Blue apron meal kits are not likely to harm the planet

In recent years, I've watched the rise of the popularity of meal kits from companies such as Blue Apron and HelloFresh with increasing skepticism. Filled with individually packaged refrigerator and ingredient packs, decorated with marketing and recycling symbols from farm to table, these well packaged dinners seemed to embody the companies greenwashing. It can not be good for the planet, I thought every time a friend told me about his latest culinary adventure kit.

In fact, I was probably a little quick to judge this trend.

An unprecedented study of the environmental footprint of meal kits has shown that they can actually be more climate friendly than buying the same ingredients for the same meal at your local grocery store. Some important caveats should be kept in mind, but it is essentially a waste of food: as the ingredients are pre-dosed and presented more directly to the consumer, the meal kits appear to reduce on average the amount of food thrown away. And from the point of view of carbon emissions, it's more important than excessive packaging.

The packed lunches take flight. The US industry, which is about a decade old, is now worth about $ 1.5 billion and growing at a rate of 25% per year. This growing popularity means that meal kits have the potential to "transform" the food industry, as noted by the authors of the study based at the University of Michigan. Yet, we know very little about their environmental footprint.

To fill this gap, the authors selected five dishes of Blue Apron (salmon, cheeseburger, chicken, pasta and salad) and prepared them using the kit and the same ingredients purchased at the grocery store. For each preparation, the researchers tried to estimate the total carbon footprint of the meal, taking into account everything from agricultural production to packaging to transportation and the amount of waste generated.

In the end, the meal kits were the winners in terms of the environment. The average carbon emissions for a meal of Blue Apron was 6.1 kg, about 33% less than the 8.1 kg of CO2 in the grocery version. In each case, with the exception of the cheeseburger, the meal kit beat its counterpart at the grocery store. (In this case, Brent Heard, Ph.D. student and lead author of the study, told Earther that some of the ingredients in the kit were much heavier than their counterparts in the grocery store, resulting in increased emissions .)

According to the analysis of the authors, the main reason that the meal kits have done better, is that they generate less food waste on average in pre-portions. Cutting the grocery store can also help the garbage service because it turns out that grocery stores throw a lot of food in the trash.

"One thing that really surprised me: I was not sure how much the supermarket retail process had an impact on the environment," Heard told Earther. "This includes foods that become lost foods because of overcrowding or the slaughter of altered products, but also from the operation of supermarkets."

The study, published in the journal Resources, Conservation and Recycling, also revealed that meal kits reduce so-called "last mile" emissions, the last stage of transit required to move food from the distribution center to the kitchen. Since meal kits are delivered by trucks that make many deliveries, each box represents a small portion of last-mile public transit emissions – a glaring difference from going to the store to buy ingredients. for dinner and for no one else.

"One of the highlights of the study is the amount of household food waste and its impact."

Together, the reduction in waste, last-mile emissions and refrigeration packs in the meal kits (which were more environmentally friendly than the grocery store's giant refrigeration systems) more than offset the additional 0.17 kg of carbon dioxide. carbon associated with the packaging of a meal kit. And while the authors focused their work on greenhouse gases, they had conducted similar analyzes of land and water use and nutrient pollution. The results obtained were, for the most part, "essentially similar".

Now, there are a lot of assumptions here – about your behavior and where you buy your food – that make the results difficult to reduce at the individual level. According to Heard, the authors included a "sensitivity analysis" in which key variables, such as the number of weekly trips consumers made to the grocery store or the amount of food they were throwing out, varied between two extremes. , "And we found no lag. in the overall results, significantly. Senior author Shelie Miller, however, told Earther that the results "tended to be average".

I asked if, by going to the grocery store, composting my leftover food and being prepared to try to eat all my leftovers, I would be a candidate to upgrade to meal kits for the good of the planet. "Send us your data," joked Miller, adding that the study was not so much about dictating an individual choice as "conscious consumption."

"One of the highlights of the study is the amount of household food waste and its impact," she said.

Indeed, the USDA estimates that America threw some 133 billion pounds of food, or $ 161 billion, into the trash in 2010. Separate research has estimated that an average American is wasting about a pound of food a day. Not only does it take energy and resources to grow this wasted food, but when it ends up in landfills, it releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Whether you're getting all your food at farmers' markets or ordering every night, we all have a responsibility here.

And if we, consumers, can be more attentive, we can do the same for the companies from which we buy. Grocery stories can help reduce food loss and move to more environmentally friendly forms of refrigeration.

Companies preparing packed lunches can congratulate themselves on controlling their portions. But they still have to find a way to reduce this damn packaging.