Food-system carbon accounting overlooks the effects of saving money
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS
A survey of 79 life-cycle assessment practitioners found rebound effects regarded as relevant but seldom modelled, while assumed reductions in upstream production were more routinely included. Missing data and methodological guidance were major obstacles.
WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ
A food-waste programme may alter spending and markets after food is saved; impact estimates should disclose which behavioral feedbacks are excluded.
CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY
Convenience-sampled self-reports, predominantly European academic perspectives, are not direct tests of actual carbon reductions.
SOURCE
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment — Sundin et al. (2026)
View original evidence ↗
Practitioners model substitution assumptions more readily than consumption rebound.
Read the Wild Lands assessment →