A banana from Ecuador travels 2,500 miles to your US grocery store. A lamb chop from New Zealand flies 8,900 miles. But here's what most food miles guides won't tell you: distance is not the biggest factor in your food's carbon footprint. In fact, focusing only on food miles can lead you to make choices that are worse for the environment, not better.
What Are Food Miles?
Food miles measure the distance food travels from farm to plate. The concept was coined by Professor Tim Lang in the 1990s as a simple proxy for the environmental impact of food transportation. The idea was intuitive: food that travels further uses more fuel, emits more CO2, and therefore has a larger carbon footprint.
The concept caught on quickly. By the mid-2000s, food miles had become a marketing concept — "locally grown" labels proliferated, supermarkets advertised regional sourcing, and consumers started asking where their food came from.
The metric has real value as a starting point. But it misses most of the picture.
Food Miles by the Numbers
To understand the scale, consider how far the average American meal travels. Research from Iowa State University found that typical grocery items travel an average of 1,500 miles from farm to retail. Some common examples:
- Avocados from Mexico: approximately 1,800 miles to the US Midwest
- Grapes from Chile: around 5,600 miles during the US winter months
- Olive oil from Italy: roughly 5,200 miles by sea freight
- Bananas from Ecuador: 2,500 miles to the East Coast
- Salmon from Norway: 5,400 miles to the US
These numbers sound significant. But the way food travels matters as much as the distance.
Why Food Miles Are Misleading
Transport accounts for only about 6% of total food-related greenhouse gas emissions globally, according to Our World in Data's analysis of lifecycle food emissions data. The majority — roughly 83% — comes from production: raising livestock, growing crops, applying fertilizer, and processing food before it ever reaches a truck or ship.
The numbers are stark. One kilogram of beef produced on a local farm generates approximately 60 kg of CO2 equivalent over its lifetime (methane from cattle, land use, feed production). One kilogram of lentils shipped 8,000 miles from India to the US generates roughly 0.9 kg CO2 equivalent total — including the transportation.
The lentils win by 66x, despite traveling halfway around the world.
This pattern holds across most protein comparisons. Even accounting for transportation, plant-based proteins produce dramatically less carbon than animal proteins regardless of origin. A locally grown chicken breast produces about 3.5 kg CO2e per kg. Tofu from Asia produces about 2 kg CO2e per kg including shipping.
Production method, not geography, is the dominant factor.
When Food Miles Do Matter
Transportation emissions aren't irrelevant — they just only matter significantly in one specific case: air freight.
Most imported food travels by container ship, one of the most fuel-efficient transport methods per unit of cargo. Container ships emit roughly 0.01 kg CO2 per ton-mile. By contrast, air freight emits 0.5 kg CO2 per ton-mile — 50 times more per unit of cargo moved.
Foods that travel by air are primarily:
- Fresh berries flown in out of season (strawberries from Peru in January, blueberries from Chile in winter)
- Asparagus air-freighted from Peru, which accounts for a surprising share of US imports
- High-value fresh fish like certain sashimi-grade tuna
- Exotic tropical fruits with short shelf lives
Asparagus from Peru is a useful case study. A kilogram of Peruvian asparagus shipped by air generates about 8.9 kg CO2e — higher than most other vegetables, though still far below beef. By contrast, asparagus grown locally in season emits about 0.3 kg CO2e per kilogram.
The rule of thumb: if it's a fragile fresh food from a distant continent, available only out of season, it probably traveled by air. Everything else — olive oil, canned goods, wine, coffee, chocolate, frozen fish, shelf-stable items — almost certainly came by ship.
How to Reduce Your Food's Carbon Footprint
If food miles aren't the main lever, what is? Five actions that actually move the needle:
1. Eat less beef and lamb. This is the single highest-impact change an individual can make. Replacing beef with chicken three times per week saves roughly 230 kg CO2e per year — equivalent to driving 560 miles less. Replacing beef with legumes saves even more.
2. Eat seasonal produce. In-season produce is less likely to have traveled by air and less likely to have been grown in energy-intensive heated greenhouses. UK-grown tomatoes in December require 3x more energy than Spanish field-grown tomatoes, even accounting for the transit distance.
3. Avoid air-freighted items out of season. Fresh berries and asparagus from South America in winter are the clearest examples. Check origin labels — most grocery stores are required to list country of origin for produce.
4. Reduce food waste. The USDA estimates that 30-40% of the US food supply is wasted. If you throw away half a pound of beef, you've wasted half the emissions of producing it too. Meal planning and buying only what you'll eat has a significant cumulative impact.
5. Cook at home instead of relying on processed meals. Ultra-processed foods have a higher carbon footprint per calorie than the raw ingredients they're made from, due to manufacturing energy, packaging, and refrigerated distribution.
Building a Lower-Impact Grocery Basket
Consider two hypothetical weekly meals and their total carbon footprint.
Meal A — High impact: Beef burger (200g beef patty) with imported winter tomatoes and avocado from Mexico, served with a side of asparagus from Peru. Total estimated carbon: approximately 8.5 kg CO2e for two servings.
Meal B — Lower impact: Lentil and vegetable curry with seasonal onions, canned tomatoes from Italy, and rice from US farms. Total estimated carbon: approximately 0.6 kg CO2e for two servings — a 93% reduction, despite using imported Italian tomatoes and rice.
The substitution isn't about choosing local over imported. It's about choosing plant proteins over animal proteins, and avoiding the small category of air-freighted luxury produce.
Food miles are a useful conversation starter, but they're a poor decision-making tool on their own. The actual data points to production emissions — especially from ruminant livestock — as the dominant factor in food's climate impact. Understanding this lets you make changes that actually matter.
Food Miles Calculator
Calculate the distance and carbon footprint of your food