How much fossil fuel are you “eating”?
We tend to assume that provided produce passes inspection, is thoroughly washed, prepared at home and kept from spoiling, what ends up on our plates will be wholesome and natural. We scrutinise the origins of our meat and the ingredient lists on our condiments. Surely, there shouldn’t be any oversights?
Yet even the most discerning urban consumers may overlook a more systemic reality: from farm production, packaging and transport, through cold-chain storage to cooking, every stage of the food system is deeply reliant on fossil fuels. It accounts for at least 15% of global fossil fuel consumption and 40% of petrochemical products—key derivatives of fossil fuels.
This forms the central thesis of a new report, *Fuel to Fork* (Fuel to Fork), published this June by the international body IPES-FOOD (International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems). Drawing on the latest data covering every stage of the global food chain—from production and processing to retail and cooking—this comprehensive review lays out in detail how fossil fuels have become the very lifeblood of the modern food system.
Breaking this down further, according to data from the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, of the fossil fuels consumed by the global food system, just over 40% are used in processing and packaging (42%). A similarly large proportion—close to 40%—goes towards retail and kitchen cooking (38%), with the remaining 20% dedicated to crop cultivation and agricultural chemicals.
Beyond direct energy use, the food system also “consumes” 40% of the world’s petrochemical products. Of this total, 34% is dedicated to fertiliser production – the report notes that 99% of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides are derived from fossil fuels, with a further 6% going towards plastic manufacturing.
1. Nitrogen Fertiliser: The Farm’s Number-One Fossil Fuel Threat
The nitrogen fertiliser supply chain currently accounts for 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Of the greenhouse gas emissions from all synthetic fertilisers, only 40% occur during production, while 60% stem from field application processes—specifically, nitrous oxide released after fertiliser application, which has a global warming potential 300 times that of carbon dioxide. Since the Industrial Revolution, nitrous oxide has contributed 10% to global net warming. Consequently, the report stresses that merely cutting emissions from fertiliser production plants would yield little benefit, as the primary environmental damage originates in the fields.
The Earth system’s “nitrogen boundary” (note: a critical threshold for the planet’s nitrogen cycle) was already breached in 1970. Since then, global nitrogen consumption has nevertheless doubled.
Beyond exacerbating climate warming, the report outlines other destructive impacts of nitrogen pollution. For instance, more than half of the nitrogen fertiliser applied to crops leaches into the environment, contaminating air, water sources, and soil; 3 billion people face water scarcity threats driven by nitrogen pollution; when nitrates from fertilisers and manure enter drinking water, they can trigger blue baby syndrome (note: a potentially fatal condition in infants caused by oxygen deprivation) and are linked to cancer incidence; nitrogen dioxide generated during fertiliser production and application, along with ammonia released during spreading, worsens air pollution, leading to respiratory illnesses and fatalities; nitrogen pollution is also one of the leading drivers of biodiversity loss…
Fossil fuels are also heavily consumed to power tractors, harvesters, and other agricultural machinery and equipment. In the European Union, energy used for tilling and ploughing land accounts for nearly half of total field operation energy consumption. Foodthink previously covered the backlash and protests by German farmers at the start of 2024, triggered by substantial cuts to diesel subsidies amid highly mechanised agriculture (at a time when the Russia-Ukraine conflict further drove up fuel prices). In highly industrialised agricultural regions such as the United States and the European Union, farm machinery may well need to transition to cleaner renewable energy sources.
For instance, in several cases, crucial data has not been made public. In 2021, the US Agricultural Equipment Manufacturers Association partnered with the pesticide lobbying group “CropLife” to publish research claiming that precision agriculture holds potential for improving energy efficiency. However, the IPES team found that the core data underpinning these conclusions was inaccessible.
More significantly, claims surrounding “blue” and “green” nitrogen fertilisers have been heavily touted. Fertiliser companies claim that “low-carbon fertilisers” produced through cleaner methods can capture and store the CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels during production (using CCS technology), or synthesise ammonia by sourcing hydrogen from water rather than fossil feedstocks.
During the production of “blue” fertilisers or hydrogen, facilities capture a portion of the CO2 generated. Yet the report’s review of existing research and practice reveals that carbon capture rates in “blue” nitrogen fertiliser production have never reached the 90%–95% claimed by the industry. At the Enid facility, the world’s second-oldest CCS fertiliser plant, which has been operational since 1982, only 28% of CO2 emissions were captured.
This captured CO2 is subsequently used to extract more oil from underground reservoirs. Burning this oil generates fresh, and often greater, volumes of CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, the carbon used as a raw material for the fertiliser is also released back into the atmosphere throughout its subsequent lifecycle.
As for “green” nitrogen fertilisers, they remain in their infancy. They account for a minuscule fraction of global fertiliser sales and utilise just 0.3% of worldwide ammonia production.
Another study cited in the report highlights the staggering energy demands of producing both “blue” and “green” fertilisers.Compared with conventional fertilisers, producing “blue” ammonia-based fertiliser requires 58% more energy, doubles land use, and triples water consumption. Switching to “green” ammonia would demand 24 times more electricity (equivalent to 5% of global power generation), 30 times more land, and 50 times more water.
II. Ultra-processed foods are the most energy-intensive, with plastic “entangling” the entire food cycle
Within this sector, food processing demands substantial amounts of heat, typically generated by burning fossil fuels rather than through electric heating. Processes such as sterilisation, pasteurisation, baking and drying alone account for 60–70% of total energy use by food manufacturers. Processing crops like maize, wheat and soybeans breaks them down into sugars, oils, fats, proteins, starches and fibres. The production of high-fructose corn syrup, in particular, involves wet-milling and refining maize, which are exceptionally energy-intensive operations.
Of these, ultra-processed foods are particularly notable. These products also represent the primary market for ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup. Industrially manufactured items like sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meats, confectionery and packaged snacks rely on complex formulations and exhibit high energy intensity, requiring between two and ten times more energy to produce than minimally processed foods. The report notes that these items are frequently subsidised, heavily marketed and highly profitable. They now account for up to 60% of total caloric intake in many high-income countries, with consumption rising rapidly in lower-income nations. As production of ultra-processed foods scales up and supply chains lengthen, the global scale of processing and packaging expands, alongside a rise in food miles.
In addition, the food system consumes 40% of global petrochemicals, with 74% allocated to plastic and fertiliser production. Food production—particularly ultra-processed foods—is also a major driver of excessive plastic packaging. Asia—particularly China, India, Vietnam, South Korea and Thailand—accounts for a staggering share of global plastic packaging use, representing more than 43% of the world’s total in 2023 and expected to expand at the fastest pace through to 2030. China stands as the largest producer and consumer of plastic packaging. Plastic is also widely deployed on farms at the upstream end of the food chain, from greenhouses and ground mulch films to silage wraps used to preserve livestock feed for fermentation.
The report projects that global plastic production will more than double by 2050. By then, petrochemicals are set to become the backbone of the fossil fuel economy, driving more than half of all demand growth.
So can recycling, as the industry claims, truly solve the plastic waste crisis? Globally, less than 10% of plastic is actually recycled. Food packaging, hampered by food residue contamination and complex multi-material constructions, ranks among the most difficult categories to recover. In China, while PET bottles and rigid HDPE/PVC plastics remain highly prized by recyclers, PP takeaway containers caked in grease are actively shunned, even by independent waste pickers.
What about switching to bio-based plastics? Replacing all current plastic packaging with them would demand more than half of the world’s maize crop, over 60% of the EU’s annual freshwater use, and an area of land larger than France. Moreover, these materials are not inherently non-toxic, nor are they guaranteed to fully biodegrade.
Is there anything major food corporations can do? The report traces the record: since the launch of the Global Brand Audit in 2018, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Nestlé have consistently ranked as the top three plastic polluters. The most recent audit found that 83% of the plastic waste tracked was from food packaging, predominantly bottles, wrapping and containers.
Could food processing become cleaner? Transitioning gas-powered equipment to electricity or adopting solar energy is both technically and financially viable. Yet many processors have set relatively modest sustainability targets—and failed to meet even those. The report concludes that the fundamental shift must come from challenging the profit incentives of the ultra-processed food giants. Only by curbing their output can we meaningfully reduce overall energy demand, slash plastic packaging use, and improve public health at large.
III. From Cold Storage to Table
The report also presents a seemingly paradoxical statistic: due to inadequate cooling, 620 million tonnes of food are lost globally each year.
So, should we rely more on refrigeration, or less? The report cites a 2024 academic study as the source. The study notes that this apparent contradiction stems from the stark differences in how food systems in developing and developed nations waste energy: if the cold chain were fully optimised—eliminating all food spoilage—South and South-East Asia could reduce fruit and vegetable losses by 100 million tonnes annually. In sub-Saharan Africa, it would avert the emission of over 700 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. However, in developed countries, the scope for optimising the cold chain is far more limited. Moreover, regardless of industrialisation levels, developing localised, low-input food supply chains conserves more food than even an ideally optimised cold chain—cutting emissions by 300 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent from meat losses alone.
Cooking also drives fossil fuel use: more than a third of the global population (between 2.3 and 2.8 billion people in 2020) relies on highly polluting solid fuels such as firewood, charcoal, and animal dung. The situation is particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa, where over 80% of the population still cooks with polluting fuels. Without significant intervention, this trend will persist until at least 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 foster healthy food environments
7. Eliminate food waste and promote clean cooking technologies
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 writer returning to her craft, focusing on the individuals shaped by climate change, ecological shifts, and societal transformation