Consumers are getting louder about the types of products expected to be on grocery store shelves. No longer are we prioritizing only safety or dietary restrictions; where possible, food must now also be Canadian, minimally processed, socially conscious, and sustainably produced. While all these factors contribute to the decisions we make as we push our carts up and down aisles, sustainability, as vague and subjective that classification is, is moving its way up to the front of mind. Unfortunately, wanting to buy sustainable products is still bound by what can reasonably be spent and sometimes, the cost of sustainability outweighs the indirect benefits.
The operational definition of a sustainable diet used for over 15 years by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization mentions low environmental impact, nutritional adequacy (including limiting sugar consumption), resource optimization, and affordability. The absence of any one of these, in theory, means the diet is unsustainable. Instead of feeling guilty about choosing the cheaper option, we should understand why foods marketed as “more sustainable” tend to be more expensive and whether that compromises the sustainability claims.
For most of us, the environmental footprint is the most important consideration of sustainable food choices. We are told that from an emissions perspective, plant-based alternatives grown with sustainable farming practices and developed using minimal processing are the best options. “Sustainable farming practices” in this context refers to the methods that quell our fears about agriculture: optimizing resource use, reducing input intensity, and minimizing the risks of monocultures. While a great starting point, a sustainability narrative that focusses solely on the environment is incredibly ignorant.
A few months ago, Dr. Burkitbayeva wrote about how the averages game used to compare the environmental footprints of different goods is incredibly misleading, especially when we’re discussing the tradeoffs of food decisions (i.e. environmental impact vs. nutrition). Red meat and ultra-processed foods have some of the highest emissions profiles, yet some grass-fed beef is nutritionally comparable to recommended lean meats. Most meat alternatives are heavily processed either by adding ingredients or to simulate the meat illusion, and up to three quarters of available plant-based products fall into the ultra processed category. Are those products any less nutritionally adequate as a result of process?
Processing, depending on the level, is one of the tools we use to improve shelf life and occasionally encourage consumption; it can be more convenient to buy a bag of carrots (processed) than a smaller bunch with the greens attached. Purchasing whole foods to cut and store at home in an attempt to circumnavigate the cost and footprint of processing facilities can be useful for households that are not burdened by the time commitment however, these households need also be aware of the increased likelihood of food waste and the energy efficiency differences between home and industry processing. Moving away from single-use plastic can, in the short term, reduce the packaging costs of sustainable foods, although that option is more dependent on an industry shift than individuals’ daily habits.
Even the type of supply chain can impact our ability to compare production methods. Short supply chains typically observed with direct markets, despite having the most benefit when used as a complement to more globalized supply chains, are frequently highlighted as the preferred outlet as it reduces the distance food travels to meet its consumer. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find articles that promote local while also acknowledging the differences in the traded volume or that the vast majority of Canadian producers participating in short supply chains rely on personal, fossil fuel-consuming vehicles not necessarily running at their optimum.
Fundamentally, food is becoming increasingly expensive, and our purchase guidelines are doing very little to accommodate this. Canadians are spending over 20 per cent more on food than we were a decade ago, as reaffirmed annually by the Canada Food Price Report. Meanwhile, the amended Canada Food Guide followed today, which prioritises plant-based alternatives, whole foods, and environmental consciousness, costs households hundreds of dollars more per year to meet the minimum recommendations. Surveys may reveal a willingness to pay more for known sustainable products when the messaging is credible or trusted, but the reality is that most Canadians that avoid sustainability claims (51 per cent or 64 per cent, depending on the poll) do so because of the expense.
Sustainable foods already tend to be more expensive than foods not marketed that way. The price is determined by a combination of more expensive ingredients (more expensive because of production standards and lost economies of scale) and different packaging considerations, further exacerbated by food inflation. The overhead and labour costs imbedded in the products we purchase don’t go away because the product changes; sometimes a smaller production quantity can increase labour intensity and invalidate cost savings observed elsewhere in the supply chain. A 10 per cent reduction in food prices would be enough to ignite a 12 per cent increase in healthy food consumption however, societal food purchasing behaviour would still need to somewhat shift away from intangible considerations like brand loyalty and diversity preferences before policy changes will be implemented.
Cost is a barrier to sustainability. As consumers, it costs us to change our habits and for industry, technology requires investment. Our country’s agricultural growth value comes from our supply chain networks, production efficiency, and processing advancements, and Canada is comparatively very privileged in our technology adoption capabilities. However, in order to improve sustainable consumption, Canada requires at least twice our clean energy investments. Action from others can be spurred by our calls for smart government spending and demand for sustainable options in grocery stores. Turning our heads away from foundational innovations in favour of labelled or consumer-based sustainability exclusively will lead to production loss, revenue loss, greater technology adoption costs, increased labour requirements, and the overall declining health of Canada’s farming communities.
There are plenty of ways to “be more sustainable” on the day to day but it needs to match our budgets. An option that pushes you to economic discomfort is not truly sustainable. We make changes where we are able and that is good enough when asking the marketplace to change simultaneously. If enough consumers prioritise sustainability in their food choices, private and public investments will be forced to enter the space to remain profitable. The more choice, the better.
Part 2 This second post to the series on agricultural productivity in Canada dives into… Read More
The Role of Economics in Canadian Track Closures It’s horse racing season. Rather, for Canadians, it should be. Despite being one… Read More
The following article was originally posted by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) on May 14,… Read More
Connecting Data, People, and Purpose Why Grasspea Matters Grasspea is one of the world's most… Read More
According to a Nanos Research poll released on April 13, 2026, 57% of Canadians support… Read More