How Many Fossil Fuels Have You “Swallowed”?
We often assume that as long as produce passes inspection, is washed thoroughly, cooked by our own hand, and free from spoilage, what we eat must be healthy and natural. We check the origin of our meat and scrutinise the ingredient lists on condiments—surely nothing has been overlooked?
Yet cautious urban consumers may be missing a more systemic reality: From farm production, food packaging and transport, to cold-chain storage and cooking, every stage of the food system is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. It consumes at least 15% of the world’s fossil fuels and 40% of its petrochemicals—key derivatives of fossil fuels.
This is the central argument of Fuel to Fork, a new report published this June by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). This comprehensive review draws on the latest global data across the entire food industry—from production and processing to retail and cooking—to paint a detailed picture of how fossil fuels have become the lifeblood of the modern food system.
Specifically, according to data from the Global Alliance for the Future Food, of the fossil fuels consumed by the global food system, over 40% goes into food processing and packaging (42%), close to 40% into retail and home cooking (38%), and the remaining 20% into cultivation and agricultural chemicals.
Beyond direct energy consumption, the food system also “consumes” 40% of the world’s petrochemicals, 34% of which go into fertiliser production—the report notes that 99% of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser and pesticides derive from fossil fuels, while 6% are used in plastics production.
I. Nitrogen Fertiliser: The Farm’s Biggest Fossil Killer
Today, the nitrogen fertiliser supply chain accounts for 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Of the total greenhouse gas emissions from all synthetic fertilisers, production accounts for only 40%; the remaining 60% arises during field application—nitrous oxide released after fertiliser is spread on farmland has a greenhouse effect 300 times stronger than that of carbon dioxide. Since the Industrial Revolution, nitrous oxide has contributed 10% of net global warming. The report therefore stresses that reducing emissions from fertiliser production plants does little to address the problem, since the greatest harm comes from the fields themselves.
The nitrogen planetary boundary (Note: a critical threshold in the Earth system’s nitrogen cycle) was already breached back in 1970. Since then, global nitrogen use has doubled.
The report also catalogues nitrogen pollution’s destructive impacts beyond climate change. More than half of the nitrogen fertiliser applied to crops leaches into the environment, contaminating air, water and soil; three billion people face the threat of water scarcity caused by nitrogen pollution; nitrates from fertilisers and manure entering drinking water can trigger blue baby syndrome (Note: a potentially fatal infant condition caused by oxygen deprivation) and are linked to cancer; nitrogen dioxide released during fertiliser production and application, along with ammonia from fertiliser use, worsens air pollution, causing respiratory illness and deaths; nitrogen pollution is also one of the leading drivers of biodiversity loss…
Fossil fuels also power tractors, harvesters and other agricultural machinery and equipment in enormous quantities. In the EU, tilling and ploughing account for nearly half of all field operations’ energy consumption. Foodthink has previously reported on the backlash and protests from German farmers triggered by major cuts to diesel subsidies in early 2024, amid highly mechanised agriculture (at a time when the Russia–Ukraine war had further driven up fuel prices). In the US, the EU and other regions where agriculture is highly industrialised, farm machinery may also need to seek cleaner renewable energy sources.
In some cases, for instance, critical data has not been made public. In 2021, the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and the pesticide lobby 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 the conclusions could not be accessed.
More importantly, talk of “blue” and “green” nitrogen fertilisers has been growing louder. Fertiliser companies produce so-called “low-carbon fertiliser” through cleaner manufacturing processes, which are said to capture and store the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels during manufacturing (carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology), or to obtain hydrogen from water rather than fossil feedstocks for ammonia synthesis.
In the production of “blue” fertiliser or hydrogen, plants capture a portion of the carbon dioxide generated during manufacturing. But the report’s review of existing research and practice found that in “blue” nitrogen fertiliser production, carbon capture rates have never reached the 90%–95% claimed by industry. At Enid, home to 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. When that oil is burned, it generates new, additional carbon dioxide emissions. The carbon used as a fertiliser feedstock is also released over its subsequent life cycle.
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 by the report also finds that “blue” and “green” fertiliser production is astonishingly energy-intensive. Compared with conventional fertiliser, producing “blue” ammonia fertiliser increases energy use by 58%, doubles land use, and triples water consumption, while switching to “green” ammonia fertiliser would require 24 times more electricity (or 5% of global electricity), 30 times more land and 50 times more water.
II. Ultra-Processed Food Is the Most Energy-Intensive, and Plastic “Wraps” the Entire Food Cycle
Among these, food processing requires large amounts of heat, which is typically generated by burning fossil fuels rather than through electric heating. Processes such as sterilisation, pasteurisation, baking and drying account for 60–70% of food manufacturers’ total energy consumption. Food processing breaks down maize, wheat and soybeans into components such as sugars, oils, fats, proteins, starches and fibres, and in particular, the production of high-fructose corn syrup requires wet milling and refining of maize—processes that are exceptionally energy-intensive.
Among all processed products, ultra-processed food stands out in particular. Ultra-processed products are also the primary destination for ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup. These industrially produced foods—sugar-sweetened drinks, processed meats, confectionery and desserts, packaged snacks and more—rely on a wide variety of formulations, are highly energy-intensive to produce, and consume two to ten times more energy than whole foods. The report notes that they are often subsidised, heavily marketed and highly profitable—in many wealthy countries they already account for 60% of total caloric intake, and in low-income countries, consumption is rising rapidly. As ultra-processed food output increases and supply chains lengthen, the scale of global processing, packaging and food miles is expanding.
Moreover, the food system uses 40% of the world’s petrochemicals, 74% of which go into plastics and fertiliser production. And food production—particularly ultra-processed food—is a major hotspot for excessive plastic packaging. Asia—especially China, India, Vietnam, South Korea and Thailand—commands global attention for its plastic packaging usage, accounting for over 43% of the world’s total in 2023, with growth rates expected to remain the fastest through 2030. China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of plastic packaging. Plastics are also widely used at the farm end of the food chain—in greenhouses, plastic mulch film, and silage film for preserving animal feed through lactic acid fermentation, among other applications.
The report forecasts that global plastic production will more than double again by 2050, and by then, petrochemicals will become the “backbone” sustaining the fossil fuel economy, accounting for over 50% of demand growth.
Can recycling, as industry claims, solve the plastic waste problem? Less than 10% of plastics worldwide are recycled. Food packaging, owing to contamination and complex material blends, is among the hardest categories to recycle. In China, although PET plastic bottles and HDPE/PVC rigid plastics are prized by the recycling market, PP (polypropylene) food containers caked in takeaway grease are shunned even by informal waste pickers.
As for bio-based plastics—if they were used to replace all existing plastic packaging, they would require more than half the world’s maize crop, freshwater exceeding 60% of the EU’s annual consumption, and a land area larger than France. And such plastics are not necessarily non-toxic, nor do they necessarily degrade completely.
Could major food companies perhaps do something? The report looks back: since the inception of the Global Brand Audit 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 recorded was food packaging—predominantly bottles, food wrappers and containers.
Could food processing become “cleaner”—by electrifying gas-powered equipment, for instance, or switching to solar energy? Technically and financially, it is feasible. Yet many processing companies have set sustainable development goals (SDGs) that are not even particularly ambitious, and still failed to meet them. The report argues that the most fundamental step is to shift the incentives of ultra-processed food production giants. Only by curbing their output can total energy demand, plastic packaging use and overall human health be improved to the greatest extent.
III. From Freezer to Table
The report also presents what appears to be a paradoxical figure—620 million tonnes of food are lost worldwide every year due to inadequate refrigeration.
So should we use more fridges or fewer? The report notes that this figure comes from a 2024 academic study, which indicates that the apparent contradiction stems from the starkly different patterns of energy waste in the food systems of developing and developed countries. If cold-chain systems were fully optimised—eliminating all food spoilage—South Asia and Southeast Asia could cut 100 million tonnes of fruit and vegetable losses each year, while sub-Saharan Africa could prevent over 700 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in emissions. In developed countries, however, there is far less room for cold-chain optimisation. And regardless of the level of industrialisation, developing localised, less industrialised food supply chains could save more food than even an ideally optimised cold-chain system—on meat losses alone, this could cut 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in emissions.
Furthermore, cooking also drives fossil fuel consumption—over one-third of the global population (approximately 2.3 to 2.8 billion people in 2020) rely on highly polluting solid fuels such as firewood, charcoal and animal dung. Sub-Saharan Africa is particularly severely affected, with over 80% of the population still cooking with polluting fuels; without significant intervention, this situation will persist through 2030.
2. Phase out agrochemicals
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 healthy food environments
7. Eliminate food waste and promote clean cookstoves
8. Curb corporate power and democratise 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 hack-writer back on the right track, focused on climate change, the ecology, and the real people shaped by a changing world