Reisch et al 2010 Sustainable Food - Issues.pdf - The SCP ...

Lucia A. Reisch (CBS), Gerd Scholl (IOEW) &
Ulrike Eberle (CORSUS) – on behalf of the CORPUS Consortium
CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on
Sustainable Food Consumption
CORPUS – Enhancing the Connectivity between Research and Policy-making in Sustainable
Consumption
Funded by the European Commission in FP 7 | Project No. 244103
2 nd October 2010

ii
CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption

iii
Table of Contents
1! Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................1!
2! Introduction and Background ................................................................................................. 2!
3! Major Issues in Sustainable Food Consumption: Facts and Figures..................................... 3!
3.1! The food system............................................................................................................ 3!
3.1.1! Production ................................................................................................................. 3!
3.1.2! Consumption ............................................................................................................. 5!
3.2! The (un)sustainability of the food system...................................................................... 7!
3.2.1! Environmental aspects .............................................................................................. 7!
3.2.2! Health aspects......................................................................................................... 11!
3.2.3! Ethical aspects ........................................................................................................ 13!
3.2.4! Economic aspects ................................................................................................... 14!
3.3! Consumer recommendations ...................................................................................... 14!
3.3.1! Consumption of animal products............................................................................. 15!
3.3.2! Packaging................................................................................................................ 15!
3.3.3! Local food and long-distance transport ................................................................... 15!
4! Implications for Policy and Research................................................................................... 16!
5! References.......................................................................................................................... 19!

iv
CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption

1
1 Executive Summary
Not only can food consumption today not be regarded as sustainable, but the scope of the problem
is wide:
! about 800 million people worldwide are suffering hunger;
! 1 to 1.5 billion people in the world are overweight, 300 to 500 million of them obese, a
tendency that is increasing;
! diet and lifestyle related health problems such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes
are increasing, the latter in young age groups;
! social cohesion is increasingly in danger since health is closely related to socioeconomic
status;
! serious environmental problems related to food production and consumption need to be
tackled, including climate change water pollution and water scarcity, soil degradation,
eutrophication of water bodies, and loss of habitats and biodiversity.
With respect to a growing world population and demographic change, problems are predicted to
become more serious in the future; for example, agricultural production must face the impacts of
climate change, land use conflicts are predicted to increase, and health and social costs – both
on an individual and a social level –will rise because of foodborne ill health problems.
The reasons for this unsustainable development include the industrialisation and globalisation of
agriculture and food processing, consumption patterns that are shifting towards more dietary
animal protein, modern food styles, an abundance of food on the one hand and a lack of food
security on the other, and the continuously growing gap between rich and poor on both a
worldwide scale and within individual societies. These drivers are the result of national and international
policies and regulations, as well as business practices, and in particular values.
At present, however, there is no commonly accepted definition for ‘sustainable food production’:
rather, existing definitions primarily address issues of ill health. As a result, current strategies
focus on single issues independently (e.g. childhood obesity) – but there is a need for overarching
policy review which tackles the full range of drivers of unsustainable food production
and consumption.
Developing such integrative strategies and identifying the most sustainable way to ensure the
nutrition of the world’s current and future populations, however, requires further research. More
research is also needed on ways to achieve sustainable food consumption patterns. According
to the extant literature, the most effective ways for affluent societies to reduce the environmental
impact of their diets are to reduce the amount of meat and dairy consumed, especially beef; buy
organic food products and avoid product transportation by airplane.
Over and above these concerns, politics must develop cross-sectoral population-wide policies
on a variety of issues, including agriculture and the food supply, the availability of and access to
food, physical activity, welfare and social benefits, sound environmental production and consumption,
fiscal policies, the role of individual consumer decision-making, public procurement
and public provision of food. Based on these policies, governments must develop action plans
on sustainable food consumption.

2 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
2 Introduction and Background
Food consumption is a major issue in the politics of sustainable consumption and production
(SCP) because of its impact on the environment, health, social cohesion and the economy. For
instance, while some countries have made tremendous progress, food security is not yet fact
and the millennium goal of halving the population suffering hunger is still out of reach. Food
consumption is also responsible for the bulk of water use worldwide (Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2009)
and causes about 16% of greenhouse gas emissions (Wiegmann, et al., 2005). Shifts in diet
towards more sugar, animal protein and transfats are a primary contributor to obesity and overweight,
which in turn have a significant impact on ill health (European Commission, 2007) and
significantly increase health costs (British Cabinet Office (BCO), 2007). In the richer parts of the
world, food waste is a serious issue but one that has a high potential for improvement. These
issues show both the scope and relevance of the food dimension for sustainability policies.
However, except for the problems of food security and agricultural production, policy efforts
towards an integrated policy of sustainable development in the food sector are lacking. In fact,
political action plans and programmes barely touch upon interdependencies along the food
chain and the complexities of modern global food systems. This lack of attention may be one
reason why the food consumption patterns of European citizens show hardly any shift towards
more sustainability (EUROSTAT, 2007).
Additionally, as previously mentioned, despite considerable progress in the development of
sustainability targets and indicators worldwide, there is as yet no commonly agreed upon definition
for sustainable food consumption (Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), 2009).
Perhaps the most encompassing approach was introduced by the British Sustainable Development
Commission (2005), which considers food and drink sustainable if it
See the KU
‘A definition of
sustainable
food consumption‘.
! is safe, healthy and nutritious for consumers in shops, restaurants, schools, hospitals,
and so forth;
! can meet the needs of the less well off;
! provides a viable livelihood for farmers, processors and retailers, whose employees enjoy
a safe and hygienic working environment, whether nationally or abroad;
! respects biophysical and environmental limits in its production and processing while reducing
energy consumption and improving the wider environment;
! respects the highest standards of animal health and welfare compatible with the production
of affordable food for all sectors of society;
! supports rural economies and the diversity of rural culture, in particular through an emphasis
on local products that keep food miles to a minimum.
The breadth of this approach clearly illustrates the scope of the issues to be analysed by researchers,
discussed by societal stakeholders and finally dealt with by policy makers. This discussion
paper thus outlines the major issues of the current system of food production and consumption
and discusses their impact on sustainable development. Specifically, using an integrative
approach to sustainable food consumption and following the definitions provided above, it
covers ecological, social, ethical, health related and economic impacts. For each impact dimension,
the text provides an overview of the main issues, important theoretical approaches, major
empirical studies and available key data. It also briefly explains the relevant corresponding pol-

3
icy options. The paper closes with implications for priority areas and policy approaches for SCP
strategies.
The intention of this paper is to summarise the main policy and research issues discussed today
in relation to sustainable food consumption and thus provide useful and useable background
information for the first “Policy Meets Research” workshop within the CORPUS project on sustainable
food consumption 1 . The paper thus focuses on concepts, definitions and actors, as well
as facts and trends in identified problem areas. In the upcoming six months, it will be complemented
by two additional papers, one dealing with the policy instruments and evidence-based
policy assessment of sustainable food consumption; the other exploring scenarios and potential
sustainable futures in food consumption. As overviews, these discussion papers will not be able
to provide the extensive in-depth coverage that these important issues deserve; they will, however,
be flanked by so-called Knowledge Units (KUs) – highly condensed policy briefs offering
brief overviews together with up-to-date online and off-line sources and suggested further readings
on issues of particular interest to policy makers 2 . To date, policy briefs have been prepared
on the following issues:
1. A definition of ‘sustainable food consumption’;
2. ‘Hot spots’ of sustainable food consumption, exemplified by the overexploitation of
global fish stocks;
3. Sustainable food systems;
4. Food waste: causes and costs;
5. Food and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;
6. Obesity as a sustainable consumption issue.
All materials – papers, knowledge units, links to data sources, projects and websites – are
available on the CORPUS website. (http://www.scp-knowledge.eu/).
3 Major Issues in Sustainable Food Consumption:
Facts and Figures
3.1 The food system
3.1.1 Production
Today, food production is becoming ever more globalised and industrialised, and food products
are increasingly being standardised. In Europe and other industrialised countries, seasonal
products are now available nearly all year round and available food products come from all over
the world.
1
2
The first “Policy Meets Research” workshop on food, taking place in Vienna, Lebensministerium, October
22-23 2010.
Selection of the topics for the knowledge units was based on phone interviews with policy makers
conducted by the CORPUS Consortium in early 2010, as well as on expert opinions. For the two upcoming
workshops on ‘policy instruments and assessment’ and ‘scenarios and sustainable futures’,
workshop participants and the CORPUS web community will be able to vote on which topics should be
covered in the knowledge units and to suggest additional ‘questions and answers’ to be addressed.

4 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
In industrialised countries, agriculture in particular is becoming increasingly intensified and
yields per hectare have steadily increased. This growing productivity per hectare is a consequence
not only of rationalisation and specialisation but also of improvements in plant breeding,
with and without the use of genetically modified organisms. However, such developments,
which are expected to continue, also come with unwanted by-products, particularly the further
concentration of agricultural industries and a decrease in the number and an increase in the
average size of family farms (the so-called ‘farm crisis’).
In addition, instead of selling their food in local markets, farmers today sell to long, complex
market chains of which they are normally only a tiny part. As a result, only one fourth of food
checkout prices go to the farmers, compared to about 50% only 50 years ago (Tischner &
Kjaernes, 2007). The resulting pressures in the current market are amply reflected in the recent
milk delivery boycotts by dairy farmers in Austria, Belgium, and Germany. The loss of the local
market to an industrial food system also means increasing ‘food miles’, the distances between
farmers, ecologies and consumers (Blay-Palmer, 2008) with all the consequences of the accompanying
estrangement of actors.
The EU food processing industry is the third largest EU industry, employing some 2.8 million
people in more than 26,000 companies across the EU and showing a 2002 industry turnover of
791 billion euros. Yet industry structure differs widely among member states (European Commission,
2006). In addition, even though over 70% of the agricultural goods produced in the EU
are transformed into food industry products, fewer and fewer companies are sharing the market,
which is leading to power being concentrated in fewer hands in the system.
These processes of concentration also characterise food retailing: fewer and larger retail chains
share the market and compete primarily only on price. The food sector has therefore witnessed
the rise of giant corporations which control significant proportions of retail sales, as well as the
emergence of internationally operated retail groups. The size of these retailers ranks them
among the largest companies in their country of origin (e.g. Britain’s Tesco, Germany’s Metro
group, the U.S.’s Wal Mart Stores) (Clarke, et al., 2002). These large retail chains can dictate
prices to both agricultural producers and processors in the current system (Tischner & Kjaernes,
2007).
See the KU
‘Sustainable
food
systems’.
In 2005, the volume of the European market for organic food also accounted for 14 billion euros,
with a growth rate of 14% (Willer, et al., 2008). However, market shares as percentages of the
total food market ranged from only around 5% in Austria, Denmark and Switzerland to less than
0.5% in Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Spain (Padel, et al., 2008). Less than 10% of such
purchases are motivated by environmental concerns; rather, health aspects are the main driver
in about 60% of all cases (Alvensleben, 2001; Davies, 2001). Recent surveys comparing organic
food consumption in EU countries have also found little inter-country difference in what
motivates consumers to buy organic (Thøgersen, 2009; 2010). It is likely, therefore, that the
barriers to buying organic stem more from the structural characteristics of the context; that is,
the access, availability and affordability of the supply.
Another recent trend in food production has been the application of nanotechnologies, and particularly
nanoparticles, to a number of consumer products. As a result, food products and especially
food packaging are expected to become a growing market second only to cosmetics and
textiles. The same holds true for nano-enhanced dietary supplements, which today are already

5
being sold worldwide, mainly via the Internet. Nevertheless, the potential contribution of
nanotechnologies to sustainable food consumption is estimated to be rather low (Möller, et al.,
2009) despite the potential of smart food packaging to help in reducing food waste. Consumers
particularly, although they acknowledge nanotechnology’s potential for improving quality of life
(Kearnes, et al., 2006), are concerned about the application of nanotechnologies in and around
food items, primarily because of the possible health risks (Möller, et al., 2009; Reisch, et al., in
press).
3.1.2 Consumption
In industrialised countries, the range of available food products is manifold. Because most food
products are available at affordable prices year round, food seasonality has lost its meaning.
Besides an abundant choice of healthy fruit and vegetables all year round, consumers in most
EU countries benefit from comparatively low prices and high convenience, which have accompanied
changes in food production and globalisation. The downside of this progress, however,
is that consumers have become increasingly estranged from the production of their foodstuffs
and, despite the recent recurrence of regional food and new trends like slow food and organic
produce, consumer knowledge on seasonality or regional supply has been lost (e.g. Murdoch &
Miele, 1999; Tischner & Kjaernes, 2007; Blay-Palmer, 2008).
On an individual level, food habits and preferences are shaped by cultural traditions, norms,
fashion and physiological needs, as well as by personal food experience and exposure and the
consumption context (i.e. the availability and accessibility of foodstuff). Such preferences and
tastes, together with finances, time and other constraints (e.g. work patterns, household decision
making) influence food consumption. Price, in particular, is a major decision criterion. Food
preferences also differ significantly by household-specific characteristics like age, income, education,
family type and labour force status. Food styles and demand also differ greatly among
EU member states (European Commission, 2006). Researchers have therefore made an effort
to cluster consumers into groups that represent different ‘nutrition styles’ or ‘food styles’ so they
can be targeted with ‘proper food’ messages (Michaelis & Lorek, 2004; Friedl, et al., 2007;
Schultz & Stieß, 2008).
The following developments and trends in food consumption are observable in many OECD and
most EU countries:
! Changes in diet: Particularly in OECD and EU countries, there is a trend towards higher
consumption of meat (especially, pigs and poultry), cheese, fruits, vegetables and bottled
drinks, and a declining consumption of fluid milk and potatoes (Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2001; European Environment
Agency (EEA), 2005).
! A decline in nutritional competencies despite increasing knowledge on healthy nutrition:
Competencies in nutrition and home economics (i.e. cooking and food storing competences,
financial competencies) have declined. At the same time, knowledge on healthy
food and healthy nutrition has increased (Eberle & Schmied, 2008).
! A decline in time spent on nutrition: Time spent on food purchasing and cooking, as well
as time spent on eating, has decreased significantly over the past few years. In general,
however, women still spend more time on food purchasing and cooking than men do
(Hamermesh, 2007).

6 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
! A decline in relative consumer spending on food: Although absolute household expenditures
on food increased during the 1990s in many EU countries 3 , the share of total
European household expenditure on food has declined steadily with rising incomes
(Michaelis & Lorek, 2004; EEA, 2005). For many consumers, price is the dominant criterion
in food purchasing, followed by quality, freshness, (long) shelf life and taste.
! An increase in convenience, ready meals, fast food, and out-of-home consumption 4 : In
addition to a tendency towards highly processed foods (fast and convenience food),
consumption of ready meals is still rising within the EU (RTS, 2006). Out-of-home consumption
also accounts for a significant and growing proportion of European food intake;
for example, in 2002, one fourth of meals and snacks were eaten out (Michaelis &
Lorek, 2004). In both convenience food and food services, high-quality health-oriented
products and organic foodstuff have become increasingly important (Tempelman,
2004).
! Increasing consumer interest in organic and fairly traded foods: The markets for organically
grown products and for fairly traded food products have grown steadily (Krier
2005; Willer, et al., 2008). Nevertheless, the market share in absolute terms remains
low: organic food, 0.5 - 5% (Willer, et al., 2008); fairly traded food,

7
! An increasing need for complexity reduction: The above developments in the food supply
have greatly increased the complexity of food choice: the more options and novelties,
the more troublesome the information search and the more complex the decision.
Although information brokers – from testing organisations to food magazines to Web 2.0
Slow Food communities – may work to reduce complexity for a few, many consumers
are overwhelmed and rather stick to their habitual choices (Mick, et al., 2004). In fact,
the success of food discounters like Trader Joe’s, which offers a very narrow food assortment,
results from the attractive mix of little choice (and hence, low search costs)
and the standard quality of the organic products they sell at fair and low prices – something
that full-line super- and hypermarkets cannot offer.
! Simplification versus enhanced symbolic meaning (Davies, 2001): On the one hand,
meals and their preparation are losing their meaning as places for community and
means of structuring everyday lives, while convenience products, fast food and eating
out are gaining in importance (simplification). On the other hand, food consumption is
increasingly furnished with symbolic meaning and hedonic experiences. That is, nutrition
has become a key consumption area, one that promises solutions to health, fitness,
indulgence and prestige problems (Schröder, 2003).
! Increasing food waste: Today, a great deal of food is wasted, particularly in food retail
and by consumers. For instance, according to one recent study, British households
waste one third of the amount of food they buy, 61% of which could have been eaten if
it had been better managed (Ventour 2008).!
See the KU
‘Food waste:
reasons and
costs’.
3.2 The (un)sustainability of the food system
Given the escalating rates of obesity 5 and diet-related diseases, excessive food miles, food
scares and food insecurity, the spreading of fast food culture and increasing food waste – all of
which have consequences for global climate change – the food system in the West is clearly
unsustainable (SDC, 2009). At the same time, with over 800 million people hungry or starving,
under-consumption of food and lack of access to drinking water is still the world’s most pressing
issue (Coff, et al., 2008; Millstone & Lang, 2008). Thus, achieving sustainable food consumption
requires that the problems of both over- and under-consumption be confronted, together with
food safety issues in affluent societies and food security issues in the poorer regions of the
planet. This section therefore briefly reviews the environmental, social, ethical and healthrelated
impacts of (unsustainable) food consumption and outlines the key issues of public debate
and policy options 6 .
3.2.1 Environmental aspects
Food consumption is one of the private consumption areas that have the largest impact on the
environment: within the EU-25, approximately one third of households’ total environmental impact
–including energy use, land use, water and soil pollution and emission of greenhouse
5
6
In the less developed world, adiposity and overweight are problems of the upper classes with access
to modern Western diets rather than of the poor (Witkowski, 2007).
Policy instruments will be at the core of the policy brief on ‘Policy implications and assessment tools’.

8 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
gases (GHG) – is related to food and drink consumption (Danish Environmental Protection
Agency, 2002; EEA, 2005).
Impacts along the food chain: the actors
Agriculture
The main environmental impacts from food arise in the primary production stage. Agriculture, for
instance, is a major source of such impacts, including land use and soil degradation, water consumption,
eutrophication and water pollution, monocultures that cause biodiversity loss, and the
introduction of hazardous chemicals through the use of synthetic pesticides and mineral fertilisers.
In terms of energy use, agricultural production requires about 30% of the food sector’s total
energy demands (Owen, et al., 2007), 40% of which results from the production of chemical
fertilisers and synthetic pesticides (Heller & Keoleian, 2003). Another more indirect cause is the
production of cattle fodder (Tempelman, 2004). Primary production also accounts for nearly half
of the GHG emissions from food consumption (Joint Research Centre , 2006). At the same time,
agriculture is being, and will increasingly be, dramatically affected by climate change (Schaffnit-
Chatterjee, 2009).
Studies on the environmental impacts of organic production (e.g. Food and Agricultural Organization
(FAO), 2003; Shepherd, et al., 2003) show that, depending on the products they use,
organic farms use 50 to 70% less energy (direct and indirect) per unit of production than conventional
farms, mainly as a result of different fertiliser consumption. Organic production also
has clear benefits for biodiversity on agricultural land, although lower yields may mean that a
larger land area is required than under conventional production methods. In milk production,
however, the advantages are less clear, primarily because of the higher milk production of conventional
dairy farming. In any case, animal treatment is better on organic farms, and cows are
less likely to be lame or stressed or to carry disease (Dabbert, et al., 2004; Owen, et al., 2007).
Industry
The food industry encompasses all stages of the value chain beyond the farm gate and before
food purchase and consumption; it therefore covers manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and
food service providers. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the food industry accounts for 14%
of the energy consumption by all UK businesses, 7 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year,
about 10% of all industrial use of the public water supply, about 10% of the industrial and commercial
waste stream and 25% of all heavy goods vehicle kilometres in the UK (Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2008).
See the KU
on ‘Food
waste’.
Consumers
The environmental impacts of consumers’ food consumption in households and restaurants
result mostly from the handling and preparation of food; that is, storage (primarily freezing),
cooking and dish washing. The choice of diet and food types, however, is also relevant in that,
for example, (red) meat and dairy products cause by far the highest GHG emissions. In fact,
within the EU-25, meat and meat products contribute to 9% to 14% of global warming, with the
second most relevant food products being milk, cheese and all types of dairy products (Tukker,
et al., 2005). In contrast, all types of cereals, fruits and vegetables contribute to comparably low
GHG emissions (Dabbert, et al., 2004; Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonzalez, 2009). In terms of storage,
cooking and dish washing, the environmental impacts depend in particular on the energy

9
efficiency of the household appliances used (Quack & Rüdenauer, 2007). At the very end of the
food chain, the main issue is the waste and discarding of food.
Selected environmental impacts: the issues
The primary environmental impact categories related to food consumption and production are
GHG emissions, water consumption and pollution, land use, soil degradation, eutrophication
and loss of biodiversity:
! GHG emissions and the potential for global warming: To contain global warming to a
maximum of a 2°C global average is one of today’s main environmental challenges
(IPCC, 2007) Calculations for Germany, for example, have shown that food accounts
for about 16% of GHG emissions, the same magnitude as mobility (Eberle, et al., 2006).
Likewise, the UK’s food production and consumption is responsible for about 18% of its
GHG emissions (BCO, 2008). GHGs are caused in particular by the use of mineral fertilisers
and synthetic pesticides, livestock farming (in particular methane and nitrous oxide
emissions), transportation, the packaging and processing of food, and cooling and
cooking. In fact, 45% of all nutrition- related GHG emissions derive from food production
(agriculture, processing and transportation), while the remaining 55% are caused by
storage and food preparation and consumption, and to a minor extent by the transportation
of food purchases. Eating out also contributes substantially to GHG emissions.
! Water consumption: Agriculture consumes most water in the world, accounting in some
developing countries for up to 90% of water consumption. Changes in diet – in particular
the growing consumption of meat – also puts higher pressure on water resources
(Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2009). Moreover, a study by the World Wildlife Fund For Nature
(WWF, 2009) revealed that agriculture accounts for about three quarters of German water
consumption, about 40% of which is consumed in Germany while about 60% is ‘imported’
with agricultural products from outside Germany. Overall, the study estimates a
per capita water consumption of nearly 4.000 litres per day just for food, which includes
the so-called ‘virtual water’ consumed during agricultural or manufacturing production.
! Land usage: Agriculture needs land for crop cultivation and for livestock breeding. For
the latter, land use is particularly high, primarily because of cattle feed cultivation. In
addition, meeting the growing demand for meat in developing countries will require an
exponential growth in land use (Tempelman, 2004). Even without such changing trends
in diet, agricultural production will have to increase in the future to feed a growing world
population; for instance, the World Bank (2007) estimates that cereal production needs
to increase by 50% and meat production by 85% between 2000 and 2030. Such increased
production will inherently have an increased impact on land usage.
! Soil degradation: According to expert estimations, ‘nearly 2 billion hectares worldwide
have been degraded since the 1950s. This amounts to 22% of all cropland, pasture,
forest and woodland’ (Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2009, p. 9).
! Eutrophication: Agriculture is one of the main sources of water eutrophication (Rat von
Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen (SRU), 2002), primarily through the use of fertilisers
and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock breeding.
! Water pollution: Agriculture is also one of the main polluters of water bodies, due mainly
to both the elution of nitrate from the soil and the use of pesticides. In fact, experts expect
not only a further increase in pesticide use but also increasing absolute contamina-
See the KU
‘Food and
greenhouse
gas (GHG)
emissions’

10 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
tion stemming from the long persistence of pesticides in both soil and water (SRU,
2004).
! Loss of biodiversity: Compared to other sources (e.g. households, industries, transports,
energy), agriculture also has the highest negative impacts on biodiversity (SRU, 2002).
One particular contributor to biodiversity loss is the use of agrochemicals in intensive
farming. In addition, in some places, the replacement of local varieties of domestic
plants with high-yield or exotic varieties has collapsed important gene pools (Schaffnit-
Chatterjee, 2009). Yet biological diversity is highly important for food security, which is
why the FAO (2010) is actively promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
As regards this goal of biodiversity conservation, organic agriculture has a
substantially lower environmental impact on biodiversity than conventional agriculture
(Foster, et al., 2006).
Figure 1: Landuse efficieny
Source: USDA & FAO/WHO/UNICEF (2004)
Genetically modified organisms: an issue of public debate
Worldwide, the use of GMOs in agriculture is growing steadily. For example, by 2009, more than
130 million hectares were cultivated with genetically modified crops, in particular soybean and
maize 7 . This development contradicts the wishes of the majority of consumers, at least within
the EU member states, who do not approve of genetically modified foodstuff (Gaskell, et al.,
2006). Unlike the U.S., Canada or South America, in Europe, public fear over safety has been
widely voiced and has effectively halted the commercial production of GM crops (Millstone &
Lang, 2008).
This development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has also generated global debate,
one centred on the risk of releasing modified genetic material into the environment, the risk of
flora alienation, the environmental impacts of the growing use of pesticides, the control of technology
by monopolistic multinational companies and consumers’ fear of the unknown risks of
eating GM products (Pechan & de Vries, 2005). Nevertheless, in general, the EU allows modi-
7
http://www.isaaa.org/, accessed 10 August 2010

11
fied seeds, requiring member countries to establish their own procedures for separating traditional
and modified crops; and a small but growing number of European countries, including
Spain, Portugal and Germany, allow some GMO crops. Some areas, however, have declared
themselves ‘GMO-free zones’. In the EU, the labelling of GM food is mandatory for all products
made of GMO or containing GMO, as well as all GM additives and GM flavourings. However,
foodstuff produced from animals fed with GM fodder does not fall under this legislation. In response,
Germany and Austria have introduced ‘free from GMO’ labels, applicable to foodstuffs
to which neither GM additives nor GM feed have been applied.
3.2.2 Health aspects
Food, health and well-being
About 800 million people worldwide are chronically hungry due to poverty and lack of access to
food. Hunger may be spiked in 2009 as a consequence of global food and financial crises 8 . With
bad harvests that increase food prices, the number of people suffering hunger is growing
(Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2009). Thus, hunger is a major ethical, economic and public health challenge
of our time. To a few, it might be surprising that hunger and malnutrition also exist to a
considerable degree in industrial countries and countries in transition. Even in Europe, about
5% of the overall population is exposed to the risk of malnutrition; among vulnerable groups –
the poor, the elderly and the sick – this percentage is even higher (Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2009).
Although in some parts of the world people are starving, people in other areas face an increase
in food-related ill health like cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes because of rich foods,
modern diets and sedentary lifestyles and over-eating. Key diet-related factors are the high
intake of saturated fat, salt and sugar and the low consumption of vegetables and fruit. An estimated
70,000 premature deaths in the UK could be avoided each year if diets matched national
nutritional guidelines (BCO, 2008, p. iii). According to the British Cabinet Office (BCO) (2007),
food-related ill health costs amount to £6 billion per year (or 9% of National Health System
costs) and malnutrition, mainly in the elderly, costs public services £7.3 billion. The BCO (2007)
also expects obesity, a risk factor for many serious health conditions, to continue increasing and
further impact health and well-being, health service costs, state benefits and the economy.
To halt obesity, particularly in children, is thus a major challenge for sustainable development.
Globally, 1 to 1.5 billion people are estimated to be overweight, 300 to 500 million of them
obese (WHO, 2008). Today, excess weight gain is ranked the third greatest risk factor after
smoking and high blood pressure for all premature deaths and disabilities in the affluent world
(International Association for the Study of Obesity (IASO), 2009). Among children especially 9 ,
obesity levels have risen in the EU during the last three decades (European Commission,
2007). By 2050, half of the population in the UK are expected to be obese (DEFRA, 2008), leading
to an increase in chronic conditions like cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes,
stroke, certain cancers, muscular-skeletal disorders and even a range of mental health
conditions: ‘In the long term, this will result in a negative impact on life expectancy in the EU,
and a reduced quality of life for many’ (European Commission, 2007, p. 2).
8
9
see e.g. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml
In 2006, the estimated prevalence of overweight in children was 30% (European Commission, 2007).

12 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
Obesity is most prevalent in lower socio-economic (SES) groups, and particularly in women,
which reduces their access to life chances (DEFRA, 2008). Women in lower SES groups also
seem more vulnerable than men because of different environmental pressures in an ‘obesogenic
environment’ 10 . They are also ‘more likely to have either under- or over-weight babies (both
risk factors for later obesity) and are less likely to follow recommended breastfeeding and infant
feeding practices (also linked to obesity risk). ... An unweighted crude estimate across 13 member
states suggests that over 20% of the obesity found among men in Europe, and over 40% of
the obesity found in women, is attributable to inequalities in SES’ (Robertson, et al., 2007, pp. 8-
9). Indeed, one important finding of obesity research is the relation between obesity and overweight
in children and their parents’ (in particular, their mother’s) socio-economic status (see the
KU ‘Obesity as a sustainable consumption issue’).
Rising levels of obesity will lead to a significant growth in health and social care costs, as well
as in personal costs like morbidity, mortality, discrimination and social exclusion (DEFRA, 2008;
Reisch & Gwozdz, 2010). With the global spread of Western high-fat-high-sugar diets, obesity
has also become a problem in less affluent countries. Here, the health impact of excess weight
gain on health is even more detrimental because of widespread foetal and childhood malnutrition
which predisposes to disease. As a result, poorer nations have 4 to 5 times more adults
with overweight-induced illnesses than nations in the West (IASO, 2009) but without the health
sector and budgets to treat those illnesses.
Despite these findings, as Cohen (2005) rightly notes, scholarship on sustainable consumption,
like policy making, has only very recently taken up the issue of nutritional excess – a fact that
Cohen attributes to the divide between environmental and nutritional policy. In fact, Lang and
Heasman (2004) suggest that the development of a more integrated view is being hampered by
an ongoing ‘food war’ between the long-dominant ‘productionist’ paradigm of food and health
politics, a ‘life science integrated paradigm’ and an ‘ecologically integrated paradigm’. Within
this ‘war’, proponents of each paradigm strive to lead the discussion in the ‘global battle for
mouths, minds and markets’ (ibid).
Food safety 11
Health risks also result from the presence of unwanted substances in food products, including
pathogenic organisms, toxic substances (e.g. pesticides, heavy metals) and contaminants. In
European countries, the most serious food safety issue is foodborne illness (DEFRA, 2008).
According to the BCO (2007), 600 - 700 people died in Britain in 2006 as a direct result of
something they ate, with the primary factor being food poisoning, followed by choking accidents.
More than 300,000 cases of food poisoning are reported each year, mainly caused by campylobacter
(295,000 cases) or salmonella (33,000 cases). Likewise, more food allergies have been
reported over recent years, and the number of people with food allergies is still increasing. For
10
11
Robertson, et al. (2007, p. 9) list the following environmental pressures: ‘less physical activity, pregnancy,
discrimination in employment and income, responsibility for family budget, and lower selfesteem
associated with a failure to meet societal norms’.
Food safety means that foodstuff is safe to eat, whereas food security is defined as ‘access to sufficient,
safe, and nutritious food that meets [people’s] dietary needs and food preferences for an active
and healthy life’ (FAO, 2002).

13
example, in the UK in 2006, there were 1.5 million sufferers (DEFRA, 2008). According to one
German risk assessment study on foodborne diseases (Eberle & Reuter, 2004), however, the
highest health risk is related to active hormonal substances and bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE), followed by GMOs, pesticides and viruses/bacteria. The study also reported that
the health risks related to nitrates and the use of pharmaceuticals in livestock breeding are
much higher than the risks related to the radiation of food and to food additives.
Because food risks are socially constructed and mediated, however, there is often a wide gap
between perceived health risks and objective risks (Blay-Palmer, 2008). For instance, German
consumers primarily fear health risks from food additives, even though objectively, the risks
from active hormonal substances are much higher. Likewise, health risks from the use of
(broadband) antibiotics in livestock breeding play only an ancillary role in public awareness, yet
they are generating an increasing number of resistances in pathogenic organisms, which in turn
present serious risks for human health (Dettenkofer, et al., 2004).
Foodborne health risks also differ according to diet, with the lowest risks related to a vegetarian
diet based on organically grown produce and the highest risks to a meat diet based on conventionally
produced foods (Eberle & Reuter, 2004).
3.2.3 Ethical aspects
At the heart of sustainable food consumption lies the idea of ethically responsible food production
and consumption. This concept, however, encompasses a multiplicity of aspects, ranging
from food and water security to fair trading conditions to species-appropriate livestock breeding.
In general, the main areas of ethical concern in the food area are the following (Coff, et al.,
2008):
! food security, i.e. the just and fair supply of food and drink to human beings;
! food safety, i.e. food should not endanger the health of consumers due to pathogens or
pollution;
! new developments in nutritional research and technology, such as functional foods and
health foods or personalised nutrition, and challenging existing norms and values related
to food and access to it; this latter includes food-related diseases like obesity and
their association with food culture;
! specific production practices and conditions in the food chain, i.e. animal welfare, the
environment, fair working conditions, and use of new (bio and nano) technology, with
the core issue being the ‘ethical traceability’ of key ethical consumer concerns.
A key ethics-related issue is ensuring food security for the worlds’ growing population – a goal
that will not easily be achieved. In many developing countries, the availability of drinking water
will also be a major constraint. To meet the needs of a growing world population and the increasing
demand for meat in developing countries – in particular, India and China – will require
an exponential growth in land use, while at the same time the most productive cereal areas in
North America, India and China will be approaching their biophysical limits (Tempelman, 2004).
Fair trade and working conditions are also an essential aspect of ethically responsible food consumption.
Today, a small but increasing number of consumers are interested in supporting fair
trade through their purchases. As a result, the European market for fairly traded products is
growing, with the most often sold products being coffee, bananas, orange juice, tea and chocolate.
In the UK, for instance, Fair trade labelled products have achieved a 5% market share of

14 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
tea, a 5.5% share of bananas, and a 20% share of ground coffee (Krier, 2005). Nevertheless,
their total market share is still only around 1%. In Europe, the fairly traded foodstuffs being sold
are predominantly organically grown products. Nor is fairness in trade an issue only for developing
nations: in European countries, farmers are also demanding fair payment for their produce.
For example, in Germany, some farmers, retailers and dairies have organised into a cooperative
to offer ‘fair milk’ 12 .
The contribution that corporate social responsibility (CSR) regimes can play, including in the
food sector, is the subject of increasing debate in industry, civil society and the political arena.
One means of managing ethical workplace conditions throughout global supply chains is to
follow international standards, such as Social Accountability Standard 8000 (SA 8000) or the
ISO standard for CSR (ISO 26000). According to a survey of 300 retail and consumer goods
executives from 48 countries, ethical sourcing will also figure prominently as a food (retail) sector
issue in the future (CIES, 2007).
3.2.4 Economic aspects
The share of total European household expenditure on food has declined steadily with rising
incomes. As of 2005, it ranged between 10% and 35% of total household consumption expenditure,
with the smallest shares in the EU-15 member states and the larger shares in new member
states (EEA, 2005). Compared to previous years, international food prices are also, and are
likely to remain, at higher levels, primarily because of the escalated cost of inputs. In the EU, the
price index for food rose by almost 20% between 1995 and 2005 (European Commission,
2006), which led to serious difficulties for vulnerable groups, normally low-income households
(Michaelis & Lorek, 2004) that spend a substantial part of their income on food.
In addition, food from organic agriculture is more expensive than its conventional equivalents,
on average around 17% more costly in Germany (Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung (GfK),
2007). According to these findings, although the price of seasonal vegetables can be comparable,
meat and meat products in particular cost more. These price differences between organic
and conventional products – which result from lower yields, more expensive materials and more
labour-intensive production methods – are even more pronounced in other member states.
3.3 Consumer recommendations
Consumer recommendations for sustainable food consumption are closely linked to general
recommendations for sustainable consumption, in particular those related to energy efficient
household appliances 13 . As regards sustainable – often referred to as ‘climate friendly’ – diets,
the most common recommendations are to eat less or no meat and fewer dairy products; to buy
unpackaged local and seasonal food from nearby shops and to minimise transportation by car. 14
12
13
14
http://www.die-faire-milch.de/index.php?pid=1
For recommendations on sustainable use in respect to household appliances, refer to
www.topten.info.
For instance: http://www.panda.org/how_you_can_help/greenliving/out_shopping/; Report 2009/12/03;
http://www.sustainweb.org/sustainablefood/; Report 2009/12/03;
http://www.sustainabletable.org/shop/, Report 2009/12/03;
http://www.verbraucherfuersklima.de/cps/rde/xchg/projektklima/hs.xsl/lebensmittel_clever_einkaufen.h
tm; Report 2009/12/02.

15
These recommendations, developed by both nutritional and environmental scientists, primarily
address environmentally sound nutrition patterns (DEFRA, 2007).
3.3.1 Consumption of animal products
A major strategy propagated for more sustainable food consumption is to eat less meat and
meat products since a meat intensive diet is associated with an inefficient use of water, energy
and grain: ‘2000 pounds of grain must be supplied to livestock in order to produce enough meat
and other livestock products to support a person for a year, whereas 400 pounds of grain eaten
directly will support a person for a year’ (Schaffnit-Chatterjee, 2009, p. 12). Nevertheless, average
meat consumption worldwide is growing: in many countries demand is much higher than
recommendations for healthy nutrition suggest. Overall, eating less meat can contribute to a
healthier diet, support the provision of more vegetable foods for a growing world population, and
help reduce environmental impacts. In terms of this latter, Wiegmann, et al. (2005) concluded
that a 50% reduction of meat in diet would reduce GHG emissions from food consumption by
7%. One potential solution is to promote the purchase of higher quality animal products, but in
smaller quantities: “less but better”. 15 This holds equally true for other animal products, in particular
dairy product.
3.3.2 Packaging
Packaging, the source of considerable public debate, plays only an ancillary role in the environmental
impacts of nutrition along the value chain. For most products and most environmental
indicators, packaging’s part in the environmental impacts of a products’ life cycle is less than
10% (Eberle, 2010). In general, retail packaging’s share in GHG emissions is higher in goods
whose production causes few greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. vegetables, fruit) and lower in
goods whose production causes many greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. meat) (Wiegmann, et
al., 2005).
3.3.3 Local food and long-distance transport
Another aspect of considerable public debate is the recommendation that consumers buy locally
grown and seasonal food. The underlying assumption is that local food 16 is more environmentally
sound than food transported over long distances. Transportation distances are therefore
the topic of much discussion. For example, in the UK, the concept of ‘food miles’ 17 was developed
‘to highlight the hidden ecological, social and economic consequences of food production
to consumers in a simple way, one which had objective reality but also connotations’ (Lang,
2006; Millstone & Lang, 2008). The concept, initiated in the UK and Canada, is now widely
used, particularly in English speaking countries 18 . However, although the concept is immediately
15
16
17
18
See, for instance: Food Ethics Council 2009 Livestock Consumption and climate change
http://www.foodethicscouncil.org/livestockconsumption.
The term ‘local food’ not only subsumes ‘food that is grown nearby’, but also ‘fresh food’ because food
grown nearby is assumed to be fresher than food transported over long distances (Eberle, 2010, p.
15). Thus, the aspect ‘local food’ is also relevant to health issues.
Food miles are the distance travelled by food from where it is grown to where it is ultimately consumed.
For instance, http://www.99miles.org/; http://www.fallsbrookcentre.ca/foodmiles/index.htm; http://www.
lovebuyinglocal.com/; Bentley & Barker, 2005.

16 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
plausible, it has been criticised for oversimplifying and neglecting many relevant factors related
to the environmental impacts of food (e.g. McKie 2008; Weber & Matthews, 2008). In fact,
Smith, et al. (2005) concluded that a single indicator based on total food kilometres is an inadequate
indicator of sustainability. Likewise, Wiegmann, et al. (2005) showed that the environmental
impacts from food transportation depend on a variety of factors, including means of
transportation (e.g. aircraft, train, ship, or lorry), loading capacity and the capacity’s use and
distance. Nevertheless, for some foods, the influence of transportation on overall environmental
effects can be substantial, as, for instance, in the case of food transported by air. 19 . In general
the share is higher in products that have low environmental impacts in production (e.g. vegetables)
and lower in products with high environmental impacts in production (e.g. meat). For instance,
transportation’s share in GHG emissions is about 15% for fresh vegetables and about
2% for frozen chicken. On average, however, transportation-related emissions are less than 3%
of all food sector GHG emissions (ibid.).
In direct contrast to folk assumptions, Reinhardt, et al. (2009) found that regionally produced
food is not always more environmentally friendly than food transported over long distances. For
instance, although local food is always better if local production conditions exactly match those
overseas (because the greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are avoided), international
products may be better if superior production conditions compensate for the impacts of
longer transportation. Again, however, the environmental impact varies from product to product
and depends on a variety of factors, including specific production conditions, means of transportation
and efficiency of logistics (Saunders, et al., 2006). ‘Buying local’, however, has both ethical
and cultural aspects since it helps support local economies and cultures (Food Ethics Council
(FEC), 2008).
4 Implications for Policy and Research
A review of current European sustainable development strategies and action plans highlights
the following major goals (in order of priority): lowering obesity levels and increasing health,
increasing organic food consumption, decreasing GHG emissions and reducing food waste.
Approaches that integrate the different sustainability issues in the food domain, however, are
hard to find, as are explicit strategies for sustainable consumption in the food sector. Since nutrition
and food policies, and environmental, health and social cohesion policies are rarely linked
to each other, particularly as explicit policies for sustainable consumption, the available policy
tools exist only in area-specific policy domains like the following:
! EU Action Plan for Diet and Physical Activity: In 2007, the European Commission
adopted ‘A Strategy for Europe on Nutrition, Overweight and Obesity Related Health Issues’
in order to help reduce ill health resulting from poor nutrition, overweight and obesity.
However, even though the initiative offers a full range of policy measures for reaching
this goal, to date only a minority of member states show awareness of the strong
19
Eberle and Schmied (2008) showed that, depending on the means of transportation, transportation
emissions could dominate the carbon footprint. Thus, for example, greenhouse gas emissions for fresh
fish transported by air are much higher than for frozen fish transported by ship.

17
link between low socio economic status and obesity in their health inequalities and social
exclusion policy documents (Robertson, et al., 2007).
! Product Carbon Footprint (PCF) labels: PCF labels inform consumers about the amount
of GHG emitted during the products’ life-cycle. They became an issue in European policies
after British retailer Tesco announced in 2007 that it would label certain items in its
product line with a PCF Label developed by the British Carbon Trust. The British Standards
Institution (BSI) then developed PAS 2050, a standardising methodology for PCF.
Debate in other European and non-European countries followed, and PCF labels are
now on the market in France, Sweden, the UK and Switzerland. Although today most
PCF labelling is managed by private (profit and non-profit) organisations, France recently
announced the introduction in 2011 of a mandatory environmental labelling
scheme that includes PCF. Meanwhile, the International Standardization Organization
(ISO) has been developing ISO 14067 for PCF methodology, which, once on the market,
could transform a previously voluntary labelling scheme into an industry standard.
As already noted, this present report will be followed by a second discussion paper focused on
policy instruments and the assessment tools needed to monitor their success. That discussion,
despite the rarity of explicit evaluations of sustainable consumption policies on a national or EU
level, will summarise available assessment tools. Most particularly, drawing on the recent
SCOPE (Sustainable Consumption Policies Effectiveness Evaluation) research project (Lorek,
et al., 2008), it will address the following policies in more detail:
! ‘sustainable canteens’ and other examples of smart choice architectures for sustainable
food consumption;
! the role of Green Public Procurement;
! financial incentives (e.g. taxes, subsidies);
! social regulation (e.g. editing out, standards);
! promotion of organic food consumption and production (e.g. via campaigns);
! promotion of regional food consumption;
! introduction of behavioural change (social marketing and other techniques, dealing with,
e.g., habits, social norms, lock-ins);
! food labelling;
! consumer education and competence building (good practices, guidelines);
! disclosure, information and consumer advice (good practices, guidelines);
! sustainable public food procurement.
Overall, good policy needs both policy-minded researchers and research-minded policymakers
(Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010), a requirement that is all the more important in the food domain
where drafting effective policies to foster sustainable food consumption requires an understanding
of the entire food system and all its interactions and dependencies. As Eberle and
colleagues (2006, p. 29) note, ‘[t]he narrowness and lack of success of many approaches has
resulted from [the tendency to view] single aspects of sustainability as unrelated: the production
of food dissociated from nutritional behaviour; economic aspects separated from social aspects;
the organisation of feeding in everyday life without consideration of other life areas like employment,
housework and leisure; and health aspects segregated from environmental aspects’. As a
result of this narrow focus, policy tools have been developed primarily for individual aspects.
Thus, a first priority is to develop integrative, cross-sectoral, population-wide policies on such

18 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
issues as agriculture and food supply, availability and access to food, physical activity, welfare
and social benefits, fiscal policies and information and marketing (Robertson, et al., 2007, p.
120).

19
5 References
Alvensleben, R., 2001. Beliefs associated with food production methods. In: L.J. Frewer, E.
Risvik & H. Schifferstein, eds. 2001. Food, people and society: a European perspective of consumers'
food choices. Berlin: Springer, pp.381-399.
Bentley, S. & Barker, R., 2005. Fighting global warming at the farmer’s market: the role of local
food systems in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Toronto: FoodShare. Available at:
http://www.foodshare.net/resource/files/foodmilesreport.pdf [Accessed 11 September 2010].
Bergmann K., 2002. Dealing with consumer uncertainty: public relations in the food sector. Heidelberg:
Springer.
Blay-Palmer, A., 2008. Food fears: from industrial to sustainable food systems. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bogenschneider, K. & Corbett, T.J., 2010. Evidence-based policymaking. London: Routledge.
British Cabinet Office, 2007. Food: an analysis of the issues. London: BCO.
British Cabinet Office, 2008. Food matters: towards a strategy for the 21st century. London:
BCO.
Carlsson-Kanyama, A. & Gonzalez, A.D., 2009. Potential contributions of food consumption
patterns to climate change. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89(5), pp.1704S-1709S.
CIES – The Food Business Forum, 2007. Top of mind. Available at:
http://www.ciesnet.com/fbnplus/2007_CIES_Top_of_Mind.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Clarke, R., Davies, S., Dobson, P. & Waterson, M., 2002. Buyer power and competition in
European food retailing. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Coff, C., Korthals, M. & Barling, D., 2008. Ethical traceability and informed food choice. In: C.
Coff, D. Barling, M. Korthals, & T. Nielsen, eds. 2008. Ethical traceability and communicating
food. Heidelberg: Springer, pp.1-18.
Cohen, M.J., 2005. Sustainable consumption American style: nutrition education, active living
and financial literacy. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 12,
pp.407-418.
Dabbert, S., Häring, A.M. & Zanoli, R., 2004. Organic farming: policies and prospects. London:
Zed Books.
Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. Danske husholdningers miljøbelastning. Copenhagen:
Danish Environmental Protection Agency.
Davies, S., 2001. Food choice in Europe: the consumer perspective. In: L.J. Frewer, E. Risvik &
H. Schifferstein, eds. 2001. Food, people and society: a European perspective of consumers'
food choices. Berlin: Springer, pp.365-380.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2008. Food statistics pocket book 2008.
London: DEFRA.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2007. Public understanding of sustainable
consumption of food. A research report completed for the Department for Environment, Food

20 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
and Rural Affairs by Opinion Leader London: DEFRA. Available at:
http://www.wfa.org.au/entwine_website/files/resources/Public_understanding_sustainable_food.
pdf [Accessed 1 October 2010].
Derby, B.M. & Levy, A.S., 2001. Do food labels work? In: P.N. Blum & G.T. Gundlach, eds.
2001. Handbook of marketing and society. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp.372-398.
Dettenkofer, M., Ackermann, M., Eikenberg, M. & Merkel, H., 2004. Auswirkungen des Einsatzes
von Antibiotika und Substanzen mit antibiotischer Wirkung in der Landwirtschaft und im
Lebensmittelsektor. Freiburg. Materialband Nr. 4 des Forschungsvorhabens Ernährungswende.
Available at: http://www.ernaehrungswende.de/fr_ver.html [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Eberle, U., (2010). Review of food LCA results and consumer recommendations on environmentally
conscious consumption behaviour. Proceedings of the Food LCA 2010, Bari, Italy, 22-
24 September 2010.
Eberle, U., Hayn, D., Rehaag, R. & Simshäuser, U., eds. 2006. Ernährungswende. Eine Herausforderung
für Politik, Unternehmen und Gesellschaft. Munich: Ökom-Verlag.
Eberle, U. & Reuter, W., 2004. Ernährungsrisiken. Identifikation von Handlungsschwerpunkten.
Discussion Paper No. 3. Available at http://www.ernaehrungswende.de/pdf/DP3_
Risiko_2004_11_26_end.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Eberle, U. & Schmied, M., 2008. Klimaschutz entlang der Tiefkühlkette – die Verantwortung der
Tiefkühlwirtschaft. Presentation at the Fachgruppensitzung of the German Tiefkühlinstitut,
Wurzburg, 3 June 2008.
European Commission, 2006. Special Eurobarometer: health and food. Brussels: European
Commission.
European Commission, 2007. White paper on a strategy for Europe on nutrition, overweight and
obesity related health issues. COM(2007) 279 Final. Brussels: European Commission.
European Environment Agency, 2005. Household consumption and the environment. EEA Report
No. 11/2005. Copenhagen: EEA. Available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
eea_report_2005_11/at_download/file [Accessed 9 September 2010].
EUROSTAT, 2006. Food: from farm to fork statistics. Luxembourg: EUROSTAT.
EUROSTAT, 2007. Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe. EUROSTAT statistical
books. 2007 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy. Luxemburg:
EUROSTAT.
Food and Agricultural Organization, 2002. The state of food security in the world 2001. Rome:
FAO.
Food and Agricultural Organization, 2003. Organic agriculture, environment and food. Rome:
FAO.
Food and Agricultural Organization, 2010. Agricultural biodiversity in FAO. Rome: FAO. Available
at: http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/biodiversity-home/en/ [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Food Ethics Council, 2008. Food distribution: an ethical agenda. Brighton: FEC.

21
Foster, C., et al., 2006. Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: a report to
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School. London:
DEFRA.
Friedl, B., et al., 2007. SUFO: TROP. Sustainable food consumption: trends and opportunities.
Final Report Year 2. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
Gaskell, G., et al., 2006. Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: patterns and trends. Eurobarometer
64.3. A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research.
London, UK. Available at: http://www.cibpt.org/docs/2006-jul-eurobarometro-bio-2nd-ed.pdf
[(Accessed on 6 September 2010].).
Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung, 2007. Organic food products surge ahead: the findings of a
GfK survey on consumption of organic food products. [Press release] 11 January, Nuremberg.
Available at: http://www.gfk.com/imperia/md/content/presse/pd_bio-lebensmittel_efin.pdf [Accessed
9 September 2010].
Hamermesh, D.S., 2007. Time to eat: household production under increasing income inequality.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, American Agricultural Economics Association, 89
(4), pp.852-863.
Hawkes, C., 2004. Nutrition labels and health claims: the global regulatory environment. Geneva:
WHO.
Heller, M.C. & Keoleian, G.A., 2003. Assessing the sustainability of the U.S. food system: a life
cycle perspective. Agricultural Systems, 76, pp.1007-1041.
International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2009. Obesity: understanding and challenging
the global epidemic. 2009-2010 Report. London. Available at:
http://www.iaso.org/site_media/uploads/IASO_Summary_Report_2009.pdf [Accessed 9 September
2010].
IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger,
A., eds. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
[Accessed 1 October 2010].
Joint Research Centre, 2006. Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO). Analysis of the life
cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. European Commission’s
Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. EUR 22284 EN-
2006. Brussels: JRC.
Kearnes, M., Macnaghten, P. & Wilson, J., 2006. Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies,
and emerging policies. London: Demos. Available at: http://www.demos.co.uk/
files/governingatthenanoscale.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Kjærnes, U., Harvey, M. & Warde, A., 2007. Trust in food: a comparative and institutional analysis.
New York: Palgrave.
Krier, J.M., 2005. Fair trade in Europe 2005. Brussels: European Parliament. Available at:
http://fairtrade.net/sites/news/FairTradeinEurope2005.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2010].

22 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
Lang, T., 2006. Local/global (food miles)., 19 May pp.94-97, Bra, Cuneo, Italy: Slow Food.
Available at: http://sustainable.org/FoodMilesaninsight.aspx.
Lang, T. & Heasman, M., 2004. Food wars: the global battle for mouths, minds and markets.
London: Earthscan.
Lorek, S., Spangenberg, J. & Oman, I., 2008. Sustainable consumption policies effectiveness
evaluation (SCOPE2): C – conclusion. Overath/Vienna: Sustainable Europe Research Institute
(SERI).
McKie, R., 2008. How the myth of food miles hurts the planet. The Observer online, 23 March.
Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/23/food.ethicalliving [Accessed 6
September 2010].
Michaelis, L. & Lorek, S., 2004. Consumption and the environment in Europe: trends and futures.
Copenhagen: Danish EPA.
Mick, D.G., Broniarczyk, S.M. & Haidt, J., 2004. Choose, choose, choose, choose, choose,
choose, choose: emerging and prospective research on the deleterious effects of living in consumer
hyperchoice. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, pp.207-211.
Millstone, E. & Lang, T., 2008. The atlas of food, 2nd ed. London: Earthscan.
Möller, M., et al. 2009. Nanotechnology in the food sector. [Online] Translated from German by
STOA. Available at: http://www.ta-swiss.ch/a/nano_nafo/Study_Nano_food_TA-SWISS_en.pdf
[Accessed 1 September 2010].
Murdoch, J. & Miele, M., 1999. Back to nature: changing worlds of production in the food system.
Sociologia Ruralis, 39(3) pp.465-484.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2001. Household food consumption:
trends, environmental impacts and policy responses. Paris: OECD. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=ENV/EPOC/WPNEP%28200
1%2913/FINAL&doclanguage=en [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Owen, L., Seaman, H. & Prince, S., 2007. Public understanding of sustainable consumption of
food: a report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. London: DEFRA.
Padel, S.A, Jasinska, M., Rippin, M. & Schaack D., 2008. The European market for organic food
in 2006. In: H. Willer, M. Yussefi-Mernzler & N. Sorensen, eds. 2008. The world of organic agriculture:
statistics and emerging trends 2008. London: Earthscan, pp.131-139.
Pechan, P. & de Vries, G.E., eds. 2005. Genes on the menu: facts for knowledge-based decisions.
Heidelberg: Springer.
Quack, D. & Rüdenauer, I., 2007. Energie- und Stoffströme der privaten Haushalte in Deutschland
im Jahr 2005. Report. Freiburg: Öko-Institut.
Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen, 2002. Umweltgutachten 2002. Stuttgart: Metzler-
Poeschel.
Rat von Sachverständigen für Umweltfragen, 2004. Umweltgutachten 2004. Umweltpolitische
Handlungsfähigkeit sichern. Bundestagsdrucksache 15/3600, 2 July 2004. Berlin.

23
Reinhardt, G., Gärtner, S., Münch, J. & Häfele, S., 2009. Ökologische Optimierung regional
erzeugter Lebensmittel: Energie- und Klimabilanzen. Heidelberg: Institut für Energie und Umwelt
(IfEU).
Reisch, L.A. & Gwozdz, W., 2010. Chubby cheeks and climate change: childhood obesity as a
sustainable development issue. International Journal of Consumer Studies [Online] 28 June
2010. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00893.x/abstract
Reisch, L.A., Scholl, G. & Bietz, S., (in press). Better safe than sorry: consumer perceptions of
and deliberations on nanotechnologies. International Journal of Consumer Studies.
Robertson, A., Lobstein, T. & Knai, C., 2007. Obesity and socio-economic groups in Europe:
Evidence review and implications for action. Funded by the European Commission:
SANCO/2005/C4-NUTRITION-03. Brussels: European Commission. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/
life_style/nutrition/documents/ev20081028_rep_en.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2010].
RTS Resource Ltd., 2006. Western Europe ready meals 2010. Wolverhampton: RTS Resource
Ltd. Creative Industries Centre. Available at: http://www.readymealsinfo.com/
reports/WesternEuropeReadyMeals2010.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Saunders, C., Barbor, A. & Taylor, G., 2006. Food miles: comparative energy/emissions performance
of New Zealand’s agriculture industry. AERU Research Report No. 285. Lincoln University:
Christchurch, New Zealand. Available at: http://www.jborganics.co.nz/
saunders_report.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Schaffnit-Chatterjee, C., 2009. The global food equation: food security in an environment of
increasing scarcity. Frankfurt: Deutsche Bank Research.
Schröder, M.J.A., 2003. Food quality and consumer value: delivering food that satisfies. Heidelberg:
Springer.
Schultz, I. & Stieß, I., 2008. Linking sustainable consumption to everyday life: a socio-ecological
approach to consumption research. In: A. Tukker, M. Charter& C. Vezzoli, eds. 2008. System
innovation for sustainability. Vol. 1: Perspectives on radical changes to sustainable consumption
and production. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, pp.288-300.
Shepherd, M., et al., 2003. An assessment of the environmental impacts of organic farming.
London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Smith, A., et al., 2005. The validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable development.
Final Report. Oxon: AEA Technology Environment. Available at: http://www.wild
chicken.com/grow/defra%20foodmiles%20execsumm.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Sustainable Development Commission, 2005. Sustainability implications of the little red tractor
scheme. Report for the Sustainable Development Commission. London. Available at:
http://www.sd-ommission.org.uk/publications/downloads/050119%20Sustainability%20implicatio
ns%20of%20the%20Little%20Red%20Tractor%20scheme.pdf [Accessed 10 September 2010].
Sustainable Development Commission, 2009. Setting the table: advice to government on priority
elements of sustainable diets. London: SDC.

24 CORPUS Discussion Paper 1 on Sustainable Food Consumption
Tempelman, E. ed., 2004. Product services in the need area ‘food’. SusProNet Final Report.
Available
at:
http://www.suspronet.org/download.asp?File=documents\Product%20services%20in%20the%2
0need%20area%20%27Food%27.pdf&Name=Product%20services%20in
%20the%20need%20area%20%27Food%27.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Thøgersen, J.B., 2009. Consumer decision-making with regard to organic food products. In: T.
de Noronha Vaz, P. Nijkamp & J.-L. Rastoin, eds. 2009. Tradition food production and rural
sustainable development: a European challenge. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, pp.173-194.
Thøgersen, J.B., 2010. Country difference in sustainable consumption: the case of organic food.
Journal of Macromarketing, 30 (2), pp.171-185.
Tischner, U. & Kjaernes, U., 2007. Sustainable consumption and production in the agriculture
and food domain. In: S. Lahlou & S. Emmert, eds. 2007. SCORE proceedings: SCP cases in
the field of food, mobility, and housing. Workshop of the Sustainable Consumption Research
Exchange (SCORE!) Network, June 2007, Paris, France, pp.201-237. Available at:
http://www.score-network.org/files/9594_Proceedings_worshop.07.pdf [Accessed 9 September
2010].
Tukker, A., Huppes, G., Geerken, T. & Nielsen, P., 2005. Environmental impact of products
(EIPRO). Draft report of the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) and the
European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO), Brussels.
USDA & FAO/WHO/UNICEF, 2004. Protein Advisory Group.
Ventour, L., 2008. The food we waste. Banbury/Oxon: WRAP. Available at:
http://wrap.s3.amazonaws.com/the-food-we-waste.pdf [Accessed 9 September 2010].
Weber, C. & Matthews, H., 2008. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in
the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(10), pp.3508-3513.
Wiegmann, K., Eberle, U., Fritsche, U.R. & Hünecke, K., 2005. Umweltauswirkungen von Ernährung.
Stoffstromanalysen und Szenarien. Discussion Paper No. 7. Darmstadt/Hamburg:
Öko-Institut. Available at: http://www.ernaehrungswende.de/pdf/DP7_Szenarien_2005_final.pdf
[Accessed on 9 September 2010].
Willer, H., Yussefi-Menzler, M. & Sorensen, N., eds. 2008. The world of organic agriculture:
statistics and emerging trends 2008. Bonn: International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements (IFOAM) e.V.
Witkowski, T.H., 2007. Food marketing and obesity in developing countries: analysis, ethics,
and public policy. Journal of Macromarketing, 27(2), pp.126-137.
World Bank, 2007. World Development Report, 2008: Agriculture for development. Washington:
World Bank.
World Health Organization, 1979. ALMA ATA. Report of the International Conference of Primary
Health Care, Health for All, series no. 1, Geneva.
World Health Organization, 1986. Ottawa charter for health promotion. First International Conference
on Health Promotion –WHO/HPR/HEP/95.1, Ottawa, Canada.

25
World Health Organization, 2005. The European health report 2005. Available at:
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/82435/E87325.pdf [Accessed 1 September
2010].
World Health Organization, 2008. Obesity and overweight. Available at:
www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/ [Accessed 9 September 2010].
World Wildlife Fund For Nature, 2009. Der Wasser-Fußabdruck Deutschlands. Woher stammt
das Wasser, das in unseren Lebensmitteln steckt? Frankfurt: WWF.