Built on science, validated by real kitchens.
From PhD research to practical tools in your kitchen.
Understanding the environmental impact of what we eat is an essential step to create change. That’s why we teamed up with PhD experts in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and built Ecotarian on the foundation of multiple academic theses — including work with KU Leuven and VUB.
Together, we simplified the science, tested it in multiple restaurants and optimised.
​
The methodology
We assess the full life cycle of every ingredient in your recipes — every step in the process from farm to fork.
​
This Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) includes 15 environmental indicators, but LCA researchers Chloé Debauve and Kato Daems concluded that four key impact factors are the most relevant for food-related sustainability.
Climate Change (COâ‚‚e)
This measures the total greenhouse gas emissions — not just COâ‚‚, but also methane (85× more potent) and nitrous oxide (300× more potent). Food production accounts for roughly 26% of global emissions, with big differences between products. For example, beef can produce up to ten times more emissions than chicken. Lower emissions mean less warming, fewer extreme weather events, and reduced stress on ecosystems
Land Use
Land is a precious resource, needed for crops, livestock, and animal feed. The more land a product requires, the higher the risk of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and reduced carbon storage capacity. Plant-based foods often use far less land than animal products — sometimes up to 20× less per kilogram of protein
Water Use
Fresh water is scarce — only 3% of all water on Earth is drinkable, and agriculture uses about 70% of it. A product’s water footprint includes irrigation, processing, and pollution of water sources. Products like almonds or beef have high water demands; seasonal vegetables and rain-fed crops are much lighter on water
Eutrophication
Excess nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers and animal feed run off into rivers and seas. This fuels algal blooms that deplete oxygen in the water, creating “dead zones” where fish and plants can no longer survive. Intensive livestock farming and heavy fertilizer use are major drivers of this problem
Our methodology is aligned with EF 3.0 standards and planetary boundaries, ensuring both scientific credibility and practical application.
The labels
Developed by Ecotarian' founder Lise Vermeersch, the Terra Label system was designed to make food sustainability more transparent and actionable. Rather than focusing on COâ‚‚ alone, it includes the four core indicators — COâ‚‚, land use, water use, and nitrogen emissions — all benchmarked against the average Belgian meal. The result is a simple traffic-light label (green, yellow, red) that shows how each recipe performs.
​
If a recipe performs 20% better than the average meal, it receives a green score; within ±20% is yellow, and worse than 20% is red.
​
These impact scores are translated into clear equivalents — like COâ‚‚ in car kilometers, water usage in the equivalent number of showers, land use in square meters and eutrophication in kilograms of fertilizer used.
​
The traffic-light system makes interpretation intuitive and easy.
Tested & validated
The labels were tested in student restaurants through screens and on-table cards. Results confirmed that guests were more likely to choose low-impact meals and found both compact and detailed formats useful.
Further research found that consumers were willing to pay more to shift from high- to low-impact meals.
​​
​
Fig. Willingness to pay more for a medium or low impact meal
compared to a high impact meal.
And most importantly, the introduction of the label impacted sales: it reduced the share of red (high-impact) meals and increased the sale of yellow (medium-impact) meals. This confirms that environmental impact labels can effectively influence meal choices.
​​
​
Fig. Meals sold before and after the implementation of labels, compared to the meals offered.
Awareness and interest
Ecotarian conducted a survey on the attitudes, needs and awareness to change towards the environmental impact of food. A few results.
​
Demographics & Diet Type
-
61.5% of respondents identify as omnivores.
-
23% as flexitarians, and only ~9% as vegetarian, vegan, or pescetarian.
-
This shows that most respondents are not (yet) plant-based eaters, making this a relevant audience for behavioral change interventions.
Awareness & Interest
-
75.4% want to know more about the environmental impact of their food.
-
The remaining 24.6% includes a mix of respondents who feel already informed or are uninterested.
-
This demonstrates a large latent demand for accessible knowledge tools, especially in omnivore and flexitarian groups.
Willingness to Change
​
-
52.8% explicitly say they are willing to change their diet.
-
35.9% say “maybe,” showing ambivalence, but potential to shift with the right nudges.
-
Only ~9% are not open to changing.
-
Together with the high “wants more info” score, this supports the strategy of targeting “sustainability-shy” omnivores with low-barrier information and swaps.
​
​
​
What this means for organisations:
1. There’s clear demand
Employees — especially omnivores and flexitarians, the majority in workplace and school restaurants — want more insight into the impact of their food choices.
​
2. Change is realistic
Over 88% say they’re open to adjusting their diet when the switch is simple and supported with the right information.
​
3. Labels drive action
Just as seen in our label studies, clear visibility and guidance at the point of choice encourage people to pick the more sustainable option.
​
4. A tangible business opportunity
​
Adding the Ecotarian tool or label to your company kitchen meets employee expectations and strengthens your CSR commitments.
We collaborate closely with researchers from the VUB research group HOST (House of Sustainable Transitions) to strengthen our data and the way we visualise it.
Together, we explore how environmental impact labels can support better food choices across public institutions, from hospitals and schools to large restaurant groups.
​​