CHOICES
A publication of AAEA
On August 14, 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, alongside senior administration officials, reignited debates over a proposed global shipping emissions fee. These debates mirror the controversies surrounding food miles, a metric that captures the distance over which food travels from production to consumption. Much like the shipping fee debate, the popular concept of food miles has been celebrated for its simplicity and criticized for oversimplifying sustainability complexities. While the concept has been widely used to raise awareness among consumers and policymakers about the carbon emissions associated with food transport (Avetisyan, Hertel, and Sampson, 2014; Schnell, 2013), it often falls short of capturing the full environmental and economic realities of global food systems.
Figure 1 presents the Google Trends data on interest in the term “food miles” from its introduction in 2004 through 2024. Interest rose steadily until 2010, plateaued in the following decade, and then peaked sharply again in 2022. Most of this attention originated in high-income countries, reflecting places where consumer awareness and policy discussions have been most active. Yet, despite the visibility, the food miles metric remains limited. It often overlooks production efficiency, underrepresents the role of small or developing countries, and oversimplifies the complexities of consumer decision-making and policy formation (Wynen and Vanzetti, 2008; Avetisyan, Hertel, and Sampson, 2014; Schmitt et al., 2017). Moreover, research shows that shorter food travel distances do not always translate into lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as inefficiencies in local agricultural systems can offset the benefits of reduced transportation (Clark et al., 2020; Baylis, Heckelei, and Hertel, 2021).
This article examines the socioeconomic and environmental dimensions of food miles and discusses the limitations of using distance as a proxy for sustainability. At the end, this paper suggests a refinedmetric such as a kilometers-per-dollar index (KM/$) tobetter capture the complexities of global food systems.
Consumers in wealthier nations are increasingly concerned about their carbon footprint and often use food miles as a proxy for environmental sustainability when making purchasing decisions (DEFRA, 2013; Avetisyan, Hertel, and Sampson, 2014). Consumers are willing to pay (WTP) a premium for locally grown food, which they associate with environmental benefits, freshness, and safety (Darby et al., 2008; Dunne et al., 2011). However, recent analyses reveal that consumer responses to carbon labeling and food miles vary across demographics, regions, and product categories, with the average WTP premium reaching 29.5% (Li and Kallas, 2021). While food miles labeling raises awareness, it also has limitations. Locally produced goods often require higher inputs, energy, and labor, making them less efficient and more expensive (Kiss, Ruszkai, and Takács-György, 2019). Additionally, international trade expands consumer choice and ensures year-round availability of diverse products (Wynen and Vanzetti, 2008; Huang, von Lampe, and van Tongeren, 2011). From a food miles perspective, this underscores a key limitation of the metric: Shorter distances do not always equate to greater efficiency or sustainability, as international trade often leverages economies of scale and optimal production conditions that can offset transportation-related emissions. However, even though consumers tend to favor certified products with recognizable labels, a majority of consumers remain uncertain or misinformed about the meaning and credibility of various labeling and certification schemes (McCallum et al., 2022; Scott and Sesmero, 2022).
Government responses to food miles vary significantly across regions. In Europe, initiatives such as carbon taxes and food miles labeling aim to reduce emissions from long-distance food transport (Lewis and Mitchell, 2014). However, these measures have faced criticism
for disproportionately targeting air-freighted imports, which account for a small fraction of total trade (Schnell, 2013). Moreover, mandatory labeling has raised concerns about compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules (Waye, 2008), since overly restrictive labeling requirements may violate the principle of nondiscrimination and be regarded as a disguised restriction on international trade. In North America, governments have implemented policies to support local food systems. For instance, Ontario introduced the Local Food Act to boost regional economies and encourage residents to buy locally produced goods. Similarly, the USDA runs initiatives such as the Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP), which aims to improve access to local food, reduce socioeconomic inequalities, and lower environmental impacts associated with long-distance food transportation (Government of Ontario, 2013; USDA-AMS, 2024).
The private sector has played a pivotal role in advancing sustainability efforts by leveraging food miles as a marketing and operational tool. Major retailers and multinational corporations have integrated food miles into their sustainability strategies to align with consumer demand and regulatory expectations. For example, Walmart sources 20% of its fresh produce locally, reducing transportation costs and carbon emissions while responding to consumer preferences for locally grown products (Walmart, 2014). Similarly, Whole Foods has launched initiatives such as the Local Producer Loan Program (LPL) and the Local and Emerging Accelerator Program (LEAP), which support small-scale producers in becoming suppliers, thereby enhancing regional food systems (Whole Foods Market, 2022). These efforts underscore the private sector’s potential to positively influence sustainable food systems. However, challenges remain. Large firms often dominate supply chains, capturing the economic benefits of initiatives focused on food miles while smaller producers struggle to compete. This imbalance may exacerbate inequities in market access and revenue distribution. Additionally, some companies engage in greenwashing, marketing practices that overstate the environmental benefits of their actions, thereby diluting the credibility of sustainability claims and misleading consumers (Enthoven and Van den Broeck, 2021).
Another critical factor is the transparency of supply chains. While food miles can highlight the transportation-related environmental impacts, they often fail to account for upstream practices such as production methods, labor conditions, and resource use (Shimizu and Desrochers, 2008). This presents an opportunity for private-sector actors to lead in developing standardized metrics that go beyond food miles, incorporating broader sustainability indicators. The private sector’s role is not limited to addressing consumer preferences. The private sector can significantly reduce emissions across supply chains by fostering innovation in logistics, packaging, and agricultural practices. For example, investments in transportation powered by renewable energy sources or more efficient packaging can mitigate the environmental costs associated with long-distance trade (Veloso et al., 2025). However, achieving such advancements requires collaboration among stakeholders, including governments, research institutions, and civil society organizations (Parmesan, Morecroft, and Trisurat, 2022). Also, policies and programs should focus on supporting smallholder farmers, particularly in developing regions, by integrating them into global supply chains while maintaining fair pricing structures (Huang, von Lampe, and van Tongeren, 2011; Kanter et al., 2018). Education campaigns aimed at empowering consumers with accurate information can also help mitigate misconceptions about food miles and encourage informed decision-making (Hill, 2008; Kissinger, 2012).
Moreover, food miles research often emphasizes environmental over economic effects, focusing on transportation distance rather than broader environmental and economic impacts. A majority of studies agree that local food systems can enhance regional economies by creating value chains and supporting agricultural land preservation (Jenet, 2016). However, localized production can increase costs, disproportionately affecting low-income households and excluding them from sustainability benefits (Dunne et al., 2011). Shifts toward local consumption in developed regions, often driven by food miles awareness campaigns, may adversely affect developing countries that depend on agricultural exports. For instance, a decline in European imports could result in substantial welfare losses for farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa who are heavily reliant on access to European Union (EU) markets (Ballingall and Winchester, 2010), highlighting the unintended economic consequences of relying solely on distance-based sustainability indicators. Distance-focused policies can shift sourcing patterns in ways that change both emissions and welfare. For example, discouraging long-haul imports may reduce transport distances yet raise production-stage emissions if output shifts to regions with less efficient systems. This could also narrow consumer access and affect trading partners’ livelihoods. These examples show that environmental goals tied to food miles cannot be separated from trade policy considerations: This underscores the need for policy frameworks that integrate transportation metrics with production efficiency, effects on stakeholders, and broader sustainability goals.
Because transport is only one component of food system emissions, evidence derived from life-cycle assessments (LCAs) shows why distance alone often fails to predict total impacts, especially when production- and processing-stage differences dominate. Over the past 2 decades, research on food miles has produced inconsistent findings due to variations in methodology and scope. LCAs, a primary tool for measuring GHG emissions, yield conflicting results depending on their inclusion of production, transportation, and processing stages (Li et al., 2022; McWilliams, 2009; Schnell, 2013). Transportation, while central to the food miles metric, typically accounts for less than 15% of total agricultural emissions, with production and processing contributing up to 85% (Hill, 2008; Lewis and Mitchell, 2014; Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Longer food travel distances deplete natural resources such as fossil fuels and packaging materials (Mosammam et al., 2018). Moreover, suboptimal growing conditions may result in higher resource use and emissions than importing goods from more efficient regions (Ferguson Aikins and Ramanathan, 2020). This imbalance makes it clear that distance, by itself, is not a reliable proxy for sustainability.
While reducing food miles through organic farming for local production is often assumed to lower emissions and improve sustainability, evidence suggests this is not always the case. Large-scale supply chains usually achieve greater efficiency through economies of scale, reducing overall per-unit emissions compared to localized systems (Schmitt et al., 2017; Malak-Rawlikowska et al., 2019). Conversely, local systems can increase operational costs and consumer prices, limiting access for low-income households (Hinrichs, 2003; Dunne et al., 2011). Agricultural trade plays a vital role in enhancing food security, promoting sustainability, and supporting economic growth. By facilitating specialization and the exchange of efficient farming practices, trade helps mitigate climate-related risks and reduce emissions (Anderson, 2002; Aksoy and Beghin, 2004; Baylis, Heckelei, and Hertel, 2021). However, trade also introduces environmental challenges, particularly through long-distance transportation.
While agriculture contributes significantly to GHG emissions, focusing solely on this sector overlooks the broader food system’s environmental impacts.Emissions from packaging, retailing, and transportation stages often rival or exceed those from farming (Mundler and Laughrea, 2016; Clark et al., 2020; Ferguson Aikins and Ramanathan, 2020). A comprehensive approach to food miles research should include emissions from all stages of the food system and recognize the positive contributions of agriculture, such as soil carbon sequestration and renewable energy adoption (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Expanding the focus beyond agriculture will align food miles research with broader climate and sustainability objectives.
One such refinement is the value-weighted distance index, which measures the average distance traveled by each dollar of trade. By incorporating trade value into the calculation, the index highlights not just the physical distance of food transport but also the economic intensity of those trade flows. In doing so, it better reflects trade efficiency and environmental implications, recognizing that a dollar of high-value goods transported over a certain distance differs from a dollar associated with lower-value, bulkier commodities. For example, if a $1,000 shipment of Product A travels 5,000 km, while a $1,000 shipment of Product B travels 10,000 km, the latter indicates less efficiency in value terms. The index can be expressed as
 |
where Distancei is measured in kilometers that product i travels from the exporter to the importing country and Trade Valuei represents the value of product i traded in US dollars. KM/$ becomes policy useful when paired with stage-specific emissions intensities. For example, using emission computation units such kgCO2e per ton-km by region enables a quick appraisal of whether distance reductions are likely to reduce emissions for a given product and how such changes affect overall environmental and economic outcomes.
Figure 2 illustrates the kilometers-per-dollar for various agricultural and nonagricultural commodities. Animal-sourced products and cereals exhibit higher kilometers per dollar, reflecting longer transport distances relative to their economic value. In contrast, fruits, vegetables, and nuts travel shorter distances per dollar, signaling more efficient trade flows. This metric highlights inefficiencies and provides a more nuanced understanding of how trade flows by product category contribute to environmental and economic outcomes. By examining kilometers-per-dollar, policymakers can identify specific trade patterns where interventions including improving logistics infrastructure or promoting regional value chains could enhance trade efficiency and environmental performance.
Significant regional and commodity-based variations further complicate the application of food miles as a universal sustainability metric. Figure 3 illustrates kilometers-per-dollar across agricultural and nonagricultural exports and imports for various global regions. For example, North America, South America,West and South Africa, and Oceania exhibit the highest kilometers-per-dollar for agricultural exports, suggesting that agricultural products from these regions travel farther to reach consumers (Figure 3a). Conversely, import-heavy countries such as China, Australia, and South Korea also rank high in kilometers-per-dollar for agricultural imports (Figure 3b). For nonagricultural goods, countries like the United States, parts of South America, and many Asian nations exhibit high kilometers-per-dollar for exports (Figure 3c). However, the same metric for nonagricultural imports is markedly higher for North and South America compared to Asian nations, indicating differing trade dynamics (Figure 3d). These differences highlight why applying a single, distance-only metric like food miles can misrepresent the environmental efficiency of certain trade flows.
The integration of refined metrics like kilometers-per-dollar into food miles research offers a pathway for more actionable and equitable policy development. By combining such indicators with life-cycle assessment methodologies, future research can better address the complexities of trade, environmental impacts, and socioeconomic outcomes. Policymakers should leverage these insights to design region- and commodity-specific interventions that balance local sustainability goals with global trade efficiency. This approach ensures that food miles policies promote environmental and economic resilience without imposing undue burdens on specific regions or sectors.
To conclude, food miles have emerged as a prominent metric in discussions about sustainable food systems, reflecting growing concerns about environmental impacts, consumer behavior, and global trade. While the concept has raised awareness about carbon emissions and local food systems, this review highlights its limitations as a standalone measure of sustainability. Transportation accounts for a small fraction of total food
system emissions, with the majority arising from production and processing. Additionally, when food miles are reduced, local food systems do not always guarantee environmental or economic efficiency, particularly in regions with suboptimal growing conditions. Efforts to promote food miles-focused policies must consider their broader implications. These policies can benefit local economies but may also increase costs for consumers, exclude low-income households, and disrupt global trade flows. Ultimately, incorporating complementary measures such as the KM/$ index and life-cycle assessments can provide a fuller picture of environmental and economic impacts, helping policymakers and stakeholders move beyond one-dimensional indicators toward more sustainable and equitable food systems.
Aksoy, M.A., and J.C. Beghin. 2004. Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries. World Bank.
Anderson, K. 2002. “Agricultural Trade Reform and Poverty Reduction in Developing Countries.” Working paper. University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
Avetisyan, M., T. Hertel, and G. Sampson. 2014. “Is Local Food More Environmentally Friendly? The GHG Emissions Impacts of Consuming Imported Versus Domestically Produced Food.” Environmental and Resource Economics 58:415–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9706-3
Ballingall, J., and N. Winchester. 2010. “Food Miles: Starving the Poor?” World Economy 33(10):1201–1217.http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2010.01270.x
Baylis, K., T. Heckelei, and T.W. Hertel. 2021. “Agricultural Trade and Environmental Sustainability.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 13: 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101420-090453
Centre d’Études Prospectives et d’Informations Internationales (CEPII). 2022. “BACI: International Trade Database at the Product Level.” Available online: http://www.cepii.fr/ [Accessed October 13, 2024]
Clark, M.A., N.G.G. Domingo, K. Colgan, S.K. Thakrar, D. Tilman, J. Lynch, I.L. Azevedo, and J.D. Hill. 2020. “Global Food System Emissions Could Preclude Achieving the 1.5°C and 2°C Climate Change Targets.” Science 370(6517):705–708. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7357
Darby, K., M.T. Batte, S. Ernst, and B. Roe. 2008. “Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(2):476–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01111.x
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2014. Food Statistics Pocketbook 2013: In-Year Update. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ [Accessed October 11, 2024]
Dunne, J.B., K.J. Chambers, K.J. Giombolini, and S.A. Schlegel. 2011. “What Does ‘Local’ Mean in the Grocery Store? Multiplicity in Food Retailers’ Perspectives on Sourcing and Marketing Local Foods.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 26(1):46–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170510000402
Enthoven, L., and G. Van den Broeck. 2021. “Local Food Systems: Reviewing Two Decades of Research.” Agricultural Systems 193:103226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103226
Ferguson Aikins, E., and U. Ramanathan. 2020. “Key Factors of Carbon Footprint in the UK Food Supply Chains: A New Perspective of Life Cycle Assessment.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 40(7–8):945–970.
Google Trends. 2024. “Search Interest Data for ‘Food Miles’, 2004–2024.” Available online: https://trends.google.com [Accessed December 31, 2024]
Government of Ontario. 2013. The Ontario Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations Act, 2013. Available online: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/13l07
Hill, H. 2008. “Food Miles: Background and Marketing.” ATTRA. Available online: https://attra.ncat.org/publication/food-miles-background-and-marketing/
Hinrichs, C.C. 2003. “The Practice and Politics of Food System Localization.” Journal of Rural Studies 19(1):33–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00040-2
Huang, H., M. von Lampe, and F. van Tongeren. 2011. “Climate Change and Trade in Agriculture.” Food Policy 36:S9–S13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.10.008
Jenet, B. 2016. “Production, Storage, and Distribution of Food: A Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Assessment.” MS Thesis. University of Virginia. https://doi.org/10.18130/V30X10
Kanter, D.R., M. Musumba, S.L. Wood, C. Palm, J. Antle, P. Balvanera et al. 2018. “Evaluating Agricultural Trade-Offs in the Age of Sustainable Development.” Agricultural Systems 163:73–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.010
Kiss, K., C. Ruszkai, and K. Takács-György. 2019. “Examination of Short Supply Chains Based on Circular Economy and Sustainability Aspects.” Resources 8(4):161. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources8040161
Kissinger, M. 2012. “International Trade Related Food Miles: The Case of Canada.” Food Policy 37(2):171–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.01.002
Lewis, M.K., and A.D. Mitchell. 2014. “Food Miles: Environmental Protection or Veiled Protectionism?” Michigan Journal of International Law 35(3):579.
Li, M., N. Jia, M. Lenzen, A. Malik, L. Wei, Y. Jin, and D. Raubenheimer. 2022. “Global Food Miles Account for Nearly 20% of Total Food-System Emissions.” Nature Food 3(6):445–453. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00531-w
Li, S., and Z. Kallas. 2021. “Meta-Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Food Products.” Appetite 163:1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105239
Malak-Rawlikowska, A., E. Majewski, A. Was, S.O. Borgen, P. Csillag, M. Donati et al. 2019. “Measuring the Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability of Short Food Supply Chains.” Sustainability 11(15):4004. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154004
McCallum, C.S., S. Cerroni, D. Derbyshire, W.G. Hutchinson, and R.M. Nayga Jr. 2022. “Consumers’ Responses to Food Fraud Risks: An Economic Experiment.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 49(4):942–969. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab029
McWilliams, J.E. 2009. Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly. Hachette UK.
Mosammam, H.M., M. Sarrafi, J.T. Nia, and A.M. Mosammam. 2018. “Analyzing the International Trade-Related Food Miles in Iran.” Outlook on Agriculture 47(1):36–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727018761691
Mundler, P., and S. Laughrea. 2016. “The Contributions of Short Food Supply Chains to Territorial Development: A Study of Three Quebec Territories.” Journal of Rural Studies 45:218–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.04.001
Parmesan, C., M.D. Morecroft, and Y. Trisurat. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. IPCC.
Poore, J., and T. Nemecek. 2018. “Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts Through Producers and Consumers.” Science 360(6392):987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Schmitt, E., F. Galli, D. Menozzi, D. Maye, J. Touzard, A. Marescotti et al. 2017. “Comparing the Sustainability of Local and Global Food Products in Europe.” Journal of Cleaner Production 165:346–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.039
Schnell, S.M. 2013. “Food Miles, Local Eating, and Community Supported Agriculture: Putting Local Food in Its Place.” Agriculture and Human Values 30:615–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9436-8
Scott, F., and J.P. Sesmero. 2022. “Market and Welfare Effects of Quality Misperception in Food Labels.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 104(5):1747–1769. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12287
Shimizu, H., and P. Desrochers. 2008. “Yes We Have No Bananas: A Critique of the ‘Food Miles’ Perspective.” Mercatus Policy Series 8.
United Nations. 2022. “UN Comtrade Database.” Available online: https://comtrade.un.org/ [Accessed October 13, 2024]
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA-AMS). 2024. “Local Food Systems.” Available online: https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to-usda/lfs
Veloso, V., A. Santos, A. Carvalho, and A. Barbosa-Póvoa. 2025. “A Comprehensive Framework for Assessing Circular Economy Strategies in Agri-Food Supply Chains.” Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05755-3
Walmart. 2014. “Walmart Produce: Our Commitment to You.” Available online: https://stock.walmart.com/ [Accessed January 24, 2025]
Waye, V. 2008. “Carbon Footprints, Food Miles and the Australian Wine Industry.” Melbourne Journal of International Law 9:271.
Whole Foods Market. 2022. Whole Foods Market Sustainability Report 2022.
Wynen, E., and D. Vanzetti. 2008. “No Through Road: The Limitations of Food Miles.” ADBI Working Paper No. 118. Available online: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/53558 [Accessed December 12, 2023]
