Net Zero and the hidden cost to food security

One of the privileges of writing this column for New Food over quite a few years is the opportunity to track and document how evidence evolves. The global food system is far from static; it is being continuously reshaped by major events, new science and new ways of interpreting risk. Occasionally a publication lands that makes me pause, not because it is wholly revolutionary, but because it sharpens, in some cases validates and in some cases challenges, positions I have previously taken.

A recent paper published in Sustainability does exactly that. Taking a systems-level look at how we measure sustainability performance across food supply chains, integrating environmental indicators with nutritional outputs and socio-economic dimensions, it has moved beyond debates of ever-decreasing circles that tend to dominate and instead explores the inherent trade-offs in feeding a growing global population.

Much of its analysis aligns with themes I have raised repeatedly in earlier columns, particularly around resilience, data integrity and the unintended consequences of single-metric policy making. However, I was struck by some of its findings, which challenge assumptions that have become almost ideological in large parts of the sustainability debate.

Let me begin with where the study reinforces some of my previous predictions. For years I have warned about the fragility of highly optimised global supply chains where efficiency has been the dominant design principle – maximising yield, minimising costs, reducing inventory and being ‘just in time’. But as we all saw during COVID-19, and again through more recent geopolitical and climate shocks, efficiency creates vulnerabilities. Systems engineered for environmental or economic efficiency often lack the necessary adaptive capacity when disrupted. Gains achieved at farm level can be rapidly eroded by transport bottlenecks, trade restrictions or climate events. These should all act as powerful reminders that sustainability cannot be divorced from resilience.

The paper also validates long-standing concerns about the dangers of relying on single environmental metrics, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, as the dominant measure of sustainability. Examples are given where some production systems with low emissions profiles actually deliver lower calorific or nutritional output per hectare than was the case prior to ‘improvement’. Other systems are shown to require substitution effects that shift environmental burdens elsewhere. Feeding people safely and adequately must remain central to sustainability thinking. Environmental progress that actually undermines food security is self-defeating.

Another area of strong alignment with my views lies in the collection and analysis of credible data. Regular readers will know how frequently I write about the importance of verified datasets in ensuring the authenticity and safety of food, particularly when it travels along complex supply chains. I have highlighted how unverified sustainability claims could become the next major regulatory risk.  The new study echoes this concern, identifying variability and uncertainty in sustainability datasets, particularly where lifecycle assessments depend on self-reported industry figures. Without harmonised measurement frameworks, sustainability claims risk drifting into the same vulnerability space we have seen with food fraud.

However, the paper does not simply reinforce and validate all my views, it also challenges some of them. Perhaps the most provocative finding relates to intensive production systems. Historically, I have expressed concerns about the environmental and systemic risks associated with highly intensive livestock and crop operations, yet the study presents evidence that, when assessed per unit of nutritional output, certain intensive systems outperform more extensive models on land use, emissions and water consumption. This should help change the narrative. If intensive systems produce more nutrition using fewer resources, they may reduce pressure for deforestation or land conversion elsewhere.

Sustainability, therefore, must be evaluated globally while simultaneously measuring different systems at a more local level. But this doesn’t just mean that local will always be better. A similar recalibration should be conducted around localisation. Shorter supply chains have often been promoted as inherently more sustainable and from an authenticity perspective they do offer traceability advantages – a point I have often made. But the study’s transport and production modelling suggests that local is not always lower impact. Production efficiency matters. Food grown in climatically optimal regions and shipped efficiently can, in some cases, carry a lower overall environmental footprint than domestically produced alternatives.

Where the study makes perhaps its most valuable contribution is in integrating nutritional density directly into sustainability modelling. Too often, environmental and nutritional discussions run in parallel rather than intersecting. By assessing emissions per unit of nutritional value, the paper has really helped reframe this debate. Some plant-based foods perform well environmentally but contribute limited micronutrient value, while some animal-derived foods provide concentrated essential nutrients despite higher emissions intensity. The implication is clear: nutrition (as well as safety) must remain central to all sustainability modelling.

From my own area of research, one of the most important implications of this work sits at the intersection of sustainability and food integrity. As sustainability credentials acquire market value, they become targets for fraud. I believe we are already witnessing this through organic food fraud, deforestation-linked commodity laundering and mislabelled production claims.

I firmly believe policymakers should take careful note. Binary narratives such as plant versus animal, local versus global, intensive versus regenerative may be politically attractive but they are scientifically flawed. Our food system operates through multiple trade-offs. Sustainability shifts affect resilience; resilience shocks affect food availability; food availability affects food fraud – thus the real complexities of global food security are evident.

For industry, I believe the new study offers both encouragement and caution. Investments in efficiency, precision agriculture and resource optimisation are delivering environmental gains. But sustainability claims must be multidimensional and evidence based. Simplified messaging may resonate with some consumers, but it will not withstand scientific or regulatory scrutiny indefinitely. The future food system will not be judged solely on how little it emits but on how well it feeds, how robustly it withstands shocks and how transparently it operates.

For scientists, this clearly points to developing better measurement and verification tools. For regulators, it means crafting frameworks that recognise complexity without stifling progress. For industry, it means embedding sustainability, nutrition, safety and authenticity within operations in a holistic fashion. Ultimately, a food system that is environmentally efficient but nutritionally weak, socially inequitable or vulnerable to fraud cannot claim to be sustainable.