A new study from ETH Zurich reveals that everyday oil crops — including palm oil, soybean and coconut — are responsible for far more species extinction than previously understood, with rich nations outsourcing much of the environmental damage to tropical regions.
The palm oil in your peanut butter, the soybean oil in your salad dressing, and the coconut oil in your face wash all share something in common: they may be contributing to a global biodiversity crisis far larger than scientists previously estimated. A landmark study published June 19 in Nature Food by researchers at ETH Zurich is the first to systematically trace how oil crop supply chains are accelerating species extinction around the world.
A Problem as Serious as Climate Change
The research team, led by Stephan Pfister, a professor of quantitative sustainability assessment at ETH Zurich, analyzed decades of global data spanning production volumes, trade flows and land use patterns. By layering satellite imagery, agricultural statistics and economic models, the team constructed a comprehensive picture of how oil crops ripple through international supply chains — from farm to finished product.
Pfister framed the stakes clearly.
“From the perspective of environmental protection, biodiversity loss is as big a problem as climate change,” Pfister said in a news release.
That framing puts the findings in sobering company, suggesting that what ends up on supermarket shelves carries ecological consequences comparable to carbon emissions.
Three Crops, Three-Quarters of the Damage
Among the 19 oil crops the team examined, three stood out for their outsized environmental footprint.
“Three of which caused a particularly large share of the impacts: oil palm, soybean and coconut,” first author Shuntian Wang, a doctoral student on Pfister’s team, said in the news release.
Those three crops alone account for roughly 75% of the biodiversity loss attributable to oil crop agriculture globally.
Between 1995 and 2020, the biodiversity damage linked to oil crops surged by approximately 80%. Crucially, the researchers found that population growth is not the primary culprit. Instead, shifts in consumer behavior — particularly rising demand for processed foods, cosmetics and meat — and changes in agricultural practices are the main drivers of that increase.
Tropical Ecosystems Bear the Brunt
The study underscores a troubling geographic imbalance. Oil palms and coconut trees grow almost exclusively in tropical zones, which also tend to harbor the planet’s most diverse ecosystems. Because yields per acre in these regions are relatively low, agricultural expansion is common — often at the direct expense of forests and other critical habitats.
Making matters worse, the environmental costs don’t stay local. More than half of the biodiversity impacts identified in the study are driven by consumption happening in entirely different countries. The European Union, China and the United States together account for more than 80% of these so-called externalized impacts. The EU is a major importer of palm oil, while China’s footprint is closely tied to soybean imports used largely as animal feed.
Why It Matters to Students and Young Consumers
For college students navigating grocery budgets and growing awareness of sustainability, these findings reframe everyday purchasing decisions. The cosmetics aisle, the dining hall menu, and the vegan protein shake can all be connected to land conversion thousands of miles away. Understanding supply chains — not just carbon footprints — is increasingly essential for anyone who wants to consume more responsibly.
The research also highlights a structural challenge: even pulling back on new deforestation wouldn’t immediately solve the problem.
“Even if there is no new deforestation, the impact of current agriculture remains,” Pfister added.
The legacy effects of long-term land use continue to suppress biodiversity long after the initial clearing.
What Could Actually Help
The researchers point to several potential pathways forward. More sustainable farming practices, stronger ecosystem protections in producing countries, and meaningful changes in consumer demand all have roles to play. But global commodity markets complicate quick fixes — restricting demand in one region can simply shift production pressure elsewhere.
Pfister identified one concrete priority.
“An important lever is investing in better production and in the protection of ecosystems in countries of origin,” Pfister said.
That means funding and policy support directed at the places where these crops are actually grown, rather than relying solely on consumption-side pressure from wealthy importing nations.
For students interested in sustainability careers, environmental policy, or food systems research, this study signals that the intersection of global trade and biodiversity is an urgent and underexplored frontier — one with real consequences for the planet’s living systems.
Source: ETH Zurich