Cultivated meat is produced from a sample of animal cells, rather than by slaughtering animals. This technology shows promise for reducing emissions from animal agriculture, but its climate impact depends on the energy source used during production. Research and development are still in early stages, and whether the products can scale depends on continued investments, consumer approval, technological growth, and regulatory acceptance. While cultivated meat shows potential, evidence about its emissions reduction potential is limited, and the high costs of production may restrain its scalability. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.
Based on our analysis, cultivated meat is promising in its ability to reduce emissions from meat production, but the impact on a large scale remains unclear. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | Yes |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Limited |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | Yes |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | ? |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | No |
Cultivated meat (also called lab-grown or cultured meat) is a cellular agriculture product that, when used to replace meat from livestock, can reduce emissions. Cultivated meat is developed through bioengineering. Its production uses sample cells from an animal, in addition to a medium that supports cell growth in a bioreactor. Energy is required to produce the ingredients for the growth medium and to run the bioreactor (e.g., for temperature control, the mixing processes, aeration).
Since the development of cultivated meat is still in its infancy, there is limited evidence on its emissions savings potential from large-scale production. Preliminary estimates differ by an order of magnitude, depending on the energy source used in the lab environment. Using fossil energy sources, emissions generated from the production of one kilogram of cultivated meat could reach 25 kilograms CO₂‑eq. If renewable energy is used, emissions could be about two kilograms CO₂‑eq per kilogram of cultivated meat. By comparison, producing a kilogram of beef from livestock generates 80–100 kilograms CO₂‑eq, on average. Almost half of those emissions from livestock beef are in the form of methane. Producing pig meat and poultry meat generates about 12 kilograms and 10 kilograms of CO₂‑eq, respectively. Based on these estimates, cultivated meat could substantially reduce the emissions of beef. Compared to pork and chicken, however, its emissions depend on the source of energy used during production.
The cultivated meat industry is fairly new but growing rapidly. The first cell-cultivated meat product was developed in 2013. In 2024, there were 155 companies involved in the industry, located across six continents, mostly based in the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. Agriculture is responsible for about 22% of global GHG emissions, and raising livestock, especially beef, is particularly emissions-intensive. Therefore, cultivated meat has great potential to reduce related emissions as demand for meat continues to grow across the world. Cultivated meat enables the production of a large amount of meat from a single stem cell. This means that far fewer animals will be needed for meat production. Cultivated meat is also more efficient at converting feed into meat than chickens, which reduces emissions associated with feed production and demand for land.
Concerns about cultivated meat include scalability, cost, and consumer acceptance. Because cultivated meat is still an emerging area of food science, the cost of production may be prohibitive at a large scale. Although cell culture is routinely performed in industrial and academic labs, creating the culture medium for mass-market production at competitive prices will require innovations and significant cost reductions. There are still many unknowns about the commercial potential of cultivated meat and whether consumers will accept the products. In 2024, companies began to move from research labs to larger facilities to start producing meat for consumers. There are only two countries that allow the sale of cultivated meat: Singapore and the United States. Within the United States, about one-third of adults find the concept of cultivated meat appealing, and only about 17% would be likely to purchase it, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Good Food Institute. However, even substituting a fraction of the beef consumed in the United States with cultivated meat could have an important impact on reducing emissions. Cultivated meat is a novel food and may require consumer education and producer transparency on production methods and safeguards in order to become more widely accepted.
Congressional Research Service of the United States (2023). Cell-Cultivated Meat: An Overview Link to source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47697
Garrison, G. L., et al. (2022). How much will large-scale production of cell-cultured meat cost?. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 10: 100358. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100358
Good Food Institute (2025). 2024 State of the Industry report: Cultivated meat, seafood, and ingredients. Link to source: https://gfi.org/resource/cultivated-meat-seafood-and-ingredients-state-of-the-industry/
Good Food Institute (2024). Consumer snapshot: Cultivated meat in the U.S. Link to source: https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Consumer-snapshot-cultivated-meat-in-the-US.pdf
Good Food Institute (2020). An analysis of culture medium costs and production volumes for cultivated meat Link to source: https://gfi.org/resource/analyzing-cell-culture-medium-costs/
Gursel, I. et al. (2022). Review and analysis of studies on sustainability of cultured meat. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. Link to source: https://edepot.wur.nl/563404
Mendly-Zambo, Z., et al. (2021). Dairy 3.0: cellular agriculture and the future of milk. Food, Culture & Society, 24(5), 675–693. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2021.1888411
MIT Technology Review (2023). Here’s what we know about lab-grown meat and climate change. Link to source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/03/1075809/lab-grown-meat-climate-change/
J. Poore, & T. Nemecek (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360, 987-992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Risner, D., et al. (2023) Environmental impacts of cultured meat: A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment. bioRxiv, 2023.04.21.537778; doi: Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.21.537778
Sinke, P., et al. (2023). Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 28, 234–254 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8
Treich, N. (2021). Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges. Environ Resource Econ, 79, 33–61 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00551-3
Tuomisto HL, et al. (2022) Prospective life cycle assessment of a bioprocess design for cultured meat production in hollow fiber bioreactors. Science of the Total Environment, 851:158051
World Bank (2024) Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System Link to source: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/406c71a3-c13f-49cd-8f3f-a071715858fb
Xu X, Sharma P, Shu S et al (2021) Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food, 2:724–732 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x
More than one-third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted before it can be eaten. This means that the GHGs emitted during the production and distribution of that particular food – including emissions from agriculture-related deforestation and soil management, methane emissions from livestock and rice production, and nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer management – are also wasted. This solution reduces emissions by lowering the amount of food and its associated emissions that are lost or wasted across the supply chain, from production through consumption.
The global food system, including land use, production, storage, and distribution, generates more than 25% of global GHG emissions (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). More than one-third of this food is lost or wasted before it can be eaten, with estimated associated emissions being recorded at 4.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (our own calculation). FLW emissions arise from supply chain embodied emissions (i.e., the emissions generated from producing food and delivering to consumers). Reducing food loss and waste helps avoid the embodied emissions while simultaneously increasing food supply and reducing pressure to expand agricultural land use and intensity.
FLW occurs at each stage of the food supply chain (Figure 1). Food loss refers to the stages of production, handling, storage, and processing within the supply chain. Food waste occurs at the distribution, retail, and consumer stages of the supply chain.
Figure 1. GHG emissions occur at each stage of the food supply chain. Food loss occurs at the pre-consumer stages of the supply chain, whereas food waste occurs at the distribution, market, and consumption stages. Credit: Project Drawdown
Food loss can be reduced through improved post-harvest management practices, such as increasing the number and storage capacity of warehouses, optimizing processes and equipment, and improving packaging to increase shelf life. Retailers can reduce food waste by improving inventory management, forecasting demand, donating unsold food to food banks, and standardizing date labeling. Consumers can reduce food waste by educating themselves, making informed purchasing decisions, and effectively planning meals. The type of interventions to reduce FLW will depend on the type(s) of food product, the supply chain stage(s), and the location(s).
When FLW cannot be prevented, organic waste can be managed in ways that limit its GHG emissions. Waste management is not included in this solution but is addressed in other Drawdown Explorer solutions (see Deploy Methane Digesters, Improve Landfill Management, and Increase Composting).
Almaraz, M., Houlton, B. Z., Clark, M., Holzer, I., Zhou, Y., Rasmussen, L., Moberg, E., Manaigo, E., Halpern, B. S., Scarborough, C., Lei, X. G., Ho, M., Allison, E., Sibanda, L., & Salter, A. (2023). Model-based scenarios for achieving net negative emissions in the food system. PLOS Clim 2(9). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000181
Amicarelli, V., Lagioia, G., & Bux, C. (2021). Global warming potential of food waste through the life cycle assessment: An analytical review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106677
Anríquez, G., Foster, W., Santos Rocha, J., Ortega, J., Smolak, J., & Jansen, S. (2023). Reducing food loss and waste in the Near East and North Africa – Producers, intermediaries and consumers as key decision-makers. FAO. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3409en
Babiker, M., Blok, K., Cohen, B., Cowie, A., Geden, O., Ginzburg, V., Leip, A., Smith, P., Sugiyama, M., & Yamba, F. (2023). Cross-sectoral perspectives. In Shukla, P.R, and Skea, J., (Eds.), IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (pp. 1235–1354). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter12.pdf
Byrne, F., Medina, M. K., Mosqueda, E., Salinas, E., Suarez Peña, A. C., Suarez, J. D., Raimondi, G., & Molina, M. (2024). Sustainability Impacts of Food Recovery & Redistribution Organizations. The Global FoodBanking Network. Link to source: https://www.foodbanking.org/resources/frame-methodology/
Cattaneo, A., Federighi, G., & Vaz, S. (2021). The environmental impact of reducing food loss and waste: A critical assessment. Food Policy, 98. Link to source: https://doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101890
Cattaneo, A., Sánchez, M. V., Torero, M., & Vos, R. (2021). Reducing food loss and waste: Five challenges for policy and research. Food Policy, 98. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101974
Chen, C., Chaudhary, A., & Mathys, A. (2020). Nutritional and environmental losses embedded in global food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 160. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104912
Creutzig, F., Niamir, L., Bai, X., Callaghan, M., Cullen, J., Díaz-José, J, Figueroa, M., Grubler, A., Lamb, W.F., Leip, A., Masanet, E., Mata, É., Mattauch, L., Minx, J., Mirasgedis, S., Mulugetta, Y., Nugroho, S.B., Pathak, M., Perkins, P., Roy, J., de la Rue du Can, S., Saheb, Y., Some, S., Steg, L., Steinberger, J., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2021). Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nature Climate Change, 12(1): 36-46. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01219-y
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3): 198-209. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
Davidenko, V., & Sweitzer, M. (2024). U.S. households that earn less spend a higher share of income on food. USDA Economic Research Service. Link to source: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=110391#:~:text=U.S.%20households%20were%20divided%20into,32.6%20percent%20of%20their%20income
de Gorter, H., Drabik, D., Just, D. R., Reynolds, C., & Sethi, G. (2021). Analyzing the economics of food loss and waste reductions in a food supply chain. Food Policy, 98. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101953
Delgado, L., Schuster, M., & Torero, M. (2021). Quantity and quality food losses across the value chain: A comparative analysis. Food Policy, 98. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101958
Eurostat (2024). Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity [Dataset]. Link to source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasfw/default/table?lang=en&category=env.env_was.env_wasst
European Commission Knowledge Center for Bioeconomy (2024). EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System [Dataset]. Link to source: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy/monitoring_en
Fabi, C., Cachia, F., Conforti, P., English, A., & Rosero Moncayo, J. (2021). Improving data on food losses and waste: From theory to practice. Food Policy, 98. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101934
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014) Food wastage footprint: Full-cost accounting. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6a266c4f-8493-471c-ab49-30f2e51eec8c/content
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019). The State of Food and Agriculture 2019: Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/11f9288f-dc78-4171-8d02-92235b8d7dc7/content
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2023). Tracking progress on food and agriculture-related SDG indicators 2023. Rome: Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7088en
Food Waste Coalition of Action. (2024). Driving Emissions Down and Profit Up by Reducing Food Waste. The Consumer Goods Forum and AlixPartners. Retrieved from Link to source: https://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Driving-Emissions-Down-Profit-Up-By-Reducing-Food-Waste-FWReport2024-1.pdf
Gatto, A., & Chepeliev, M. (2024). Reducing global food loss and waste could improve air quality and lower the risk of premature mortality. Environmental Research Letters, 19(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad19ee
Goossens, Y., Wegner, A., & Schmidt, T. (2019). Sustainability assessment of food waste prevention measures: Review of existing evaluation practices. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00090
Guo, X., Broeze, J., Groot, J. J., Axmann, H., & Vollebregt, M. (2020). A worldwide hotspot analysis on food loss and waste, associated greenhouse gas emissions, and protein losses. Sustainability, 12(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187488
Hanson, C., & Mitchell, P. (2017). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste. Link to source: https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/business-case-for-reducing-food-loss-and-waste.pdf
Hanson, C., Flanagan, K., Robertson, K., Axmann, H., Bos-Brouwers, H., Broeze, J., Kneller, C., Maier, D., McGee, C., O’Connor, C., Sonka, S., Timmermans, T., Vollebregt, M., Westra, E. (2019). Reducing Food Loss and Waste: Ten Interventions to Scale Impact. Washington DC: World Resources Institute. Retrieved from: Link to source: https://www.wri.org/reducing-food-loss-and-waste-ten-interventions-scale-impact
Hegnsholt, E., Unnikrishnan, S., Pollmann-Larsen, M., Askelsdottir, B., & Gerard, M. (2018). Tackling the 1.6-billion-ton food loss and waste crisis. The Boston Consulting Group, Food Nation, State of Green. Link to source: https://web-assets.bcg.com/img-src/BCG-Tackling-the-1.6-Billion-Ton-Food-Waste-Crisis-Aug-2018%20%281%29_tcm9-200324.pdf
Hegwood, M., Burgess, M. G., Costigliolo, E. M., Smith, P., Bajzelj, B., Saunders, H., & Davis, S. J. (2023). Rebound effects could offset more than half of avoided food loss and waste. Nat Food, 4(7): 585-595. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00792-z
Jaglo, K., Kelly, S., & Stephenson, J. (2021). From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste. US Environmental Protection Agency. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/farm-kitchen-environmental-impacts-us-food-waste
Karl, K., Tubiello, F. N., Crippa, M., Poore, J., Hayek, M. N., Benoit, P., Chen, M., Corbeels, M., Flammini, A., Garland, S., Leip, A., McClelland, S., Mencos Contreras, E., Sandalow, D., Quadrelli, R., Sapkota, T., and Rosenzweig, C. (2024). Harmonizing food systems emissions accounting for more effective climate action. Environmental Research: Food Systems, 2(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/2976-601X/ad8fb3
Kenny, S. (2025). Estimating the Cost of Food Waste to American Consumers. (No. EPA/600/R25-048). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-04/costoffoodwastereport_508.pdf
Kenny, S., Stephenson, J., Stern, A., Beecher, J., Morelli, B., Henderson, A., Chiang, E., Beck, A., Cashman, S., Wexler, E., McGaughy, K., & Martell, A. (2023). From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impact of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways (No. EPA/600/R-23/065). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/field-bin-environmental-impacts-us-food-waste-management-pathways
Kummu, M., De Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of The Total Environment, 438, 447-489. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092
Lipinski, B. (2024). SDG target 12.3 on food loss and waste: 2024 progress report. Champions 12.3. Link to source: https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/champions-12-3-2024-progress-report.pdf
Mbow, C., C. Rosenzweig, L.G. Barioni, T.G. Benton, M. Herrero, M. Krishnapillai, E. Liwenga, P. Pradhan, M.G. Rivera-Ferre, T. Sapkota, F.N. Tubiello, Y. Xu, (2019). Food Security. In P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (Eds.), Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems . Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-5/
Marston, L. T., Read, Q. D., Brown, S. P., & Muth, M. K. (2021). Reducing water scarcity by reducing food loss and waste. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.651476
Moraes, N. V., Lermen, F. H., & Echeveste, M. E. S. (2021). A systematic literature review on food waste/loss prevention and minimization methods. Journal of Environmental Management, 286. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112268
Nabuurs, G.-J., Mrabet, R., Hatab, A. A., Bustamante, M., Clark, H., Havlík, P., House, J., Mbow, C., Ninan, K. N., Popp, A., Roe, S., Sohngen, B., and Towprayoon, S. (2022). Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. A. Khourdajie, R. v. Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1st ed, pp. 747-860). . Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.009
Neff, R. A., Kanter, R., & Vandevijvere, S. (2015). Reducing food loss and waste while improving the public’s health. Health Affairs, 34(11): 1821-1829. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0647
Nutrition Connect. (2023). Reducing Waste from Farm to Plate: A Multi-Stakeholder Recipe to Reduce Food Loss and Waste. Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). Link to source: https://nutritionconnect.org/news-events/reducing-food-loss-waste-farm-plate-stakeholder-recipe-compendium
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392): 987-992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Porter, S. D., Reay, D. S., Higgins, P., & Bomberg, E. (2016). A half-century of production-phase greenhouse gas emissions from food loss & waste in the global food supply chain. Science of the Total Environment, 571: 721-729. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.041
Read, Q. D., Brown, S., Cuellar, A. D., Finn, S. M., Gephart, J. A., Marston, L. T., Meyer, E., Weitz, K.A., & Muth, M. K. (2020). Assessing the environmental impacts of halving food loss and waste along the food supply chain. Sci Total Environ, 712. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136255
Read, Q. D., & Muth, M. K. (2021). Cost-effectiveness of four food waste interventions: Is food waste reduction a “win–win?”. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 168. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105448
ReFED. (2024). The Methane Impact of Food Loss and Waste in the United States. Link to source: https://refed.org/uploads/refed-methane-report-final.pdf
Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells, V. K., Evans, D., Koh, L., Carlsson Kanyama, A., Katzeff, C., Svenfelt, A., & Jackson, P. (2019). Review: Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions – What works and how to design better interventions. Food Policy, 83: 7-27. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.01.009
Rolker, H., Eisler, M., Cardenas, L., Deeney, M., & Takahashi, T. (2022). Food waste interventions in low-and-middle-income countries: A systematic literature review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 186. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106534
Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., & Ranganathan, J. (2019). Creating a Sustainable Food Future. World Resources Institute. https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf
Sheahan, M., & Barrett, C. B. (2017). Review: Food loss and waste in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 70: 1-12. Link to source: https://doi.rog/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.012
Kaza, Silpa, Lisa Yao, Perinaz Bhada-Tata, and Frank Van Woerden (2018). What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. Urban Development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648 -1329-0. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO
Swannell, R., Falconer Hall, M., Tay, R., & Quested, T. (2019). The food waste atlas: An important tool to track food loss and waste and support the creation of a sustainable global food system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146: 534-545. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.006
Thi, N. B. D., Kumar, G., & Lin, C.-Y. (2015). An overview of food waste management in developing countries: Current status and future perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 157: 220-229. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.022
Tubiello, F. N., Karl, K., Flammini, A., Gütschow, J., Obli-Laryea, G., Conchedda, G., Pan, X., Qi, S. Y., Halldórudóttir Heiðarsdóttir, H., Wanner, N., Quadrelli, R., Rocha Souza, L., Benoit, P., Hayek, M., Sandalow, D., Mencos Contreras, E., Rosenzweig, C., Rosero Moncayo, J., Conforti, P., & Torero, M. (2022). Pre- and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth System Science Data, 14(4): 1795-1809. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1795-2022
UNEP. (2024). Food Waste Index Report 2024. Think Eat Save: Tracking Progress to Halve Global Food Waste. Link to source: https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/45230
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Food Facts: How to Cut Food Waste and Maintain Food Safety. Food and Drug Administration. Link to source: https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/how-cut-food-waste-and-maintain-food-safety
WasteMAP | Home. (n.d.). Retrieved October 24, 2024, from Link to source: https://wastemap.earth/
Wilson, N. L. W., Rickard, B. J., Saputo, R., & Ho, S.-T. (2017). Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 35-44. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.004
World Bank. (2020). Addressing Food Loss and Waste: A Global Problem with Local Solutions. World Bank. Link to source: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/1564bf5c-ed24-5224-b5d8-93cd62aa3611
WRAP (2023). UK Food System Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Progress towards the Courtauld 2030 target. Link to source: https://www.wrap.ngo/sites/default/files/2024-05/WRAP-MIANZW-Annual-Progress-Summary-report-22-23-Variation-1-2024-04-30.pdf
WRAP (2024). UK Food System Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Progress towards the Courtauld 2030 target. https://www.wrap.ngo/sites/default/files/2024-12/WRAP-Courtauld-2030-GHG-2324.pdf
WWF-UK. (2021). Driven to waste: The Global Impact of Food Loss and Waste on Farms. Retrieved from Link to source: https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/5p58sxloyr_technical_report_wwf_farm_stage_food_loss_and_waste.pdf
WWF-WRAP. (2020). Halving Food Loss and Waste in the EU by 2030: the major steps needed to accelerate progress. Retrieved from Link to source: https://www.wrap.ngo/resources/report/halving-food-loss-and-waste-eu-2030-major-steps-needed-accelerate-progress
Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Herpen, E. V., O’Connor, C., Östergren, K., & Cheng, S. 2017. Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data. Env Sci Technol. 51, 6618-6633. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00401
Ziervogel, G., & Ericksen, P. J. (2010). Adapting to climate change to sustain food security. WIREs Climate Change, 1(4), 525-540. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.56
Zhu, J., Luo, Z., Sun, T., Li, W., Zhou, W., Wang, X., Fei, X., Tong, H., & Yin, K. (2023). Cradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. Nature Food, 4(3), 247-256. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00710-3
Erika Luna
Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.
Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.
Emily Cassidy, Ph.D.
James Gerber, Ph.D.
Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.
Daniel Jasper
Alex Sweeney
Eric Toensmeier
Paul C. West, Ph.D.
Aiyana Bodi
Hannah Henkin
Megan Matthews, Ph.D.
Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.
Ted Otte
Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Paul C. West, Ph.D.
Our analysis estimates that reducing FLW reduces emissions 2.82 t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) for every metric ton of food saved (Table 1). This estimate is based on selected country and global assessments from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), public agencies, and development banks (ReFED, 2024; World Bank, 2020; WRAP, 2024). All studies included in this estimation reported a reduction in both volumes of FLW and GHG emissions. However, it is important to recognize that the range of embodied emissions varies widely across foods (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). For example, reducing meat waste can be more effective than reducing fruit waste because the embodied emissions are much higher.
Effectiveness is only reported on a 100-yr time frame here because our data sources did not include enough information to separate out the contribution of different GHGs and calculate the effectiveness on a 20-yr time frame.
Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.
Unit: t CO₂‑eq /t reduced FLW, 100-yr basis
| 25th percentile | 2.75 |
| mean | 3.11 |
| median (50th percentile) | 2.82 |
| 75th percentile | 3.30 |
The net cost of baseline FLW is US$932.55/t waste, based on values from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2014) and Hegensholt et al. (2018). The median net cost of implementing strategies and practices that reduce FLW is US$385.50/t waste reduced, based on values from ReFED (2024) and Hanson and Mitchell (2017). These costs include, but are not limited to, improvements to inventory tracking, storage, and diversion to food banks. Therefore, the net cost of the solution compared to baseline is a total savings of US$547.05/t waste reduced.
Therefore, reducing emissions for FLW is cost-effective, saving US$193.99/t avoided CO2 -eq on a 100-yr basis (Table 2).
Table 2. Net cost per unit climate impact.
Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq , 2023
| Median (100-yr basis) | -193.99 |
Learning curve data are not yet available for this solution.
Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.
At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.
Reduce Food Loss and Waste is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than nominal and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.
Reducing FLW through consumer behavior, supply chain efficiencies, or other means can lead to lower food prices, creating a rebound effect that leads to increased consumption and GHG emissions (Hegwood et al., 2023). This rebound effect could offset around 53–71% of the mitigation benefits (Hegwood et al., 2023). Population and economic growth also increase FLW. The question remains however, who should bear the cost of implementing FLW solutions. A combination of value chain investments by governments and waste taxes for consumers may be required for optimal FLW reduction (Gatto, 2023; Hegwood, 2023; The World Bank, 2020).
Strategies for managing post-consumer waste through composting and landfills are captured in other Project Drawdown solutions (see Improve Landfill Management, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).
Due to a lack of data we were not able to quantify current adoption for this solution.
Data on adoption trends were not available.
We assumed an adoption ceiling of 1.75 Gt of FLW reduction in 2023, which reflects a 100% reduction in FLW (Table 3). While reducing FLW by 100% is unrealistic because some losses and waste are inevitable (e.g., trimmings, fruit pits and peels) and some surplus food is needed to ensure a stable food supply (HLPE, 2014), we kept that simple assumption because there wasn’t sufficient information on the amount of inevitable waste, and it is consistent with other research used in this assessment.
Table 3. Adoption ceiling.
Unit: t FLW reduced/yr
| Median | 1,750,000,000 |
Studies consider that halving the reduction in FLW by 2050 is extremely ambitious and would require “breakthrough technologies,” whereas a 25% reduction is classified as highly ambitious, and a 10% reduction is more realistic based on coordinated efforts (Searchinger, 2019; Springmann et al., 2018). With our estimation of 1.75 Gt of FLW per year, a 25% reduction equals 0.48 Gt, while a 50% reduction would represent 0.95 Gt of reduced FLW.
It is important to acknowledge that, 10 years after the 50% reduction target was set in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, Goal 12.3), the world has not made sufficient progress. The challenge has therefore become larger as the amounts of FLW keep increasing at a rate of 2.2%/yr (Gatto & Chepeliev, 2023; Hegnsholt, et al. 2018; Porter et al., 2016).
As a result of these outcomes, we have selected a 25% reduction in FLW as our Achievable – Low and 50% as our Achievable – High. Reductions in FLW are 437.5, 875, and 1,750 mt FLW/year for Achievable – Low, Achievable – High, and Adoption Ceiling, respectively (Table 4).
Table 4: Adoption levels.
Unit: t FLW reduced/yr
| Current adoption (baseline) | Not determined |
| Achievable – Low (25% of total FLW) | 437,500,000 |
| Achievable – High (50% of total FLW) | 875,000,000 |
| Adoption ceiling (100% of total FLW) | 1,750,000,000 |
An Achievable – Low (25% FLW reduction) could represent 1.23 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) of reduced emissions, whereas an Achievable – High (50% FLW reduction) could represent up to 2.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. The adoption potential (100% FLW reduction) would result in 4.94 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 5). We are only able to report emissions outcomes on a 100-yr basis here because our data sources generally did not separate out the emissions from shorter-lived GHGs such as from methane or report emissions on a 20-yr basis.
Table 5. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.
Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis
| Current adoption (1.5% of total FLW) | Not determined |
| Achievable – Low (25% of total FLW) | 1.23 |
| Achievable – High (50% of total FLW) | 2.47 |
| Adoption ceiling (100% of total FLW) | 4.94 |
We also compiled studies that have modeled the climate impacts of different FLW reduction scenarios, from 10% to 75%. For an achievable 25% reduction, Scheringer (2019) estimated a climate impact of 1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Studies that modeled the climate impact of a 50% reduction by 2050 estimated between 0.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (excluding emissions from agricultural production and land use change; Roe at al., 2021) to 3.1–4.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (including emissions from agricultural production and land use change; Roe at al., 2021; Searchinger et al., 2019).
Multiple studies stated that climate impacts from FLW reduction would be greater when combined with the implementation of dietary changes (see the Improve Diets solution; Almaraz et al., 2023; Babiker et al.; 2022; Roe et al., 2021; Springmann et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2023).
Households and communities can strengthen adaptation to climate change by improving food storage, which helps reduce food loss (Ziervogel & Ericksen, 2010). Better food storage infrastructure improves food security from extreme weather events such as drought or floods which make it more difficult to grow food and can disrupt food distribution (Mbow et al., 2020).
FLW accounts for a loss of about US$1 trillion annually (World Bank, 2020). In the United States, a four-person household spends about US$2,913 on food that is wasted (Kenny, 2025). These household-level savings are particularly important for low-income families because they commonly spend a higher proportion of their income on food (Davidenko & Sweitzer, 2024). Reducing FLW can improve economic efficiency (Jaglo et al., 2021). In fact, a report by Champions 12.3 found efforts to reduce food waste produced positive returns on investments in cities, businesses, and households in the United Kingdom (Hanson & Mitchell, 2017). FLW in low- and middle-income mostly occurs during the pre-consumer stages, such as during storage, processing, and transport (World Bank, 2018). Preventive measures to reduce these losses have been linked to improved incomes and profits (Rolker et al., 2022).
Reducing FLW increases the amount of available food, thereby improving food security without requiring increased production (Neff et al., 2015). The World Resources Institute estimated that halving the rate of FLW could reduce the projected global need for food approximately 20% by 2050 (Searchinger et al., 2019). In the United States, about 30–40% of food is wasted (U.S. Food and Drug Administration [U.S. FDA], 2019) with this uneaten food accounting for enough calories to feed more than 150 million people annually (Jaglo et al., 2021). These studies demonstrate that reducing FLW can simultaneously decrease the demand for food production while improving food security.
Policies that reduce food waste at the consumer level, such as improved food packaging and clearer information on shelf life and date labels, can reduce the number of foodborne illnesses (Neff et al., 2015; U.S. FDA, 2019). Additionally, efforts to improve food storage and food handling can further reduce illnesses and improve working conditions for food-supply-chain workers (Neff et al., 2015). Reducing FLW can lower air pollution from food production, processing, and transportation, and from disposal of wasted food (Nutrition Connect, 2023). Gatto and Chepeliev (2024) found that reducing FLW can improve air quality (primarily through reductions in carbon monoxide, ammonia, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter), which lowers premature mortality from respiratory infections. These benefits were primarily observed in China, India, and Indonesia, where high FLW-embedded air pollution is prevalent across all stages of the food supply chain (Gatto & Chepeliev, 2024).
For a description of the land resources benefits, please refer to the “water resources” subsection.
Reducing FLW can conserve resources and improve biodiversity (Cattaneo, Federighi, & Vaz, 2021). A reduction in FLW reflects improvements in resource efficiency of freshwater, synthetic fertilizers, and cropland used for agriculture (Kummu et al., 2012). Reducing the strain on freshwater resources is particularly relevant in water-scarce areas such as North Africa and West-Central Asia (Kummu et al., 2012). In the United States, halving the amount of FLW could reduce approximately 290,000 metric tons of nitrogen from fertilizers, thereby reducing runoff, improving water quality, and decreasing algal blooms (Jaglo et al., 2021).
Some FLW reduction strategies have trade-offs for emission reductions (de Gorter et al., 2021; Cattaneo, 2021). For example, improved cold storage and packaging are important interventions for reducing food loss, yet they require additional energy and refrigerants, which can increase GHG emissions (Babiker, 2017; FAO, 2019).
Interventions to address FLW also risk ignoring economic factors such as price transmission mechanisms and cascading effects, both upstream and downstream in the supply chain. The results of a FLW reduction policy or program depend greatly on the commodity, initial FLW rates, and market integration (Cattaneo, 2021; de Gorter, 2021).
The production site is a critical loss point, and farm incomes, scale of operations, and expected returns to investment affect loss reduction interventions (Anriquez, 2021; Fabi, 2021; Sheahan and Barrett, 2017).
On the consumer side, there is a risk of a rebound effect; i.e., avoiding FLW can lower food prices, leading to increased consumption and net increase in GHG emissions (Hegwood et al., 2023). Available evidence is highly contextual and often difficult to scale, so relevant dynamics must be studied with care (Goossens, 2019).
Food waste is used as raw material for methane digestors and composting. Reducing FLW may reduce the impact of those solutions as a result of decreased feedstock availability.
t reduced FLW
CO₂ , CH₄ , N₂O
A large volume of scientific research exists regarding reducing emissions of FLW effectively. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) estimates the mitigation potential of FLW reduction (through multiple reduction strategies) to be 2.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (with a range of 0.1–5.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ) (Nabuurs et al., 2022). This accounts for savings along the whole value chain.
Following the 2011 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) report – which estimated that around one-third (1.3 Gt) of food is lost and wasted worldwide per year – global coordination has prioritized the measurement of the FLW problem. This statistic, provided by the FAO, has served as a baseline for multiple FLW reduction strategies. However, more recent studies suggest that the percentage of FLW may be closer to 40% (WWF, 2021). The median of the studies included in our analysis is 1.75 Gt of FLW per year (Gatto & Chepeliev, 2024; FAO, 2024; Guo et al., 2020; Porter et al., 2016; UNEP, 2024; WWF, 2021; Zhu et al., 2023), with an annual increasing trend of 2.2%.
Only one study included in our analysis calculated food embodied emissions from all stages of the supply chain, while the rest focused on the primary production stages. Zhu et al. (2023) estimated 6.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr arising from the supply chain side, representing 35% of total food system emissions.
When referring to food types, meat and animal products were estimated to emit 3.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr compared to 0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr from fruits and vegetables (Zhu et al., 2023). Although meat is emissions-intensive, fruits and vegetables are the most wasted types of food by volume, making up 37% of total FLW by mass (Chen et al., 2020). The consumer stage is associated with the highest share of global emissions at 36% of total supply-embodied emissions from FLW, compared to 10.9% and 11.5% at the retail and wholesale levels, respectively (Zhu et al., 2023).
While efforts to measure the FLW problem are invaluable, critical gaps exist regarding evidence on the effectiveness of different reduction strategies across supply chain stages ( Cattaneo, 2021; Goossens, 2019; Karl et al., 2025). To facilitate impact assessments and cost-effectiveness, standardized metrics are required to report actual quantities of FLW reduced as well as resulting GHG emissions savings (Food Loss and Waste Protocol, 2024).
The results presented in this document summarize findings across 22 studies. These studies are made up of eight academic reviews and original studies, eight reports from NGOs, and six reports from public and multilateral organizations. This reflects current evidence from five countries, primarily the United States and the United Kingdom. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research for meta-analyses and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions and stages of the supply chain.
