Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Page 1 of 6 doi:10.

1017/S0029665116000276
© The Author 2016
12th European Nutrition Conference, FENS 2015, held at the Estrel Convention Centre, Berlin on 20–23 October 2015

Conference on ‘Sustainable Food Consumption’

Improving the sustainability of global meat and milk production

Andrew M. Salter
Division of Nutritional Sciences, School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus,
Loughborough, LE12 5RD, UK

Global demand for meat and dairy products has increased dramatically in recent decades
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society

and, through a combination of global population growth, increased lifespan and improved
economic prosperity in the developing world will inevitably continue to increase. The pre-
dicted increases in livestock production will put a potentially unsustainable burden on global
resources, including land for production of crops required for animal feed and fresh water.
Furthermore, animal production itself is associated with greenhouse gas production, which
may speed up global warming and thereby impact on our ability to produce food. There is,
therefore, an urgent need to find methods to improve the sustainability of livestock produc-
tion. This review will consider various options for improving the sustainability of livestock
production with particular emphasis on finding ways to replace conventional crops as
sources of animal feeds. Alternatives, such as currently underutilised crops (grown on a mar-
ginal land) and insects, reared on substrates not suitable for direct consumption by farm ani-
mals, represent possible solutions. Coupled with a moderation of excessive meat
consumption in wealthier countries, such strategies may secure the long-term sustainability
of meat and milk production and mitigate against the adverse health effects of excessive
intake.

Meat: Milk: Livestock: Sustainability: Food security

When given the choice, most human subjects will include
at least some meat and dairy produce in their diet. While
a fully plant-based diet can provide all essential nutrients,
this usually requires consumption of a relatively diverse
combination of fruit and vegetables. In areas of the
world where protein–energy malnutrition and micronu-
trient deficiency are prevalent, diets are normally low in
animal products and reliant on a limited range of plant-
derived foods. It is perhaps unsurprising that as countries
achieve greater economic stability they aspire to a more
Western diet, containing greater quantities of meat and
dairy products.
Meat represents an energy-dense source of high-
quality protein, and is enriched in micronutrients such
as thiamine, niacin, vitamin B12, calcium, iron, zinc, po-
tassium and phosphorus(1). Milk and dairy products are
also an important source of protein and make major con-
tributions to intake of calcium, phosphorus, iron, vita-
min A and riboflavin(2). Overall, it may be argued that
maintaining a certain level of global livestock production
and consumption of animal products has considerable
potential to alleviate malnutrition and deliver economic
advantages to a given population(3). However, the exces-
sive level of consumption seen in many of the world’s
wealthiest countries not only places an unsustainable
burden on the environment, but also impacts on suscep-
tibility to a range of chronic diseases, including obesity,
diabetes, CVD and certain cancers(4). A major challenge
over the coming decades will be ensuring that the nutri-
tional benefits of consuming more meat and dairy pro-
ducts in countries with emerging economies is carefully
balanced against the negative effects this may have on
the environment and the incidence of chronic disease.
In general, as a country becomes wealthier, consump-
tion of animal products increases. Until recently, the
highest levels of meat production were associated with
North America, Europe and Australasia(5). However,
as shown in Fig. 1a–c, the past 20 years have seen
major changes in such production patterns. While the
USA is still the major producer of beef, this has remained

Corresponding author: Professor A. M. Salter, email Andrew.Salter@nottingham.ac.uk

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 12 Jan 2017 at 16:17:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000276
 2 A. M. Salter
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Fig. 1. Top ten countries producing (a) cow’s milk, (b) beef, (c) chicken, (d) pork in 1992 (dark grey
bars) and 2012 (light grey bars). Data from FAO(5).
relative static over the past 20 years. By contrast, produc-
tion in Brazil has almost doubled to levels approaching
those in the USA. In China, while production of beef
remains at about half that of the USA, this represents
a tripling of the amount produce two decades ago.
While China has dominated global pork production
over several decades, this has further doubled in the
past 20 years and is now responsible for 60 % of the
world’s pig production. Production of chicken has
increased dramatically across the world and notably
India, traditionally a very low consumer of meat pro-
ducts, is now one of the top ten world producers.
Most of this growth in global animal production has
been driven by improving economic status of the coun-
tries involved. However, other factors are also predicted
to impact on future trends. It is anticipated that the glo-
bal population will increase from a current value of ap-
proximately 7 billion to about 9 billion by the year
2050(6). Essentially all of this growth is likely to occur
in the developing world where consumption of animal
products is currently relatively low. For example, live-
stock product consumption in Kenya in 2005 represented
906·3 kJ/person per d (216·6 kcal/person per d) compared
with 900 in the USA(4). Improved nutrition, reduced in-
fant mortality and reduction in infectious diseases are
all likely to contribute to such increases in population
growth. However, such factors are also likely to
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 12 Jan 2017 at 16:17:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000276
contribute to increased lifespan, which in itself requires
more food to feed an ageing population. If current trends
continue then increased economic prosperity, increased
population and extended lifespan will all contribute to
increased demand for meat and milk. There is now ser-
ious concern over the impact of such increases in live-
stock production on land and water use and on the
production of greenhouse gases which may directly con-
tribute to global warming(6–8).
Improved efficiency of farm animals
Historically, the increased demand for meat in North
America, Western Europe and other industrialised parts
of the world has been met by major advances in agricul-
tural practice. Through selective breeding, precise nutri-
tional strategies, changes in husbandry practices and
improvements in animal health, marked improvements
have been made in the efficiency of animal production.
While considerable improvements have been achieved
for all livestock species perhaps the most impressive
changes have been achieved in poultry(9). The impact
of selective breeding was graphically illustrated by
Zuidhof et al.(10) who compared the growth characteris-
tics of a broiler strain which had remained unselected
from 1957 with a current day commercial strain. At
 Improving the sustainability of global meat and milk production
age 42 d the modern strain had over 400 % higher growth
rate and 50 % reduction in feed conversion rate (g feed:g
bodyweight) compared with the historic strain. Major
improvements were also seen in body composition,
with yield of the major breast muscle (per kg body
weight) increasing by approximately 80 %. Similar
improvements in feed conversion have also been achieved
in pigs(11).
While dramatic improvements have been made in the
efficiency of animal growth this has been achieved, par-
ticularly in monogastric animals, through the use of
highly nutritious feed ingredients which often could be
fed directly to human subjects. Inevitably, such animals
will use energy derived from such feed for maintenance
and exercise, leading to losses in human-edible energy.
For ruminant animals the picture is more complicated
due to their ability to graze on plant material not suitable
for direct human consumption, frequently grown on land
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
that would not support the production of conventional
crops. However, in many parts of the world such diets
are frequently supplemented with high-value crops such
as wheat, soya and maize(12). On a total feed intake
basis, ruminant animals appear to be highly inefficient
at converting energy and protein taken in, into
human-edible energy and protein that can be consumed
as meat from such animals. However, if this is recalcu-
lated as human-edible energy/protein consumed against
that produced, then in animals which are largely grazed
on pasture land, the figure improves substantially.
Wilkinson(12) demonstrated that the feed conversion
ratio (feed intake per unit of fresh product) for produc-
tion of beef ranged from 13·2 to 40 for energy, and 8·3
to 26·3 for protein, depending on the production system
used. The highest values were seen in those animals fed
predominantly on fresh/preserved forage. However,
when the data were re-expressed in terms of the amount
of human-edible feed consumed by the animal these
figures reduced to 1·9–6·2 for energy and 0·92–3·0 for
protein. These values compare relatively well to those
estimated for production of pork (energy 6·3 and protein
2·6) and poultry (energy 3·3 and protein 2·3). It is of note
that the pig and poultry values depend on the husbandry
practices involved, with intensive housing inevitably im-
proving efficiency compared with outdoor free-range
production. Overall, it is clear that when using
human-edible crops for feed, it can require anywhere be-
tween 3 and 6 MJ human-edible feed to produce 1 MJ
energy in the form of meat. It is unsurprising that,
against a background of increasing demand for food,
the use of such natural resources has been called into
question. This also has to be viewed against the impact
of livestock farming on global warming. It has been esti-
mated that agriculture accounts for up to 22 % of total
greenhouse gas emissions of which 80 % is associated
with livestock production(13–15). This includes that asso-
ciated with deforestation, on farm fossil fuel use, that
associated animal manure and direct gas (particularly
methane) production by the animal themselves.
Considerable debate also surrounds the potential envir-
onmental impact of livestock production on water
use(16,17). While, it is clear that large variations exist
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 12 Jan 2017 at 16:17:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000276
3
depending on the agricultural system to use to rear ani-
mals, against a background of climate change, this also
represents an important consideration when predicting
large increases in demand for meat and other animal
products.
How do we mitigate against the potential negative im-
pact of an almost inevitable increase in demand for ani-
mal products in the coming decades? The remainder of
this review will focus on two specific areas of potential
mitigation: (1) reducing the reliance of livestock produc-
tion on human-edible crops and (2) reducing meat con-
sumption within the developed world and minimising
the predicted increase in demand for such products in
the developing world.
Reducing the reliance of livestock production on
human-edible crops
As briefly alluded to earlier, one of the major factors
associated with our ability to continue to meet demand
for animal products has been the success of conventional
breeding to improve feed conversion efficiency, carcass
composition and milk production. It may be argued
that, as far as the conventional commercial breeds reared
in the developed world are concerned, we are approach-
ing the limit of what might be achieved by such techni-
ques. Indeed, there is some evidence that we are
already seeing negative impacts on reproduction and
health of such animals and, perhaps, the quality of the
meat produced. However, in terms of the developing
world, many of the breeds traditionally farmed, due to
their suitability to the climatic conditions, have not
been subjected to such breeding programmes and it
may be possible to achieve significant improvements in
feed efficiency(18).
Intensive rearing under restricted housing conditions
has also been widely used to increase efficiency of meat
production, particularly with regard to pigs and poultry.
In more recent years, in industrialised countries, public
perception of the impact such management systems on
animal welfare has created a significant market meat
derived from more conventionally-reared alternatives.
By contrast, intensive farming has developed rapidly in
emerging economies, particular in Asia, to meet the
rapid increase in demand for meat(18). It appears that
for the present time, intensive farming of highly selected
animals will remain a cornerstone of maximising the
efficiency of meat production.
Current intensive farming practices, particularly of
monogastric animals, are heavily reliant on the use of
human-edible crops as feed. There is considerable interest
in replacing such ingredients with less ‘valuable’ com-
modities such as fruit and vegetable waste(19),
by-products of the brewing or biofuels industries(20,21)
or locally grown forages and legumes(22). Potential pro-
blems with such novel feed sources relate to poor bio-
availability of nutrients or presence of anti-nutritional
factors. The addition of exogenous enzymes to animal
feeds to aid digestion and absorption of nutrients may
present a solution to such problems. As recently
 4 A. M. Salter
reviewed, such enzymes are currently used to aid diges-
tion of complex carbohydrates and break down phytate
which is known to impede the absorption of phosphate
and calcium(23). While such technology is now commonly
used to aid in the digestion and absorption of high-
quality human-edible feeds, there is considerable poten-
tial for their use in improving the nutritional value of
lower-quality plant material. This may ultimately im-
prove the nutritional value of agricultural and industrial
waste and currently underutilised crops which have the
potential to be grown under conditions unsuitable for
traditional food/feed crops.
Considerable attention has recently been turned to the
use of insects as feed for livestock. Insects represent a
natural part of the diet of both aquatic and terrestrial
wild animals from which domestic livestock have been
derived. They are poikilothermic, have been suggested
to have high feed conversion efficiency, have low green-
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
house gas emissions and can be grown at high densities,
thus reducing land use(24). As such their use as both a
human food and an animal feed has generated consider-
able interest. Their use as animal feed relies on the devel-
opment of production systems that utilise dietary
substrates which cannot be directly fed to livestock (or in-
deed human subjects). To date, the use of insect larvae
grown on animal excrement or household waste (includ-
ing animal-derived material) has been demonstrated to
be a potentially viable system in which to produce a high-
protein quality feed that can be used in both aquaculture
and monogastric farming(25–27). However, within the
Europe Union, where insects are regarded as ‘farmed
animals’, the feeding of substrates such as manure, cater-
ing waste or former foodstuffs containing meat and fish is
not allowed(28). As such, there is growing interest in the
potential for using plant waste, or plant species not suit-
able for direct livestock production, as a substrate for in-
sect production. The hope would be that the insects could
be a vehicle for concentration of valuable nutrients and
exclusion of anti-nutritional factors associated with
such material. For example, recent studies compared
the survival, development and composition of four differ-
ent insect species fed diets formulated from different
plant-based food by-products(29). The studies showed
that in general Argentinian cockroaches and black sol-
dier flies use feed more efficiently than yellow mealworms
or house crickets. They also suggested that on suitable
diets insects were more efficient at utilising protein than
conventional livestock and that their composition could
be altered through changes in their diet. While insects re-
present a promising option for producing high-quality
animal feeds, particularly as an alternative to wild caught
fish meal used in aquaculture, there are still a number of
unanswered questions and safety concerns(28). In particu-
lar, their ability to transmit pathogenic organisms,
accumulate toxic substances and the presence of anti-
nutritional factors within insect-derived feed all require
further investigation.
A more controversial way of improving production
efficiency and sustainability of farm animal production
is the use of growth promoters, metabolic modifiers
and anabolic agents. Attitudes to such agents varies
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 12 Jan 2017 at 16:17:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000276
considerably around the world(23). The European
Union has banned their use while in other countries (in-
cluding North America and Australia) their use is
allowed but strictly regulated to minimise the likelihood
of potential hazardous residues accumulating in the tis-
sue of animals. Of more concern is the potentially un-
regulated use of such agents in other parts of the world
which may well increase as the demand for improved
efficiency increases. With the emergence of technology
which facilitates the production of genetically manipu-
lated farm animals, the production of transgenic animals
(particularly pigs) with improved feed efficiency is also
an active target for research(30).
Reducing meat consumption
While the strategies described earlier may help reduce the
burden of meat production on global food security it
remains uncertain whether production can meet the pre-
dicted demand for such products. As already described,
meat (and dairy products) represents an important
source of key nutrients and in those countries where mal-
nutrition remains a significant problem there may be
significant health benefits of increasing their consump-
tion. However, there is little doubt that in more affluent
countries excessive consumption of animal products is
contributing to the burden of chronic disease. If nothing
else, diets rich in dairy products and meat tend to be
energy-dense and almost certainly add to the excessive
consumption of energy and associated obesity. Beyond
this, there is little evidence that excessive consumption
of milk, poultry meat or fish have detrimental effects
on health(4). By contrast, excessive consumption of red,
and particularly processed, meat has been associated
with increased risk of both CVD(4) and colorectal can-
cer(4,31). While diets rich in such foods are often asso-
ciated with other unhealthy lifestyle factors (including
smoking, excessive alcohol consumption and physical in-
activity), even when confounding effects of these has
been excluded an independent effect of processed red
meat consumption has been described(32). Thus, in add-
ition to improving the sustainability of meat production,
it would appear prudent to mitigate against the excessive
consumption in many parts of the industrialised world.
Such interventions may also help prevent intakes in
countries within emerging countries increase to such in-
appropriate levels.
For most people in the Western world, complete elim-
ination of red meat from the diet would not appear
achievable. The consumption of such products is largely
regarded as pleasurable and socially desirable(33).
However, preliminary data from our group have demon-
strated a significant proportion of UK meat eaters are ac-
tively trying to reduce red and processed meat intake(34).
Of 1141 consumers surveyed over one-third indicated
they are trying to reduce their meat intake. Most indi-
cated that this was associated with a desire to lose weight,
or other perceived health benefits, with far fewer indicat-
ing concerns about the impact of meat production on the
environment. When questioned about strategies for
 Improving the sustainability of global meat and milk production
achieving reduction most favoured meat-free days (or
meals), rather than alternatives such as meat replacers
or potential future options such as cultured meat or
insects. The potential for insects to replace meat in the
diet may be more acceptable in countries where there is
already a tradition for their consumption. However, it
remains to be seen whether replacements of such dietary
patterns with a more Westernised meat-rich diet will con-
tinue to be an aspiration of populations as wealth, and
with it food availability, increases.
Conclusions
Meat and dairy products represent energy and nutrient-
dense sources of nutrition which, when consumed to-
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
gether with a range of fruit and vegetables, can provide
a diet which is conducive to life-long health. However,
excessive consumption, particularly of processed red
meat, is associated with susceptibility to a range of
chronic diseases, in particular CVD and colorectal can-
cer. While milk and associated dairy products may con-
tribute to excessive energy intake and hence obesity, they
do not appear to have significant negative effects on
health. Thus, while many parts of the world would
benefit by increasing consumption of such animal pro-
ducts, a reduction in intake in the highest consumers in
more affluent parts of the world would have significant
benefits. There is increasing concern that increased de-
mand for animal products, associated with population
growth, increased lifespan and improving economic pros-
perity in the developing world, will put unsustainable
demands on the environment which may be further
impacted on by climate change. It therefore appears im-
perative that alternative husbandry techniques, including
adoption of novel and more sustainable animal feeds
should be combined with efforts to reduce meat con-
sumption in more affluent parts of the world. By a
combination of these interventions we may be able to
maintain a sustainable level of meat and milk
production.
Acknowledgements
The Author would like to thank Dr John Brameld and
Dr Tim Parr, University of Nottingham for their useful
discussions and valuable insight into the topics covered
in this review.
Financial Support
Our work on consumer attitudes to meat reduction was
funded by a UK government Innovate UK grant:
Consumer insight driven development of ingredients
and products to aid in reduction of meat consumption
(34825-241274).
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 12 Jan 2017 at 16:17:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000276
5
Conflicts of Interest
None.
Authorship
The author was solely responsible for all aspects of prep-
aration of this paper.
References
1. Wyness L, Weichselbaum E, O’Connor A et al. (2011) Red
meat in the diet: an update. Nutr Bull 36, 34–77.
2. Kliem KE & Givens DI (2011) Dairy products in the food
chain. Their impact on health. Annu Rev Food Sci 2, 21–36.
3. Capper JL (2013) Should we reject animal foods to save the
planet? A review of the sustainability of global livestock
production. S Afr J Anim Sci 43, 233–246.
4. Salter AM (2014) Impact of consumption of animal pro-
ducts on cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer in
developed countries. Anim Front 3, 20–27.
5. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
(2015) FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org/site/569/default.
aspx#ancor
6. Foresight (2011) The Future of Food and Farming:
Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability. Final
Project Report. London: The Government Office for
Science.
7. Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR et al. (2010) Food
security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science
327, 812–818.
8. Herrero M & Thornton PK (2013) Livestock and global
change: emerging issues for sustainable food systems.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110, 20878–20881.
9. Seigel PB (2014) Evolution of the modern broiler and feed
efficiency. Annu Rev Anim Biosci 2, 375–385.
10. Zuidhof MJ, Schneider BL, Carney VL et al. (2014)
Growth, efficiency, and yield of commercial broilers from
1957, 1978, and 2005. Poult Sci 93, 2970–2982.
11. Patience JF, Rossoni-Serao MC & Gutierrez NA (2015) A
review of feed efficiency in swine: biology and application.
J Anim Sci Biotech 6, 33.
12. Wilkinson JM (2011) Re-defining efficiency of feed use by
livestock. Animal 5, 1014–1022.
13. FAO (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental
Issues and Options. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
14. McMichael AJ, Powles JW, Butler CD et al. (2007) Food,
livestock production, energy, climate change, and health.
Lancet 370, 1253–1263.
15. O’Mara FP (2011) The significance of livestock as a con-
tributor to global greenhouse gas emissions today and in
the near future. Anim Feed Sci Technol 166–167, 7–15.
16. Hoekstra AY & Chapagain AK (2007) Water footprints of
nations: water use by people as a function of their con-
sumption pattern. Water Resour Manag 21, 35–48.
17. Ridoutt BG, Sanguansri P, Freer M et al. (2011) Water
footprint of livestock: comparison of six geographically
defined beef production systems. Int J Life Cycle Assess
17, 165–175.
18. Thornton PK (2010) Livestock production: recent trends,
future prospects. Philos Trans R Soc B 365, 2853–2867.
 6 A. M. Salter
19. Esteban MB, Garcia AJ, Ramos P et al. (2007) Evaluation
of fruit–vegetable and fish wastes as alternative feedstuffs in
pig diets. Waste Manag 27, 193–200.
20. Loughmiller J (2008) Use of dried distillers grans with solu-
bles (DDGS) co-products in commercial pig feeding pro-
grammes. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition 2008
[PC Garnsworthy and J Wiseman, editors]. Nottingham:
Nottingham University Press.
21. Hazzledine M (2008) Nutritional and economic value of
biofuel co-products. In Recent Advances in Animal
Nutrition 2008 [PC Garnsworthy and J Wiseman, editors].
Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.
22. Martens SD, Tiemann TT, Bindelle J et al. (2012)
Alternative plant protein sources for pigs and chickens in
the tropics – nutritional value and constraints: a review. J
Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop 113, 101–123.
23. Brameld JM & Parr T (2016) Improving efficiency in meat
production. Proc Nutr Soc. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S0029665116000161.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
24. Van Huis A (2013) Potential of insects as food and feed in
assuring food security. Annu Rev Entomol 58, 563–583.
25. El Boushy AR (1991) House-fly pupae as poultry manure
converters for animal feed. Bioresour Technol 38, 45–49.
26. St Hilaire S, Cranfill K, Mcguire MA et al. (2007) Fish
offal recycling by the black soldier fly produces a foodstuff
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 12 Jan 2017 at 16:17:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000276
high in omega-3 fatty acids. J World Aquacult Soc 38,
309–313.
27. Diener S, Zurbrugg C & Tockner K (2009) Conversion of
organic material by black soldier fly larvae: establishing op-
timal feeding rates. Waste Manag Res 27, 603–610.
28. EFSA Scientific Committee (2015) Risk profile related to
production and consumption of insects as food and feed.
EFSA J 13, 4257.
29. Oonincx DGAB, van Broekhoven S, van Huis A et al.
(2015) Feed conversion, survival and development, and
composition of four insect species on diets composed of
food by-products. PLoS ONE. Available at: http://journals.
plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0144601.
30. Whyte JJ & Prother RS (2011) Genetic modifications of pigs
for medicine and agriculture. Mol Reprod Dev 78, 879–891.
31. Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ et al. (2015)
Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed
meat. Lancet Oncol 16, 1599–1600.
32. Pan A, Sun AM, Bernstein MB et al. (2012) Red meat con-
sumption and mortality. Arch Intern Med 172, 555–563.
33. Verbeke W & Vackier I (2004) Profile and effects of con-
sumer involvement in fresh meat. Meat Sci 67, 159–168.
34. Penny JC, Swift JA & Salter AM (2015). ‘Meat reducers’:
meat reduction strategies and attitudes towards meat alterna-
tives in an emerging group. Proc Nutr Soc 74, OCE5, E313.
 Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Page 1 of 8 doi:10.1017/S0029665116000616
© The Authors 2016
12th European Nutrition Conference, FENS, held at the Estrel Convention Centre, Berlin on 20–23 October 2015

Symposium: Sustainable Diet II: Sustainable food consumption

Wholesome Nutrition: an example for a sustainable diet

Karl von Koerber1*, Nadine Bader1 and Claus Leitzmann2

1
Working Group Sustainable Nutrition, Mutter-Teresa-Strasse 20, 81829 Munich, Germany
2
Institute of Nutritional Sciences, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany

‘Wholesome Nutrition’ is a concept of sustainable nutrition that was developed at the

Proceedings of the Nutrition Society

University of Giessen in the 1980s. In this concept, health and the ecologic, economic, social
and cultural dimensions of nutrition are equally important. In 1992 at the UN-Conference
on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro the definition of ‘Sustainable
Development’ comprised the dimensions environment, economy and society. Additionally
to these three ‘classical’ dimensions of sustainability, we included ‘health’ as the fourth di-
mension because nutrition has far reaching effects on human health. The fifth dimension,
‘culture’, became part of the sustainability dialogue since many years; the respective cultural
background influences food habits. Presently, mankind has to cope with huge global chal-
lenges such as poverty and food insecurity in low-income countries as well as climate change.
Therefore the objective is to identify prospects for actions to respond to these global chal-
lenges. The concept of ‘Sustainable Nutrition’ analyses the food supply chain at all stages
from input-production and primary production to processing, distribution, preparation, con-
sumption and waste disposal. The present analysis leads to the following seven principles:
preference of plant-based foods, organic foods, regional and seasonal products, preference
of minimally processed foods, Fair Trade products, resource-saving housekeeping and en-
joyable eating culture. This concept is based on holistic thinking and has the potential to
reduce the global challenges in the field of nutrition. Scientists, stakeholders, multipliers
and consumers are asked to consider environmental, economic, social and cultural aspects
in addition to the biological (health) aspects.

Wholesome nutrition: Sustainable nutrition: Dimensions of sustainability: Climate change:

Food security

What does ‘Sustainable Nutrition’ mean?

‘Wholesome Nutrition’ (German: Vollwert-Ernährung) is a
concept of sustainable nutrition that was developed by
Koerber et al. at the Institute of Nutritional Sciences at
the University of Giessen in the 1980s(1). Wholesome nu-
trition is a mainly plant-based diet, where minimally pro-
cessed foods are preferred. The central food groups are
vegetables and fruits, whole-grain products, potatoes,
legumes and dairy products. Native cold-drawn plant
oils, nuts, oleaginous seeds and fruits are also important,
but should be consumed in moderate quantities. If
desired, small amounts of meat, fish and eggs can be
consumed. This concept includes four equally important
aspects: health, ecologic, economic and social aspects(1).
About a decade later, at the UN-Conference on
Environment and Development in Rio 1992, ‘Sustainable
Development’ was defined by the three ‘classical’ dimen-
sions: environment, economy and society. Sustainable
Development is the guiding concept of society: the needs
of the present generations should be satisfied without
threatening the needs of future generations. That means
resources should only be used to the extent as they can
be regenerated. Furthermore, there should be equal op-
portunities for every human being on earth, which

*Corresponding author: K. von Koerber, fax +49/(0)89/651021-32, email koerber@nh-e.de

Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:22:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000616
 2 K. von Koerber et al.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Fig. 1. (Colour online) Dimensions of a Sustainable Nutrition
(adapted from Koerber et al. (1); Koerber(5)).
means that industrial countries need to stop living at the
expense of people in the Global South(2).
From the beginning in the 1980s, we included ‘health’
as the fourth dimension, because nutrition among others
has far reaching effects on human health. In 2005,
Leitzmann and Cannon established the New Nutrition
Science Project, under the umbrella of the International
Union of Nutritional Sciences and the World Health
Policy Forum. This project picked up our concept of
complementing the biological focus with environmental
and social aspects(3,4).
Some years ago, we added ‘culture’ as the fifth dimen-
sion because the respective cultural background
influences food habits (Fig. 1). Culture has been part of
the sustainability dialogue for many years, especially in
the context of Education for Sustainable Development(5).
The concept of Sustainable Nutrition takes all stages of
the food supply chain into account(1,6): input production;
agricultural production; food processing; distribution;
preparation of meals; waste disposal.
Global challenges in the field of nutrition
Currently mankind has to cope with immense global
challenges, on which food habits have a significant im-
pact. Examples are energy supply and the long-term in-
creasing energy prices, climate change, poverty and
world hunger, water scarcity, soil degradation, loss of
biodiversity, problems due to livestock breeding and
feeding, as well as economic and financial crises(7). In
the following, a closer look is taken at two of those chal-
lenges: climate change and food insecurity.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
states that ‘human influence on the climate system is
clear’, which means that it is the responsibility of
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:22:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000616
mankind to become active to tackle climate change(8).
At the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in
November–December 2015, 195 countries finally agreed
to take action in order to limit the global warming to
1·5–2°C above the pre-industrial levels(9).
Climate specialists call for the following necessary
actions, especially in high-income countries as the main
contributors to climate change, in order to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions significantly: renewable energy
sources instead of fossil fuels, increase of energy
efficiency, sustainable soil management, prevention of
deforestation and finally the transformation towards a
climate-friendly society. Moreover, low-income countries
are asked to inhibit an increase in greenhouse gas emis-
sions by climate-friendly technologies(10). This trans-
formation requires a shift towards sustainable lifestyles,
including land use, mobility, habitation, nutrition, en-
ergy production and other factors. The concept of
Sustainable Nutrition considers those factors and contri-
butes to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the
field of nutrition by influencing consumer behaviour.
Adoption of a diet that follows this concept can ultimate-
ly contribute to the limitation of global warming.
Therefore it fits into the goal set in the Paris agreement.
The following examples show the nutrition-related fac-
tors with the potential to contribute in achieving the cli-
mate goal.
The land use is responsible for one-quarter of the glo-
bal greenhouse gas emissions, mainly due to deforest-
ation and soil management as well as fertilisation(10).
The example of Germany highlights three main contrib-
uting sectors to greenhouse gas emissions: Transportation
of people (mainly cars and airplanes), habitation (includ-
ing heating) and nutrition; each of these three sectors
causes about 20 % of the total emissions (Fig. 2)(11).
The different stages of the food supply chain contrib-
ute to a varying extent to the total greenhouse gas emis-
sions. In Germany, about half the greenhouse gas
emissions in the field of nutrition are caused by agricul-
ture, of which the production of animal-based products
such as meat and milk accounts for 85 % (corresponds
to 44 % of total nutrition-related emissions, Fig. 3).
However, the consumption of animal-based products in
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development) countries contributes just one third of
the total energy intake(12). The production of plant-based
foods accounts for only 15 % (corresponds to 8 % of total
nutrition-related emissions, Fig. 3) of the greenhouse gas
emissions, yet it contributes about two-thirds of the total
energy intake. This indicates the much lower energy
efficiency of animal-based products. In order to limit
the climate change, the preference of plant-based foods
is the most efficient action in the field of nutrition.
Direct consumer activities, such as cooling, heating,
cooking, dish washing and food shopping, contribute
nearly 30 % of the greenhouse gases. The remaining
emissions are caused by retail and transport, as well as
food processing(13). This illustrates clearly the different
potentials to reduce nutrition-related emissions by a
change of consumer behaviour and shows the importance
of the transformation to a climate-friendly society. Those
 Concept of Sustainable Nutrition
Fig. 2. (Colour online) Greenhouse gas emissions in carbon
dioxide equivalents by sector in Germany (calculated from
Umweltbundesamt)(11).
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Fig. 3. (Colour online) Sectors of nutrition contributing to the
greenhouse gas emissions in Germany (in % of total emissions of
carbon dioxide equivalents caused by nutrition)(13).
potentials are part of the concept of Sustainable
Nutrition.
In addition to causing environmental damage on a
global scale, climate change especially affects the daily
life of people in the Global South. In 2012, about 32 million
people worldwide became refugees because of the effects of
climate change such as flooding, storms and other environ-
mental catastrophes. This in turn causes food insecurity
due to declining crop yields and other factors(10).
According to estimates of the FAO (Food and
Agriculture Organization), about 795 million people
worldwide are undernourished. The highest absolute
number of undernourished people lives in South Asia,
followed by sub-Saharan Africa(14). The highest preva-
lence is found in sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. 35 % and
more in Zambia and Central African Republic)(15).
Additionally, more than 2 billion people suffer from
micronutrient deficiencies, known as ‘hidden hunger’(16).
In total, about 3 billion people, almost half of the world
population, suffer from insufficient food supply.
The global income is distributed very unequally. The
richest quintile in the world possesses more than 80 %
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:22:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000616
3
of the global income; the poorest quintile only about 1
%. Even the second quintile possesses only about 2 %
and the third quintile approximately 4 % of the global in-
come(17). Currently billions of people are living in pov-
erty. There is a strong correlation between poverty and
undernourishment.
The population of the high-income countries in the nor-
thern hemisphere claims much more agricultural land
than the people in the southern hemisphere. The reason
is that their dietary pattern is largely based on animal-
based products. Plant-based foods require much less
land for their production compared with animal-based
products. This is due to so-called ‘food transformation
losses’ that occur during the low-efficient transformation
of energy in plants to energy in animal products.
However, a moderate consumption of products from
ruminants such as beef and dairy products is suitable be-
cause of ‘food transformation benefits’, which are import-
ant for global food security. Ruminants such as cattle,
goats and sheep can feed on grassland that is mostly not
usable for other agricultural production. This holds true
only for extensive and sustainable livestock farming on
permanent pastures(6,18–20).
Moreover, goats are able to digest crude vegetation on
land that is not cultivatable(21). Another sustainable
source of animal protein can be pigs that are fed with un-
avoidable food waste. The amount of soya and other
grains used as livestock feeds, which in case of South
America are frequently grown on deforested land, can
be reduced and agricultural land can be saved at the
same time. A widespread adoption of unavoidable food
waste as animal feed would require a thorough food
safety and disease control strategy(22).
There are additional aspects related to world hunger.
It is estimated that the global population will increase
to 10–12 billion people by the end of this century, mainly
and fastest in Africa followed by Asia(23) where food in-
security is already an immense challenge(14).
However, the absolute numbers are not as relevant,
since the FAO data indicate that global agriculture
could produce enough food for all people until the year
2050. Therefore, no person in the world needs to die of
hunger. However, access to food is limited for poor fam-
ilies, because of missing resources to buy or produce
food(24). The two main issues of this imbalance are first
the use of agricultural land: plant-based foods or animal
feed, with very low transformation efficiency into
animal-based products, or renewable resources. The ex-
port of these agricultural products can increase the prob-
lem of unequal distribution. Secondly, the question of
land use rights arises: who is allowed to cultivate the
land? Land grabbing is a huge challenge in low-income
countries that might increase food insecurity(25).
In this context, the trend to urbanisation is very im-
portant: by 2050, 66 % of the world’s population is esti-
mated to live in cities, in 2014 it was 54 %(26). The
so-called nutrition transition takes place especially in cit-
ies, where the food habits change towards an increased
consumption of animal-based products, fats and sugars,
as well as convenience foods(27). These changes require
much more agricultural land than traditional plant
 4 K. von Koerber et al.
foods. If a Western diet was adapted in low-income coun-
tries, it would result in a 2- or 3-fold increase of land
use(28). This trend towards a Western diet can already be
observed in some transition countries such as China,
Mexico and Brazil(29). Emerging middle classes in those
transition countries increase the demand for meat. For
example, in some Asian countries the meat sector is
estimated to grow by 80 % by 2022. Even India, a country
known to be mostly vegetarian, records an increasing
demand for meat by their growing middle class(30). As a
result these dietary changes are predicted to cause a
much higher land use than the population growth(28).
Nutrition transition is not only influencing land use
but also impairs the health status of people. Combined
with less physical activity, overeating leads to an increase
in overweight and obesity and non-communicable dis-
eases, while undernutrition and communicable diseases
still exist in the Global South. This ‘double burden of dis-
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
ease’ is an additional challenge to the health and eco-
nomic burden the Global South has to cope with(27,31).
Principles of a Sustainable Nutrition
Sustainable Nutrition has the objective to identify pro-
spects for action in response to these challenges. In the
past 40 years, we developed the concept of Sustainable
Nutrition, summarised in the following seven principles:
(1) Preference of plant-based foods; (2) Organic foods;
(3) Regional and seasonal products; (4) Preference of
minimally processed foods; (5) Fair Trade products;
(6) Resource-saving housekeeping; (7) Enjoyable eating
culture. All principles are phrased in a positive way,
since this is more motivating than prescribing restrictions.
In the following, the principles of Sustainable
Nutrition are systematically described in terms of the
five dimensions health, environment, economy, society
and culture(1,6,7,32–35).
Preference of plant-based foods
Environment. The most important principle is the prefer-
ence of plant-based foods, which reduces the consump-
tion of animal-based foods. There are different
ecological benefits, such as less greenhouse gas emissions.
Considering the entire food supply chain, for example in
Germany, 72 % of the greenhouse gas emissions in the
nutrition sector are caused by animal-based foods and
only 28 % by plant-based foods. However, animal-based
foods account for only about one-third of the total quan-
tity of all foods consumed(36). Furthermore, the virtual
water consumption is considerably lower for plant-based
foods (virtual water (litre/kg product) e.g. 15 415 for beef,
5988 for pork, 5060 for cheese, 3265 for eggs, 1827 for
wheat, 822 for apples, 287 for potatoes and 214 for toma-
toes)(37,38). The land use for the production of plant-
based foods is distinctly less than for animal-based
foods, because the conversion of plant products into ani-
mal products is often low-efficient. For these reasons the
preference of plant-based foods enables a less intensive
(hence more ecological) production.
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:22:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000616
Society. Social aspects are very important, for example
lower ‘food transformation losses’ when less meat and
dairy products are consumed. Worldwide one third of
the arable land is used for animal feed production(39)
which competes with food production especially in
regions where food insecurity already exists. However,
ruminants kept on permanent pastures support ‘food
transformation benefits’ which increases the world food
security (70 % of the worldwide agricultural land is pas-
ture, which is only usable productively by ruminants).
The import of feed and food causes conflicts for land
use in low-income countries. Especially the deforestation
of tropical rainforest for soya and palm oil production or
pasture land is very problematic; for both people and
climate(40).
Health. The health aspects of plant-based foods are the
increase in the consumption of complex carbohydrates
and the decrease of the consumption of fat, SFA, choles-
terol and purines. The content of some vitamins, miner-
als and phytochemicals in plant foods is higher than in
animal products. Dietary fibre, which is only present in
plant foods, increases satiety even though the energy con-
tent of plant foods is the same or reduced compared with
animal-based foods. Studies with vegetarians show sev-
eral health benefits compared with meat eaters(41,42).
Economy. Production of animal-based foods requires
also more financial resources, due to higher input costs
(e.g. higher requirement of energy, fertiliser and working
hours). Thus, the expenses for food decrease in parallel
with a decreasing consumption of meat and milk pro-
ducts (except products of low quality)(7).
Culture. Only 60 years ago, meat used to be something
special (usually it was consumed about once weekly).
Currently high meat consumption has become more
and more normal, especially for men(43). But new taste
experiences are possible with creative vegetarian dishes.
Organic foods
Environment. Organic foods are produced according to
natural cycles, which have various ecological benefits.
A case study shows that the greenhouse gas emissions
of organic farms compared with conventional ones are
lower by an average of about 25 %(44). Further benefits
are reduced soil erosion, higher biodiversity and less
harmful residues in soil and water such as nitrates, pesti-
cides and animal medication. Among other factors, organ-
ic farming avoids the use of mineral nitrogen fertiliser,
which requires a large amount of energy for its production,
as well as synthetic pesticides. The overfertilisation of soil
causes high emissions of nitrous oxide, which have a
huge greenhouse potential. Compared with the emission
of nitrous oxide by conventional farming, the emission
by organic farming is lower by an average of 40 %.
Organic farming, moreover, facilitates a greater build-up
of humus, which absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmos-
phere(45). Organic farming practices animal-friendly hus-
bandry, such as more space and free range for the
animals. Last but not least organic farming and organic
food processing avoids controversial technologies such as
GM plants and animals or radiation treatment of foods.
 Concept of Sustainable Nutrition
Economy. Generally farmers get higher prices for or-
ganically grown food. Economic security on farms
increases the number and security of jobs through higher
work intensity, farm-based processing and direct market-
ing. The price difference from conventional products has
to be paid for by the consumer(33).
Society. High standard organic farming generally does
not use cheap feed imports from low-income countries(6).
Moreover, in low-income countries, in contrast to high-
income countries, organic farming can result in yield
increases compared with conventional farming. Organic
farming often entails additional services such as teaching
farms and the inclusion of people with disabilities.
Health. Organic foods can contain a higher amount of
phytochemicals. Usually they contain less pesticides,
nitrates, animal medication and food additives.
Potentially harmful technologies such as genetic engin-
eering or radiation treatment are not permitted in organ-
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
ic food processing. Moreover, artificial colourings,
sweeteners, stabilisers and flavour enhancers are prohib-
ited in organic foods(6).
Culture. Many consumers perceive organic foods to
have a more intense taste. Above all transparency and
trust is higher in organically grown and processed
foods. Organic farming often fulfils the increasing de-
mand of the consumer for more naturalness(7).
Regional and seasonal products
Environment. Short distances from the farm to the consu-
mers reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions(46). The need for energy and the emissions
caused by transportation are extremely high for air-
planes, and those for trucks are higher than for trains(47).
Seasonal cultivation in the open causes less emissions of
carbon dioxide, since it does not require heating oil for
greenhouses or plastic tunnels.
Economy. Regional marketing and cooperation sup-
port small and medium-sized businesses. They secure
livelihoods through regional networks between farmers,
processors, retailers and consumers(7).
Society. Clear structures create more transparency and
trust for consumers and reduce the risk of food scandals
or illegal practices(7).
Health. Due to a prolonged ripening period, regional
products can contain more essential and health-
promoting substances. Seasonal products, which are
not produced in heated greenhouses or plastic tunnels
generally contain fewer harmful residues such as nitrates
and pesticides(6).
Culture. Regional and seasonal products can taste bet-
ter because usually they have a prolonged ripening per-
iod. The appreciation of regional specialties and the
biodiversity increase. The adaptation to seasonal varia-
tions leads to a more diverse food choice(7).
Preference of minimally processed foods
Health. Food processing such as heating and separation
of ingredients such as milling of grains can destroy or re-
move essential and health-promoting substances.
Minimally processed foods generally contain more of
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:22:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000616
5
these substances and have a higher nutrient density and
lower energy density. Convenience products often con-
tain high amounts of fat, sugar and salt; and most likely
food additives, such as preservatives, colouring and
flavouring substances. Staple foods are usually not pro-
cessed with debatable methods such as genetic modifica-
tion or radiation treatment. However, this does not imply
that only unprocessed foods should be eaten, rather a
mixture of heated and unheated foods is recommended.
A few processing methods do increase desirable ingredi-
ents, such as fermentation or sprouting of seeds(1).
Environment. Food processing needs a lot of energy
and causes pollutant emissions. Additionally food pro-
cessing requires a high amount of virtual water. Due to
less processing stages at different locations the transport
volume is reduced for minimally processed foods and the
necessity of intermediate packaging is less(7).
Society. The purchase of minimally processed foods
supports traditional, small craft enterprises or on-farm
shops since highly processed foods are typically produced
by big companies. Thus, jobs are secured and the buyer-
seller relationship is improved(6).
Economy. Staple foods are generally cheaper than con-
venience products or fast food. Sweets, snacks and alco-
holic beverages are more expensive. An exception is
highly processed wheat flour, which is relatively cheap(6).
Culture. Food preparation with natural and fresh pro-
ducts is more ambitious and requires more time. But it
can increase the appreciation for these products as well
as for the people working in the food supply chain. It
enhances cooking skills and the handling of foods strength-
ens the sensory perception. Moreover, food preparation
can raise the pleasure of meals and can be a social event(7).
Fair Trade products
Economy. Fair Trade products lead to higher income for
producers in low-income countries. Local farmers need
fair and stable prices that cover their costs. The Fair
Trade system increases planning security because of long-
term guaranteed purchases and prepayments. The reduc-
tion of intermediate trade saves costs, which allows a
higher income for the producers(48). Also the farmers in
high-income countries need prices that cover their
costs, e.g. the challenge of decreasing milk prices in
Europe. The global concentration process to big com-
panies in farming, processing and retailing is a huge
problem for small and middle-sized enterprises, because
they cannot compete with the low prices(30). Fair prices
contribute to their livelihood and create new workplaces
in rural areas.
Society. In the Fair Trade system, child labour as well
as forced labour are excluded. The system offers educa-
tion of local producers and supports social projects(48).
For example, it stimulates the infrastructure through
the construction of schools and hospitals. Furthermore,
Fair Trade provides social insurances for workers and
facilitates the founding of labour unions.
Environment. Fair Trade usually includes environmen-
tal requirements such as the decreased use of chemicals in
producer countries, reforestation or drinking water
 6 K. von Koerber et al.
protection(48). About two-thirds of Fair Trade products
are produced with certified organic quality, which also
reduces the ecological impact in comparison with con-
ventional production(49).
Health. In low-income countries the enhanced health
and safety measures, which are implemented in Fair
Trade standards, reduce the risk of exposure to potential-
ly harmful pesticides. Moreover, higher wages allow
higher expenses by the producers for food and educa-
tion(48), which can lead to an improved nutritional and
health status.
Culture. In the high-income countries educational
work is necessary to explain the higher prices of Fair
Trade products, and to increase the sense of responsibil-
ity. For example, the price difference between the con-
ventional and the Fair Trade option for a cup of coffee
is very small(7).
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Resource-saving housekeeping
For a sustainable management of the households the fol-
lowing aspects are important:
Switching to renewable energy instead of using coal, nat-
ural gas and nuclear energy: Production, processing and
marketing need a lot of energy as well as household activ-
ities such as cooling, cooking, dish washing or the use of
electrical appliances. Electricity generated with fossil en-
ergy such as coal, oil or natural gas produces high amounts
of greenhouse gases. Power generation with renewable en-
ergy is generally more climate-friendly and safe(6).
Saving energy in the kitchen: Large electrical appli-
ances such as refrigerators, ovens, dishwashers, washing
machines and tumble driers can be very energy intensive.
In addition to using energy from renewable sources,
energy-efficient appliances are required. In the EU,
there are labels for appliances that range from A+++
for high efficiency to G for low efficiency. These labels
provide information on energy and water consumption.
There are many recommendations to save energy in
households such as choosing a burner or hot plate that
is appropriate for the size of the bottom of the pot. An
extensive overview about further measures is provided
elsewhere(6).
Shopping trips better on foot or by bike, rather than by
car: For grocery shopping, cars are the most environmen-
tally harmful mode of transportation. Using a car regularly
can offset all efforts for a climate-friendly diet, e.g. by eat-
ing less animal products and more ecological foods and
local and seasonal products. Walking, cycling or public
transportation is better for the climate and cheaper(6).
Prevention of food waste: About one-third of globally
produced foods is wasted. For example in Germany, peo-
ple also waste one-third of all edible foods; two-thirds of
this is caused by private households. In some countries, it
is even higher. The food waste is ethically irresponsible,
taking into account that globally 795 million people are
undernourished especially in low-income countries(14);
raising awareness is absolutely crucial here(6). However,
unavoidable food waste can be fed to pigs as an efficient
recycling strategy that could significantly contribute to a
land use reduction of pork production(22).
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:22:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000616
Prevention of packaging waste: In Germany, every per-
son uses 145 kg packaging per year, most of this comes
from foods. Unpackaged products or reusable packaging
should be preferred. Generally, products in reusable
packages are better for the environment than those in dis-
posable packaging. Minimum-sized containers are not
recommended(6).
Enjoyable eating culture
Enjoying tasty meals and generally enjoying eating cul-
ture is our final recommendation. This is no contradic-
tion to meeting the above health, ecologic, economic
and social requirements for sustainability. Pleasure is
fundamental for the implementation of increased sustain-
ability, not only in the field of nutrition(6).
Obstacles for transforming the principles into reality
The described principles raise the question of how consu-
mers can transform this into reality. There are a lot of
challenges concerning sustainable behaviour. One of
the biggest is the higher prices for sustainable products
and the lack of willingness to pay more. As the ‘true
costs’ of non-sustainable production are hidden, the sus-
tainable products cannot be offered for the same low
price. In addition, convenience and old habits are obsta-
cles consumers have to overcome. The availability and
the information about sustainable production and the pol-
itical and economic conditions are not always the best.
Sometimes economic interests of a growth-oriented society
and policy can inhibit progress(7).
To break down these barriers all stakeholders can pro-
mote the realisation of an increase in sustainability. The
development of frameworks is important to support con-
sumers in their behaviour. Producers could provide more
sustainable foods. Retailers could increase the availabil-
ity and transparency. There are different political and
economic instruments to promote sustainable products
such as tax incentives and the internalisation of external
costs, which means honest prices. Clear labelling is also
crucial to motivate consumers towards more sustainable
consumption behaviour.
Conclusions
The concept of Sustainable Nutrition is based on holistic
thinking and considers the multi-dimensional interac-
tions in the food supply chain. It is an important commu-
nication tool to put scientific findings into practice. It has
the potential to cope with some of the global challenges
in the field of nutrition.
Sustainable Nutrition promotes different goals in five
dimensions: preventive health protection; fair economic
relationships; social justice; clean air and water, healthy
soils; enjoyable eating culture. These benefits and the
high quality of sustainable products cannot come for
free. It is necessary to increase the appreciation of our
food. To reach this goal all scientists, stakeholders,
 Concept of Sustainable Nutrition
multipliers and consumers should support ‘Education for
Sustainable Development’. This is one of the new
‘Sustainable Development Goals’ that the United
Nations agreed upon in September 2015. It will play a
crucial role in the transformation towards a more sus-
tainable society, respectively, a more sustainable way of
life.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the 12th European Nutrition
Conference FENS 2015 organisers for the invitation to
present this paper. We thank Julian Waldenmaier for
his help in translating the text and for his literature re-
search and comments about several topics. We thank
Lorenz Hartmann and Dorothee Harrison for their
proofreading.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Financial Support
None.
Conflicts of Interests
None.
Authorship
K. v. K. drafted the paper to which Nadine Bader con-
tributed in many respects. C. L. has been involved in
the conception of Wholesome/Sustainable Nutrition for
40 years and provided his broad knowledge to the paper.
References
1. Koerber KV, Männle T & Leitzmann C (editors) (2012)
Vollwert-Ernährung: Konzeption einer zeitgemässen und
nachhaltigen Ernährung, 11th ed. (1st ed. 1981). Stuttgart,
Germany: Haug.
2. Schneidewind U (2011) Nachhaltige Entwicklung – wo ste-
hen wir? Unesco Heute 2, 7–10.
3. Cannon G & Leitzmann C (2005) The new nutrition sci-
ence project. Public Health Nutr 8, 673–694.
4. Leitzmann C & Cannon G (2005) Dimensions, domains
and principles of the new nutrition science. Public Health
Nutr 8, 787–794.
5. Koerber KV (2014) Fünf Dimensionen der Nachhaltigen
Ernährung und weiterentwickelte Grundsätze – Ein
Update. Ernährung im Fokus 9–10, 260–266.
6. Koerber KV & Hohler H (2013) The Joy of Sustainable
Eating. Stuttgart, New York: Thieme.
7. Koerber KV (2015) Nachhaltige Ernährung und ihre fünf
Dimensionen: Umwelt, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Gesundheit
und Kultur. In Nachhaltige Ernährung lernen in verschiedenen
Ernährungssituationen: Handlungsmöglichkeiten in pädago-
gischen und sozialpädagogischen Einrichtungen, pp. 16–45
[J Schockemöhle and M Stein, editors]. Bad Heilbrunn, Ger-
many: Klinkhardt.
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:22:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000616
7
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014)
Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of
Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Geneva, Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
9. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015)
Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Proposal by the President.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf
10. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale
Umweltveränderungen (2014) Klimaschutz als Weltbür-
gerbewegung: Sondergutachten. Berlin, Germany: Wis-
senschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale
Umweltveränderungen. http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/tem
plates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/sondergutachten/sn2014/
wbgu_sg2014.pdf
11. Umweltbundesamt (2007) Die CO2 Bilanz des Bürgers.
Recherche für ein internetbasiertes Tool zur Erstellung
persönlicher CO2 Bilanzen. Endbericht. Heidelberg. http://
www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/publi-
kation/long/3327.pdf
12. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,
Science, and Technology for Development (2009) Global
Report. Washington, DC. http://www.unep.org/dewa/agas-
sessment/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%
20Crossroads_Global%20Report%20%28English%29.pdf
13. Enquête Kommission ‘Schutz der Erdatmosphäre’ des
Deutschen Bundestages (1994) Landwirtschaft: Land-
wirtschaft und Ernährung – Quantitative Analysen und Fall-
studien und ihre klimatische Relevanz, vol. 1/II. Bonn,
Germany: Economica.
14. FAO, International Fund for Agricultural Development,
World Food Programme (2015) The State of Food
Insecurity in the World 2015. Meeting the 2015
International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven
Progress. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf
15. World Food Programme (2015) Hunger Map 2015. Rome,
Italy. https://www.wfp.org/content/hunger-map-2015
16. Deutsche Welthungerhilfe e. V. (2015) Orientation
Framework. Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security.
Bonn, Germany. http://www.welthungerhilfe.de/fileadmin/
user_upload/Themen/Hunger/verborgener_Hunger/OF_
Sustainable_Food_and_Nutrition_Security.pdf
17. UNICEF (2011) Global Inequality: Beyond the Bottom
Billion. A Rapid Review of Income Distribution in 141
Countries. New York. http://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/
files/Global_Inequality.pdf
18. Koerber Kv, Leitzmann C (2011) Welternährung: eine glo-
bale Perspektive. In Ernährungsökologie, pp. 78–85
[I Hoffmann, K Schneider and C Leitzmann, editors].
Munich, Germany: Oekom.
19. World Wide Fund for Nature Germany (2011) Meat Eats
Land. Berlin, Germany. www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/
Publikationen-PDF/Meat_eats_land.pdf
20. Idel A (2012) Die Kuh ist kein Klima-Killer! Wie die
Agrarindustrie die Erde verwüstet und was wir dagegen tun
können, 4th ed. Marburg, Germany: Metropolis.
21. Morand-Fehr P (2005) Recent developments in goat nutrition
and application: a review. Small Rumin Res 60, 25–43.
22. Ermgassen EKHJ zu, Phalan B, Green RE et al. (2016)
Reducing the land use of EU pork production: where
there’s swill, there’s a way. Food Policy 58, 35–48.
23. UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division (2015) World Population Prospects. The
2015 Revision: Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working
Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241. New York. http://esa.un.org/
unpd/wpp/publications/files/key_findings_wpp_2015.pdf
 8 K. von Koerber et al.
24. FAO (2015) FAO Leader Calls for Change in the Way we
Produce Food. Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/news/
story/en/item/292379/icode/ (accessed December 2015)
25. International Fund for Agricultural Development (2010)
Responding to ‘Land Grabbing’ and Promoting Responsible
Investment in Agriculture. Rome, Italy. https://www.ifad.org/
documents/10180/c7d51222-fbf3-41d1-b72c-2df3912f 9b41
26. UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division (2014) World Urbanization Prospects:
The 2014 Revision Highlights. New York. http://esa.un.
org/unpd/wup/highlights/wup2014-highlights.pdf
27. Shetty P (2013) Nutrition transition and its health out-
comes. Indian J Pediatr 80, S1, 21–27.
28. Gerbens-Leenes PW & Nonhebel S (2002) Consumption
patterns and their effects on land required for food. Ecol
Econ 42, 185–199.
29. Steinfeld H, Mooney Ha, Schneider F et al. (2010) Livestock
in a Changing Landscape: Drivers, Consequences, and
Responses, vol. 1. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
30. Heinrich Böll Foundation & Friends of the Earth Europe
(2014) Meat Atlas. Facts and Figures about the Animals
We Eat. Berlin, Germany and Brussels, Belgium. https://
www.boell.de/sites/default/files/meat_atlas2014_kommen-
tierbar.pdf
31. Popkin BM, Adair LS & Ng SW (2012) Global nutrition
transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing coun-
tries. Nutr Rev 70, 3–21.
32. Leitzmann C (2003) Nutrition ecology: the contribution of
vegetarian diets. Am J Clin Nutr 78, 3S, 657S–659S.
33. Koerber Kv & Leitzmann C (2011) Empfehlungen für
eine nachhaltige Ernährung: vom Wissen zum Handeln. In
Ernährungsökologie, pp. 148–154 [I Hoffmann, K Schneider
and C Leitzmann, editors]. Munich, Germany: Oekom.
34. Hoffmann I, Schneider K & Leitzmann C (editors) (2011)
Ernährungsökologie. Munich, Germany: Oekom.
35. Schneider K & Hoffmann I (2011) Nutrition Ecology – a
concept for systemic nutrition research and integrative
problem solving. Ecol Food Nutr 50, 1–17.
36. World Wide Fund for Nature Germany (2015) Das große
Fressen: Wie unsere Ernährungsgewohnheiten den Planeten
gefährden. Berlin, Germany. http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/
fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/WWF_Studie_Das_grosse_
Fressen_Zusammenfassung.pdf
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Florida, on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:22:35, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000616
37. Mekonnen MM & Hoekstra AY (2011) The green, blue
and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop pro-
ducts. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15, 1577–1600.
38. Mekonnen MM & Hoekstra AY (2012) A global assess-
ment of the water footprint of farm animal products.
Ecosystems 15, 401–415.
39. FAO (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental
Issues and Options. Rome, Italy. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/
fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf
40. Koerber Kv, Kretschmer J & Prinz S (2008) Globale Ernäh-
rungsgewohnheiten und -trends. Externe Expertise für das
WBGU-Hauptgutachten ‘Welt im Wandel: Zukunftsfähige
Bioenergie und nachhaltige Landnutzung’. Berlin, Germany:
WBGU.
41. Leitzmann C (2005) Vegetarian diets: what are the advan-
tages? Forum Nutr 57, 147–156.
42. Leitzmann C & Keller M (2013) Vegetarische Ernährung,
3rd ed. Stuttgart, Germany: Ulmer.
43. Max Rubner-Institut (2008) Nationale Verzehrsstudie II.
Ergebnisbericht, Teil 2. Die bundesweite Befragung zur
Ernährung von Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen. Karlsruhe,
Germany.
44. Hülsbergen KJ & Küstermann B (2008) Optimierung der
Kohlenstoffkreisläufe in Öko-Betrieben. Ökologie &
Landbau 36, 1.
45. Hülsbergen KJ & Schmid H (2010) Treibhausgasemissio-
nen ökologischer und konventioneller Betriebssysteme.
Emissionen landwirtschaftlich genutzter Böden. KTBL-
Schrift 483, 229–245.
46. Demmeler M & Heißenhuber A (2003) Handels-Ökobilanz
von regionalen und überregionalen Lebensmitteln: Vergle-
ich verschiedener Vermarktungsstrukturen. Zeitschrift für
Agrarpolitik und Landwirtschaft 81, 437–457.
47. Hoffmann I & Lauber I (2001) Gütertransporte im Zusam-
menhang mit dem Lebensmittelkonsum in Deutschland.
Teil II: Umweltwirkungen anhand ausgewählter Indikato-
ren. Zeitschrift für Ernährungsökologie 2, 187–192.
48. Fairtrade International (2011) Aims of Fairtrade Stan-
dards. http://www.fairtrade.net/standards/aims-of-fairtrade-
standards.html (accessed December 2015).
49. Ökotest (2010) Fairtrade. Siegel im Überblick. www.oekot
est.de/cgi/index.cgi?artnr=10523&gartnr=91&bernr=04&
seite=10 (accessed July 2015).
 Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Page 1 of 10 doi:10.1017/S0029665116000598
© The Author 2016. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

12th European Nutrition Conference, FENS, held at the Estrel Convention Centre, Berlin on 20–23 October 2015

Conference on ‘Sustainable food consumption’

Globalisation of agrifood systems and sustainable nutrition

Matin Qaim
Chair of International Food Economics and Rural Development, Georg-August-University of Goettingen, 37073
Goettingen, Germany
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society

The globalisation of agrifood systems is a mega-trend with potentially profound nutritional

implications. This paper describes various facets of this globalisation process and reviews
studies on nutritional effects with a particular focus on developing countries. Results
show that global trade and technological change in agriculture have substantially improved
food security in recent decades, although intensified production systems have also contrib-
uted to environmental problems in some regions. New agricultural technologies and policies
need to place more emphasis on promoting dietary diversity and reducing environmental ex-
ternalities. Globalising agrifood systems also involve changing supply-chain structures, with
a rapid rise of modern retailing, new food safety and food quality standards, and higher
levels of vertical integration. Studies show that emerging high-value supply chains can con-
tribute to income growth in the small farm sector and improved access to food for rural and
urban populations. However, there is also evidence that the retail revolution in developing
countries, with its growing role of supermarkets and processed foods, can contribute to
overweight and obesity among consumers. The multi-faceted linkages between changing
agrifood systems and nutrition are a new field of interdisciplinary research, combining agri-
cultural, nutritional, economics and social sciences perspectives. The number of studies on
specific aspects is still limited, so the evidence is not yet conclusive. A review at this early
stage can help to better understand important relationships and encourage follow-up work.

Agriculture: Food systems: Small farms: Triple burden of malnutrition

In spite of progress in the reduction of global hunger, the
world is far away from a situation of sustainable food se-
curity and nutrition for all. Close to 800 million people
are chronically undernourished in terms of energy, 2 bil-
lion people suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, and
1·9 billion people are overweight or obese(1,2). These
three forms of nutritional problems are sometimes
referred to as the triple burden of malnutrition(3,4). This
triple burden contributes to impairments in physical
and cognitive human development, reduced productivity,
susceptibility to infectious and chronic diseases, and pre-
mature deaths(5). Reducing the different forms of malnu-
trition requires improved food policies and targeted
nutrition interventions. However, in addition to concrete
nutrition interventions, better knowledge about how glo-
bal mega-trends affect food choices and nutritional out-
comes is also required. Such knowledge can help
identify appropriate policy action to strengthen positive
nutrition effects while avoiding undesirable outcomes.
One mega-trend with potentially profound nutritional
implications is the increasing globalisation of agrifood
systems, which is the focus of this review paper.
Globalisation has many facets. It involves increasing
exchange of goods and services through international
markets. Economic theory predicts that trade promotes
income growth, as participating countries can better

Corresponding author: M. Qaim, email mqaim@uni-goettingen.de

Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.78.170, on 12 Dec 2016 at 17:40:12, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
 2 M. Qaim
harness their comparative advantages. Empirical studies
show that, in many cases, trade also contributes to pov-
erty reduction and that countries that are better inte-
grated into the world economy tend to have lower
levels of undernourishment(6,7).
However, globalisation of agrifood systems goes be-
yond a mere increase in agricultural trade. It also
involves international exchange of knowledge, with spill-
overs of agricultural technology and production patterns
across countries. Consumer preferences and lifestyles are
changing, becoming more alike internationally(8,9).
Foreign direct investments of agribusiness companies,
including large multinational retailers, are rising(10,11).
In many developing countries, modern supermarkets
are replacing traditional grocery outlets at a rapid
pace(11,12). Changing consumer preferences and retail
structures also affect the organisation and complexity
of food value chains. New standards for food quality
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
and food safety are proliferating, often entailing closer
vertical coordination and integration through contracts
and certification schemes(13). Sustainability labels that
differentiate foods produced according to certain envir-
onmental and social criteria, such as organic or
Fairtrade, are increasingly popular with food companies,
retailers and upper-income consumers(14). These trans-
formations change the way food is produced, processed,
distributed and consumed. They may therefore affect nu-
trition in positive or also in negative directions. The
wider nutritional implications are not yet well
understood(15–18).
Here, I review some of the empirical evidence on lin-
kages between globalising agrifood systems and nutri-
tion. I focus on developing countries, as this is where
most of the malnourished people live. This is a new
field of interdisciplinary research, combining agricul-
tural, nutritional, economics and social sciences perspec-
tives. The number of available studies is still limited;
most look at specific features of the agrifood system
transformation in individual countries. Hence, results
cannot be generalised. Nevertheless, a review at this
early stage can help to better understand important
relationships.
Especially on the nutritional effects of the rapid rise of
supermarkets for food consumers and farming house-
holds in developing countries we have ourselves con-
ducted several recent studies in the GlobalFood
Program of the University of Goettingen. Given the
dearth of other empirical research in this particular direc-
tion, I will synthesise some of our own results and discuss
them in the light of the related literature. I will also try to
provide some brief insights into the methodologies used
in the original studies, in words accessible for a broad
readership. This may help to stimulate follow-up research
in this emerging and important interdisciplinary field.
Globalisation of agricultural technologies
The beginnings of agriculture date back to about 10 000
BC. Since then, farmers in different parts of the world
have constantly innovated. Successful innovations were
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.78.170, on 12 Dec 2016 at 17:40:12, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
adopted more widely, and some of the technologies and
practices also spilled over to other parts of the world.
Until the 19th century, this process of innovation and
international spillovers was relatively slow. Since the
late 19th century, however, agricultural research became
more scientific. New insights about plant genetics, plant
nutrition and advancements in the chemical industry
speeded up the process of agricultural innovation sub-
stantially(19). The development and spread of improved
crop varieties and the use of chemical fertilisers and
other modern inputs led to massive increases in agricul-
tural productivity in the USA and Europe during the
first half of the 20th century. These technology-based
increases in food production were important to feed rap-
idly growing populations. However, it took a while until
modern technologies were adapted and used more widely
also in developing countries. In the 1950s and 1960s,
population growth outpaced food production in large
parts of Asia, so that there were serious concerns about
looming famines.
Green Revolution
The Rockefeller Foundation and other development
organisations were instrumental in launching several
public sector research programmes aimed at adapting
new agricultural technologies to tropical and subtropical
conditions and make them available to farmers in the
developing world. Since the late-1960s, high-yielding
varieties of rice, wheat and maize developed through
these international programmes were widely adopted by
farmers in Asia and Latin America(20). Combined with
a rise in the use of irrigation, fertilisers and other agro-
chemicals these new varieties contributed to a doubling
and tripling of agricultural yields within a relatively
short period of time. These technological developments
and the resulting increase in food production became
widely known as the Green Revolution(20,21). Due to
various constraints, the Green Revolution was less pro-
nounced in Africa.
What were the nutritional implications of this Green
Revolution? The production increases in major staple
foods improved the availability and affordability of
food energy. This is especially relevant for poor popula-
tion segments that typically spend a large proportion of
their income on food. Simulations demonstrate that
mean consumption levels of food energy in developing
countries would have been 10–15 % lower had the high-
yielding varieties of major cereal crops not been intro-
duced(20). Thus, the Green Revolution has contributed
significantly to reducing undernourishment in Asia and
Latin America. The predicted famines were prevented
and poverty rates declined considerably(20–23). Norman
Borlaug, the chief wheat breeder of the Rockefeller
Program in the 1960s, and often referred to as the father
of the Green Revolution, received the Nobel Peace Prize
in 1970 for his contribution to world food supplies.
While the effects of the Green Revolution in terms of
food energy supply are undisputed, impacts on other
forms of malnutrition are less clear. When access to en-
ergy improves and living standards rise, poor people
 Globalisation of agrifood systems and sustainable nutrition
start putting more emphasis on dietary diversification.
Hence, higher yields and lower prices of staple foods
may have contributed indirectly to improved dietary
quality as well. Conversely, the strong focus on only a
few major cereals changed the relative profitability of
crops, resulting in lower species diversity in farming(24).
Over the past 50 years, agricultural modernisation
around the world has contributed to narrowing global
production patterns with a focus on a limited number
of major crop plants(25). This also has implications for
dietary diversity. Whereas prices for starchy staple
foods decreased, more nutritious foods (such as pulses,
vegetables, fruits and animal products) became relatively
less affordable(23). Nowadays, about 60 % of all the en-
ergy consumed worldwide is provided by only three cer-
eal species, namely wheat, rice and maize. In addition,
plant breeders’ strong attention to yield was at the
expense of nutritional traits, resulting in lower micronu-
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
trient contents in high-yielding cereal varieties(26).
Against this background it is unsurprising that micronu-
trient malnutrition is still widespread, even in countries
where food energy deficiency is not a big issue anymore.
Critics of the Green Revolution also stress the negative
environmental consequences resulting from the higher
use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides(27). The overuse
of agrochemicals in some regions has unquestionably
contributed to environmental problems, such as water
pollution, biodiversity loss and nitrous oxide emissions.
Conversely, the yield increases on the given farmland
have helped to save natural ecosystems, including tropical
forestland, from being converted to agriculture(28).
Recent technological developments
Technological developments continue. Lessons learnt
from the Green Revolution were integrated into more re-
cent research and development programmes. Research
on improved agronomy, soil conservation and other nat-
ural resource management techniques has gained in im-
portance. In plant-breeding programmes, the range of
crops and crop traits that scientists work on was broa-
dened. Breeders today put much more emphasis on com-
bining high yields with improved tolerance to pests,
diseases, and adverse climate and soil conditions.
Genetic engineering and genome editing in particular
help to develop highly productive crops that require
lower amounts of pesticides, fertiliser and water(19).
Similarly, breeders work on developing crop varieties
with higher amounts of micronutrients, an approach
that is commonly referred to as biofortification(29–31).
While such new technologies could contribute substan-
tially to sustainable nutrition and health(32–34), accept-
ance levels in the wider public are relatively low.
Especially in Europe, there is a deep-rooted notion that
new agricultural technologies have no important role to
play anymore for improving global food security and nu-
trition. In spite of their unblemished safety record, genet-
ically modified organisms are rather feared to be harmful
for human health and the environment. Through non-
governmental organizations networks, public media,
international agreements and other channels such public
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.78.170, on 12 Dec 2016 at 17:40:12, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
3
fears and attitudes have spilled over from Europe to the
rest of the world(35). The globalising protest movement
against genetically modified organisms has clearly slowed
down international technological developments in agricul-
ture(19). This other facet of globalisation is worrying, be-
cause feeding a growing world population with a limited
natural resource base remains challenging(36). Sustainable
nutrition for all will not be possible without responsibly
developing and using new agricultural technologies.
Globalising patterns of food purchase and consumption
Nutrition transition
Income growth entails changing diets. Poor people usual-
ly derive a large share of their energy from staple foods.
When living standards rise, diets are being diversified:
higher-value and more nutritious foods such as fruits,
vegetables and animal products are gaining in import-
ance. This type of dietary shift is nutritionally desirable.
However, another type of dietary shift often occurs in
parallel. Economic development, urbanisation and glo-
balisation contribute to evolving lifestyles, involving
changing consumer preferences, purchase habits, food
environments, and a shift towards Western-style
diets(8,9). Traditional food components are increasingly
replaced by processed foods and convenience products
that tend to be low in fibre but high in fat, sugar and
salt contents(16,17,37). This shift is nutritionally less desir-
able. High fat and sugar intakes combined with decreas-
ing levels of physical activity during work and leisure
time entail rising rates of overweight and obesity and a
resulting surge in non-communicable diseases(17,38).
The nutrition transition, with rising rates of obesity
and non-communicable diseases, can be observed in all
parts of the world. In developed countries, it started
much earlier and unfolded gradually over a period of sev-
eral decades. In many developing countries, the nutrition
transition is now observed at accelerated pace.
Overnutrition is rapidly rising at a time when undernutri-
tion is still prevalent in the same countries, and some-
times even in the same households(39,40). These
overlapping forms of malnutrition make the design of
suitable nutrition policies much more complex. In some
developing countries, overweight and obesity rates are al-
ready at par with those in developed countries(41). Even
in Africa, obesity is rising rapidly, including in relatively
poor population segments(42). In poor countries, health
systems are often not yet prepared to properly deal
with non-communicable diseases.
Supermarket revolution
Food retailing in most developing countries is still domi-
nated by wet markets and traditional shops and grocery
outlets. However, with economic growth, trade liberal-
isation and rising foreign direct investment, the retail sec-
tor in many developing countries is modernising rapidly.
Supply-side factors, coupled with an increase in demand
for readily available foods of high quality among the ris-
ing urban middle-classes, have contributed to a
 4 M. Qaim
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Fig. 1. Relationship between average per capita income in a country and the share of
supermarkets in food retailing. Source: Compiled by author with data from(53,76).
large-scale expansion of supermarkets and hypermar-
kets(9,43). The expansion of supermarkets has been of
such a scale that the phenomenon is often referred to
as a supermarket revolution(11,43). This supermarket
revolution is likely to continue in developing countries;
the share of supermarkets in food retailing is closely cor-
related with average per capita incomes (Fig. 1).
The rise of supermarkets, at the expense of more trad-
itional grocery outlets, is associated with many changes,
not only in terms of the place of purchase, but also with
respect to food prices, types of foods offered, levels of
processing, shopping atmosphere and the way procure-
ment systems are organised(15,17,44,45). This may have far-
reaching implications for consumers and producers,
some of which are analysed below.
Supermarkets and obesity
Compared with traditional retail formats, supermarkets
tend to have a wider variety of processed and highly pro-
cessed foods and drinks, often in larger packaging sizes
and combined with special promotional cam-
paigns(15,37,46). Hence, one important question is whether
the expansion of supermarkets contributes directly to ris-
ing overweight and obesity in developing countries.
Several studies suggest that the spread of supermarkets
leads to dietary changes for urban consumers in develop-
ing countries. Most of this work shows that supermarket
purchase is associated with increased consumption of
energy-dense, processed foods(37,45,47,48), although in
one case supermarkets were found to improve dietary
quality(49). Research on the impact of supermarkets on
consumer nutritional status in developing countries is
rare. Studies in the USA show that access to supermar-
kets is nowadays often associated with lower obesity(50),
but the situation in developing countries is different.
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.78.170, on 12 Dec 2016 at 17:40:12, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
We have addressed the question of supermarket
impacts on consumer food choices and nutritional status
in recent studies in Kenya(51,52). Kenya is an interesting
country for this type of research. It has recently witnessed
a rapid spread of supermarkets that now account for
about 10 % of national grocery sales(53). This retail
share of supermarkets in Kenya is lower than in many
middle-income countries, but it is already higher than
in most other low-income countries in sub-Saharan
Africa and Asia. Hence, trends observed in Kenya may
be helpful to predict future developments in other poor
regions.
For the studies, we conducted a survey of 453 ran-
domly selected households in small towns of central
Kenya, some of which had a supermarket, while others
had not. This provided a quasi-experimental setting,
which we exploited for the analysis. Data on socio-
economic characteristics, including food consumption
quantities, expenditures and place of purchase, were col-
lected at the household level(52). In addition, we collected
individual-level data from household members, including
anthropometric measures. In total, we took individual
data from 615 adults and 216 children and
adolescents(51).
While 41 % of the adults in the sample are either over-
weight or obese, only 10 % of the children and adoles-
cents fall into this category. Conversely, 21 % of the
children are stunted (too short for their age), pointing
at widespread undernutrition(51). Table 1 compares nutri-
tion variables between individuals from households that
buy and do not buy in supermarkets. Adults in
supermarket-buying households have a higher BMI and
are more likely to be overweight or obese. They also con-
sume more energy, and a greater share of their energy
comes from processed foods. For children and adoles-
cents, the patterns are different. There is only a very
 Globalisation of agrifood systems and sustainable nutrition
Table 1. Consumer nutrition with and without supermarket purchase in Kenya
Variable
Adults
BMI
Overweight or obese (share)
Underweight (share)
Energy consumption per day (kcal)
Share of energy from processed foods
Number of observations
Children/adolescents
BMI-for-age Z-score (BAZ)
Overweight or obese (share)
Height-for-age Z-score (HAZ)
Stunted (share)
Energy consumption per day (kcal)
Share of energy from processed foods
Number of observations
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Mean values are shown with standard deviations in parentheses. Adult underweight, overweight and obesity are defined as BMI < 18·5, BMI ⩾ 25 and BMI ⩾ 30,
respectively. Child/adolescent overweight and stunting are defined as BAZ ⩾ 1 and HAZ < −2, respectively. Mean value is significantly higher than that of the
other group: *P < 0·1; **P < 0·05; ***P < 0·01.
Source: Adapted from(51).
small difference in BMI-for-age Z-scores. Yet, we ob-
serve considerably higher height-for-age Z-scores
among children from households that buy in supermar-
kets, and a lower prevalence of stunting.
The mean differences in Table 1 are a first indication
that buying food in supermarkets may affect nutritional
status of consumers in Kenya. Yet, these results cannot
be interpreted as causal, because of possible confounding
factors and the fact that food consumers decide them-
selves whether or not to buy in supermarkets. This deci-
sion may be correlated with other observed and
unobserved characteristics that could influence nutrition-
al status through various pathways, thus leading to what
is called self-selection bias in the impact evaluation
literature. To control for confounding factors and pos-
sible self-selection bias, we estimated various regression
models with instrumental variables(51,52).
The estimation results suggest that supermarkets con-
tribute indeed to rising waistlines among adult consu-
mers in Kenya. Buying in supermarkets increases BMI
by 1·7 and the probability of being overweight or obese
by thirteen percentage points(51). However, the same
effects are not observed for children and adolescents.
Supermarket purchase does not affect BMI-for-age
Z-scores significantly. Instead, supermarket purchase
has a positive and significant effect on height-for-age
Z-scores. Buying in supermarkets increases height-for-
age Z-scores by 0·63 and decreases the probability of se-
vere stunting by twenty-three percentage points(51). This
is evidence that supermarkets contribute to reducing pro-
blems of undernutrition among children and adolescents
in Kenya.
We also estimated additional models to better under-
stand impact pathways. Average food prices expressed
per calorie are lower for households that buy a larger
share of their food in supermarkets(52). This price incen-
tive contributes to higher total energy consumption. We
also observed a shift in the types of foods consumed.
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.78.170, on 12 Dec 2016 at 17:40:12, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
5
Household buys in supermarkets Household does not buy in supermarkets
25·22* (4·73) 24·43 (4·98)
0·45* (0·50) 0·36 (0·48)
0·04 (0·19) 0·04 (0·20)
3500·70** (1230·79) 3143·32 (1426·80)
0·51*** (0·11) 0·44 (0·20)
357 258
−0·26 (1·09) −0·36 (0·90)
0·10 (0·30) 0·09 (0·30)
−0·76*** (1·09) −1·35 (1·43)
0·14 (0·34) 0·28** (0·45)
2531·67 (959·88) 2310·54 (1428·13)
0·52*** (0·10) 0·44 (0·22)
110 106
Since the small-town supermarkets in Kenya primarily
sell processed items, the share of processed foods in
total food expenditure increases with supermarket pur-
chase(52). Likewise, the energy share of processed foods
increases. Yet, this does not automatically mean lower
dietary quality. The consumption increase is stronger
for lightly processed than for strongly processed foods.
Further, we found that supermarket purchase leads to a
larger number of food items consumed, pointing at
higher dietary diversity(52).
I am aware of only two other studies that have esti-
mated the effects of purchasing in supermarkets on peo-
ple’s nutritional status, one referring to Guatemala and
the other to Indonesia(47,54). Consistent with our results
from Kenya, the Guatemala study found that buying
food in supermarkets contributes to higher BMI and
overweight among adults(47). Effects for children were
not analysed in Guatemala. The study in Indonesia
found no significant effects of supermarket purchase on
adult BMI and child BMI-for-age Z-scores (effects on
child height-for-age Z-scores and stunting were not ana-
lysed). Only for children from relatively rich households
in Indonesia, supermarket purchase was found to in-
crease the probability of overweight and obesity(54).
Supermarkets and child undernutrition
Our results from Kenya show that buying in supermar-
kets increases BMI and the probability of being over-
weight or obese among adults, but not among children.
Rather, supermarket purchase reduces child undernutri-
tion and has a positive impact on body height(51). For
both adults and children, impacts occur through the
same mechanisms, namely higher energy consumption
and a higher share of energy from processed foods. The
fact that the same mechanisms lead to nutritional out-
comes that differ by age cohort is interesting. For adults
who have already reached their final body height,
 6 M. Qaim

increasing energy consumption can only lead to higher

BMI. For children and adolescents, the situation is dif-
ferent, because higher energy consumption can also
lead to gains in height. It should be mentioned that,
beyond energy, certain micronutrients also play an im-
portant role for child growth(2). While not analysed in de-
tail, dietary changes through buying in supermarkets
may potentially be associated with higher micronutrient
consumption. This could be true especially for children
from poor households who otherwise have relatively
low dietary diversity.
The impact of supermarkets on urban consumers will
much depend on people’s initial nutritional status. In
Kenya, we observe relatively high overweight rates
among adults, while stunting is a more widespread prob-
lem among children and adolescents. The same pattern is Fig. 2. Supplying emerging high-value chains and nutrition effects
observed in many developing countries(40,55). Reducing in smallholder farm households (possible impact pathways).
child stunting and controlling the global obesity pan- Source: Adapted from(69).
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society

demic are both important public health objectives. The

results from Kenya, Guatemala and Indonesia suggest
chains tend to decrease subsistence levels. When market
that the supermarket revolution is not just a business re-
access improves, for instance through better infrastruc-
sponse to the rapid nutrition transition in developing
ture and trading opportunities, farms are often becoming
countries, but that supermarkets also contribute to
more specialised and commercially oriented. While farm
changing food consumption habits and nutritional out-
specialisation reduces the diversity of foods available in
comes. Yet, the results also suggest that the types of out-
the household from own production, this effect is usually
comes can be diverse.
outweighed by higher food diversity that can be pur-
The finding from Kenya that the nutrition transition in
chased from the market. Recent research with data
general and the supermarket revolution in particular may
from small farm households in different developing
contribute to reduced child stunting challenges some
countries showed that market access is more important
widely held beliefs. Several authors have pointed out
for dietary quality than on-farm production diversity(60).
that the observed shift towards processed foods may con-
There are other aspects worth considering for farm
tribute to higher child weight but not to improved child
households in developing countries. Modernising food
growth, which could also be one reason why child under-
systems and emerging value chains for upscale export
weight declined more rapidly than child stunting during
and domestic supermarkets often involve certification
the past 20 years(2,56,57). The underlying assumption is
and contractual arrangements between farmers and agri-
that processed foods purchased in supermarkets are
business companies. This may have positive or negative
high in energy and low in micronutrient contents.
effects for smallholders. Positive effects may come from
However, the results from Kenya suggest that this is
higher and more stable prices, as well as better access
not always true. Depending on poor people’s traditional
to modern inputs and technologies(61–63). Conversely,
diets, supermarkets may contribute to improved dietary
negative effects may occur when too stringent quality
quality in certain situations. To gain a broader under-
standards prevent smallholders from participating in
standing, we compiled country-level panel data from a
emerging chains for high-value products(11,64). To reduce
large number of developing countries and ran additional
transaction costs, agribusiness companies sometimes pre-
cross-country regressions. This cross-country analysis
fer to source from medium and large farms. This could
suggests that the share of supermarkets in national
lead to further marginalisation of smallholders. Several
food retailing is negatively associated with both child
recent studies have analysed the impacts of globalising
underweight and child stunting(58), which supports the
agrifood systems on smallholder farmers in developing
micro-level evidence from Kenya.
countries(11,14,61–64). Most of these studies conclude that
emerging value chains contribute to income growth and
employment generation in the small farm sector.
Globalising agrifood systems and smallholder farmers However, nutrition effects have rarely been analysed(16,18).
Globalising agrifood systems also affect farm enterprises
and farm households. This is particularly relevant in Supermarkets and smallholder nutrition
developing countries, where rural households make up Supplying supermarkets or other emerging high-value
a large proportion of the poor and hungry people. chains may affect farm household nutrition through vari-
About 80 % of all undernourished people worldwide de- ous pathways, as shown in Fig. 2. A first pathway is
pend primarily on the small farm sector as a source of through household income. If farmers decide to supply
income and employment(59). Many smallholders are high-value chains instead of producing for traditional
subsistence-oriented, meaning that they consume a markets or subsistence they do so because they expect
large share of what they produce. Modernising value higher profits and incomes. Higher incomes will raise

Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.78.170, on 12 Dec 2016 at 17:40:12, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
 Globalisation of agrifood systems and sustainable nutrition
living standards and improve economic access to food. A
second pathway relates to possible specialisation effects.
Supplying high-value chains may lead to specialisation
on certain commodities, which could narrow down the
diversity of foods available for home consumption.
Conversely, if farmers specialise on nutritious foods such
as vegetables or dairy, positive effects for dietary quality
are also possible. A third pathway relates to gender roles
within the household. Participation in high-value chains
may involve higher levels of commercialisation.
Research has shown that men often take greater control
of agricultural income with rising levels of commercialisa-
tion(65,66). Men also tend to spend less than women on
dietary quality(67,68). All these factors may influence nutri-
tional outcomes in positive or negative directions.
To analyse nutrition effects of supplying supermarkets
empirically, we carried out a survey of 384 smallholder
farmers in central Kenya(69). Some of these farmers pro-
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
duce vegetables for supermarkets under contract, while
others sell their vegetables in traditional markets. The
average size of farms in the sample is below one hectare.
In addition to vegetables, households produce staple
crops, such as maize, bananas and beans, and cash
crops such as tea and coffee. Many are also involved in
small-scale livestock husbandry. Using a structured ques-
tionnaire, we collected data on household agricultural ac-
tivities and the broader socioeconomic context. The
questionnaire also included a 7-d food consumption re-
call and a module on gender roles within the household.
Food quantities from the recall were converted to per
capita consumption levels of various nutrients(69).
Using regression models and instrumental variables to
control for confounding factors and possible self-
selection bias, we estimated the net impact of participat-
ing in supermarket channels on per capita consumption
of energy and various micronutrients. In particular, we
focused on iron, zinc and vitamin A, because deficiencies
in these micronutrients are widespread among the rural
poor in developing countries(2). Supermarket participa-
tion has a positive and significant net effect on all nutri-
tional indicators. Participation increases energy, iron and
zinc consumption by 15–20 %(69). The positive impact on
vitamin A consumption is even higher(69). These results
suggest that the growing role of supermarkets has a posi-
tive effect on farm household nutrition in Kenya.
Further analysis confirmed that all three pathways dis-
cussed in connection with Fig. 2 play an important
role(69). Supplying vegetables to supermarkets has a posi-
tive effect on farm income and thus improves house-
holds’ economic access to food. The marketing
contracts with supermarkets provide incentives to farm-
ers to specialise more on vegetables all year round.
Some of the vegetables that do not meet the supermar-
kets’ quality standards are consumed at home, which
also explains the strong increase in vitamin A consump-
tion. For rural households in Kenya, with relatively low
consumption of animal products, green leafy vegetables
are the most important source of vitamin A (this partial
effect might be different in other contexts where con-
tracted farmers specialise on the production of non-food
products). However, the supermarket contracts have
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.78.170, on 12 Dec 2016 at 17:40:12, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
7
contributed to men taking over control of farm revenues
that were previously controlled by women, and this
change in gender roles has a negative partial effect on
dietary quality(69). Hence, while the overall effect of
supermarket participation on farm household nutrition
is positive, it could even be more positive when the loss
of female control of sales revenues could be prevented.
Very few other studies have empirically analysed
effects of supplying supermarkets, horticultural export
channels, or other emerging high-value chains on farm
household nutrition. One recent study found that sustain-
ability certification of coffee cooperatives has helped to
improve dietary quality among smallholder farmers in
Uganda(70). Another study found that farmer participa-
tion in certified vegetable export channels has contribu-
ted to higher food consumption levels in Kenya(71). It
was also shown that globalising value chains for labour-
intensive agricultural products can create new employ-
ment opportunities, especially for female workers,
which might also improve rural household welfare and
economic access to food(18,61,72,73). However, such
employment-related nutrition effects have not been ana-
lysed until now.
Strengthening women’s roles
It is a common observation that male household mem-
bers take greater control of agricultural income when
the farm enterprise is shifting from subsistence orienta-
tion to higher degrees of commercialisation(65,66,68,69).
This type of shift in gender roles within the farm house-
hold is undesirable from a nutrition, health and broader
development perspective. However, concluding that
small farms should not commercialise and stay
subsistence-oriented instead would be wrong. Closer
market integration, adoption of innovations and partici-
pation in the economy’s division of labour are important
steps out of poverty for smallholder farmers. Also from a
broader perspective, sustainable food security for a grow-
ing and increasingly urban population cannot be
achieved when the majority of farms in a country are
subsistence-oriented. Hence, avenues need to be found
how the commercialisation of smallholder farms can be
fostered without a decrease in women’s status.
Gender-sensitive approaches in programmes that try
to link smallholders to markets and high-value chains
are an important step in this direction. Such approaches
involve gender awareness building, training programmes
targeted at females and better tailoring of relevant rural
services to the needs and conditions of women farmers.
Several development initiatives already pursue such
gender-sensitive approaches. For instance, certain sus-
tainability standards, such as Fairtrade, consider the pro-
motion of gender equity as an important element in the
process of smallholder certification(74).
In a recent study, we analysed the effects of Fairtrade
and other sustainability standards on gender roles and
nutrition among smallholder coffee farmers in
Uganda(70). Using a similar approach as described earlier
for farmers in Kenya, we surveyed 419 coffee-producing
households in Central Uganda, some of them with and
 8 M. Qaim
Fig. 3. Male and female control of coffee production and revenue
in Ugandan farm households with and without sustainability
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
certification. Source: Adapted from(70).
others without sustainability certificates. The results
show that sustainability standards improve household in-
come and nutrition, as certified households have better
access to high-value export markets. Certified coopera-
tives offered special female training sessions. Some of
the cooperatives also advised husband and wife to be pre-
sent for the payouts of sales revenues. As a result, women
in households with sustainability certification had signifi-
cantly more control of coffee production and revenues
than their counterparts in non-certified households
(Fig. 3). Other research confirms that modern supply
chain developments can contribute to female empower-
ment in rural areas of developing countries when gender-
sensitive approaches are pursued(68,75).
Conclusion
Global agrifood systems are undergoing a rapid trans-
formation. Technological change, trade liberalisation,
foreign direct investment, urbanisation and rising
middle-classes in developing countries, and globalising
preferences and lifestyles are all factors that contribute
to profound shifts in the way food is produced, pro-
cessed, distributed and consumed. This review has
shown that these changes can affect nutrition in various
ways. However, a simple conclusion whether globalising
agrifood systems are positive or negative for sustainable
nutrition is not possible. A more nuanced perspective is
needed because different facets of globalisation can
have different nutritional implications. Furthermore, sus-
tainable nutrition requires looking at all three forms of
malnutrition, namely undernutrition, micronutrient
deficiencies and overnutrition.
Given global population and income growth and a
limited natural resource base, productivity-increasing
agricultural technology will have an important role to
play for food security also in the future. Likewise, inter-
national agricultural and food trade is important to har-
ness comparative advantages in different locations and
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.78.170, on 12 Dec 2016 at 17:40:12, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
use scarce resources efficiently. Hence, a focus on regional
and low-tech food production, as has become popular
among certain rich-country consumers, should not be mis-
understood as the new paradigm for sustainable food sys-
tems, as this would hurt poor people in developing
countries the most. Nevertheless, future food policies
and technological approaches need to place more em-
phasis on promoting dietary diversity and agricultural
production patterns that reduce environmental problems.
Globalising agrifood systems also involve changing
supply-chain structures through modernising retail, new
food safety and food quality standards, and higher levels
of vertical and international integration. The evidence
suggests that emerging high-value chains in developing
countries can contribute to income growth in the farm
sector and improved access to food for rural and urban
populations. Policy support may be needed in some
situations to ensure gender equity and reduce market
entry barriers for smallholder farmers. However, there
is also evidence that the retail revolution in developing
countries, with its growing role of supermarkets and pro-
cessed foods, may contribute to overweight and obesity,
especially among urban consumers. Except for the few
empirical studies reviewed here, the multi-faceted nutri-
tional implications of modernising food systems in devel-
oping countries are not yet sufficiently understood. More
research is needed to provide a sound knowledge base for
policymaking aimed at promoting sustainable nutrition.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Camilla Andersson, Christine Chege,
Brian Chiputwa, Simon Kimenju, Stephan Klasen and
Ramona Rischke, who cooperated with me and carried
out much of the research for the empirical studies sum-
marised in this paper.
Financial Support
The research on which this review article is based was
funded by the German Research Foundation, grant num-
ber RTG 1666 (GlobalFood).
Authorship
M. Q. was responsible for all aspects of writing this re-
view article.
Conflicts of Interest
None.
References
1. FAO (2015) The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
 Globalisation of agrifood systems and sustainable nutrition
2. IFPRI (2015) Global Nutrition Report. Washington, DC:
International Food Policy Research Institute.
3. Labadarios D (2005) Malnutrition in the developing world:
the triple burden. South Afr J Clin Nutr 18, 119–121.
4. Pinstrup-Andersen P (2007) Agricultural research and
policy for better health and nutrition in developing coun-
tries: a food systems approach. Agric Econ 37(s1), 187–198.
5. Lim SS, Flaxman AD, Danaei G et al. (2012) A compara-
tive risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attri-
butable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21
regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global
Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380, 2224–2260.
6. Nissanke M, Thorbecke E (editors) (2007) The Impact of
Globalization on the World’s Poor: Transmission Mechanisms.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
7. von Braun J, Díaz-Bonilla E (editors) (2007) Globalization
of Food and Agriculture and the Poor. New York: Oxford
University Press.
8. Pingali P (2006) Westernization of Asian diets and the
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
transformation of food systems: implications for research
and policy. Food Policy 32, 281–298.
9. Mergenthaler M, Weinberger K & Qaim M (2009) The
food system transformation in developing countries: a dis-
aggregate demand analysis for fruits and vegetables in
Vietnam. Food Policy 34, 426–436.
10. Gómez MI, Barrett CB, Buck LE et al. (2011) Research
principles for developing country food value chains.
Science 332, 1154–1155.
11. Reardon T & Timmer CP (2012) The economics of the
food system revolution. Annu Rev Resour Econ 4, 225–264.
12. Traill WB (2006) The rapid rise of supermarkets? Dev
Policy Rev 24, 163–174.
13. Beghin JC, Maertens M & Swinnen J (2015) Nontariff
measures and standards in trade and global value chains.
Annu Rev Resour Econ 7, 425–450.
14. Chiputwa B, Spielman DJ & Qaim M (2015) Food stan-
dards, certification, and poverty among coffee farmers in
Uganda. World Dev 66, 400–412.
15. Timmer CP (2009) Do supermarkets change the food
policy agenda? World Dev 37, 1812–1819.
16. Gómez MI & Ricketts KD (2013) Food value chain trans-
formations in developing countries: selected hypotheses on
nutritional implications. Food Policy 42, 139–150.
17. Popkin BM (2014) Nutrition, agriculture and the global
food system in low and middle income countries. Food
Policy 47, 91–96.
18. Van den Broeck G & Maertens M (2016) Horticultural
exports and food security in developing countries.
Bioeconomics Working Paper 2016/02, University of
Leuven.
19. Qaim M (2016) Genetically Modified Crops and Agricultural
Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Evenson RE & Gollin D (2003) Assessing the impact of the
green revolution, 1960–2000. Science 300, 758–762.
21. Hazell PBR & Ramasamy C (1991) The Green Revolution
Reconsidered: The Impact of High Yielding Rice Varieties
in South India. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22. DeGregori TR (2004) Green revolution myth and agricul-
tural reality? J Econ Issues 38, 503–508.
23. Gómez MI, Barrett CB, Raney T et al. (2013) Post-green
revolution food systems and the triple burden of malnutri-
tion. Food Policy 42, 129–138.
24. Pingali P (2015) Agricultural policy and nutrition outcomes –
getting beyond the preoccupation with staple grains. Food
Secur 7, 583–591.
25. Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H et al. (2014)
Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.78.170, on 12 Dec 2016 at 17:40:12, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
9
implications for food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
111, 4001–4006.
26. DeFries R, Fanzo J, Remans R et al. (2015) Metrics for
land-scarce agriculture. Science 349, 238–240.
27. Eicher CK & Staatz J (editors) (1998) International
Agricultural Development. Third Edition, Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
28. Stevenson JR, Villoria N, Byerlee D et al. (2013) Green
revolution research saved an estimated 18 to 27 million hec-
tares from being brought into agricultural production. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA 110, 8363–8668.
29. Qaim M, Stein AJ & Meenakshi JV (2007) Economics of
biofortification. Agric Econ 37(s1), 119–133.
30. De Steur H, Gellynck X, Van Der Straeten et al. (2012)
Potential impact and cost-effectiveness of multi-biofortified
rice in China. New Biotechnol 29, 432–442.
31. De Steur H, Blancquaert D, Strobbe S et al. (2015) Present
status and market potential of transgenic biofortified crops.
Nat Biotechnol 33, 25–29.
32. Stein AJ, Meenakshi JV, Qaim M et al. (2008) Potential
impacts of iron biofortification in India. Soc Sci Med 66,
1797–1808.
33. Qaim M (2010) Benefits of genetically modified crops for
the poor: household income, nutrition, and health. New
Biotechnol 27, 552–557.
34. Qaim M & Kouser S (2013) Genetically modified crops and
food security. PLoS ONE 8, e64879.
35. Paarlberg RL (2008) Starved for Science: How Biotechnology
is being kept Out of Africa. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
36. Hertel T (2015) The challenges of sustainably feeding a
growing planet. Food Secur 7, 185–198.
37. Hawkes C (2008) Dietary implications of supermarket
development: a global perspective. Dev Policy Rev 26,
657–692.
38. Popkin BM (2003) The nutrition transition in the develop-
ing world. Dev Policy Rev 21, 581–597.
39. Belahsen R (2014) Nutrition transition and food sustain-
ability. Proc Nutr Soc 73, 385–388.
40. Roemling C & Qaim M (2013) Dual burden households
and intra-household nutritional inequality in Indonesia.
Econ Hum Biol 11, 563–573.
41. Popkin BM, Adair LS & Ng SW (2012) Global nutrition
transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing coun-
tries. Nutr Rev 70, 3–21.
42. Nnyepi MS, Gwisai N, Lekgoa M et al. (2015) Evidence of
nutrition transition in Southern Africa. Proc Nutr Soc 74,
478–486.
43. Reardon T, Timmer CP, Barrett CB et al. (2003) The rise
of supermarkets in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Am
J Agric Econ 85, 1140–1146.
44. Schipmann C & Qaim M (2011) Modern food retailers and
traditional markets in developing countries: comparing
quality, prices, and competition strategies in Thailand.
Appl Econ Perspect Policy 33, 345–362.
45. Monteiro CA, Moubarac JC, Cannon G et al. (2013)
Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant in the
global food system. Obes Rev 14(S2), 21–28.
46. Swinburn BA, Sacks G, Hall KD et al. (2011) The global
obesity pandemic: global drivers and local environments.
Lancet 378, 804–814.
47. Asfaw A (2008) Does supermarket purchase affect the diet-
ary practices of households? Some empirical evidence from
Guatemala. Dev Policy Rev 26, 227–243.
48. Asfaw A (2011) Does consumption of processed foods ex-
plain disparities in the body weight of individuals? The
case of Guatemala. Health Econ 20, 184–195.
 10 M. Qaim
49. Tessier S, Traissac P, Maire B et al. (2008) Regular users of
supermarkets in greater Tunis have a slightly improved diet
quality. J Nutr 138, 768–774.
50. Lear SA, Gasevic D & Schuurman N (2013) Association of
supermarket characteristics with the body mass index of
their shoppers. Nutr J 12, 117.
51. Kimenju SC, Rischke R, Klasen S et al. (2015) Do super-
markets contribute to the obesity pandemic in developing
countries? Public Health Nutr 18, 3224–3233.
52. Rischke R, Kimenju SC, Klasen S et al. (2015)
Supermarkets and food consumption patterns: the case of
small towns in Kenya. Food Policy 52, 9–21.
53. Planet Retail (2015) Country Reports. http://www.planetretail.
net (accessed October 2015).
54. Umberger WJ, He X, Minot N et al. (2015) Examining the
relationship between the use of supermarkets and over-
nutrition in Indonesia. Am J Agric Econ 97, 510–525.
55. Doak CM, Adair LS, Bentley M et al. (2005) The dual bur-
den household and the nutrition transition paradox. Int J
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Obes 29, 129–136.
56. de Haen H, Klasen S & Qaim M (2011) What do we really
know? Metrics for food insecurity and undernutrition. Food
Policy 36, 760–769.
57. Haddad L (2013) How should nutrition be positioned in
the post-2015 agenda? Food Policy 43, 341–352.
58. Kimenju SC & Qaim M (2016) The nutrition transition and
indicators of child malnutrition. Food Secur. Epublication
18 March 2016
59. World Bank (2007) World Development Report 2008:
Agriculture for Development. Washington, DC: The
World Bank.
60. Sibhatu KT, Krishna VV & Qaim M (2015) Production di-
versity and dietary diversity in smallholder farm house-
holds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112, 10657–10662.
61. Maertens M & Swinnen J (2009) Trade, standards, and
poverty: evidence from Senegal. World Dev 37, 161–178.
62. Andersson CIM, Chege CGK, Rao EJO et al. (2015)
Following up on smallholder farmers and supermarkets
in Kenya. Am J Agric Econ 97, 1247–1266.
63. Michelson HT, Reardon T & Perez F (2012) Small farmers
and big retail: trade-offs of supplying supermarkets in
Nicaragua. World Dev 40, 342–354.
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 80.82.78.170, on 12 Dec 2016 at 17:40:12, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000598
64. Kersting S & Wollni M (2012) New institutional arrange-
ments and standard adoption: evidence from small-scale
fruit and vegetable farmers in Thailand. Food Policy 37,
452–462.
65. von Braun J & Kennedy E (editors) (1994) Agricultural
Commercialization, Economic Development, and Nutrition.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
66. Fischer E & Qaim M (2012) Gender, agricultural commer-
cialization, and collective action in Kenya. Food Secur 4,
441–453.
67. Hoddinott J & Haddad L (1995) Does female income share
influence household expenditures? Evidence from Cote
D’Ivoire. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 57, 77–96.
68. Malapit HJL, Kadiyala S, Quisumbing AR et al. (2015)
Women’s empowerment mitigates the negative effects of
low production diversity on maternal and child nutrition
in Nepal. J Dev Stud 51, 1097–1123.
69. Chege CGK, Andersson CIM & Qaim M (2015) Impacts
of supermarkets on farm household nutrition in Kenya.
World Dev 72, 394–407.
70. Chiputwa B & Qaim M (2016) Sustainability standards,
gender, and nutrition among smallholder farmers in
Uganda. J Dev Stud. Epublication 1 May 2016.
71. Becchetti L & Costantino M (2008) The effects of fair trade
on affiliated producers: an impact analysis on Kenyan
farmers. World Dev 36, 823–842.
72. Maertens M, Minten B & Swinnen J (2012) Modern food
supply chains and development: evidence from horticulture
export sectors in sub-Saharan Africa. Dev Policy Rev 30,
473–497.
73. Rao EJO & Qaim M (2013) Supermarkets and agricultural
labor demand in Kenya: a gendered perspective. Food
Policy 38, 165–176.
74. Terstappen V, Hanson L & McLaughlin D (2013)
Gender, health, labor, and inequities: a review of the fair
and alternative trade literature. Agric Hum Values 30,
21–39.
75. Maertens M & Swinnen JFM (2012) Gender and modern
supply chains in developing countries. J Dev Stud 48,
1412–1430.
76. World Bank (2015) World Development Indicators.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
 Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (2017), 76, 1–11 doi:10.1017/S0029665116000653
© The Authors 2016 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations under license to Cambridge University Press
12th European Nutrition Conference, FENS 2015, held at the Estrel Convention Centre, Berlin on 20–23 October 2015

Conference on ‘Sustainable food consumption’

Sustainable diets within sustainable food systems

Alexandre Meybeck* and Vincent Gitz

Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
Lazio, Italy

Sustainable diets and sustainable food systems are increasingly explored by diverse scientific
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society

disciplines. They are also recognised by the international community and called upon to ori-
ent action towards the eradication of hunger and malnutrition and the fulfilment of sustain-
able development goals. The aim of the present paper is to briefly consider some of the links
between these two notions in order to facilitate the operationalisation of the concept of sus-
tainable diet. The concept of sustainable diet was defined in 2010 combining two totally dif-
ferent perspectives: a nutrition perspective, focused on individuals, and a global
sustainability perspective, in all its dimensions: environmental, economic and social. The nu-
trition perspective can be easily related to health outcomes. The global sustainability per-
spective is more difficult to analyse directly. We propose that it be measured as the
contribution of a diet to the sustainability of food systems. Such an approach, covering
the three dimensions of sustainability, enables identification of interactions and interrela-
tions between food systems and diets. It provides opportunities to find levers of change to-
wards sustainability. Diets are both the results and the drivers of food systems. The drivers
of change for those variously involved, consumers and private individuals, are different, and
can be triggered by different dimensions (heath, environment, social and cultural).
Combining different dimensions and reasons for change can help facilitate the transition
to sustainable diets, recognising the food system’s specificities. The adoption of sustainable
diets can be facilitated and enabled by food systems, and by appropriate policies and
incentives.

Sustainable diets: Sustainable food systems: Sustainability: Food security and nutrition:
Mediterranean diet

There is now wide recognition that the global food sys-
tem, today, is not sustainable. There are more than two
billion malnourished, almost 800 million undernourished,
more than one billion overweight and obese. The major-
ity of the poor and hungry are food producers. Food pro-
duction and consumption are among the main drivers of
environmental degradation, threatening its own resource
base. A third of the food produced is lost or wasted.
According to the FAO, global food demand is projected
to increase by 60 % towards 2050 from 2007, driven by
changing consumption patterns and population growth(1).
Numerous studies show the role of food consumption
patterns and of their evolution in the increase of non-
transmissible diseases. Numerous studies link food con-
sumption patterns and their evolution to pressures on
the environment. Many studies now point to synergies be-
tween more healthy diets and reduced environmental
pressures, leading to the notion of sustainable diets, for
healthy lives and healthy ecosystems.
Sustainable diets and sustainable food systems (SFS)
are increasingly explored by diverse scientific disci-
plines(2,3). They are also recognised by the international
community and called upon to direct action towards
the eradication of hunger and malnutrition and the fulfil-
ment of sustainable development goals. The aim of the
present paper is to briefly consider some of the links

Abbreviations: FSN, food security and nutrition; GHG, greenhouse gases; HLPE, High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition; SFS,
sustainable food systems.
*Corresponding author: Alexandre Meybeck, email alexandre.meybeck@fao.org

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
 2 A. Meybeck and V. Gitz
between these two notions to pave ways for operationa-
lising the concept of sustainable diets.
A series of international declarations and conferences
have promoted SFS, and stressed their importance to en-
sure food security and nutrition. In 2012, the Secretary
General of the United Nations launched, during the
Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio + 20, the
Zero Hunger Challenge, emphasising the central role of
food security and nutrition (FSN) for sustainable devel-
opment. The zero hunger challenge includes five objec-
tives that complement each other: 100 % access to
adequate food all year round; zero stunted children <2
years; all food systems are sustainable; 100 % increase
in productivity; zero food loss. Two of these objectives
could be qualified as results (eradication of hunger and
of child malnutrition), two of them could be qualified
as means, and integrate the three dimensions of sustain-
ability, economic, social and environmental. The fifth
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
and central one, all food systems are sustainable, is
both a mean and a result, as well as a way to inscribe
it in the long term.
In 2013, SFS were a topic of discussion in the
Conference of FAO and the theme of World Food Day,
with the slogan ‘healthy people depend on healthy food
systems’. The second International Conference on
Nutrition, organised by FAO and WHO in November
2014, adopted the Rome Declaration on Nutrition(4)
that manifests a holistic approach, recognising ‘that the
root causes of and factors leading to malnutrition are
complex and multidimensional’, stressing the need to ‘en-
hance SFS by developing coherent public policies from
production to consumption’. The framework of action
to guide the implementation of the declaration contains
a specific list of recommended actions for SFS promoting
healthy diets, even though many of the other recom-
mended actions contribute to this objective.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations
on 25 September 2015 reaffirms a commitment for a
world where ‘food is sufficient, safe, affordable and nutri-
tious’(5). Sustainable development goal 2 calls, by 2030, to
‘end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition
and promote sustainable agriculture’. It is the first time
that an international commitment is taken to eradicate
hunger (rather than to reduce it). Interestingly, sustainable
development goal 2 mentions also a means or directions to
do so, ‘promoting sustainable agriculture’. Sub goal 2·4 is
to ensure sustainable food production systems and imple-
ment resilient agricultural practices that increase product-
ivity and production, help maintain ecosystems, and
strengthen adaptation to climate change. However, it is
to be noted that the sustainable development goals limited
themselves to agricultural production systems, instead of
referring to food systems. One has to refer to goal 12:
‘Ensure sustainable production and consumption patterns’
to go beyond production, with subgoal 12·3: setting a 50
% per capita target for the reduction of food losses and
waste along the whole supply chain by 2030, being the
only one specifically directed to food. Goal 12 also
makes reference (subgoal 12·1) to the implementation of
the 10-year framework of programme on sustainable
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
consumption and production patterns, under which are
contained seven sectoral programmes, one being on SFS.
We thus adopt here a broader approach aiming to
characterise the sustainability of diets within the sustain-
ability of food systems. To do so first we analyse the rela-
tions between the two notions of SFS and sustainable
diets. A brief description of the symptoms of the unsus-
tainability of the food system, at global level, enables
us to better characterise the issues at stake and the role
of global diets. This leads to consideration of how sus-
tainable diets could be the key to more SFS, starting
from analysing what could be the characteristics of sus-
tainable diets. The final section, building upon the rela-
tions and interactions between sustainable diets and
food systems attempts to identify pathways for progress.
Sustainable food systems?
Food systems and diets
Diets and food systems are closely linked. However, the
notion of food system is generally focused on food; we
propose here to revisit the notion in relation to diets.
A diet is a selection of foods, eaten by an individual,
chosen between those made available by the food system.
Conversely the sum of diets creates the overall food de-
mand that directs food systems. Diets are thus both a re-
sult and a driver of food systems. Therefore, approaching
food systems by adopting the perspective of diets can
bring operational insights to the issue of the evolution
of food systems towards sustainability. Diet(s) can be a
good entry point to see what can be done individually
and collectively to improve food systems (and the mar-
gins of manoeuvre).
Hammond and Dubé(6) proposed, as part of a systems
framework for food and nutrition security, a definition of
agrifood systems, focused on food production and linked
to two other systems: the environmental system and the
health and disease system; the interactions of the three
systems determining outcomes on individuals.
Sobal et al.(7) proposed an integrated conceptual
model of the food and nutrition system emphasising a
focus on nutrition and the links between food produc-
tion, food consumption and nutritional health. It
defines the food and nutrition system as ‘the set of opera-
tions and processes involved in transforming raw materi-
als into foods and transforming nutrients into health
outcomes, all of which functions as a system within bio-
physical and sociocultural contexts.’ It identifies three
subsystems: the producer subsystem, the consumer sub-
system and the nutrition subsystem, each flowing into
the subsequent one. Focused on the linear relations be-
tween these three subsystems it is less comprehensive in
its coverage of determinants of food systems, here
described as part of biophysical and sociocultural con-
texts. It further identifies several systems that interact in
many points with the food nutrition system. These sys-
tems, including the health care, economic, cultural, eco-
logical, governmental, transportation systems, have
their own specific orientations and interact with each
other. This approach puts the consumer at the centre of
 Sustainable diets within sustainable food systems
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Fig. 1. (Colour online) Food systems and diets(8).
the system, as an intermediate between food production
and nutrition outcomes. It is thus particularly useful
for the consideration of diets, within food systems.
More recently, building upon these and a range of
other works(9–12) the High Level Panel of Experts on
Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) proposed a com-
prehensive, descriptive definition:
‘A food system gathers all the elements (environment, people,
inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions, etc.) and activ-
ities that relate to the production, processing, distribution,
preparation and consumption of food, and the outputs of
these activities, including socio-economic and environmental
outcomes.’(13)
We propose to build upon the HLPE definition of food
systems and to integrate the idea of linear exchanges be-
tween production and consumption, focusing on diets. In
addition, we emphasise two dynamic domains interacting
with food systems: environmental changes and social
and economic drivers as well as two other domains inter-
acting with individual food choices and diets: attitudes and
lifestyles on one side, health on the other (see Fig. 1).
Notions and definitions of sustainable food systems and
sustainable diets
We try here to delineate the relationships between diets
and food systems, in order to be able to concretely assess
the sustainability of diets, intended as their contribution
to the sustainability of food systems and ultimately to
food security and nutrition. The internationally agreed
definition of food security dates from the 1996 World
Food Summit: ‘Food security exists when all people, at
all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient,
safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs
and food preferences for an active and healthy life’(14).
This definition identifies four dimensions of food secur-
ity: availability of food, accessibility (economical and
physical), utilisation (the way it is used and absorbed)
and stability of these three dimensions.
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
3
The HLPE, in line with the original broad approach of
sustainability, has provided a definition of a SFS oriented
by its capacity to ensure the positive outcomes of a food
system: food security now and for future generations: ‘A
sustainable food system is a food system that ensures
food security and nutrition for all in such a way that
the economic, social and environmental bases to generate
food security and nutrition of future generations are not
compromised.’(13) The HLPE has thus formalised the
link between the two concepts of FSN and of SFS: the
basis is that there can be no FSN (short and long
terms) without SFS. FSN for all, worldwide, and the
conditions for their existence over time, could be what
ultimately characterises SFS.
How do sustainable diets relate to SFS? First, a diet is
a notion that is person-centred, it is the set of food, bev-
erages and nutrients that are consumed by an individual
or by a community of individuals during a certain period
of time(15). However, when the question is which diet to
choose or to have, or what is an optimal diet, one has to
bring in the picture elements that go beyond the diet
stricto-sensu, both as impacted by the diet and as deter-
mining the space of potential choices of each individual:
economic, social and cultural conditions and constraints.
As defined in 2010, sustainable diets are those diets
with low environmental impacts, which contribute to
food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present
and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective
and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally
acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable;
nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimis-
ing natural and human resources(16).
Such a definition of sustainable diets, while embracing
some of the elements of the food system, does not make
direct reference to food systems. By introducing the SFS
definition of the HLPE and how it relates to FSN, we de-
duct a relation between the definition of sustainable diets
(with their double dimension of individual sustainability
for health and of impact on global sustainability) and
SFS:
‘A sustainable diet is a diet that contributes to the good nu-
tritional status and long term good health of the individual/
community, and that contributes to, and is enabled by, sus-
tainable food systems, thus contributing to long term food se-
curity and nutrition.’
This has two important consequences to understand how
sustainable diets relate to SFS: First, the two notions are
very linked, which can help their common assessment.
The strength of the contribution of the diet to the sustain-
ability of the food system is what characterises the sus-
tainability of the diet. Second, sustainable diets are
both an objective and an essential mean, a key driver,
to achieve the transformation of food systems, which is
needed to achieve FSN.
The food system, at global level, currently, is not
sustainable
From the above definition, the very function of food sys-
tems is to provide food security and nutrition. As shown
 4 A. Meybeck and V. Gitz
by current figures of hunger and malnutrition the global
food system is not fulfilling its function. There is today a
triple concern, often referred to as the triple burden of
malnutrition, consisting first, of deficiencies in dietary en-
ergy intake (hunger defined by FAO as chronic under-
nourishment affecting 795 million persons according to
the latest estimate(17)); second, of nutrient deficiencies,
such as iron, iodine and vitamin A, which affect some
two billion people in the world; and third, from overnu-
trition leading to overweight, estimated by WHO to
involve 1·9 billion adults in 2014, and obesity, 600 mil-
lion in 2014(18). In addition, 42 million preschool children
were suffering from overweight or obesity in 2013(18).
These different malnutrition challenges, which very
often coexist in countries, can also overlap at individual
level (for instance obesity can coexist with nutrient defic-
iencies), with correlated individual and public health
challenges.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
There are however differences in the way dietary pat-
terns change across the world. Imamura and colleagues
have characterised changes in dietary patterns nationally
and regionally analysing information derived from
individual-based national surveys(19). Focusing on twenty
dietary factors, they have modelled two different dietary
patterns: one based on relatively high consumption of
healthy items, another based on relatively low consump-
tion of unhealthy items, as well as a third one integrating
all items, and derived a score for each pattern. They note
substantial heterogeneity between countries, including
between neighbouring countries. Between 1990 and
2010 patterns based on more healthy items improved
modestly while patterns based on unhealthy items
worsened to a greater extent; these trends being weakly
correlated. Trends vary significantly by national
incomes, with improvements on healthy items in higher-
income countries; global worsening on unhealthy
items, particularly in middle-income countries, some
improvements in high-income countries but they remain
among the worst in the world. Importantly association
between socioeconomic status and diet quality varies
significantly for diet patterns based on unhealthy and
healthy items.
Also, there are concerns about the scale of some major
environmental impacts of food production. The produc-
tion of food, including deforestation and other land-use
changes linked to expansion of production, is responsible
for 24 % of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions(20).
Agriculture accounts for 70 % of freshwater withdrawals
globally, and in many places exceeding the renewable
potential(21). Pollution of soil and water is due to overuse
of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers, and improper use
of pesticides. Agriculture is also one major factor of
biodiversity loss(22,23), and at the same time agricultural
biodiversity is decreasing: In the past 100 years, about
75 % of the genetic diversity of agricultural crops was
lost(24), and today more than half global plant derived
energy comes from only three crop species: wheat, rice
and maize(25).
The food system is producing, globally, enough food
but is unable to ensure food security and good nutrition
in the world today. And strikingly it performs
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
proportionally worse to feed its own participants. The
majority of the poor and undernourished people in the
world are living in rural areas, depending on agricultural
activities for their subsistence. This is why sustainability
concerns for food systems expand in fact well beyond
those of their inadequate environmental and natural re-
source use performance, questioning substantially their
economic and social features.
Sustainability challenges for the future
According to FAO estimates(1), business as usual projec-
tions of food consumption, due to increased population
and, to a more important extent, to worldwide dietary
changes, is expected to grow by 60 % by 2050 compared
with 2007. There are major differences between countries
both in increase of food consumption and in changes in
dietary patterns, but in the countries experiencing food
consumption increase, patterns are generally changing
towards more livestock products, vegetable oils and
sugar. These three food groups together now provide
29 % of total dietary energy supply of the developing
countries, a share up from 20 % three decades ago, and
projected to rise to 35 % in 2030 (in industrialised coun-
tries the share has been about 48 % for several decades
now).
Of particular significance is the projected increase of
the global consumption of animal-sourced products.
Such changes are expected to have a major environmen-
tal impact, mainly evaluated in terms of GHG emissions
and land-use change(26). Some studies have described al-
ternate scenarios. For instance Agrimonde(27) describes a
baseline scenario, Agrimonde 0, with an increase of glo-
bal demand of dietary energy of 83 %, and an abated
scenario Agrimonde 1, where the increase is 28 %. This
last scenario supposes radical changes in consumption
patterns and behaviours and in worldwide distribution
of food, including a decrease of 25 % of the per capita
consumption in Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development countries between 2000 and 2050, with-
out any income reduction, and a slowdown in the increase
of per capita consumption in emerging countries. Such
a scenario would require radical changes in consumers’
behaviours, reduction in waste, and implementation of
efficient public policies to promote more balanced and
healthy diets.
Another study(28) elaborates scenarios based on diets,
differing mainly by the proportion of meat: ‘western
high meat’, ‘current trend’, ‘less meat’ and ‘fair-less
meat’. It concludes that under the fair-less meat scenario
it would probably be possible to feed the world with or-
ganic crops and an organic livestock system, with a very
equitable distribution and an average daily intake of 11
715 kJ (2 800 kcal) per capita of which 20 % of protein
is from animal origin. The western high meat diet, with
44 % of protein intake of animal origin would also prob-
ably be feasible, but only with a cropland expansion of
20 %, intensive crop production and intensive livestock
production.
These challenges for the future, given today’s unsatis-
fying performance of food systems, economically,
 Sustainable diets within sustainable food systems
socially and environmentally, poses the question of the
appropriate leverage points to improve the sustainability
of food systems.
Is sustainable diet and consumption the key to reach
sustainable food systems?
The very effectiveness of the concept of sustainable con-
sumption and production is in fact grounded on the idea
that to increase sustainability of systems, both produc-
tion and consumption, supply and demand, have to be
considered. There are production choices and there are
consumption choices; increasing sustainability is a matter
of both. To a certain extent, and still in many economies,
consumption choices are bound to evolve in the, often
restricted, product space which production offers. But
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
in today’s world, with a space of consumption choices in-
creasingly wide, there are greater prospects for consump-
tion to drive production, for consumption choices to
orient the choices that producers make (which products,
how they are made), or globally to direct production to-
wards the products consumers want to buy. In that regard,
there are increasing opportunities for more sustainable
consumption patterns and choices to drive towards more
sustainable production patterns.
Human and food systems dimensions of sustainable diets
Characterising sustainable diets requires first to distin-
guish between the two dimensions of the definition of
sustainable diets (Fig. 2): on the one side, the nutrition
and health dimension, assessed on persons, and on the
other side the impact on the food system, and its sustain-
ability, in all dimensions and measured at various levels.
Assessing each dimension requires specific methodologic-
al approaches and tools.
The composition of the diet has two main categories of
impacts: on the individuals consuming it and on the food
system as a whole. The impacts on the individuals can be
assessed by the nutritional characteristics of the foods
consumed and/or, with a time lag, by the assessment of
certain health characteristics known to be influenced by
food consumption. The composition of the diet drives
the demand for and production of specific foods, with en-
vironmental, economic and social impacts. Assessing the
significance of specific dietary choices on sustainability of
food system brings a series of challenges. Impacts can
generally only be assessed using generic indicators and
figures unless the origin of the products can be traced
back and that there are means to better assess specific
impacts in the area of origin and along the food value
chain.
Looking at the nutrition dimension involves mainly
individual-level indicators, but comes with its challenges.
It impacts, and to a great extent determines, the nutrition
status of the person. One main challenge for the assess-
ment of nutrition and health impacts is how to make
the link between the sum of individual diets, the global
consumption of the population, and the health status of
a population, at country level for example, given
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
5
Fig. 2. Two dimensions of sustainable diets as a driver of changes
at individual level and system level(29).
heterogeneity of consumption, especially in a time of
changing diets.
The function of a diet is to ensure proper nutrition
contributing to good health. There are numerous studies
and often diverging views on optimal diets from a health
perspective, and the aim of the present paper is not to re-
view those studies. Some broad characteristics seem to be
generally considered to be correlated with better health
outcomes. For instance, a recent review of studies on
health effects of diets, organised by types (low carbohy-
drates, low fat, low glycaemic, Mediterranean, mixed,
Paleolithic and vegan) concluded with a broad aggrega-
tion of evidence in support of diets comprising preferen-
tially minimally processed foods, and comprising mostly
plants(30).
Diets that contribute to sustainable food systems
Most studies about the sustainability of diets focus only
on environmental impacts, or combine them with health
effects. Economic or social impacts of diets are generally
not considered. Even environmental impacts are often
reduced in some of them, specifically GHG emissions,
land use or land-use change and water use. Impacts on
water quality are much less mentioned and biodiversity
is generally not taken into account or only through the
proxy of land use, which does not enable proper consid-
eration of agrobiodiversity nor of biodiversity in the field.
Environment. A number of studies have applied life
cycle analysis to food products. A key issue here, from a
diet perspective, is the functional unit used to make
comparisons. These can be agricultural production
methods, food production methods, food items, meals or
diets. As noted by Heller, Keoleian and Willet in a critical
review of life cycle analysis-based studies(31), the ideal
functional unit basis for diet comparisons should be
nutritionally based. An increasing body of scientific
literature analyses the parallels between the effects of diets
on health and on the environment, using diets as the unit
of comparison. One study adopting a global perspective
and analysing the effects on health (type II diabetes,
cancer, coronary mortality, all-cause mortality) and on the
environment (GHG emissions and land-use change) of
four diets (income dependent, Mediterranean, pescetarian
 6 A. Meybeck and V. Gitz
and vegetarian) concluded that current dietary trajectories
are at the same time greatly increasing global incidences of
type II diabetes, cancer and coronary mortality, and also
causing significant increases of GHG emissions and
contributing to land clearing. Alternative diets would have
both health and environmental benefits(26). Gill et al.(32),
focusing on the effects of the nutrition transition in
emerging economies note that the impact on environment
are significant and deserve proper consideration. Other
studies(33,34) analyse the environmental consequences of
switching to more healthy diets or the consequences on
health of switching to more environmentally friendly
diets(35). Some studies analyse the environmental impacts
of adopting diets respecting national dietary
guidelines(36,37). Most of them conclude that there are
synergies between more healthy and more environmentally
friendly diets. One German study(38) calculated that
shifting to the official German dietary recommendations
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
could reduce GHG emissions by 11 %, land use by 15 %,
blue water use by 26 % and energy use by 7 %.
These global results are contradicted by another
study(37) in the US context, finding that shifting to US
dietary guidelines to support healthy weight would in-
crease energy use by 38 %, blue water footprint by 10
% and GHG emissions by 6 %. This is mainly due to
the increase of fruit and vegetables which, in the USA,
have a high energy (and thus relatively high GHG)
and blue water footprint. The authors conclude that dif-
ferences in production systems can have a significant im-
pact on results and that there can be trade-offs between
more healthy and more environmentally sustainable
diets.
Environmental impacts of a specific product can be very
diverse depending on methods of production, conservation
and transformation. They can also be very variable accord-
ing to local conditions; particularly for impacts on water
consumption and quality, biodiversity, etc. Therefore,
strictly speaking, assessing the impacts of a diet would re-
quire to know where and how each of its components
has been produced. Most environmental impacts are linked
to production, mainly in agriculture. However, for perish-
able products in industrialised countries the impact on en-
ergy consumption and GHG emissions (including
perfluorocarbures) of distribution, storage and consump-
tion stages can be particularly important. With increased
consumption of fresh or frozen perishable products the im-
portance of these impacts is likely to grow.
At the global level, the environmental sustainability of
an archetypal average global diet can initially be
appraised by looking at how such a diet potentially
impacts on the environmental sustainability of the food
system, at least for some global common indicators.
The need for a clarification of the relationships between
diets and food systems emerges when trying to calculate
concretely some of the indicators characterising the en-
vironmental impact of a diet at lower levels, such as
the national level. Most of the diets are no longer deter-
mined by what is locally produced, as it was for trad-
itional food systems(39–41). The connection between a
diet and a geographic area has loosened with globalisa-
tion. Also, there is increasingly a disconnection between
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
the space of production and the space of consumption.
And to a certain extent the very term Mediterranean
diet is misleading. It is geographic, localised, by name,
while it is in fact increasingly using imported products,
including from outside the Mediterranean area. It can
also be followed outside the Mediterranean region.
Impacts of a diet depend not only on its composition
but on where and how each item has been produced,
transformed, transported, stored and consumed. This is
why when we want to assess environmental impacts of
a diet concretely we immediately get lost in scopes, scales
and data. The environmental impact of the sum of diets
of a country is not the environmental impact of the na-
tional food production sector; there are exports and
imports. In other words, what is assessed at consumption
level is not the sustainability of a food system but the
contribution of the diet to the sustainability of food sys-
tems. Unless there is total traceability of all products con-
sumed, with for each of them total information on the
specific impacts of their production, transformation,
transport and conservation, impacts are assessed using
available, often generic, figures, and in reality, most of
the time, point-based estimates.
Economic and social significance. The economic and
social significance of dietary choices brings back the issue
of the importance of agriculture, food transformation,
retail and food preparation (including catering) sectors in
the national and local economies.
The livelihood of 2·5 billion people, living in rural
areas, depend on agriculture(42) and growth in the agri-
cultural sectors is more than three times more effective
at reducing poverty than growth in other sectors(43).
Women comprise, on average, 43 % of the agricultural
labour force in developing countries, ranging from 20
% in Latin America to 50 % in Eastern Asia and
sub-Saharan Africa(42).
The agricultural sectors and food chains are marked
by a high diversity, often coexisting within the same
geographical space, from very large-scale participants
often better integrated with food chains and international
trade, to more traditional, small-scale units. These
different means of organisation often perform differently
in relation to economic and social impacts, especially
in relation to employment (including informal v.
formal wage employment), working conditions, gender
and especially women, job organisation and
market power and repartition of the value added along
the chain.
One of the main factors driving economic and social
impacts of a specific diet (and also conditioning it) is
food prices. Low price of food, especially of healthy
food, condition the affordability of healthy diets.
However, low prices reduce the income of producers,
who constitute, worldwide, the majority of the hungry
and malnourished. Low prices also risk reducing cap-
acity and willingness to invest in agriculture, a condition
for future food production. Social sustainability along
the food chain also depends on the capacity for prices
to be fairly remunerative for all participants involved.
It is determined by the relative prices of foods, between
themselves and as compared with income of consumers,
 Sustainable diets within sustainable food systems
as well as the way by which they contribute to the income
of the various participants along the food chain.
Assessing sustainable diets
Combining dimensions. The analysis of the relationships
between the concept of sustainable diets, SFS on one side, and
healthy diets on the other provides a framework that can help
design a way forward to assess sustainable diets in concrete
situations.
It could also help understand some of the conditions/
drivers of sustainable diets, which could enable the de-
sign of actions towards more sustainable diets(44).
There is tension to manage between going towards the
person, which is relevant for the ‘human health’ part of
sustainable diets; v. going towards the system and inte-
grating at broader scales, which is relevant for example
for sociocultural indicators.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Applying the sustainable diets definition concretely to
actual diets encounters several methodological chal-
lenges. It requires assessing the sustainability of an actual
diet from two totally different perspectives: from a nutri-
tion perspective, to assess the potential effect on the indi-
vidual’s health, and from a broader sustainability
perspective, to assess its impact on the sustainability of
a food system, in all its dimensions: environmental, eco-
nomic and social.
Therefore, taking these consideratiions altogether, we
propose that indicators of sustainable diets could be
those measuring the strength of the contribution of indi-
vidual or collective dietary choices to the state of the food
system (measured by indicators of the sustainability of
food systems). A consequence is that the measurement
of the sustainability of diets is by nature very multidi-
mensional: it reflects the multidimensionality of the indi-
cators of SFS, and how the different components/
variables describing the diet can influence them.
This is conforming to a conception of sustainable diets
as those diets which most strongly act to ‘shape’ the food
system towards more sustainability, in its various dimen-
sions, environmental, economic and social. A difficulty
here is that in contrast to the increasing body of scientific
literature that analyses the parallels between the effects of
diets on health and on the environment, there are far
fewer studies assessing the economic and social implica-
tions of dietary choices.
Combining scales. Finally, one critical issue is how to
deal with the effect of spatial integration, from local to
regional and global, when it comes to measuring the
effect of one diet on one food system. With longer and
longer food chains, expanding imports and exports,
and increasing interconnection of food systems, diets
are more likely to have remote impacts, which can be
different from local impacts, and which will necessitate
to a look at the food system at global scale. The
example of meat consumption in Europe is a good one,
as it drives a good part of the soyabean expansion in
South America in order to provide feed. Another
interesting example is the success of quinoa. Is the
increase of quinoa consumption in developed countries
really contributing to sustainable diets and how, given
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
7
Fig. 3. (Colour online) From concepts to actual diets: the case of
diets and food systems in the Mediterranean(29).
all the dimensions of sustainability of food systems we
talked about, locally and remote?
The original discourse about sustainable diets was very
much guided by an assumption that diets and food sys-
tems are linked, and in particular that they share the
same spatial limits, with a broad equivalence between
consumption and production spaces. Such an equiva-
lence is true at global level (summing all the individual
diets that compose it). It was to a great extent true in
‘traditional’ food systems very much linked to a specific
‘traditional’ diet, somehow homogenous, shared by a
geographic community, and therefore sharing the same
geographical limits as the food production area. To a cer-
tain extent this was true for the Mediterranean diet
model, abstracted from traditional diets in the
Mediterranean (see Fig. 3). This is why it can be consid-
ered as a case study of a sustainable diet (arrow 1). The
work done in that respect aims to devise a methodological
approach to consider actual diets in the Mediterranean in
relation to the notion of a sustainable diet (arrow 3)
using their relationship to the Mediterranean diet model
(arrow 2) as a pathway. As shown above, to assess the en-
vironmental, economic and social dimensions would re-
quire looking specifically at the food system to which a
diet is linked and to assess it from a SFS perspective
(arrow 5). Finally, the main question of interest in any
food system could be the relationships between the diet
and the food system (arrows 4) and how these determine
the sustainability of the diet (arrow 3) and of the food
system as a whole (arrow 5). Understanding these relation-
ships and their dynamics could also be key to understand-
ing drivers of change, including potential means to
improve the sustainability of diets and food systems.
This proximity of a diet to a food system, closely asso-
ciated with a geographic area, is no more to be found for
most modern diets. Furthermore, a diet within a particu-
lar ‘system’ is not the same for everybody; consumption
within a food system is not homogenously distributed. It
is the sum of diets that creates global demand and thus
determines impacts on food systems. This brings an add-
itional difficulty to assess the impact of diets on food sys-
tems, and often a way to deal with this is to look at the
 8 A. Meybeck and V. Gitz
impact of average diets. However, from a nutrition and
health perspective, the individual diets are important, ra-
ther than the average.
How to make progress towards sustainable diets?
What drives what? Food system constraints and enablers
to sustainable diets
Many drivers of food consumption choices and to their
expression are to be found within food systems. If we as-
sume that sustainable diets are both an objective and a
driver of SFS, understanding the drivers of food choices
is of paramount importance to design ways to improve
the sustainability of both diets and food systems. This
leads to particular interest for two specific groups of
parameters. The first covers economic, social and cul-
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
tural parameters that, both inside and outside food sys-
tems, can drive food consumption choices. The second
covers those relating to consumption choices that go be-
yond an interest in diet composition and take into ac-
count characteristics such as quality, origin and mode
of production. Such choices can have various impacts
on all dimensions of sustainability. Moreover, they can
be the expression of attitudes that are also grounding
some choices related to diet composition.
Sustainable diets are both constrained and enabled by
the food system. The state of the food system determines
the space of possible diets, and therefore determines the
possibility to choose sustainable diets, given the available
spectrum of consumption choices and incentives, and
that these diets are available at the proper scale.
The food system is shaped by many drivers, its status
being the result of different diets, environmental, eco-
nomic and social issues at different levels from local to
global, etc. First, it is shaped by the sum of all the
diets. The existence of unsustainable diets, or their pre-
dominance and influence on the market, is in itself a con-
straint to the emergence of sustainable diets at scale.
Currently we are rather, globally, in an un-virtuous circle,
by which the evolution of diets, as shown above, are
shaped by and contributing to a more and more unsus-
tainable food system. This interrelation expands, today,
spatially: in one location, say at country level, diets are di-
verse and one could say that several dietary patterns coex-
ist. The food system is connected (and shaped by) a variety
of diets. Together with the importance of imports, diets at
one place are connected to food systems at other places.
Second, the food system is also shaped by many other dri-
vers, such as food production and distribution costs, en-
ergy and input prices, the cost of labour, agricultural
policies, as well as the evolution of incomes with regard
to the price of foods, etc.
Prices and affordability of diets
One of the first determinants of food consumption
choices (and of their feasibility) is price. From a con-
sumer perspective, and especially poor net food buyers,
the lower food prices are, the better; it facilitates diver-
sified and nutritious diets, and favours capacity to
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
spend on other basic needs. Conversely, low food prices
can have direct negative environmental impacts by not
discouraging food waste(45). They reduce investment cap-
acity and thus economic sustainability. By driving the
need for low production costs they also encourage low-
cost practices that can be environmentally damaging
and drive low income and wages for food producers
and workers, with important social impacts.
Another difficulty results from the increasing discrep-
ancy between prices of healthy v. non-healthy foods.
This is particularly important as those with low income
are more sensitive to prices and price change. A system-
atic review and meta-analysis covering ten countries
found that healthier foods and diet patterns cost more
than less healthy options, with the difference between
much healthier and less healthy options being significant
for low income families, but comparable with the societal
cost of suboptimal diet quality, concluding that there
would be room for public intervention(46).
This divide between the price of healthy v. unhealthy
items tends to increase: in high income countries, the
cost of the first category has risen more than the other dur-
ing the past 30 years, and the same may apply in emerging
economies, with prices of fruit and vegetables having risen
more than most foods including energy dense processed
foods(47). Price-driven substitutions from healthy to un-
healthy food can be amplified in case of unhealthy foods
becoming more affordable, when, as shown in the case
of the USA, consumption of food away from home, soft
drinks, juice and meats were more responsive to price
changes than other foods(48). Conversely, this would also
lead to possible higher effects on consumption of the tax-
ation of such produce.
However, such findings do not necessarily mean that,
systematically, healthier diets are always less accessible,
such as in the case of the Mediterranean diet(49). Also,
over time, some argue that income may become a weaker
determinant of diets, giving thus broader scope for public
policy to have a real influence in the future(50). This
deserves to be discussed. On one side, it can suppress bar-
riers to more healthy and sustainable diets if they were
more expensive. Conversely, it could reduce the effective-
ness of any attempt to integrate negative externalities,
whether for health or sustainability reasons, in food prices.
The potentially ambivalent (and at least multiform)
role of prices with regard to sustainability and food se-
curity calls for clarification, clearly separating food prices
as an indicator of access at consumption level, from its
use and interpretation inside the food system at large,
which requires breaking down the final consumption
price in various components to better envision its rela-
tionships with economic and social dimensions of sus-
tainability. Such distinctions of level of impacts inside
food systems are also particularly important to better
understand, conversely, the potential impacts of chan-
ging diets, on the different stages of food systems, as it
will impact prices and economic exchanges(51).
Food prices should therefore also be analysed in terms
of their impacts on sustainability, with different
approaches for diets and for food production, for in-
stance. The contribution of food prices to the various
 Sustainable diets within sustainable food systems
dimensions of sustainability can thus be different when
considering only diets or food systems as a whole, par-
ticularly when integrating a long-term perspective.
Prices, however, are not the only parameter influencing
food choices. Other parameters enter in line, such as edu-
cation and consumer information.
Consumer information
Consumers, by their choices, in terms of type of pro-
ducts, quantity, quality (including production modes)
direct production. Consumers are directed by the infor-
mation made available to them. Producers can also an-
ticipate consumer demand and its changes and
pro-actively seek new markets.
Different parts of the food and nutrition systems have
different foci, goals and units and this can make commu-
nication difficult between those involved(7). Nutritionists
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
organise the world according to nutrients, producers
from a commodity perspective, and consumers from a
taste perspective(7). In that regard the decision to move
from nutrient based to food based dietary guidelines
has been key to increase their readability for consumers
and thus their effectiveness.
Simple messages about healthy diets can be obscured
by communication on various diets and products advo-
cated by numerous participants(30).
Trends on dietary patterns towards more healthy items
and towards more unhealthy items (see earlier) are not
correlated which makes one wonder if it is not because
these trends are driven by different policies and incen-
tives, tendencies for increase of unhealthy items being
driven by marketing and promotion of more healthy
items by government policies(19). There could also be re-
luctance from policy makers to propose changes that
might have a negative effect on economic sectors(50).
Conversely, too simple messages can have detrimental
impacts on nutrition. For instance, in the UK, meat and
dairy products make a considerable contribution to the
intakes of fourteen nutrients for which intake is below
the lower reference level(52). Hence, a recommendation
for reducing meat consumption would need to take
into account the likely impacts on nutrient intake and
propose a more holistic diet change to compensate for
the induced changes.
Conclusion
How to operationalise changes or choices towards sus-
tainable diets, combining arguments in the health and
sustainability dimensions?
To trigger choices, there is a need to mobilise cultural,
historical, geographical references and economic forces
(including affordability). In fact, the introduction of sus-
tainability criteria in the debate on healthy diets often
acknowledges that the rationale for it is also to add
one more reason to adopt them. It also needs to take
into consideration convenience from the consumer per-
spective. Cumulating several dimensions can lead to cu-
mulating positive externalities associated with a diet
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
9
change. In particular, social and economic dimensions
can often more easily trigger change of some categories
of participants. This could lead to envisage incentive
schemes, internalising benefits, taking the full sustain-
ability implications into account.
A richer definition of sustainable diets, such as the one
proposed in the present paper, linking human health and
the three dimensions of sustainability of food systems,
can seem more complex but we argue that in fact it is
less prone to possible errors potentially created by uni-
dimensional criteria or approaches, and more adapted
to the reality in which participants are working, and
thus more operational. It needs more data, in all dimen-
sions, environmental, social and economic, at the appro-
priate scale. It also needs to accept moving from an
initial focus on win/win choices to accept informed
choices acknowledging trade-offs. This could enable par-
ticipants in the food system to successfully implement the
three pathways identified by Tara Garnett(53): improve
efficiency, restrain demand and improve governance.
In this discussion, what could be the role and use of
dietary guidelines? Can this instrument be used to discuss
sustainable diets? There is a competition between differ-
ent discourses, typically the health discourse, and the sus-
tainability discourse. We argue that it is important to
have a place to enable the confrontation of priorities.
Discussion on what are sustainable diets needs to be
done with nutritionists, not only specialists of environ-
ment or sustainable development. Dietary guidelines, if
well-conceived, and adapted to national situations and
priorities can be a tool for food policies in general, to ori-
ent the behaviour of the different participants, given the
multiplicity of objectives. Some countries have recently
introduced explicitly sustainability as part of their dietary
guidelines (for example, Brazil, Germany, Qatar,
Sweden); it is however too early to draw conclusions
about their implementation.
Acknowledgments
The views expressed in this publication are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or pol-
icies of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
Financial Support
This paper was prepared as part of the FAO/UNEP sus-
tainable food systems programme supported by the Swiss
Federal Office of Agriculture.
Conflicts of Interest
None.
Authorship
Both authors were jointly responsible for all aspects of
preparation of this paper.
 10 A. Meybeck and V. Gitz
References
1. Alexandratos N & Bruinsma J (2012) World Agriculture
Towards 2030/2050: the 2012 Revision. ESA Working
Paper 12-03. Rome: FAO.
2. Lang T & Barling D (2013) Nutrition and sustainability: an
emerging food policy discourse. Conference on ‘Future
food and health’, Symposium I: sustainability and food se-
curity. Proc Nutr Soc 72, 1–12.
3. Berry E, Dernini S, Burlingame B et al. (2015) Food secur-
ity and sustainability: can one exist without the other? Publ
Health Nutr 18, 2293–2302.
4. FAO/WHO (2015) Second International Conference on
Nutrition. Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Secretariat on
the Conference. Rome: FAO.
5. UN (2015) Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on
25 September 2015. New York: UN.
6. Hammond RA & Dubé L (2012) A systems science
perspective and transdisciplinary models for food and
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
nutrition security. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109, 12356–
12363.
7. Sobal J, Khanb LK & Bisogni C (1998) A conceptual
model of the food and nutrition system. Soc Sci Med 47,
853–863.
8. FAO (2015) Presentation by Alexandre Meybeck at the
12th European Nutrition Conference, FENS 2015,
Sustainable Diet III: Future and matter of debate, 21
October 2015, Berlin.
9. Ericksen PJ, Stewart B, Dixon J et al. (2010) The Value of a
Food System Approach. Security and Global Environmental
Change. London: Earthscan.
10. Ericksen PJ (2008) What is the vulnerability of a food sys-
tem to global environmental change? Ecol Soc 13, 14.
11. Ingram J (2011) A food systems approach to researching
food security and its interactions with global environmental
change. Food Secur 3, 417–431.
12. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation,
and Vulnerability. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge
University Press.
13. HLPE (2014) Food Losses and Waste in the Context of
Sustainable Food Systems. A Report by the High Level
Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the
Committee on World Food Security. Rome: FAO.
14. World Food Summit (1996) Rome Declaration World Food
Security. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/
w3613e/w3613e00.htm (accessed January 2016).
15. FAO/WHO/UNU (2001) Human Energy Requirements.
Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation.
Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-y5686e.pdf (accessed
January 2016).
16. FAO (2010) Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity. Directions
and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action. Proceedings
of the International Scientific Symposium. Rome: FAO.
17. FAO, IFAD, WFP (2015) The State of Food Insecurity in
the World 2015. Meeting the 2015 International Hunger
Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress. Rome: FAO.
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf (accessed January 2016).
18. WHO (2015) Fact Sheet: Obesity and Overweight. Fact
sheet N°311. Geneva: WHO.
19. Imamura F, Micha R, Khatibzadeh S et al. (2015) Dietary
quality among men and women in 187 countries in 1990
and 2010: a systematic assessment. Lancet 3, e132–e142.
20. Tubiello F, Salvatore M, Cóndor Golec R et al. (2014)
Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by
Sources and Removals by Sinks. Rome: FAO.
21. HLPE (2015) Water for Food Security and Nutrition in the
Context of Sustainable Food Systems. A Report by the High
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the
Committee on World Food Security. Rome: FAO.
22. Smith Y, Smith A, Colleen L et al. (2015) Response of
avian diversity to habitat modification can be predicted
from life-history traits and ecological attributes. Landscape
Ecol 30, 1225–1239.
23. Machovina B, Feeleya K & Ripplec W (2015) Biodiversity
conservation: the key is reducing meat consumption. Sci
Total Environ 536, 419–431.
24. Shand H (1997) Human Nature: Agricultural Biodiversity
and Farm-based Food Security. Report by the Rural
Advancement Foundation International for the FAO of the
UN. Rome: FAO.
25. FAO (2012) Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture. Rome: FAO.
26. Tilman D & Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmen-
tal sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522.
27. INRA & CIRAD (2009) Agrimonde : Agricultures et alimen-
tations du monde en 2050 : Scénarios et défis pour un
développement durable. Paris: Quae.
28. Erb K-H, Haberl H, Krausmann F et al. (2009) Eating the
Planet: Feeding and Fuelling the World Sustainably, Fairly
and Humanely – a Scoping Study. Potsdam: PIK.
29. FAO (2015) Proceedings of the International Workshop:
Assessing sustainable diets within the sustainability of
food systems. In Mediterranean diet, organic food: new chal-
lenges [A Meybeck, S Redfern, F Paoletti & C Strassner, edi-
tors] Rome: FAO.
30. Katz DL & Meller S (2014) Can we say what diet is best for
health? Annu Rev Public Health 35, 83–103.
31. Heller MC, Keoleian GA & Willett WC (2013) Toward a
life cycle-based, diet-level framework for food environmen-
tal impact and nutritional quality assessment: a critical re-
view. Environ Sci Technol 47, 12632–12647.
32. Gill M, Feliciano D, Macdiarmid J et al. (2015) The envir-
onmental impact of nutrition transition in three case study
countries. Food Secur 7, 493–504.
33. Monsivais P, Scarborough P, Lloyd T et al. (2015) Greater
accordance with the Dietary Approaches to Stop
Hypertension dietary pattern is associated with lower
diet-related greenhouse gas production but higher
dietary costs in the United Kingdom. Am J Clin Nutr
102, 138–145.
34. Tukker A, Goldbohm RA, de Koning A et al. (2011)
Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in
Europe. Ecol Econ 70, 1776–1788.
35. Milner J, Greem R, Dangour AD et al. (2015) Health
effects of adopting low greenhouse gas emission diets in
the UK. BMJ Open 5, e007364.
36. van Doorena C, Marinussen M, Blonkb H et al. (2014)
Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutri-
tional values: a comparison of six dietary patterns. Food
Policy 44, 36–46.
37. Tom MS, Fischbeck PS & Hendrickson CT (2015) Energy
use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions for
current food consumption patterns and dietary recommen-
dations in the US. Environ Syst Dec 36, 92–103.
38. Meier T & Christen O (2013) Environmental impact of
dietary recommendations and dietary styles: Germany as
an example. Environ Sci Technol 47, 877–888.
39. Malassis L (1996) Les trois âges de l’agroalimentaire.
Paris: Cujas.
40. Diamond J (2005) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail
or Succeed. New York: Viking Penguin.
41. Diamond J (2012) The World Until Yesterday: What Can
We Learn from Traditional Societies? New York: Viking
Penguin.
 Sustainable diets within sustainable food systems
42. FAO (2013) FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013. Rome:
FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3107e.pdf (accessed January
2016).
43. World Bank (2007) Agriculture for Development. World
Development Report 2008. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
44. CIHEAM/FAO (2015) Mediterranean Food Consumption
Patterns: Diet, Environment, Society, Economy and
Health. A White Paper Priority 5 of Feeding Knowledge
Programme, Expo Milano 2015. Rome: FAO.
45. FAO (2011) Global Food Losses and Food Waste – Extent,
Causes and Prevention. Rome: FAO.
46. Rao M, Afshin A, Singh G et al. (2013) Do healthier foods
and diet patterns cost more than less healthy options? A
systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 3,
e004277.
47. Wiggins S, Keats S (2015) The Rising Cost of a Healthy Diet:
Changing Relative Prices of Foods in High-income and
Emerging Economies. London: Overseas Development
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Institute.
48. Andreyeva T, Long MW & Brownell KD (2010) The im-
pact of food prices on consumption: a systematic review
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 16 Feb 2017 at 11:48:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000653
11
of research on the price elasticity of demand for food.
Am J Public Health 100, 216–222.
49. Drewnowski A & Eichelsdoerfer P (2009) The
Mediterranean diet: does it have to cost more? Public
Health Nutr 12, 1621–1628.
50. Johnston JL, Fanzo JC & Cogill B (2014) Understanding
sustainable diets: a descriptive analysis of the determinants
and processes that influence diets and their impact on
health, food security, and environmental sustainability.
Adv Nutr 5, 418–429.
51. Adinolfi F, Capone R & El Bilali H (2015) Assessing Diets,
Food Supply Chains and Food Systems Sustainability:
Towards a Common Understanding of Economic
Sustainability. Proceedings of an International Workshop
Assessing Sustainable Diets within the Sustainability of
Food Systems. Rome: FAO.
52. Buttriss J & Riley H (2013) Sustainable diets: harnessing
the nutrition agenda. Food Chem 140, 402–407.
53. Garnett T (2013) Food sustainability: problems, perspec-
tives and solutions, conference on ‘Future food and health’,
Symposium I: sustainability and food security. Proc Nutr
Soc 72, 29–39.
 Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Page 1 of 6 doi:10.1017/S0029665116000604
© The Author 2016
Nutrition Society European Nutrition Conference (FENS 2015) held at the Estrel Convention Centre, Berlin on 20–23 October 2015

Conference on ‘Sustainable diet and public health’

The potential of food preservation to reduce food waste

Wayne Martindale
Sheffield Business School, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK

While we state it seems unthinkable to throw away nearly a third of the food we produce, we
still continue to overlook that we are all very much part of this problem because we all con-
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society

sume meals. The amount of food wasted clearly has an impact on our view of what we think
a sustainable meal is and our research suggests food waste is a universal function that can
help us determine the sustainability of diets. Achieving sustainability in food systems
depends on the utilisation of both culinary skills and knowledge of how foods make
meals. These are overlooked by the current food waste debate that is concerned with com-
municating the problem with food waste rather than solutions to it. We aim to change this
oversight with the research presented here that demonstrates the need to consider the role of
food preservation to reduce food waste and the requirement for new marketing terms asso-
ciated with sustainability actions that can be used to stimulate changes in consumption beha-
viours. We have chosen frozen food to demonstrate this because our research has shown that
the use of frozen foods results in 47 % less household food waste than fresh food categories.
This has created a step-change in how we view food consumption and has stimulated con-
sumer movements that act across different products and supply chains to enable the con-
sumption of the sustainable meal.

Sustainability: Food-waste: Consumers: Nutrition

The way in which we utilise food has a very important
impact on our perception of value of food and what a
sustainable meal actually is. In considering food utilisa-
tion, we must understand why we purchase food but do
not eat it because the world of 2050 is projected to
have in the region of 9 billion consumers and meals
with less food waste are a sustainable target(1). Waste
associated with many consumer goods has been revolu-
tionised in the past two decades by regulations that are
focussed on environmental management and the protec-
tion of public health; as a general descriptor they enforce
the ‘polluter pays’ principle(2). The food supply chain
does not fit easily into these highly regulated models
used for fast moving consumer goods such as electronics
and fashion. This is because food has the shortest shelf
life in the retail and consumer environment that ranges
from days to weeks if they are fresh and it is extended
to months if they are dried, canned or frozen. The prin-
ciple of slowing down food degradation using preserva-
tion is one that the food industry is built upon with the
first food manufacturers recognising the value of extend-
ing shelf life so that distribution to large populations was
practical and achievable. The initial products of the
fledgling food industry included stocks and condiments
that had the principle of extending shelf life built into
them. Integrating new product development of foods
with sustainability principles is not easy and I suggest
that it will only occur if we can reduce consumer and house-
hold food waste. Understanding how we can do this pro-
vides important insights into defining what a sustainable
meal is. I believe the research reported here shows how
the reduction of household food waste can be used by man-
ufacturers, retailers and consumers as an understandable
and accurate indicator of a sustainable diet.
Why is food preservation a sustainability issue?
The development of the frozen food industry is a key to
the research reported here; it is not a new idea with the

Abbreviations: EU, European Union; LCA, life cycle assessment.

Corresponding author: W. Martindale, email w.martindale@shu.ac.uk

Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 26 Dec 2016 at 22:21:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000604
 2 W. Martindale
commercial reality of it being realised in the 1920s with
the extension of Clarence Birdseye’s observations of
‘icing fish’ in Canada to that of the industrial arena.
His entrepreneurism extended the range of manufactured
foods into consumer lifestyles and his vision of creating
foods with ‘less fuss and no waste’ created a successful
brand. His legacy has been to show we can cut through
a complex problem of delivering wholesome foods to
large populations with the simplicity of using freezing
as a preservation method. Of course, the limitations of
refrigeration in the household stunted this aspiration
until the 1950s when refrigeration became associated
with household management, culinary preparation and
convenience.
How the refrigerated supply chain integrates with sus-
tainable goals is not well described even though sustain-
ability has become well described for food supply chains
using the metrics of carbon, water, biodiversity impact,
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
which has been defined, standardised and tested(3).
A supply chain perspective here is crucial and these
metrics can be described by a relatively concise set of
functions such as import and export volumes; nutritional
value and the energy used to supply food, which are
often measured to obtain improved resource utilisa-
tion(4). Such functions are used to assess the utilisation
of resources in the four supply chain operations of pro-
duction; manufacturing and processing; retailing, whole-
saling and distribution; and consumption(1). Life cycle
assessment (LCA) and footprinting methods help us to
define the impacts of these functions and they support
many certifications in the food industry. LCA data is
now readily available to the food industry because
there is often a commercial requirement to build in sus-
tainability for food products that goes beyond the appli-
cation of LCA. Furthermore, although the information
from LCA and carbon footprinting studies is often open-
ly available it is not universally used by food supply
chains, largely because consumers need to relate sustain-
ability metrics to practical culinary preparation and the
experience of consuming foods(5). It is evident that
there are barriers to using these LCA resources and
new marketing methods are required to link the sustain-
ability of meals to their consumption in order to over-
come them. The development of platforms that
communicate the social and financial values of food
waste reduction provide a means to achieve this because
they utilise LCA information and relate this to meal out-
comes, as such, food waste may represent a universal lan-
guage for sustainability across the food supply chain
from producer to consumer.
The actual barriers of accessing LCA information
in situ during product development and meal preparation
remain a challenge because while many sustainability
attributes are understandable to consumers with respect
to climate change and poor health their scale of impact
on individual consumption practices is hard to visualise.
This is because small changes in behaviour or consump-
tion by individuals are perceived as relatively unimport-
ant in the preparation of an individual meal even
though they have large impacts in populations at nation-
al scales, which are of most importance to policy makers.
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 26 Dec 2016 at 22:21:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000604
Current sustainability communications for food supply
are not helpful at alleviating the perception that small
dietary changes can have large impacts because they
are focussed on these high-level policy issues of global
climate change, biodiversity loss and food security chal-
lenges(6). This lack of connectivity between policy and
consumer requires a language that both can use and re-
ducing consumer food waste provides this because it
transfers policy goals to the practice of making meals
that in turn create sustainable diets that stimulate posi-
tive nutritional and environmental outcomes.
There is no doubt that such momentum exists to re-
duce food waste because food industry actions have
been successful at improving the resource utilisation in
supply chains and the impact of how we consumers
make meals is now a focus for these actions(7). It is
well documented that reducing food waste from the con-
sumer operations in the food supply chain will result in
alleviating food security challenges because food not
wasted by consumers has the chance to be consumed
by others, if optimal preservation and efficient supply
chain infrastructure is in place to make this work.
Waste reduction is also familiar to consumers because
communications and social media have established the
link between wasting food and household financial
losses.
The multifaceted nature of sustainability in the creation
of diets
European Union (EU) member states have highly vari-
able manufacturing, service sector and consumer food
waste amounts per capita (FAOSTAT food balance
data) and we can reduce this in all member states, so
that sustainable outcomes are realised. However, we
must be careful in interpreting what is a sustainable
meal because reduction of food waste is not necessarily
an outcome of this and to demonstrate I cite the popula-
tion models we have developed that can calculate the
greenhouse gas emission outcomes of different diets for
regional populations(8). These models use the National
Census and the National Diet and Nutrition Survey to
obtain typical food consumption metrics and this has
been reported for the South Yorkshire region in the
UK. The research has shown the region produces
17 000 tonnes greenhouse gas emissions each week from
the consumption of household meals that have used
foods purchased from retailers. The greenhouse gas emis-
sions can be reduced by reducing the meat content of
diets; however, in such scenarios meat is replaced with
increased amounts of perishable foods including fruit
and vegetables(9). Current statistics show consumers
waste greater amount of these perishable goods than
meat products resulting in the negative outcome of a
lower greenhouse gas emission diet creating more food
waste. Such insights demonstrate the importance of
trade-offs in meaningful sustainable dietary policy,
which account for such complexity and highlight the
role of food preservation in ameliorating the negative
impacts of wasting perishable foods. This research
 The potential of food preservation to reduce food waste
enables us to pressure-test the food policy arena so that
we can understand how the food industry can respond
positively to dietary transitions in marketplaces such as
the current move in Europe to diets that contain less
meat(10).
The value of developing meal solutions for dietary
sustainability
The dominance of specialist LCA reporting in the con-
sumer arena has tended to create a vacuum across the
supply chain with manufacturers not using LCA infor-
mation available and consumers not engaging with com-
munications concerned with sustainable diets. If the
language used for sustainable diet is not resonating
with end-users then we must ask what communications
should be used? We can begin to test popular terms asso-
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
ciated with sustainable eating using the Twitter or
Google web-crawler applications that quantify the vol-
ume of search citations associated with specific terms
or words. If we search for specialist terms such as ‘low
greenhouse gas emission foods’ or ‘sustainable foods’
the searches return extremely low volumes of citation
from Google Trends. The Google Trends web-crawler
measures the number of times a specific search term is
used as a proportion of the total times it is used over a
specific time period and it plots the trend in interest for
that search term(11). When trends are identified for
terms associated with ‘recipes’, ‘organic foods’ or
‘meals’ the volume of citation returned by the web-
crawler tools are far greater than for specialist LCA ter-
minology. This suggests the language of specialists is
clearly not resonating with consumer lifestyles and I
would go further to state that it currently tends to
make consumers feel guilty about consumption practices
because it rarely considers the positive outcomes of con-
suming food(12). The sustainable meal and diet debate is
often focussed on the negative such as increasing obesity,
loss of biodiversity and consuming what ‘may not be
good for you’. This needs to change if sustainable actions
by consumers are to be realised and reducing food waste
can embody many of these actions.
The current status is, the sustainability arena is domi-
nated by expert information that is not utilised and this
vacuum is readily occupied by celebrity and media
where traceable evidence is rarely framed in the debate.
This naturally leads us to consider what can we do as
scientists to transfer robust meaningful data to
European consumers? There are notable successes
where specialist science has complemented the strong cul-
tural interest in preparing food and these have communi-
cated the benefits of dietary change effectively such as the
Total Well Being diet from the Commonwealth Scientific
and Industry Research Organisation in Australia. The
Total Well Being has used dietary trials and recipe listing
to promote health and sustainability in domestic food
preparation; it uses meal groups or meal solutions to
communicate or change sustainable consumption prac-
tices(13). Indeed, this approach is familiar to the food in-
dustry in linking branded food products to lifestyles
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 26 Dec 2016 at 22:21:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000604
3
through meals. This is what the food industry has done
exceptionally well in terms of supplying high volumes
of affordable, wholesome and assured produce. It is im-
portant for us to consider how we might link successful
brand communication techniques to sustainability com-
munications and the household management of food
groups in dietary scenarios that are familiar to us when
we consume meals. The development of such systems
that utilise meal groups is established with the expert
use of nutritional profiling tools that have linked food
product development with nutritional outcomes and
how consumers make meals(14). This approach has been
tested for assessing the sustainability metrics of high-
meat and low-meat diets but it is highly likely that such
meal grouping methods will provide further insights
into designing sustainable meals(15).
Resource utilisation; a critical investigative tool for
identifying pre-consumer waste challenges
EU food supply chains have undergone a resource
efficiency revolution that has reduced food waste to the
point of purchase by consumers and this has been stimu-
lated by associating financial and regulatory efficiency
with the waste reduction capability of businesses. The
pre-consumer resource utilisation achieved by manufac-
turers in the food supply chain has reduced food waste
to below 5 % of production in many food categories as
reported by FAOSTAT food balance statistics. As an ex-
ample, the pre-consumer meat waste volume for the EU
is significant at 85 172 tonnes/year; this has decreased
from maximum values of 130–140 kilo-tonnes in the
1961–2011 period. Using such a mass-intensity approach
whereby food waste is presented as a proportion of pro-
duction, the total pre-consumer waste for meat varies be-
tween 0·35 and 0·10 % of EU production of meat over
this period. This is indicative of an extremely efficient
supply chain that has designed out waste and diverted
resources into co-products and feed supply. Vegetable
supply chains also show high resource utilisation with
1 % waste during the 1961–2011 period, although a far
greater amount of waste is produced at 5–8 million
tonnes/year in the EU. These indicators show efficient re-
source utilisation in supply chains and highlight the chal-
lenge of reducing food waste from food products
purchased by consumers(16). This type of mass intensity
balance approach for resource utilisation and waste re-
duction is an important tool for assessing supply chain
waste and it is also used by the pharmaceutical industry
as an emergent way of applying ‘green principles’(17).
While this approach provides optimism for supply
chain efficiency, it is very clear that the food supply
chains of Europe have a waste reduction challenge that
lies with retailer to consumer operations because these
are estimated to be 35 million tonnes domestic food
waste produced across the EU each year(18). This chal-
lenge is recognised by the next Courtauld Commitment
in the UK, which will maintain resource efficiency
improvements within supply chains and target reducing
consumer food waste(7).
 4 W. Martindale
The consumer; the food preservation potential and the
frozen food case for reducing food waste
A critical influence in determining the amount of con-
sumer food waste produced for a specific food product
or group is the method of food preservation used in
households. This is because preservation extends shelf
life and builds in the opportunity to optimise the utilisa-
tion of a food product for consumption. This effect has
been demonstrated by a study that has assessed how con-
sumers utilise fresh and frozen food categories in meal
preparation across eighty-three households(19). This
pilot study has initiated future studies that will have lar-
ger samples and provide more detailed insight into how
we utilise different preservation formats in households
when we prepare meals. There are currently few con-
sumer studies that identify how consumers utilise foods
in the domestic and service environments. The method-
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
ology reported by Martindale(18), has utilised a sample
of 250 households that took part in food sensory panels
and the study selected eighty-three households that used
both fresh and frozen food products. A survey asked con-
sumers to indicate the amount of food waste produced
from fresh and frozen foods using illustrations of food
plate shapes. This data was used with household purchas-
ing volume data to calculate the volume of waste from
different food products. This type of visual referencing
and association is used regularly in recipes by using the
teaspoon, tablespoon and handful schematics. It is not
an unfamiliar method of relating mass of ingredients to
meals in the consumer arena and it is particularly
advanced for those ingredients that have specialised
health messaging associated with them(20). The visual ref-
erencing association is also used for the leisure and con-
servation arenas where association of quantitative land
management attributes with qualitative consumer values
is required by return on investment assessments(21). This
principle has been successfully used in the nutritional
arena with dietary behaviour survey and it is a familiar
approach in dietary research(22).
The frozen food study provided insights into how the
frequency of purchase is decreased for frozen foods and
the periodicity of disposal of foods from different pre-
served formats has an impact on waste volume with fro-
zen foods having the least food waste(18). In the case of
frozen foods, the purchase frequencies are decreased
compared with fresh foods and the time in the household
is extended whether the food is purchased frozen or a
product is frozen. This evidence has supported the
Forever Food Together programme developed by Iglo
Foods Group Ltd as part of their Corporate Social
Responsibility reporting(23). This study of frozen food
utilisation was developed to extrapolate these levels of
waste reduction associated with frozen food use to a
EU scale. This demonstrated that if frozen food products
were not available across meat, fruit and vegetable prod-
uct categories, then there would be 5·5 million additional
tonnes household food waste produced each year across
the EU. This is a crucial projection because frozen
food purchases will be less than 10 % of all food purchas-
ing so a modest increase in the purchasing of frozen
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 26 Dec 2016 at 22:21:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000604
foods or the management of freezing food in the home
would decrease domestic food waste dramatically. The
EU produces over 30 million tonnes domestic food
waste each year and a significant amount of this could
be reduced by re-thinking how preservation of food is
utilised by consumers in households.
What is staggering to think, is that using the method of
preservation in households to reduce food waste is far
from a new idea, it is not disruptive or revolutionary
but it has been overlooked and forgotten in the sustain-
able diet arena. A convenient example of food preserva-
tion legacy is provided by the first Women’s Institute
meeting, which took place over 100 years ago in the
UK(24). A key subject of this Women’s Institute meeting
and many others after it was promoting culinary knowl-
edge to improve household management of food. Indeed,
the Institute has said its establishment was to ‘educate
rural women, and to encourage countrywomen to get
involved in growing and preserving food to help to in-
crease the supply of food to the war-torn nation’. Of
course, times have changed and lifestyles have improved
across Europe but I would emphasise the need to under-
stand culinary practices within the sustainable diet arenas
still exists. While it is now demonstrated that food pres-
ervation can reduce food waste I believe that it can pro-
vide a focus for the practical implementation of policies
that aim to develop sustainable eating across Europe.
Developing a model of a sustainable diet that can be
used by consumers
We are currently testing models of food preservation in
the home to enable building in sustainability to food
product and menu design by tackling two fundamental
issues that make sustainable diets so difficult to under-
stand for manufacturers, retailers and consumers. (1)
We assess all the decisions associated with meals not in-
dividual food products; (2) We provide connectors in
methodologies that manufacturers, retailers and consu-
mers can use when making supply chain or meal prepar-
ation decisions; an example of a connector is the
measurement of food waste.
Food waste is a function of the food supply chain that
can be used to measure the overall sustainability of meals
based on the premise that if we appreciate and enjoy
meals as consumers, we will waste less of them.
Domestic food waste connects many of the sustainability
and security issues within the matrix of food choices
associated with meals and diets. Consumers waste food
because (a) we have too much, (b) we do not like, (c)
we have forgotten about it while it has been stored. My
experience and research has shown that food manufac-
turers and food retailers occupy critical control points
that can determine how food consumption behaviours
are nudged into more sustainable practices and preserva-
tion format is an important aspect of doing this. Indeed,
this is becoming the driver for developing new branding
opportunities and marketing messages that consumers
associate with.
 The potential of food preservation to reduce food waste
Certification
Certification of food products has an important role in
creating sustainable foods and should be considered in
the models of waste reduction. The impact of certifica-
tion is evident as an increase in food purchases that
have ethical certifications or certifications that are inte-
grated with sustainability messages(25). There is no
doubt that certification of fast moving consumer goods
has revolutionised consumer understanding of ethical
purchasing through schemes focussed on fair trade and
sustainable fisheries, for example(26). However, many cer-
tifications can exclude operators in supply chains from
engaging with them because they require significant
financial investment to start-up and implement. The ap-
proach of using food waste reduction as a sustainability
indicator of how sustainable a meal is will be accessible
for producers to consumers; indeed there are likely to
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
be clear consumer benefits rather than costs if it can be
designed into the supply chain.
While our understanding of what a sustainable diet is
should relate the higher level values of security and ethics
there is a need to also link this understanding to the
meals and nutritional solutions consumers prepare for
themselves. Clear guidance is necessary to determine
what is a sustainable diet and this is not currently com-
municated in straightforward ways to consumers. The
current food waste debate has tended to overlook the im-
portance of the supply chain in assessing how we might
tackle reducing food waste and much of the literature
and policy initiatives have focussed on the problem of
food waste rather than the solutions to it. The nutritional
arena is very aware of the perils associated with making
consumers feel guilty about the food they eat and creative
public health communications do not take this approach
to changing consumption. Indeed, they develop certifica-
tions that have successful languages of engagement that
are clearly understood by the supply chain operators
involved with them.
Developing a language for a sustainable diet
We can assess social media trends to provide insights into
what consumers regard as important values associated
with a sustainable diet. These may be important tools be-
cause current communications regarding the environ-
mental and health impacts of unsustainable diets are
not creating the outputs policy makers desire. This is evi-
dent with the increased frequency of disease in popula-
tions associated with the overconsumption of food and
a poor understanding of nutrient requirements. We
have already highlighted how different terms associated
with sustainability messaging using the Google Trends
application can be used to search for terms associated
with sustainable diets. The approach of using social
media and on-line channels to explore sustainability
terms has been tested in the conservation and land man-
agement disciplines where they relate quantifiable terms
such as biodiversity loss to the quality values people as-
sociate with conservation(27). In a similar way, consumers
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 26 Dec 2016 at 22:21:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000604
5
of food need to relate measurable sustainability attributes
of food such as the carbon footprint of a meal to the
values they associate with diets(28). The web-crawler search
methods used in other disciplines offer us a means to
search for these links because they quantify how popular
search terms are on specific social media platforms so
that a common language is developed. This language is
currently lacking in the sustainable diet policy arena and
it is dominated by celebrity and media outside policy cir-
cles of influence where information provided for consu-
mers often lacks a transparent link to any scientific
evidence. Developing language and terms that connect
consumers to evidence and science will strengthen the as-
piration to eat sustainable meals.
Conclusion
Our goal in this arena is to stimulate a transition from
‘LCA-thinking’ to one of ‘consumer experience-thinking’
using food waste reduction as a connecting theme across
the food supply chain. This approach leads to the sustain-
able outcomes of food waste reduction and financial gain,
across the supply chain. The impact of food waste reduc-
tion is well established for the pre-consumer supply chain
and we need to influence post-retail food waste production
in future. The food industry can stimulate this action by
designing products that build in waste reduction and inte-
grate them into diets to create a zero food option for con-
sumers. The food industry has experience of linking
language to values of convenience, acceptability and en-
joyment, which are all built into food brands. The emer-
gent commercial goal here to connect these established
brand values to sustainability and food waste reduction
by consumers must be a candidate to do this.
Financial Support
None.
Conflicts of Interest
None.
Authorship
The author had sole responsibility for all aspects of prep-
aration of this paper.
References
1. Martindale W (2014) Global Food Security and Supply.
Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
2. Ambec S & Ehlers L (2014) Regulation via the
polluter-pays principle. Econ J. (Epublication ahead of
print version)
3. Garnett T (2013) Food sustainability: problems, perspec-
tives and solutions. Proc Nutr Soc 72, 29–39.
 6 W. Martindale
4. O’Rourke D (2014) The science of sustainable supply
chains. Science 344, 1124–1127.
5. Kearney J (2010) Food consumption trends and drivers.
Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 365, 2793–2807.
6. De Boer J, Schösler H & Boersema JJ (2013) Climate
change and meat eating: an inconvenient couple?
J Environ Psychol 33, 1–8.
7. Dormer A, Finn DP, Ward P et al. (2013) Carbon footprint
analysis in plastics manufacturing. J Clean Prod 51, 133–141.
8. Martindale W, Finnigan T & Needham L (2014) Current
concepts and applied research in sustainable food process-
ing. Sustainable Food Processing, pp. 9–38 [BK Tiwari,
T Norton and NM Holden, editors]. Oxford, UK: John
Wiley & Sons.
9. Macdiarmid JI (2013) Is a healthy diet an environmentally
sustainable diet? Proc Nutr Soc 72, 13–20.
10. De Boer J, Schösler H & Aiking H (2014) ‘Meatless days’
or ‘less but better’? Exploring strategies to adapt Western
meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Appetite 76, 120–128.
11. Google Trends. https://www.google.co.uk/trends/ (accessed
April 2016).
12. Leslie WS, Eunson J, Murray L et al. (2014) What, not just
salad and veg? Consumer testing of the eatwell week.
Public Health Nutr 17, 1640–1646.
13. Noakes M & Clifton P (2013) The CSIRO Total Wellbeing
Diet. UK: Penguin.
14. Vlassopoulos A, Masset G, Charles VR et al. (2016) A nu-
trient profiling system for the (re)formulation of a global
food and beverage portfolio. To describe the Nestlé
Nutritional Profiling System (NNPS) developed to guide
the reformulation of Nestlé products, and the results
of its application in the USA and France. Eur J Nutr 55,
1–18.
15. Tilman D & Clark M (2014) Global diets link environmen-
tal sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522.
16. Food and Agriculture Organization (2013) Food Wastage
Footprint, Summary Report; epublication. http://www.
fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf (accessed December
2015).
Downloaded from http:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Georgia Libraries, on 26 Dec 2016 at 22:21:06, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at http:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms
. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000604
17. Jimenez-Gonzalez C, Ponder CS, Broxterman QB et al.
(2011) Using the right green yardstick: why process mass in-
tensity is used in the pharmaceutical industry to drive more
sustainable processes. Org Process Res Dev 15, 912–917.
18. Counting the Cost of Food Waste: EU Food Waste
Prevention (2014) House of Lords HL 154 European
Union Committee 10th Report of Session 2013–14; available
at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/
eu-sub-com-d/food-waste-prevention/154.pdf (accessed
December 2015).
19. Martindale W (2014) Using consumer surveys to determine
food sustainability. Brit Food J 116, 1194–1204.
20. California Walnut Board (2015) http://www.walnuts.org/
health-and-walnuts/resources/brochures/ (accessed December
2015).
21. Bragg R, Wood C, Barton J et al. (2013) Measuring con-
nection to nature in children aged 8–12: a robust method-
ology for the RSPB; Epublication https://www.rspb.org.
uk/Images/methodology-report_tcm9-354606.pdf (accessed
December 2015).
22. Bailly N, Maitre I, Amanda M et al. (2012) The Dutch eating
behaviour questionnaire (DEBQ). Assessment of eating be-
haviour in an aging French population. Appetite 59, 853–858.
23. Forever Food Together (2014) The Green Captain logo
and Forever Food Together. http://www.birdseye.co.uk/
ForeverFoodTogether (accessed November 2015).
24. The history of the WI at https://www.thewi.org.uk/centen-
ary/the-history-of-the-wi (accessed December 2015).
25. Defra (2014) Food Statistics Pocketbook 2014; epublica-
tion https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/food-
statistics-pocketbook (accessed October 2015).
26. Bush SR, Toonen H, Oosterveer P et al. (2013) The ‘devils
triangle’ of MSC certification: balancing credibility, accessibil-
ity and continuous improvement. Mar Policy 37, 288–293.
27. Proulx R, Massicotte P & Pepino M (2014) Googling
trends in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 28, 44–51.
28. Hornibrook S, May C & Fearne A (2013) Sustainable de-
velopment and the consumer: exploring the role of carbon
labelling in retail supply chains. Bus Strateg Environ 24,
266–276.