyzing to regenerating and sustaining our planet”.
What are they based on? The truth is that studies abound that warn of the impact of our diet on the environment. According to the United Nations FAO, world livestock production generates about 7.1 gigatons of CO2 equivalent per year, which would represent about 14.5% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. In its analysis, the agency warns of the impact of the different links in the chain, from feed production to the use of fossil fuels or worrying methane emissions.
Animal-derived foods are not the only ones with an environmental footprint. Agriculture also emits CO2 and it is well studied how farmland takes up more and more surface area: between 2003 and 2019 they increased by 9%, which is equivalent to one million square kilometers (km2). Some studies have even already warned of the advance of land dedicated to soybeans and the pressure that this trend exerts on forests, savannahs or even tropical forests.
A matter of principles… and business. The trend has not gone unnoticed by the industry, from producers to stores or restaurants, forced to make a move if they do not want to give up those who embrace the new approaches. “By 2030 our routine food choices will be driven by the climate. Companies that mobilize now will win the future of food,” says a report by the Kearney consultancy.
As Axios collects, there are chains, including Just Salad, Chipotle or Panera Bread, that have already performed. Some companies have even opted to use carbon footprint labels. The Fresk Market recognizes that “climate food” will be a trend in 2023: “The premise is to eat for the health of the planet, with choices based on environmental impact […]Participation can include everything from eating pasture-raised foods, buying more local and organic ingredients to reduce CO2 emissions from transportation, to eating a plant-based diet with crops that are good for the soil.
A risky trend. Another side of the coin. The risk of increasing demand is that some people try to take advantage of it with shortcuts. They warn it strongly in Etarh.org, where they warn of “Greenwashing”, which could be translated as “green washing”. What does it consist of? Well, in promoting as organic products that do not really follow such criteria, a practice connected with the “misleading” labeling of food, something that has already led to lawsuits and forced the European Union to take action on the matter.
It can also fuel false myths, such as that consuming local products is necessarily better for reducing your carbon footprint. In 2020 Magnet echoed a study that concluded that it was preferable, for example, to consume a nut transported from Madagascar than a steak that came from a neighboring farm. The key was in the impact of each link in the chain on total emissions, a distribution in which transport has less weight than land use.
Cover image: Outcast India (Unsplash)
