• A new chart ranks 30 foods by health impact and carbon footprint.
  • Beans, fruits and vegetables are top picks for health and sustainability.
  • Beef and processed meats score worst for both health and environmental harm.

The way we grow and eat food can have an impact on both our health and the planet. Agriculture can contribute to factors like greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater use—factors that impact the environment. At the same time, modern diets, which tend to be rich in ultra-processed foods, are a leading cause of illness and death, with eating habits like consuming too much sodium and too few whole grains responsible for over half of diet-related deaths.

In recent years, there’s been more interest in understanding how our diets affect both our health and the environment, and data shows that eating more whole, plant-based foods can be better for both people and the planet. However, while there’s plenty of research out there, it’s often complex and not easy for the average person to grasp. What’s missing is a simple, clear way to show how common food choices impact both health and the environment, so everyone can easily understand the trade-offs and make informed decisions. 

To help bridge this gap, researchers created a visual tool that helps people understand how their food choices affect both their health and the environment. It introduces a clear and easy-to-read chart that shows the health and environmental impacts of 30 common food groups eaten in the United States, and the research was published in Frontiers in Nutrition.

How Was This Study Conducted?

This study offers a simple visual tool to help people understand how different foods impact both health and the environment. The tool uses a chart, called a matrix, with two axes: one showing environmental impact and one showing health impact.

The matrix is divided into nine sections, making it easy to see which foods are the best, worst, or somewhere in between for both health and the environment.

To build this matrix, researchers selected 30 food groups commonly eaten in the U.S., with input from nutrition experts. Environmental impact was measured using carbon footprints, which reflect the greenhouse gas emissions from producing each food. Serving sizes were based on typical portions, and data was gathered from studies using life cycle assessments, which evaluate the environmental impact of foods from production to consumption.

Health impacts were assessed by looking at how eating certain foods affects the risk of common diseases like heart disease, diabetes and cancer. A Health Index Score (HIS) was created by combining data from large studies to classify foods as favorable, neutral or unfavorable for health. 

Finally, the 30 food groups were placed into a three-by-three matrix, with categories for low, medium and high environmental impact along one axis, and favorable, neutral or unfavorable health effects along the other. Colors were added to make the chart easy to interpret, helping people quickly see the trade-offs between health and environmental impacts for different foods.

What Did The Study Find?

This study found significant differences in both the environmental and health impacts of 30 common food groups. When it comes to environmental impact, measured by carbon footprint, foods ranged from as low as 20 grams of CO2 per serving for margarine to a staggering 3,895 grams of CO2 per serving for beef. 

Foods with the lowest carbon footprints—less than 100 grams of CO2 per serving—include whole plant-based options like fruits, vegetables, potatoes, beans, nuts and whole grains, as well as some processed foods like refined grains, vegetable oils and candy. Foods with medium carbon footprints—100-300 grams of CO2 per serving—include eggs, butter, dairy substitutes, meat substitutes and beverages like coffee, tea and sodas. 

High carbon footprint foods, with more than 300 grams of CO2 per serving, are mostly animal-based, such as cuts of beef, pork, poultry, fish, shellfish and dairy.

Courtesy of Loma Linda University.

Loma Linda University

In terms of health, the study used a Health Index Score (HIS), where lower scores indicate better health outcomes. Nuts and seeds scored the best, while processed meats scored the worst. Foods like fruits, vegetables, beans, whole grains, fish and coffee were found to have favorable health effects, reducing the risk of chronic diseases and mortality. Processed meats, red meats, and sugary drinks like sodas were classified as unfavorable due to their strong links to higher disease risks and mortality.

When combining health and environmental impacts into a single matrix, the study revealed that the following foods are considered to have a favorable health effect AND a low carbon footprint:

  • Fruits
  • Vegetables
  • Nuts and seeds
  • Beans and peas
  • Whole grains

Some foods, like fish and certain processed items, presented trade-offs, offering health benefits but having a higher environmental footprint, shown in yellow. Foods like beef, pork, and processed meats, which scored poorly on both health and environmental measures, were placed in the red zone, with beef standing out for its exceptionally high carbon footprint.

This study has some limitations to consider. While carbon footprint (CFP) is a useful measure of environmental impact, it doesn’t account for factors like water use, biodiversity loss or toxic substance emissions, which could provide a more complete picture. For example, certain nuts use a significant amount of freshwater to produce, which can have a negative impact on the environment. That factor was not considered in this evaluation. 

This matrix also simplifies complex data, treating foods within the same category as equally impactful, even though there can be significant differences. The authors highlight virgin olive oil versus refined vegetable oils as one example of this. Cooking and processing methods, like frying versus boiling, also affect health and environmental outcomes but are not included due to limited data and the need for simplicity. The study focuses on U.S. consumption patterns, which may not apply to other cultures or regions.

How Does This Apply To Real Life?

Understanding the connection between what we eat and its impact on both our health and the planet can feel overwhelming, but this study makes it easier to see the big picture. By using a simple visual matrix, it helps us identify foods that are both good for us and environmentally friendly (like fruits, vegetables and nuts) while also highlighting those that come with trade-offs, such as fish or processed items. 

For example, if you’re trying to make more sustainable choices, this tool shows that swapping out beef for beans or lentils may reduce your carbon footprint while also improving your health. Just remember—when focusing on the environmental impact, this chart only highlights the carbon footprint, not the land usage, water footprint or other factors. 

Nevertheless, if you’re wanting to eat greener and healthier, this matrix can guide small but meaningful changes. Imagine you’re at the grocery store deciding between different proteins for dinner. Knowing that beans have a lower environmental impact than chicken can help you make a choice that aligns with your values. Or, if you’re planning meals for the week, the matrix can inspire you to incorporate more whole, plant-based foods into your diet. This tool empowers us to take actionable steps toward healthier lifestyles and a more sustainable future, one meal at a time.

Our Expert Take

This study, published in Frontiers in Nutrition, underscores the powerful role our food choices play in shaping both our personal health and the health of the planet. By breaking down complex data into an easy-to-understand visual matrix, it provides a practical tool for making informed decisions. Whether it’s choosing foods with a lower carbon footprint or prioritizing options that reduce the risk of chronic diseases, the matrix offers a clear starting point for anyone looking to align their diet with their values. While it doesn’t capture every environmental factor, like water use or biodiversity, it’s a step in the right direction for simplifying the conversation around sustainable and healthy eating. Ultimately, small, intentional changes can add up to a big impact for both the planet and for your health. And having an easy-to-read chart may help navigate choices with a bit more ease.