Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

Key crops for processed foods have spatially variable biodiversity impacts not captured in other environmental impact indicators

55 Views


Abstract

We must urgently address unsustainable food system practices to protect important ecosystems. Most research quantifying the environmental impacts of food production and consumption has not measured biodiversity impacts directly or spatially, limiting our ability to evaluate how producing and consuming countries are contributing to food system sustainability. Here, we quantify the biodiversity impacts of food crops commonly found in processed foods using a range of accessible metrics. We focus on ingredients found in popular processed foods, such as chocolate digestive biscuits, and show globally reaching impacts. Land-use and fertiliser impacts were greatest for the food crops considered. We also identified Critically Endangered species at risk from habitat loss associated with crops being supplied to the UK specifically. For instance, cocoa production overlaps with nearly 20% of the range of both the Critically Endangered Roloway and Miss Waldron’s Red Colobus monkeys. As crop-specific farm and trade data are not publicly available, it is difficult to know the origin of all ingredients, limiting biodiversity impact estimation. If such data are released in future, our approach can be used to further evaluate biodiversity impacts of foods to inform more sustainable decision-making at consumer, business, and government levels.

Data availability

The data used as inputs for the analyses in this manuscript were openly available for download, as described and cited in the manuscript. The code used for analyses are available from: https://github.com/CharlieOuthwaite/Biscuit_project.

References

  1. Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/536143a (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chaudhary, A. & Kastner, T. Land use biodiversity impacts embodied in international food trade. Glob. Environ. Chang. 38, 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.03.013 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  3. IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. (IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2019).

  4. Leclere, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ceaușu, S., Leclère, D. & Newbold, T. Geography and availability of natural habitat determine whether cropland intensification or expansion is more detrimental to biodiversity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 9, 993–1008. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02691-x (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pereira, P., Inacio, M., Barcelo, D. & Zhao, W. Impacts of agriculture intensification on biodiversity loss, climate change and ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 46, 100637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2025.100637 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  7. FAO. FAOSTAT Analytical Briefs Series (Rome, 2023).

  8. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Statistical Papers – United Nations (Ser. A), Population and Vital Statistics Report 376 (2017).

  9. Delzeit, R., Zabel, F., Meyer, C. & Václavík, T. Addressing future trade-offs between biodiversity and cropland expansion to improve food security. Reg. Environ. Change 17, 1429–1441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0927-1 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kastner, T. et al. Global agricultural trade and land system sustainability: Implications for ecosystem carbon storage, biodiversity, and human nutrition. One Earth 4, 1425–1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.09.006 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fan, S., Headey, D., Rue, C. & Thomas, T. Food systems for human and planetary health: Economic perspectives and challenges. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 13, 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101520-081337 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Canavan, C. R., Noor, R. A., Golden, C. D., Juma, C. & Fawzi, W. Sustainable food systems for optimal planetary health. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 111, 238–240. https://doi.org/10.1093/trstmh/trx038 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Halpern, B. S. et al. The environmental footprint of global food production. Nat. Sustain. 5, 1027–1039. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00965-x (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jwaideh, M. A. A. & Dalin, C. The multi-dimensional environmental impact of global crop commodities. Nat. Sustain. 8, 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01528-6 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Clark, M. et al. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2120584119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120584119 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harris, F. et al. The water footprint of diets: A global systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv. Nutr. 11, 375–386. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmz091 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rockström, J. et al. The EAT-Lancet commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems. Lancet 406, 1625–1700. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01201-2 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Give Food. Trussell Trust Most Requested Items, <https://www.givefood.org.uk/dashboard/trusselltrust/most-requested-items/> (2025).

  21. Mintel. Uk Sweet Biscuits Market Report 2024. (2024).

  22. Konstantas, A., Stamford, L. & Azapagic, A. Evaluation of environmental sustainability of biscuits at the product and sectoral levels. J. Clean. Prod. 230, 1217–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.095 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Konstantas, A., Jeswani, H. K., Stamford, L. & Azapagic, A. Environmental impacts of chocolate production and consumption in the UK. Food Res. Int. 106, 1012–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.02.042 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Carlson, K. M. et al. Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of global croplands. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3158 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tuninetti, M., Tamea, S. & Dalin, C. Water debt indicator reveals where agricultural water use exceeds sustainable levels. Water Resour. Res. 55, 2464–2477. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023146 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jwaideh, M. A. A., Sutanudjaja, E. H. & Dalin, C. Global impacts of nitrogen and phosphorus fertiliser use for major crops on aquatic biodiversity. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 27, 1058–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02078-1 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  27. IUCN. (2021).

  28. Chaudhary, A., Verones, F., de Baan, L. & Hellweg, S. Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: Combining species-area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 9987–9995. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02507 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  29. ggplot2: Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics v. 3.5.3 (2025).

  30. raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling v. R package version 3.6-23 (2023).

  31. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2023).

  32. Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gb002947 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490, 254–257. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11420 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bouwman, A. F. et al. Lessons from temporal and spatial patterns in global use of N and P fertilizer on cropland. Sci. Rep. 7, 40366. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep40366 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  35. International Food Policy Research, I. MapSPAM (ed Institute International Food Policy Research) (Harvard Dataverse, 2019).

  36. Yu, Q. et al. A cultivated planet in 2010 – Part 2: The global gridded agricultural-production maps. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 3545–3572. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3545-2020 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Etard, A., Morrill, S. & Newbold, T. Global gaps in trait data for terrestrial vertebrates. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 2143–2158. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13184 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Birdlife International & NatureServe. (See http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/spcdownload., 2012).

  39. IUCN. (See http://www.iucnredlist.org/, 2013).

  40. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation (2023).

  41. tidyr: Tidy Messy Data (2023).

  42. classInt: Choose Univariate Class Intervals (2023).

  43. magrittr: A Forward-Pipe Operator for R (2022).

  44. patchwork: The Composer of Plots v. 1.3.0 (2024).

  45. Kastner, T., Kastner, M. & Nonhebel, S. Tracing distant environmental impacts of agricultural products from a consumer perspective. Ecol. Econ. 70, 1032–1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.012 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dalin, C., Wada, Y., Kastner, T. & Puma, M. J. Groundwater depletion embedded in international food trade. Nature 543, 700–704. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21403 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  47. IUCN. (See http://www.iucnredlist.org/, 2012).

  48. Gorelick, N. et al. Google earth engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mathews, F. & Harrower, C. IUCN – compliant Red List for Britain’s Terrestrial Mammals. Assessment by the Mammal Society under contract to Natural England, Natural Resources Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage. . (Natural England, Peterborough, 2020).

  50. maps: Draw Geographical Maps v. R package version 3.4.2 (2023).

  51. Hashem, K. M., He, F. J., Alderton, S. A. & MacGregor, G. A. Cross-sectional survey of the amount of sugar and energy in cakes and biscuits on sale in the UK for the evaluation of the sugar-reduction programme. BMJ Open 8, e019075. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019075 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  52. ArcGIS Pro 3.5 (ESRI, Redlands, CA, 2025).

  53. Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Dalin, C. & Rodríguez-Iturbe, I. Environmental impacts of food trade via resource use and greenhouse gas emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035012 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Molotoks, A., Smith, P. & Dawson, T. P. Impacts of land use, population, and climate change on global food security. Food Energy Secur. 10, e261. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.261 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Dinar, A., Tieu, A. & Huynh, H. Water scarcity impacts on global food production. Glob. Food Secur. 23, 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.07.007 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ehlers Smith, D. A. The effects of land-use policies on the conservation of Borneo’s endemic Presbytis monkeys. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 891–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0639-0 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Molotoks, A., Green, J., Ribeiro, V., Wang, Y. & West, C. Assessing the value of biodiversity-specific footprinting metrics linked to South American soy trade. People Nat. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10457 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Chaudhary, A., Pfister, S. & Hellweg, S. Spatially explicit analysis of biodiversity loss due to global agriculture, pasture and forest land use from a producer and consumer perspective. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 3928–3936. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06153 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Chapman, A. S. A. et al. Quantifying the biodiversity pressures of fruit and vegetable consumption in the United Kingdom, India, and South Africa. Nat. Food (2025).

  61. Trase.earth. Trase.earth website, <https://trase.earth/about> (2025).

  62. Renier, C. et al. Transparency, traceability and deforestation in the Ivorian cocoa supply chain. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 024030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acad8e (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Spehar, S. N. et al. Orangutans venture out of the rainforest and into the Anthropocene. Sci. Adv. 4, e1701422. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701422 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Cazzolla Gatti, R. & Velichevskaya, A. Certified, “sustainable” palm oil took the place of endangered Bornean and Sumatran large mammals habitat and tropical forests in the last 30 years. Sci. Total Environ. 742, 140712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140712 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ancrenaz, M. et al. Of Pongo, palms and perceptions: a multidisciplinary assessment of Bornean orang-utans Pongo pygmaeus in an oil palm context. Oryx 49, 465–472. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313001270 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ripple, W. J. et al. Extinction risk is most acute for the world’s largest and smallest vertebrates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 10678–10683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702078114 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Linder, J. M. et al. Red colobus (Piliocolobus) conservation action plan 2021–2026 (IUCN, 2021).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Gardner, T. A. et al. Transparency and sustainability in global commodity supply chains. World Dev. 121, 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.025 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ellis, C. J., Yahr, R. & Coppins, B. J. Quantifying the anthropocene loss of bioindicators for an early industrial region: An equitable baseline for biodiversity restoration. Biodivers. Conserv. 27, 2363–2377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1541-y (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Millard, J. et al. Global effects of land-use intensity on local pollinator biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 12, 2902. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23228-3 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Jezeer, R. E., Verweij, P. A., Santos, M. J. & Boot, R. G. A. Shaded coffee and cocoa – double dividend for biodiversity and small-scale farmers. Ecol. Econ. 140, 136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.019 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Blaser-Hart, W. J. et al. The effectiveness of cocoa agroforests depends on shade-tree canopy height. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 322, 107676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107676 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Maney, C., Sassen, M. & Hill, S. L. L. Modelling biodiversity responses to land use in areas of cocoa cultivation. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 324, 107712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107712 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Arthur, A., Ja, D. & Fk, P. Impact of fertiliser application on cocoa yields in Ghana: An analysis of cocoa bean yields in farmers’ plantations. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 18, 139–144. https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.24.18.02.PNE3958 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Naranjo-Merino, C. A., Ortíz-Rodriguez, O. O. & Villamizar-G, R. A. Assessing green and blue water footprints in the supply chain of cocoa production: A case study in the Northeast of Colombia. Sustainability 10, 38 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Tedstone, A., Duval, D. & Peacock, E. Dietary health and CVD: Implications for dietary policy in England. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 79, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665119000600 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Béné, C. & Abdulai, A.-R. Navigating the politics and processes of food systems transformation: Guidance from a holistic framework. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1399024 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the participants of workshop and/or ‘hackathon’ sessions for the initial discussion of the topic (Georgina Adams, Paolo Agnolucci, Elizabeth Boakes, Sara Bonetti, Álvaro Calzadilla Rivera, Silvia Ceaușu, Henry Ferguson-Gow, Laura Graham, Jonathan Green, Vivienne Groner, Rob Holland, Jacquie McGlade, Monica Ortiz, Richard Pearson, Chrysanthi Rapti, Ralf Seppelt, Pete Smith, Hemant Tripathi, Peter Verburg, and Jessica Williams).

Funding

This work was supported by ‘UN SDGs: Pathways to Achievement’ funding from UCL Grand Challenges and Global Engagement Office. CLO was supported by a UK Natural Environment Research Council grant NE/R010811/1 and funding from Research England. ASAC acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust (Our Planet, Our Health programme, 205200, https://doi.org/10.35802/205200 – Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems (SHEFS) programme; and Climate and Health Programme, 227749/Z/23/Z—Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems—Southern Africa (SHEFS-SA)). FP was funded by the EASTBIO DTP. AM was funded by the Global Challenges Research Fund ‘Trade, Development and the Environment Hub’ project (ES/S008160/1). CD also acknowledges funding from the Natural Environment Research Council Fellowship (NERC NE/N01524X/1) and from the European Union (ERC, FLORA, StG 101039402).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Felicitas Pamatat

  2. Centre for Biodiversity & Environment Research, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

    Felicitas Pamatat, Charlotte L. Outhwaite & Abbie S. A. Chapman

  3. Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Outer Circle, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4RY, UK

    Charlotte L. Outhwaite

  4. Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, York, UK

    Amy Molotoks

  5. UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London, WC1H 0NN, UK

    Carole Dalin, Mark Jwaideh & Abbie S. A. Chapman

  6. Laboratoire de Géologie, École Normale Supérieure, CNRS, PSL Université, IPSL, Paris, France

    Carole Dalin

  7. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Mark Jwaideh

Authors

  1. Felicitas Pamatat
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte L. Outhwaite
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy Molotoks
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carole Dalin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark Jwaideh
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abbie S. A. Chapman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CLO & ASAC applied for the funding. FP, CLO, AM & ASAC conceptualised the initial project idea, contributed equally to the writing of the manuscript, and performed the analysis. ASAC coordinated the project. MJ & CD provided parts of the data and gave extensive comments on the manuscript. All authors have seen the final manuscript and take responsibility for its contents.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Abbie S. A. Chapman.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pamatat, F., Outhwaite, C.L., Molotoks, A. et al. Key crops for processed foods have spatially variable biodiversity impacts not captured in other environmental impact indicators.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-34850-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-34850-2

Keywords

  • Sustainable
  • Food system
  • Biodiversity
  • Environmental impact assessment
  • Consumption
  • Trade

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Bridging behaviour and genomics for tsetse fly control

Pantropical moist forests are converging towards a middle leaf longevity

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close