Relative environmental impacts and monetary cost of food categories: Functional unit matters

The aim of this study was to explore how the choice of a functional unit (FU) influences the environmental and economic rankings of food categories. For each adult in the latest French national dietary survey ( n = 2121), we built a dataset providing the energy and nutritional content, environmental impacts (14 metrics) and monetary cost of 20 food categories as consumed. The cost and environmental impacts of each food category were expressed for each individual according to 4 general FUs (1 kg, 100 kcal, 1 portion, 1 nutritional quality unit) and 9 nutrient-specific FUs (e.g., 50 g of proteins), and categories were ranked according to their median impact or cost. Cost and environmental rankings of food categories differed according to the FU (especially with nutrient-specific ones). Despite such heterogeneous rankings, some results were generally consistent: compared to other food categories, legumes, potatoes and whole grains were less expensive and less impacting, meats (especially ruminant ones) were more expensive and more impacting, and dairy and eggs had intermediate cost and environmental impacts. By providing a wide overview of different “metric × FU” situations, this study contributes to answering the important question of the right FU to use when evaluating the sustainability of food. • Environmental impacts and cost of foods differ depending on the functional unit. • Despite heterogeneous rankings between food categories, some results persisted. • Potatoes, legumes and whole grains were cheaper and with lower environmental impact. • Ruminant meat was generally the most expensive and the most impactful. • Dairy and eggs had intermediate cost and environmental impacts.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecological Economics
Published
2025-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108620
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.15
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Relative environmental impacts and monetary cost of food categories: Functional unit matters

Marlène Pérignon, Nicole Darmon, Matthieu Maillot, Anthony Rouault et al.
3 citations
Ecological Economics
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
5.15
article

Relative environmental impacts and monetary cost of food categories: Functional unit matters

Marlène Pérignon, Nicole Darmon, Matthieu Maillot, Anthony Rouault, Corinne Marmonier, Florent Vieux
article en
3 citations

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore how the choice of a functional unit (FU) influences the environmental and economic rankings of food categories. For each adult in the latest French national dietary survey ( n = 2121), we built a dataset providing the energy and nutritional content, environmental impacts (14 metrics) and monetary cost of 20 food categories as consumed. The cost and environmental impacts of each food category were expressed for each individual according to 4 general FUs (1 kg, 100 kcal, 1 portion, 1 nutritional quality unit) and 9 nutrient-specific FUs (e.g., 50 g of proteins), and categories were ranked according to their median impact or cost. Cost and environmental rankings of food categories differed according to the FU (especially with nutrient-specific ones). Despite such heterogeneous rankings, some results were generally consistent: compared to other food categories, legumes, potatoes and whole grains were less expensive and less impacting, meats (especially ruminant ones) were more expensive and more impacting, and dairy and eggs had intermediate cost and environmental impacts. By providing a wide overview of different “metric × FU” situations, this study contributes to answering the important question of the right FU to use when evaluating the sustainability of food. • Environmental impacts and cost of foods differ depending on the functional unit. • Despite heterogeneous rankings between food categories, some results persisted. • Potatoes, legumes and whole grains were cheaper and with lower environmental impact. • Ruminant meat was generally the most expensive and the most impactful. • Dairy and eggs had intermediate cost and environmental impacts.

Ecological EconomicsVol. 234
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (FR), Université de Montpellier (FR), Institut Agro Montpellier (FR), Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR), Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier (FR), Montpellier Interdisciplinary center on Sustainable Agri-food systems: social and nutritional sciences (FR), Constructions Industrielles de la Méditerranée (France) (FR), Centre International deHautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes (FR), Actalia (France) (FR), Nutrition, Obésité et Risque Thrombotique (FR), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (FR), L'Institut Agro (FR)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
5.15
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.