New research links global fruit and vegetable trade to biodiversity loss
UK and other rich countries rely heavily on imports, shifting ecological costs overseas
India and Kenya among biodiversity-rich nations carrying the burden of global diets
Grapes, oranges, bananas and tomatoes found to have particularly high impacts
Scientists warn fairer trade and farming practices are needed to protect ecosystems
Eating more fruit and vegetables may be good for human health, but the benefits can put significant pressure on biodiversity depending on what we eat and where it comes from. Biodiversity loss is increasingly concentrated in the countries that grow and export them, a global study has found.
The research, published in the journal Nature Food on August 25 2025, was conducted by scientists from University College London, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the University of Texas at Austin and the University of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa.
Researchers analysed 50 types of fruit and vegetables consumed in the United Kingdom, India and South Africa. They combined data from the year 2000 on crop production, imports and exports with biodiversity maps showing where different species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians live.
This allowed them to measure “biodiversity pressure” – the extent to which farmland for these crops overlaps with the natural habitats of wildlife.
The results reveal strikingly different patterns across the three countries.
In the UK, where most fruit and vegetables are imported, biodiversity pressure is largely felt overseas. Grapes, oranges, tomatoes and bananas were among the crops linked to high impacts, with oranges consumed in the UK creating almost three times more pressure than bananas.
India, meanwhile, is mostly self-sufficient, so the strain falls on its own ecosystems. Bananas, mangoes, onions and tomatoes were identified as the main culprits. In some cases, imported produce such as dates had a lower impact on biodiversity than the same crops grown domestically.
South Africa plays a dual role as both exporter and importer. Grapes and oranges grown locally exerted heavy pressure on its biodiversity, while imports of tomatoes and pears added to the burden, spreading the impact at home and abroad.
The study found that where a crop is grown can matter more than the type itself. For instance, tomatoes cultivated in South Africa created greater biodiversity pressure than those imported from Europe, while in the UK, domestic tomatoes had a smaller footprint than imported ones.
The findings highlight a wider question of fairness in global food trade. Import-heavy countries such as the UK are effectively “outsourcing” biodiversity damage to supplier nations — many of them biodiversity-rich but economically vulnerable, like Kenya or India. This raises the issue of whether wealthier countries that rely on imports should do more to support lower-income producers. The researchers suggest that without fairer trade practices, biodiversity-rich countries may end up carrying the cost of feeding wealthier nations, while struggling to meet their own food and conservation needs.
While fruit and vegetables are essential for human health — and most people worldwide still do not eat enough — the authors warn that expanding production without accounting for biodiversity costs could harm ecosystems, reduce pollination and even threaten future food supplies.
The researchers suggested that policymakers and consumers need to make smarter choices, which includes:
Promoting seasonal and local produce where it reduces biodiversity harm.
Improving farming practices to protect species-rich areas.
Considering biodiversity alongside other measures like greenhouse gas emissions and water use when designing food policies.
The study concluded that there are no clear “best” fruits or vegetables that benefit both health and nature. Instead, decisions on food trade and farming must carefully balance human nutrition with environmental protection.