FoodSight Eco Score: How We Calculate Environmental Impact Grades

Food production accounts for approximately 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Making sustainable food choices—whether you're a consumer, chef, procurement manager, or sustainability officer—requires accessible, comparable data. That's why we created the FoodSight Eco Score.

Our rating translates complex lifecycle assessment (LCA) data into an intuitive A-E grade, similar to the Nutri-Score labels you see on food packaging or energy efficiency labels on appliances. Here's exactly how it works.

The A-E Grade Scale

Our eco score is based on climate change impact measured in kilograms of CO₂ equivalent per kilogram of food (kg CO₂e/kg). We assign grades A through E:

These thresholds weren't chosen arbitrarily. They're based on analysis of over 2,500 food items in our database, designed to create meaningful distinctions between food categories while remaining scientifically grounded.

You can explore the grades for any food in our Food Carbon Calculator.

Where Our Data Comes From

Agribalyse: The Gold Standard

Our primary data source is Agribalyse, a comprehensive lifecycle assessment database developed by ADEME (the French Environment and Energy Management Agency) in collaboration with INRAE (the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment).

Agribalyse provides environmental impact data for over 2,500 food products consumed in France, with methodologies that apply broadly to European food systems. Each food item is analysed across its complete lifecycle—from farm to fork.

ISO Standards Compliance

All environmental impact calculations in Agribalyse follow ISO 14040/14044 standards for lifecycle assessment. Impact categories use the EF 3.0 method (Environmental Footprint) recommended by the European Commission for Product Environmental Footprinting.

This isn't proprietary methodology—it's the same scientific framework used by governments, researchers, and corporations worldwide to measure environmental impact.

Beyond Carbon: Our Environmental Metrics

While the letter grade is based on climate change impact (because it's the most relevant for quick decisions), our detailed food pages show five key environmental metrics:

Carbon (kg CO₂)

Total greenhouse gas emissions expressed as CO₂ equivalents. This includes:

• Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use
• Methane from livestock and rice paddies
• Nitrous oxide from fertilisers
• Other greenhouse gases

This is the primary metric driving our letter grade.

Water (m³)

Freshwater consumption weighted by local water scarcity, measured in cubic metres (m³). A litre of water used in a water-stressed region has higher impact than the same litre used where water is abundant. Values under 0.01 m³ indicate very low water usage, while values over 0.1 m³ indicate high water consumption.

This metric matters particularly for foods like almonds, rice, and certain fruits grown in arid regions.

Land (m²)

Impact on soil quality and biodiversity from land occupation and transformation. High land use scores indicate foods that require significant agricultural land, often at the expense of natural ecosystems.

Beef scores poorly here because cattle require both grazing land and land to grow feed crops.

Energy (MJ)

Non-renewable energy consumed throughout the product lifecycle. This captures energy used in farming equipment, processing facilities, refrigeration, and transport.

Highly processed foods and those requiring cold chain logistics score higher on this metric.

Runoff (kg P eq)

Nutrient enrichment of water bodies leading to algal blooms and oxygen depletion, measured in kilograms of phosphorus equivalent (kg P eq). This is largely driven by fertiliser runoff from agriculture. For very small values, we display "< 0.1" rather than precise decimals.

Foods with intensive fertiliser requirements (many grains and vegetables) can have significant runoff impacts even with low carbon footprints.

Lifecycle Stages Explained

Our assessments cover the complete food lifecycle. Here's what each stage includes and its typical contribution to total impact:

Agriculture (60-80% of total impact)

The farming stage usually dominates environmental impact. It includes:

• Crop cultivation or animal husbandry
• Feed production for livestock
• Fertiliser and pesticide manufacturing and application
• Farm equipment and energy use
• Irrigation

For beef and lamb, this stage accounts for over 90% of emissions due to methane from enteric fermentation (digestion) and the vast land and feed requirements.

Processing (5-15%)

Food transformation activities:

• Slaughtering and butchering
• Cooking, baking, freezing, drying
• Canning and preservation
• Manufacturing of prepared foods

Highly processed foods have larger processing footprints, though this rarely exceeds the agricultural impact.

Packaging (2-5%)

Primary packaging (what touches the food), secondary packaging (boxes, cases), and tertiary packaging (pallets, wrapping). Glass and metal have higher production impacts than plastic, though end-of-life considerations vary.

Transport (5-10%)

All logistics from farm to processing to retail:

• Agricultural product transport
• Processing facility logistics
• Distribution to retail outlets
• International shipping where applicable

Air-freighted produce (out-of-season berries, exotic fruits) has significantly higher transport emissions than locally sourced alternatives.

Retail (2-5%)

Supermarket operations including:

• Store energy (lighting, HVAC)
• Refrigeration and freezer operation
• Waste from unsold products

Frozen and refrigerated products carry higher retail-stage impacts.

Consumer (5-15%)

Home storage and preparation:

• Refrigeration at home
• Cooking energy
• Food waste at household level

Note: Our grades show impact per kg consumed and don't include typical household food waste rates.

How to Use the Eco Score

For Consumers

Use the letter grade for quick comparisons. An A-grade vegetable side dish has roughly 20-40 times lower carbon impact than an E-grade beef main course. Small shifts—choosing chicken over beef, or adding more legumes—compound into significant reductions.

For Chefs and Menu Planners

Consider environmental impact alongside cost and nutrition when designing menus. Our calculator lets you compare alternatives quickly:

• Swapping beef for pork reduces impact by 60-70%
• Plant-based proteins can reduce impact by 90%+
• Seasonal, local vegetables minimise transport and storage impacts

For Procurement and Sustainability Teams

Use the detailed metrics for Scope 3 emissions reporting. Our data aligns with GHG Protocol methodology and can support:

• ESG reporting requirements
• Science-based target setting
• Supplier environmental assessments
• Menu carbon footprint calculations

Limitations and Caveats

We believe in transparency about what our data can and cannot tell you:

Regional Variations

Agribalyse data is primarily based on French/European production systems. A tomato grown in Spain has different impacts than one grown in a heated greenhouse in northern Europe, or one shipped from Morocco.

We're working on incorporating regional adjustments, but currently our data best represents average European production.

Seasonal Factors

Our data represents annual averages. Seasonal produce grown locally typically has lower impact than out-of-season equivalents requiring heated greenhouses or air freight.

A tomato in August might be grade A; the same tomato in December (greenhouse-grown or imported) might effectively be grade C.

Farming Methods

Unless specified, data represents conventional production. Organic farming has different environmental profiles—sometimes better, sometimes worse, depending on the metric and crop.

Processing Variations

The same ingredient can have very different impacts depending on processing. Fresh fish vs. frozen vs. canned vs. smoked will all have different footprints.

Our database includes many preparation variants to help with this, but can't cover every permutation.

Data Uncertainty

All LCA data contains inherent uncertainty from measurement limitations, modelling assumptions, and natural variation. Use grades as general guidance rather than precise measurements.

The difference between 2.9 and 3.1 kg CO₂e/kg isn't meaningful. The difference between 2 and 20 kg CO₂e/kg absolutely is.

Why This Matters

Food system emissions are one of the largest—and most actionable—contributors to climate change. Unlike energy or transport, where infrastructure changes take decades, food choices can change immediately.

Project Drawdown ranks reducing food waste as the #1 solution for addressing climate change, with plant-rich diets at #3. Both require understanding where food impacts come from.

Our eco score makes this understanding accessible. We're not asking you to memorise emission factors or run spreadsheet calculations. We're giving you a simple signal: A is best, E has the highest impact.

Explore the Data

Ready to see how your food choices compare?

• Food Carbon Calculator — Search our database of 2,500+ foods
• Beef Environmental Impact — Why beef has the highest footprint
• Vegetables — The lowest-impact food category
• Fish & Seafood — Understanding aquatic food impacts

For commercial kitchens looking to track and reduce food waste emissions automatically, see how FoodSight works or request a demo.