Do foods imported into the UK have a greater environmental impact than the same foods produced within the UK?

  • J WebbEmail author
  • Adrian G. Williams
  • Emma Hope
  • David Evans
  • Ed Moorhouse



This study of seven foods assessed whether there are modes or locations of production that require significantly fewer inputs, and hence cause less pollution, than others. For example, would increasing imports of field-grown tomatoes from the Mediterranean reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing the need for production in heated greenhouses in the UK, taking account of the additional transport emissions? Is meat production in the UK less polluting than the import of red meat from the southern hemisphere?


We carried out a life-cycle inventory for each commodity, which quantified flows relating to life-cycle assessment (LCA) impact categories: primary energy use, acidification, eutrophication, abiotic resource use, pesticide use, land occupation and ozone depletion. The system boundary included all production inputs up to arrival at the retail distribution centre (RDC). The allocation of production burdens for meat products was on the basis of economic value. We evaluated indicator foods from which it is possible to draw parallels for foods whose production follows a similar chain: tomatoes (greenhouse crops), strawberries (field-grown soft fruit), apples (stored for year-round supply or imported during spring and summer), potatoes (early season imports or long-stored UK produce), poultry and beef (imported from countries such as Brazil) and lamb (imported to balance domestic spring–autumn supply).

Results and discussion

Total pre-farm gate global warming potential (GWP) of potatoes and beef were less for UK production than for production in the alternative country. Up to delivery to the RDC, total GWP were less for UK potatoes, beef and apples than for production elsewhere. Production of tomatoes and strawberries in Spain, poultry in Brazil and lamb in New Zealand produced less GWP than in the UK despite emissions that took place during transport. For foods produced with only small burdens of GWP, such as apples and strawberries, the burden from transport may be a large proportion of the total. For foods with inherently large GWP per tonne, such as meat products, burdens arising from transport may only be a small proportion of the total.


When considering the GWP of food production, imports from countries where productivity is greater and/or where refrigerated storage requirement is less will lead to less total GWP than axiomatic preference for local produce. However, prioritising GWP may lead to increases in other environmental burdens, in particular leading to both greater demands on and decreasing quality of water resources.


Eutrophication Food Global warming potential Greenhouse gases Imports Life cycle assessment Water use 



Many people provided data and contributed to developing the methodology. In particular, we thank Paul Watkiss and Martin Palmer, Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Meat Services (AHDBMS); P. Cook and RL Consulting, poultry production in Brazil; and Ø. Buhaug, Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute (Marintek). Funding from Defra is also gratefully acknowledged.

Supplementary material

11367_2013_576_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. AEA, Cranfield University, Moorhouse E, Paul Watkiss Associates, AHDBMS, Marintek (2008) Comparative life cycle assessment of food commodities procured for UK consumption through a diversity of supply chains. Final report for Defra project FO0103, 18 pp and Appendices.
  2. Barber A, Lucock D (2006) Total energy indicators: benchmarking organic, integrated and conventional sheep and beef farms. Research report number 06/07, ARGOS. Downloaded from
  3. Biel A, Bergström K, Carlsson-Kanyama A, Fuentes C, Grankvist G, Lagerberg Fogelberg C, Shanahan H, Solér C (2006) Environmental information in the food supply system. Report number, ISRN FOI-R-1903-SE. Swedish Defence Research Agency, Defence Analysis, Stockholm, 117 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Billiard (2005) Refrigerating equipment, energy efficiency and refrigerants.
  5. Blanke MM, Burdick B (2005) Food (miles) for thought: energy balance for locally-grown versus imported apple fruit. Environ Sci Poll Res 12:125–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buhaug Ø, Corbett JJ, Endresen Ø, Eyring V, Faber J, Hanayama S, Lee DS, Lee D, Lindstad H, Mjelde A, Pålsson C, Wanquing W, Winebrake JJ, Yoshida K (2008) Updated study on greenhouse gas emissions from ships: phase I report. International Maritime Organization (IMO), LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlsson-Kanyama A, Ekström MP, Shanahan H (2003) Food and life cycle energy inputs: consequences of diet and ways to increase efficiency. Ecol Econ 44:293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casey JW, Holden NM (2006) Greenhouse gas emissions from conventional, agri-environmental scheme, and organic Irish suckler-beef units. J Environ Qual 35:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Causapé J, Quílez D, Aragüés R (2004) Salt and nitrate concentrations in the surface waters of the CR-V irrigation district (Bardenas I, Spain): diagnosis and prescriptions for reducing off-site contamination. J Hydrol 295:87–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman K, Jenkinson DS (1996) RothC-26.3—a model for the turnover of carbon in soil. In: Powlson DS, Smith P, Smith JU (eds) Evaluation of soil organic matter models using existing, long-term datasets. NATO ASI Series I, vol 38. Springer, Berlin, pp 237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Defra (2008) Guidelines to Defra’s greenhouse gas conversion factors for company reporting. June 2008. Accessed from:
  12. Foster C, Green K, Bleda M, Dewick P, Evans B, Flynn A, Mylan J (2006) Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: a report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School, DefraGoogle Scholar
  13. Garthwaite DG, Thomas MR, Parrish G, Smith L, Barker I (2011) Pesticide usage survey report 224. Arable crops in Great Britain 2008.
  14. Goedkoop M, Oele M (2008) Introduction to LCA with SimaPro 7. Pre Consultant, Amersfoort,
  15. Gonzalez A, Romero E (1991) Influence of pumps on salinity of a coastal aquifer with legal protection (a zone in the north of Isla-Cristina, Huelva, Spain). Water Sci Technol 24:251–260Google Scholar
  16. Guinée JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, Koning A de, Oers L van, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S, Udo de Haes HA, Bruijn H de, Duin R van, Huijbregts MAJ (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment. Operational guide to the ISO standards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. Hospido A, Milá I, Canals L, McLaren S, Truninger M, Edward-Jones G, Clift R (2009) The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: a case study of environmental and social aspects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2006) Draft 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventoriesGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO (2006a) ISO 14040: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  20. ISO (2006b) ISO 14040: Environmental management—Life cycle assessmentGoogle Scholar
  21. Lillywhite R, Chandler D, Grant W, Lewis K, Firth C, Schmutz U, Halpin D (2007) Environmental footprint and sustainability of horticulture (including potatoes)—a comparison with other agricultural sectors. Final report of Defra project WQ0101Google Scholar
  22. Lloyd SM, Ries R (2007) Characterizing, propagating, and analyzing uncertainty in life-cycle assessment: a survey of quantitative approaches. J Industr Ecol 11:161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MAF (2006b) Sheep and beef monitoring report. A short-term financial and physical forecast reflecting farmer and industry perceptions of farming figures, trends and issues. July 2006. Downloaded from:
  24. MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Food) (2006a) Pipfruit monitoring report a short-term financial and physical forecast reflecting grower and industry perceptions of pipfruit figures, trends and issues in Hawkes Bay and Nelson. April 2006 MAF.
  25. Mason R, Simons D, Peckham C, Wakeman T (2002) Life cycle modelling CO2 emissions for lettuce, apples and cherries. Report for Department of Transport. Executive summary available at:
  26. Matsson B, Wallen E (2003) Environmental LCA of organic potatoes. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Horticultural Congress, ISHS. Acta Hort 619:427–435Google Scholar
  27. Milà i Canals L (2003) Contributions to LCA methodology for agricultural systems. Site dependency and soil degradation impact assessment. PhD Thesis, Universitat Autònoma do Barcelona, BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  28. Milà i Canals L, Burnip GM, Cowell SJ (2006) Evaluation of the environmental impacts of apple production using life cycle assessment (LCA): case study in New Zealand. Agric Ecosys Environ 114:226–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pimentel D, Pimentel M (1996) Food energy and society. CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group Boca Raton, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Saunders C, Barber A, Taylor G (2006) Food miles—comparative energy/emissions performance of New Zealand’s agriculture industry. Research Report No. 285. Lincoln University, CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  31. Schofield R, Thomas DSG, Kirkby MJ (2001) Causal processes of soil salinization in Tunisia, Spain and Hungary. Land Degrad Devel 12:163–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith J, Bradbury N, Glendining M, Smith P (1997) Application to SUNDIAL to simulate nitrogen turnover in crop rotations. Quant Appr Syst Anal 10:87–92Google Scholar
  33. Smith A, Watkiss P, Tweedle G, McKinnon A, Browne M, Hunt A, Treleven C, Naish C, Cross S (2005) The validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable development. Report for Defra.
  34. Torrellas M, Antón A, López JC, Baeza EJ, Pérez Parra J, Muñoz P, Montero JI (2012) LCA of a tomato crop in a multi-tunnel greenhouse in Almeria. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:863–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tukker A, Huppes G, Guinée J, Heijungs R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Suh S, Geerken T, Van Holderbeke M, Jansen B, Nielsen P, Eder P, Delgado L (2006) Environmental impact of products (EIPRO). Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. European Commission Joint Research Centre, EUR 22284 EN, 136 pp.
  36. van Gijlswijk R, Coenen P, Pulles T, van der Sluijs J (2004) Uncertainty assessment of NOx, SO2 and NH3 emissions in the Netherlands. Rapport nr. R 2004/100. TNO Environment, Energy and Process Innovation, ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  37. Vergé XPC, Dyer JA, Desjardins RL, Worth D (2008) Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian beef industry. Agr Syst 98:126–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Virtanen Y, Kurppa S, Saarinen M, Katajajuuri J-M, Usva K, Mäenpää I, Mäkelä J, Grönroos J, Nissinen A (2011) Carbon footprint of food—approaches from national input-output statistics and a LCA of a food portion. J Cleaner Prod 19:1849–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Warner DJ, Davies M, Hipps N, Osborne N, Tzilivakis J, Lewis KA (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions and energy use in UK-grown short-day strawberry (Fragaria xananassa Duch) crops. J Agric Sci 148:667–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Webb J, Misselbrook TH (2004) A mass-flow model of ammonia emissions from UK livestock production. Atmos Environ 38:2163–2176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weidema BP, Pedersen RL, Drivsholm TS (1995) Life cycle screening of food products: two examples and some methodological proposals. Akademiet for de Tekniske Videnskaber, Lyngby, 193 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams AG (2007) Comparative study of cut roses for the British market produced in Kenya and the Netherlands. Cranfield University, Cranfield, Report for World FlowersGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main Report. Defra Research Project IS0205. Cranfield University, BedfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolf M-A, Pant R, Chomkhamsri K, Sala S, Pennington D (2012) The International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook. JRC reference reports. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 65 ppGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • J Webb
    • 1
    Email author
  • Adrian G. Williams
    • 2
  • Emma Hope
    • 1
  • David Evans
    • 3
  • Ed Moorhouse
    • 4
  1. 1.Ricardo-AEAOxfordshireUK
  2. 2.School of Applied SciencesCranfield UniversityBedfordshireUK
  3. 3.Beef Production Systems Ltd.HuntingdonUK
  4. 4.Moorhouse ConsultingLondonUK

Personalised recommendations