A data-led tour of the global food system — production, hunger, waste, environment, prices, and consumer behaviour, in numbers.
The food system at a glance.
Major crops, calories, and land use.
| # | Crop | Type | Production (Mt) | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sugar cane | Sugar crop | 1,910 | 19.1% |
| 2 | Maize | Cereal | 1,210 | 12.1% |
| 3 | Wheat | Cereal | 808 | 8.1% |
| 4 | Rice (paddy) | Cereal | 776 | 7.8% |
| 5 | Potatoes | Root crop | 375 | 3.8% |
| 6 | Soybeans | Oilseed / pulse | 349 | 3.5% |
| 7 | Cassava | Root crop | 330 | 3.3% |
| 8 | Tomatoes | Vegetable | 186 | 1.9% |
| 9 | Bananas | Fruit | 135 | 1.4% |
| 10 | Onions | Vegetable | 109 | 1.1% |
The other side of abundance.
| Region | Undernourished (m) | Prevalence | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Africa | 298 | 20.4% | High |
| Asia | 385 | 8.1% | Medium |
| Latin America & Caribbean | 41 | 6.2% | Medium |
| Oceania | 3 | 7.0% | Medium |
| Northern America & Europe | <5 | <2.5% | Low |
| World total | 733 | 9.1% | Medium |
Where food is lost between farm and fork.
| Stage | Typical causes | Share of total loss | Region most affected |
|---|---|---|---|
| Production / harvest | Pests, weather, mechanical damage | 24% | Sub-Saharan Africa, S. Asia |
| Post-harvest handling | Storage, drying, pest infestation | 15% | Sub-Saharan Africa |
| Processing & packaging | Trimming, equipment loss | 10% | Industrialised economies |
| Distribution / market | Cold-chain failure, logistics | 11% | Lower-middle income |
| Retail | Cosmetic standards, expiry rules | 5% | High-income |
| Food service | Plate waste, over-portioning | 12% | High-income |
| Households | Spoilage, over-buying | 23% | Mid & high-income |
The environmental footprint of the food system.
| Food | kg CO₂e / kg food | Footprint |
|---|---|---|
| Beef (beef herd) | 99.5 | Very high |
| Lamb & mutton | 39.7 | High |
| Cheese | 23.9 | High |
| Beef (dairy herd) | 33.3 | High |
| Chocolate | 19.0 | High |
| Coffee | 16.5 | Medium |
| Pork | 12.1 | Medium |
| Poultry | 9.9 | Medium |
| Fish (farmed) | 5.1 | Medium |
| Eggs | 4.5 | Low |
| Rice | 4.0 | Low |
| Tofu | 2.0 | Low |
| Pulses (beans, lentils) | 0.9 | Low |
| Root vegetables | 0.4 | Low |
| Apples | 0.4 | Low |
| Food | Litres of water | Per |
|---|---|---|
| Beef | 15,400 | 1 kg |
| Chocolate | 17,200 | 1 kg |
| Cheese | 5,600 | 1 kg |
| Pork | 6,000 | 1 kg |
| Chicken | 4,300 | 1 kg |
| Rice | 2,500 | 1 kg |
| Wheat | 1,800 | 1 kg |
| Coffee | 140 | 1 cup |
| Tea | 30 | 1 cup |
| Almonds | 12 | 1 nut |
| Tomatoes | 214 | 1 kg |
| Apples | 822 | 1 kg |
What food costs, and how much of income it takes.
| Country | Income group | Share on food | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | High | 7% | Low |
| United Kingdom | High | 9% | Low |
| Germany | High | 11% | Low |
| Japan | High | 15% | Low |
| Brazil | Upper-middle | 18% | Medium |
| India | Lower-middle | 29% | Medium |
| Egypt | Lower-middle | 37% | Medium |
| Nigeria | Lower-middle | 59% | High |
| Kenya | Lower-middle | 47% | High |
| Ethiopia | Low | 48% | High |
What actually drives the choices in the basket.
| Category | Stated intent | Actual purchase | Gap | Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buy organic | 52% | 14% | −38pp | Wide |
| Eat less meat | 47% | 19% | −28pp | Wide |
| Buy local | 61% | 28% | −33pp | Wide |
| Reduce sugar | 58% | 31% | −27pp | Medium |
| Reduce packaging | 49% | 22% | −27pp | Medium |
| Buy seasonal | 55% | 39% | −16pp | Medium |
| Cook from scratch | 68% | 52% | −16pp | Narrow |
| Avoid waste | 81% | 66% | −15pp | Narrow |
A short note from the author.
I'm a student interested in food systems, sustainability, and consumer behaviour. My current research focuses on a specific question: when we measure food demand, are we measuring what consumers genuinely want, or only what happens to be available to them?
The work uses a mix of surveys, interviews, focus groups, and supermarket sales data to examine the gap between stated and revealed preferences — visible in the table above. The longer-term goal is to suggest how communities, technology, and policy can support more sustainable and inclusive food choices.
This page is a way of sharing some of the broader statistics that frame that interest. It is a personal, student-built project — not an academic publication.