The headache of sustainability.

"These days," explains Christian Nils-Schwab, former Executive Director of the EPFL's Centre for Nutrition and Food, "navigating the landscape of our food decisions has become a tricky exercise. Whether you're a consumer or a politician, every choice seems to be accompanied by the shadow of a doubt: if it's not detrimental to our health, then it could be detrimental to the environment, animal welfare or our budget. This complexity, which is likely to drive some people to inaction and disengagement, is the result of what I would call the food trilemma". 

According to the expert, when we look at the economic, ecological and societal dimensions of our decisions on agriculture and food, they often come into conflict with each other, making it almost impossible to maximise each of these aspects.

In the eyes of Charlotte de La Baume, co-founder and managing director of the start-up Beelong, apart from the difficult choice, another obstacle to sustainable food lies in the common idea that it is expensive. "Of course, this may be the case if we are simply considering replacing an average Western diet with a Swiss and organic equivalent. However, by reducing meat consumption ( known for its high cost), avoiding processed products (often more expensive), and favouring seasonal produce (generally more affordable), it is possible to allocate the savings made to buying more local and organic produce. For me, the real challenge lies more in the cultural dimension and established eating habits".

Compared with other plant products, avocados do have a greater environmental impact, mainly because of their high water consumption in already arid and intensively-produced regions. Nevertheless, a European beef steak will emit 165 times more CO₂, require 2.5 times more water to produce and use 18 times more land for the same weight. The score for a South American steak and/or a South American steak fed on soya derived from deforestation will be even higher. Even when compared with a Swiss steak, the difference is still significant. So, in all circumstances, the plant-based alternative will always be more environmentally friendly.

Unlike what you might think, the distance covered by a product is only a marginal factor in its environmental impact, unless it crosses an ocean and is transported by plane.

This raises questions about the very definition of the term 'local', because in reality, if we focus on the criterion of transport, the impact of a product from Europe is not automatically much greater than that of a product from Switzerland.

Take tomatoes, for example. A Swiss tomato grown out of season in a greenhouse heated by fossil fuels is far from optimal from an environmental point of view. It is preferable in this case to buy a tomato imported from southern Europe. In an ideal world, we should be eating vegetables that are both seasonal AND "local" in the "Swiss" or "European" sense.

It should be stressed, however, that this logic applies mainly to the comparison between two vegetal options. Even taking into account the avocado's air transport, the carbon footprint is still lower than that of Swiss steak. 

Add to that the issue of organic produce: if we stay with plant-based options and have to choose between an imported organic product - which has real environmental advantages - and a conventional local product, the environmental impact of transport will still tip the balance in favour of the non-organic product. 

So why organic? Organic farming promotes biodiversity and soil health by avoiding the use of synthetic chemicals. Although it offers few benefits in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, it does help to reduce water and air pollution and soil erosion.

The majority of fresh products with a limited shelf life are now sent to retailers by air. Air transport has a much greater impact than transport by boat or train. For example, 1 kg of pineapple from Ghana emits 5 kg of CO₂ by air, whereas the same pineapple emits around 50g of CO₂ by sea, i.e. 100 times less.

To understand the scale of the products transported, here are a few examples of the volumes of food that enter the Belgian market: 100,000 pineapples and 80 tonnes of strawberries and white grapes a week, plus up to 10 tonnes of mint leaves as well as 10 tonnes of cod a day!  

There are three interesting points to note: short flights produce relatively more CO₂ per km than longer flights, due to the proportion of emissions during take-off. But a transatlantic flight will always emit more because of the enormous number of kilometres to be covered. So, even if the distance of the journey remains an important factor, it is the type of transport that is decisive in calculating the environmental impact. While consumers are informed of the origin of products, it is almost impossible for them to know the type of transport used and therefore the impact of their choices.

In conclusion, navigating the complexity of food choices remains a daunting task, even for the most informed. Therefore, here is some practical guidance that we hope will guide you effectively towards choices in line with your personal values.