Combining the efforts of physicists, materials scientists, economists and resource-strategy researchers opens up an interdisciplinary route enabling the substitution of rare elements by more abundant ones, serving as a guideline for the development of novel materials

Although the agricultural sector is globally a main emitter of greenhouse gases, thorough economic analysis of environmental and social externalities has not yet been conducted. Available research assessing agricultural external costs lacks a differentiation between farming systems and food categories. A method addressing this scientific gap is established in this paper and applied in the context of Germany. Using life-cycle assessment and meta-analytical approaches, we calculate the external climate costs of foodstuff. Results show that external greenhouse gas costs are highest for conventional and organic animal-based products (2.41€/kg product; 146% and 71% surcharge on producer price level), followed by conventional dairy products (0.24€/kg product; 91% surcharge) and lowest for organic plant-based products (0.02€/kg product; 6% surcharge). The large difference of relative external climate costs between food categories as well as the absolute external climate costs of the agricultural sector imply the urgency for policy measures that close the gap between current market prices and the true costs of food.

There is broad scientific consensus that current food systems are neither sustainable nor resilient: many agricultural practices are very resource-intensive and responsible for a large share of global emissions and loss of biodiversity. Consequently, current systems put large pressure on planetary boundaries. According to economic theory, food prices form when there is a balance between supply and demand. Yet, due to the neglect of negative external effects, effective prices are often far from representing the ‘true costs’. Current studies show that especially animal-based foodstuff entails vast external costs that currently stay unaccounted for in market prices. Against this background, we explore how informational campaigning on agricultural externalities can contribute to consumer awareness and tolerance of this matter. Further, we investigate the socially just design of monetary incentives and their implementation potentials and challenges. This study builds on the informational campaign of a German supermarket displaying products with two price tags: one of the current market price and the other displaying the ‘true’ price, which includes several environmental externalities calculated with True Cost Accounting (TCA). Based on interpretations of a consumer survey and a number of expert interviews, in this article we approach the potentials and obstacles of TCA as a communication tool and the challenges of its factual implementation in agri-food networks. Our results show that consumers are generally interested in the topic of true food pricing and would to a certain extent be willing to pay ‘true prices’ of the inquired foods. However, insufficient transparency and unjust distribution of wealth are feared to bring about communication and social justice concerns in the implementation of TCA. When introducing TCA into current discourse, it is therefore important to develop measures that are socially cautious and backed by relevant legal framework conditions. This poses the chance to create a fair playing (‘polluter pays’) with a clear assignment of responsibilities to policy makers, and practitioners in addition to customers.

No abstract

In a case study of Germany, we examine current food consumption along the three pillars of sustainability to evaluate external factors that influence consumers’ dietary decisions. We investigate to what extent diets meet nutritional requirements (social factor), the diets’ environmental impact (ecological factor), and the food prices’ influence on purchasing behavior (economic factor). For this, we compare two dietary recommendations (plant-based, omnivorous) with the status quo, and we examine different consumption styles (conventional, organic produce). Additionally, we evaluate 1446 prices of food items from three store types (organic store, supermarket, and discounter). With this, we are able to evaluate and compare 30 different food baskets along their health, environmental, and economic impact. Results show that purchasing decisions are only slightly influenced by health-related factors. Furthermore, few consumers align their diet with low environmental impact. In contrast, a large share of consumers opt for cheap foods, regardless of health and environmental consequences. We find that price is, arguably, the main factor in food choices from a sustainability standpoint. Action should be taken by policy makers to financially incentivize consumers in favor of healthy and environmentally friendly diets. Otherwise, the status quo further drives especially underprivileged consumers towards unhealthy and environmentally damaging consumption.