How Much Fossil Fuel Have You “Eaten”?
We often assume that if a product has passed inspection, been washed thoroughly, and cooked by our own hands with no sign of spoilage, then the produce reaching our plate must be healthy and natural. We have checked the origin of the meat and scrutinised the ingredient list on the seasoning—surely there cannot be any more oversights?
Yet even cautious urban consumers may overlook a more systemic reality: from farm production, through food packaging and transport, to cold chain storage and cooking, every stage of the food system relies heavily on fossil fuels. It consumes at least 15% of the world’s fossil fuels and 40% of its petrochemical products—important derivatives of fossil fuels.
This is the central thesis of Fuel to Fork, a new report published this past June by the international body the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-FOOD). This review-style report draws together the latest data on the entire global food industry—from production and processing to retail and cooking—to map in detail how fossil fuels have become the lifeblood of the modern food system.
More specifically, according to data from the international cooperation body the Global Alliance for the Future Food, of the fossil fuels consumed by the global food system, over 40% goes to food processing and packaging (42%), a further 38% to retail and household cooking, and the remaining 20% to cultivation and agricultural chemicals.
Beyond direct energy consumption, the food system also “devours” 40% of the world’s petrochemical products, of which 34% goes to fertiliser production—the report notes that 99% of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and pesticides are derived from fossil fuels, with a further 6% used in plastic production.
I. Nitrogen Fertiliser: The Farm’s Number One Fossil Fuel Killer
The nitrogen fertiliser supply chain currently accounts for 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Of the greenhouse gas carbon emissions from all synthetic fertilisers, only 40% comes from the production stage; the remaining 60% originates from field application—nitrous oxide released after fertiliser is applied to farmland has a warming potential 300 times that of carbon dioxide. Since the Industrial Revolution, nitrous oxide has contributed 10% of global net warming. The report therefore stresses that cutting emissions from fertiliser plants alone would be of little help, since the principal harm comes from the fields themselves.
The “nitrogen boundary” of the Earth system (note: a critical threshold in the planetary nitrogen cycle) was breached as early as 1970. Since then, global nitrogen use has doubled.
The report also lists the other destructive impacts of nitrogen pollution beyond its role in accelerating warming. For instance, over half of the nitrogen fertiliser applied to crops is lost to the environment, polluting air, water sources, and soil; 3 billion people face the threat of water scarcity caused by nitrogen pollution; nitrates from fertiliser and manure entering drinking water can trigger blue baby syndrome in infants (note: a potentially fatal condition in young children caused by oxygen deprivation) and are linked to the development of cancer; nitrogen dioxide generated during fertiliser production and application, as well as ammonia released by fertiliser use, worsen air pollution, causing respiratory disease and deaths; nitrogen pollution is also among the largest drivers of biodiversity loss……
Fossil fuels are also heavily used to power tractors, harvesters, and other agricultural machinery and equipment. In the EU, energy use for tilling and ploughing accounts for nearly half of total energy consumed in field operations. Foodthink previously reported on German farmers’ backlash and protests in early 2024 over large-scale cuts to diesel subsidies (at the time, the Russia–Ukraine war was further driving oil prices up). In highly industrialised agricultural regions such as the US and the EU, agricultural machinery may also need to find cleaner renewable energy sources.
In some cases, for instance, the key data has not been made public. In 2021, the US equipment manufacturers’ association and the pesticide lobbying group Croplife published research claiming that precision agriculture has the potential to improve energy efficiency. But the IPES team found that the core data underpinning its conclusions could not be accessed.
More importantly, the talk of “blue” and “green” nitrogen fertiliser has also been rife. Fertiliser companies tout “low-carbon fertilisers” produced through clean production methods, which are said to capture and store carbon dioxide generated by burning fossil fuels during the production process (CCS technology), or to obtain hydrogen from water rather than fossil feedstocks to synthesise ammonia.
In the production of “blue” fertiliser or hydrogen, plants capture a portion of the carbon dioxide generated during the process. But the report’s review of existing research and practice found that in “blue” nitrogen fertiliser production, the carbon capture rate has never reached the 90–95% claimed by the industry. In Enid, at the world’s second-oldest CCS fertiliser plant, operating since 1982, only 28% of carbon dioxide was captured.
And that captured carbon dioxide is used to extract more oil from underground reservoirs. Burning the oil generates new, additional carbon dioxide emissions. The carbon used as a fertiliser feedstock is also emitted later in its lifecycle.
As for “green” nitrogen fertiliser, it is still in its infancy, accounting for a tiny fraction of global fertiliser sales and using just 0.3% of global ammonia production.
Another study cited in the report also points out that producing “blue” and “green” fertilisers is astonishingly energy-intensive. Compared with conventional fertilisers, producing “blue” ammonia fertiliser increases energy use by 58%, doubles land use, and triples water use, while switching to “green” ammonia fertiliser would require 24 times the electricity (or 5% of global electricity), 30 times the land, and 50 times the water.
II. Ultra-processed Foods Are the Most Energy-Intensive; Plastic “Wraps” the Entire Food Cycle
The food processing industry requires large amounts of heat, which is typically supplied by burning fossil fuels rather than by electricity. Sterilisation, pasteurisation, baking, and drying account for 60–70% of food manufacturers’ total energy consumption. Food processing involves breaking down corn, wheat, and soy into sugars, oils, fats, proteins, starches, and fibres—above all, the production of high-fructose corn syrup requires wet milling of corn followed by refining, a particularly energy-intensive process.
Among these, ultra-processed foods deserve particular attention. Ultra-processed products are also the primary destination for ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup. These industrially produced foods—sugary drinks, industrially processed meats, confectionery and desserts, packaged snacks—rely on various formulations, are highly energy-intensive in production, and require two to ten times the production energy of natural foods. The report notes that they are often subsidised, heavily promoted, and highly profitable—in many wealthy countries they already account for 60% of total calorie intake, and consumption in low-income countries is rising rapidly. As production of ultra-processed foods expands and supply chains lengthen, the scale of global processing and packaging, and food miles, are all increasing.
Furthermore, the food system uses 40% of the world’s petrochemical products, of which 74% goes to plastic and fertiliser production. And food production—ultra-processed foods in particular—is a major source of excessive plastic packaging. Asia—especially China, India, Vietnam, South Korea, and Thailand—commands global attention for its plastic packaging volumes, accounting for over 43% of the world total in 2023 and expected to grow at the fastest pace through 2030. China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of plastic packaging. Plastic is also widely used on farms at the front end of the food chain (greenhouses, plastic mulch film, silage film for preserving livestock feed for lactic acid fermentation, and so on).
The report projects that by 2050, global plastic production will more than double again, and by then petrochemical products will also be a “pillar” underpinning the fossil fuel economy, contributing over 50% of demand growth.
Can recycling, as the industry claims, solve the plastic waste problem? Globally, less than 10% of plastic is recycled. Food packaging, due to contamination and complex material mixtures, is among the hardest categories to recycle. In China, although PET plastic bottles and HDPE/PVC rigid plastics are highly sought after by the recycling market, greasy PP takeaway containers are shunned even by individual waste pickers.
As for bio-based plastics—if they were to replace all existing plastic packaging, they would require more than half the world’s maize crop, over 60% of the EU’s annual freshwater use, and a land area larger than France. These plastics are not necessarily non-toxic, nor are they guaranteed to be fully biodegradable.
Could major food companies do more? The report looks back: since the Global Brand Audit began in 2018, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé have consistently been the top three plastic polluters. In the most recent audit, 83% of the plastic waste collected and tallied was food packaging—mainly bottles, food wrapping, and containers.
Can food processing become more “clean”? For instance, electrifying gas-fired equipment or using solar power?—Technically and financially, it is feasible. Yet many processors’ sustainability targets (SDGs) are not particularly ambitious, and none have been met. The report argues that fundamentally, the interests of ultra-processed food production giants need to be challenged. Only if their production is curbed can total energy demand, plastic packaging use, and overall human health be most significantly improved.
III. From Fridge to Table
The report also presents another seemingly paradoxical figure—due to inadequate cooling, 620 million tonnes of food are lost globally each year.
So should we use more fridges or fewer? The report traces this data to a 2024 academic study. The study points out that the apparent contradiction stems from significant differences in how food systems in developing and developed countries waste energy: if cold chain systems were fully optimised—meaning no food spoilage at all—South and Southeast Asia could reduce fruit and vegetable losses by 100 million tonnes per year, and in Sub-Saharan Africa, emissions could be reduced by over 700 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. But in developed countries, the room for cold chain optimisation is far smaller. Moreover, regardless of the degree of industrialisation, developing localised, low-intensity food supply chains can save more food than even a theoretically optimised cold chain system—on meat losses alone, this would reduce emissions by 300 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent.
In addition, cooking also generates fossil fuel consumption—over a third of the world’s population (roughly 2.3 to 2.8 billion people in 2020) relies on highly polluting solid fuels such as firewood, charcoal, and animal dung for cooking. Sub-Saharan Africa is hit hardest, with over 80% of the population still cooking with polluting fuels; without major intervention, this situation will persist through 2030.
2. Phase out agricultural chemicals
3. Promote agroecology
4. Rebuild local food supply chains
5. Significantly reduce plastic production and accelerate investment in alternatives and reuse systems
6. Reduce ultra-processed food consumption and build a healthy food environment
7. Eliminate food waste and promote clean cookstoves
8. Curb corporate power and pursue democratised food system governance
IPES FOOD, Jun. 2025, “Fuel to Fork”. https://ipes-food.org/report-summary/fuel-to-fork/
Aaron Friedman-Heiman and Shelie A Miller, May, 2024, Environ. Res. Lett. 19 064038. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ad4c7b
A writer back on the straight and narrow, covering climate change, ecological environments, and the people caught up in transition