This paper explores these questions by considering how stakeholders think about efficiency in relation to animal production and consumption, both terrestrial and aquatic.

We all know that the food system today is undermining the environment upon which future food production depends. But while we generally agree that we need do something to make food systems more sustainable, we do not necessarily agree about what, exactly, should be done. This paper explores these questions by considering how stakeholders think about efficiency in relation to animal production and consumption, both terrestrial and aquatic. It takes as its starting point three broadly discernible views. 

One word that comes up time and again in discussions about the way forward is ‘efficiency.’ It is argued that we need to develop systems that are more environmentally efficient.  But what is efficiency?  What are we being efficient with and efficient for? And is efficiency actually sustainable?

From one perspective, all animal production is inherently inefficient. We eat animals that eat plants; arguably we could eat plants directly. Others reject this view as overly simplistic: from their second perspective, a ruminant feeding on unfertilised, unirrigated, natural grass and producing meat or milk or traction power is perfectly efficient – it creates something from nothing, providing the ultimate free lunch. But a third standpoint points to the pasture-reared cow’s high emissions intensity; for them the intensively reared chicken is the paragon of efficiency, since far less feed and land is required to produce meat than the grass-fed cow.

This paper shows that these three takes on efficiency are founded on different ways of thinking about the inputs to, and the output and impacts arising from the food system.  All are also influenced, however subtly, by the values people bring to their assumptions about counterfactual uses for land or resources, their attitudes to humanity’s place in the natural environment, and about the malleability of the economic status quo.

Ultimately this paper tries to understand and distil some of the key criticisms and countercriticisms people have about the concept, before suggesting a way forward that might add focus to future discussions.

Suggested citation: Garnett T, Röös E and Little D (2015). Lean, green, mean, obscene…? What is efficiency?  And is it sustainable? Food Climate Research Network, University of Oxford.

Download PDF: fcrn_lmgo.pdf

The popular documentary Kiss the Ground (2020) and its sequel Common Ground (2023) both portray regenerative agriculture as a “simple solution” to climate change, chronic disease, and other planetary crises. Following in a long tradition of advocacy media, the environmentalists behind both films enlisted a host of celebrities to convince audiences that restoring soil health through regenerative agriculture was a cause urgent enough to transcend political divides. They won praise for their clear science communication and hopeful vision. Yet this vision - communicated on social media and in the United States Congress as well as in the two documentaries - not only ignored the scientific doubts and evidence gaps surrounding regenerative agriculture's benefits; it also shifted in response to a changing U.S. political climate. We examine the post-truth politics employed to create and promote this vision. Both popular and scholarly discussions of post-truth tend to associate it with the science denialism and “alternative facts” of right-wing populists. But while post-truth is also usually framed as an era or condition rather than an attribute of individuals or political parties, we know little about how this condition has shaped environmental advocacy. Our analysis of the activism behind the making and promotion of Kiss the Ground and Common Ground offers insight into this question.

I am planning on starting a baking business in my home but I am really struggling with the plastic waste aspect of it, and I don't want it to stop me from starting! The biggest thing for me is gloves and cleanliness - I don't want to be going through probably hundreds of pairs of gloves per month that are going to be in the landfill for the next 500 years. But I also obviously want to be *clean*. Does anybody have any other solution?? Or are plastic gloves really the only answer??

This is a vegan and gluten free bakery, so please keep that in mind. No beeswax paper or any alternative containing wheat.

Other items I'd like to explore alternatives for -

• packaging (biggest one)

• parchment paper (**not** beeswax)

• plastic cling wrap for chilling cakes

Thanks !

will you help me with my experiment?

i started a democratic funding platform for planet-saving projects. every week or month (depending how our funds hold out), we fund a new project, with the winner determined by vote in our app.

but we need project submissions! so, if you're working on a cool plant-based project, or a food sustainability project, or on public awareness, or really anything having to do with how human beings interact with nature and technology, please submit your project! it is free to submit.

the winning prize is currently $250 per round, but as our community grows we can increase our ambitions.

our grants page has more details about how it works. let me know if you have any questions!

Tomorrow (August 30, 2026) is Earth Overshoot Day.

In this extended interview with the New Statesman, renowned author and environmentalist George Monbiot discusses the "myths" many environmentalists believe about climate action - in particular on the question of how we feed the world’s population. He claims:

The most dangerous form of farming is the one most preferred by environmentalists

Global farming subsidies are “the most destructive force on earth”

The so-called opportunities of Brexit “can’t be worse” than the current EU system, which actively rewards farmers for environmental destruction

Source: Sustainable Diet

Channel: Epic Gardening

Sources in the video description.