A new study reveals a troubling connection between ethically-minded food choices and labor exploitation, suggesting that federally recommended healthy diets may carry a higher risk of association with forced labor than the average American diet. The research, which analyzed the supply chains of common U.S. foods, found that dietary patterns rich in certain animal products, seafood, and hand-harvested produce are inadvertently linked to industries with documented labor abuses.
The findings, published in the journal Nature Food, underscore a complex challenge for consumers and policymakers aiming to promote both health and social responsibility. Researchers from Tufts University and the University of Nottingham evaluated five distinct dietary plans, discovering that the risk of forced labor is not determined by a simple “healthy” versus “unhealthy” label but rather by the specific mix of foods consumed. Protein sources emerged as the largest driver of risk across all diets, with significant differences between animal-based and plant-based eating patterns.
Comparing Dietary Patterns and Labor Risks
The study meticulously compared the forced labor risk associated with the typical American diet against four other prominent dietary guidelines. Two of these, the Healthy U.S.-Style and the Healthy Mediterranean-Style diets, which are recommended by federal dietary guidelines, surprisingly showed a greater forced labor risk than the current average diet. The higher risk in the Mediterranean diet was substantially driven by its increased inclusion of seafood and red meat, along with certain fruits. For the U.S.-Style diet, dairy products were the single largest contributor to the elevated risk score.
In contrast, two other diets were found to have a lower overall risk of forced labor. The Healthy Vegetarian diet and the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health diet, both of which are predominantly plant-based, scored better than the average American diet. However, the researchers caution that these diets are not free from risk. They demonstrated an outsized risk contribution from nuts and seeds, items that are often harvested by hand under conditions that can make workers vulnerable to exploitation.
Key Food Categories Driving Risk
The study identified specific food categories that consistently contribute the most to forced labor risk due to the nature of their production and processing. These findings pinpoint where exploitation is most likely to occur in the journey from farm to table.
Animal Products and Seafood
Protein foods were the primary source of forced labor risk across all diets, with animal products posing the greatest concern. For livestock, the risk is not confined to a single point but extends throughout the supply chain, including the production of animal feed, slaughtering, and meat processing. Dairy products were identified as a particularly high-risk category, especially within the Healthy U.S.-Style diet. The fishing industry is flagged as having a very high risk compared to many other food sectors. Prior research has highlighted that vessels flagged under “flags of convenience” are often linked to exploitative labor practices, a major concern for seafood imported into the U.S.
Hand-Harvested Produce
While plant-based diets generally showed lower risk, certain crops present significant labor concerns. Fruits, vegetables, and nuts that must be picked or shelled by hand are highly associated with forced labor. This includes common produce like tomatoes, berries, and citrus fruits. The labor-intensive nature of this work, often performed by migrant workers, creates conditions of dependency and potential exploitation that machinery cannot replicate. A 2021 study by some of the same researchers found that an extraordinary percentage of fruit and vegetable combinations sold in the U.S. were rated as high risk.
Methodology: How Risk Was Measured
To quantify these risks, the research team developed a comprehensive scoring system for more than 200 common foods available in the United States. Each food item was rated based on where and how it was grown, harvested, and processed. The analysis integrated data from multiple authoritative sources, including reports from the U.S. Department of Labor and the State Department, non-governmental organizations, and extensive reviews of investigative journalism. This method allowed the team to create a detailed risk profile for each food and then apply those scores to the composition of the five dietary patterns studied.
Forced labor, as defined by the International Labor Organization, affects an estimated 28 million people worldwide. It encompasses a range of abuses, from withheld wages and debt bondage to physical violence and abusive living conditions, trapping workers in jobs they cannot leave.
Implications for Policy and Consumers
The study’s authors emphasize that their findings are not intended to guide consumer boycotts, which could inadvertently harm the vulnerable workers they aim to protect. Instead, the research is meant to inform systemic change and guide purchasing policies for governments and large institutions. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, for example, influence food procurement for major public programs, including school lunches that feed millions of children daily. By incorporating social risks like forced labor into these guidelines, policymakers could leverage their immense purchasing power to promote more ethical supply chains.
Domestic and Global Labor Concerns
While much attention is often paid to labor abuses in imported goods, the research highlights that a significant portion of the problem exists within U.S. borders. One report from the researchers found that 62% of the forced labor risk in the American food supply comes from production or processing happening on U.S. soil. This underscores the need for robust domestic policies to protect agricultural and food processing workers.
Ultimately, the study calls for a broader definition of “sustainability” in food systems—one that moves beyond environmental impact and nutritional health to include social sustainability and the rights and dignity of workers. The authors hope their work serves as a starting point for communities and institutions to build dietary transitions that champion equity and justice alongside health.
