A team of Norwegian researchers has produced the first detailed map showing where the ecological impact of food production is concentrated. The visualization reveals that about 90% of food production comes from just 10% of the planet’s surface. Remarkably, five countries account for nearly half of the environmental footprint tied to food production.
NTNU, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, led the development of maps that depict the environmental and climate pressures exerted by the global food system.
“This is a pioneering effort, and mapping such complex data was a substantial undertaking,” says lead author Daniel Moran, a research fellow in the Department of Energy and Process Engineering. He collaborated with 16 researchers from multiple institutions, including partners in the United Kingdom and the United States.
The study aims to identify pathways to produce food with a smaller environmental footprint. “There are countless foods and many production methods worldwide. The environmental consequences are diverse and not easy to quantify. By clarifying the negative impacts, we can pursue more efficient food systems that protect ecosystems while ensuring global food security,” Moran explains.
The five influential countries
The study highlights five nations—China, India, the United States, Brazil, and Pakistan—responsible for nearly half of the global environmental impact from food production. The researchers emphasize that they did not label the smallest-footprint countries, noting that many have limited access to adequate nutrition and face food shortages.
The visualizations show which regions produce the most impact and how different food systems contribute to the overall footprint, offering a clear comparison across foods and geographies.
The study draws on data covering 99% of global food production, both on land and in water. The main environmental pressures include carbon dioxide emissions, water use, habitat disruption, and pollution. The authors emphasize that the life cycle of food—from planting grains to processing and consuming products like bread and bacon—was analyzed to capture total environmental effects. This includes soil depletion, pesticide use, waste streams, animal feed, irrigation, and transportation fuels involved in moving food to markets.
90% of food is produced on 10% of the world’s land
Findings indicate that 90% of food production takes place on just 10% of the world’s land area. Dairy and beef production alone occupy a significant portion of agricultural land, and livestock farming is linked to extensive water use and methane emissions. Yet the study suggests pig farming can impose a substantial ecological burden due to the resources required for feed production.
Locally produced food generally presents a smaller environmental footprint, Moran notes, though the manufacturing footprint can vary greatly for the same product across different countries. Even a single product, such as a dairy item, may involve milk powder and dried fruit sourced from distant locations, adding transport and processing emissions to the total.
The researchers stress that the environmental impact is a system-wide issue. For instance, diets that include marine feeds affect the ocean environment, while certain farmed fish rely on feeds grown on land. The team created multiple customizable maps that can be layered to study various effects, making the data accessible for policymakers, researchers, and industry executives alike.
Overall, the report suggests that options for reducing impact exist in both production practices and supply chains. Local production can be beneficial, but the footprints of manufacturing and processing should also be considered when choosing more sustainable alternatives.
“A product may be sustainable in one country but not in another,” Moran says. He points to differences in agricultural efficiency, such as soybean production being more environmentally friendly in the United States than in India.
The researchers caution that no single diet stands as universally best for the environment; optimal choices depend on country-specific factors. They emphasize balancing personal preferences and food sovereignty with the goal of lowering environmental harm across supply chains.
Reference work: Nature article detailing the underlying data and methods.”
—
Note: The findings are based on comprehensive life-cycle assessments and cross-border data synthesis.