While the global demand for animal protein is still increasing, the livestock sector is facing many sustainability challenges. In the poultry sector, feed production contributes to 60-70% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and consumes large amounts of human-edible feedstuffs (i.e. feed-food competition, FF). In this context, least-cost feed formulation (LCF) is no longer relevant to tackle these challenges whereas multiobjective formulation (MOF) considers simultaneously economic and environmental criteria. Therefore, our objective was to estimate the potential of MOF to reduce GHG emissions, FF and land use (LU) in feeds used in conventional and organic poultry production. Using LCF, we formulated “reference” feeds (Ref), representative of current practices in the feed industry. Using MOF, we quantified i) the maximal reduction in GHG emissions, land use and feed-food competition (MinGHG, MinLU, and MinFF, respectively), and ii) the best compromise between feed cost and either GHG emissions, land use or feed-food competition (OptGHG, OptLU, and OptFF, respectively). Prices of feedstuffs were taken over the 2018-2021 period. GHG and LU values of feedstuffs came from the French Agribalyse® database. Finally, FF coefficients for energy (FFe) and protein (FFp) were taken after Laisse et al. (2018). In the Min approach vs. Ref feeds, significant decreases were observed in GHG (-29 to -38%), LU (-30 to -60%), FFe (-22 to -56%), and FFp (-48 to -68%), for organic broiler and conventional broiler/layer feeds, at the expense of feed cost (+85 to +129%). Surprisingly, in organic layers, the increase in feed cost was more limited (+17 to +33%), for decreases in GHG, LU and FF consistent with those previously mentioned. In the Opt approach, the increase in feed cost (vs. Ref) was more limited (up to +16%), still with decreases in GHG (-17 to -26%), LU (-1 to -36%), FFe (-6 to -34%), and FFp (-15 to -40%). Depending on the criteria considered in formulation (GHG, LU, or FF), substitutions between types of feedstuffs were observed. Corn was relevant to decrease FF, while protein crops and cereal by-products were more relevant to reduce GHG and LU, respectively. Finally, with our approach, the simultaneous decrease in FF, GHG and LU was difficult to achieve and possible trade-offs can occur (i.e. increase in FF when decreasing GHG). Therefore, further work should be carried out to find optimal feed formulas simultaneously compromising cost, GHG, LU, and FF.