Abstract
The environmental gains of dietary change are often assessed in relation to average national diets, overlooking differences in individual consumption habits and people’s willingness to change. This study combines microdata on food intake and consumer behaviour to elicit the likely environmental gains of dietary shifts. We focus on the Netherlands owing to the country’s ambition to halve its dietary footprint by 2050. Linking food recall survey data from a cross-section of the population (n = 4313), life cycle inventory analysis for 220 food products, and behavioural survey data (n = 1233), we estimate the dietary footprints of consumer groups across water, land, biodiversity and greenhouse gas (GHG). We find that meat and dairy significantly contribute to the dietary GHG footprint (59%), land footprint (54%), and biodiversity footprint (59%) of all consumer groups and that male consumers impose a 30%–32% greater burden than women across these impact areas. Our scenario analysis reveals that simply replacing cow milk with soy milk could reduce the GHG, land and biodiversity footprints by ≈8% if widely adopted by the Dutch adult population. These footprints could be further reduced to ≈20% with full adoption of the EAT-Lancet diet but with a significantly increased blue water footprint. However, when incorporating gender- and age-specific willingness to reduce meat and dairy consumption, the environmental gains resulting from partial adoption of the No-Milk diet and EAT diet diminish to a mere ≈0.8% and ≈4.5%, respectively. Consequently, consumer motivation alone is insufficient to realise the significant environmental gains often promised by dietary change. Yet, substituting high-impact food products offers a near-term opportunity to accelerate a rapid sustainable dietary transition. Future studies on sustainable dietary transition must incorporate consumer behaviour to fully comprehend the lock-in of food consumption patterns and targeted policy action required to secure a sustainable food future.
Generated Summary
This research article explores how consumer resistance influences the environmental benefits of dietary changes. Using a combination of food recall survey data from a cross-section of the Dutch population (n = 4313), life cycle inventory analysis for 220 food products, and behavioral survey data (n = 1233), the study estimates the likely environmental gains of dietary shifts. The study focuses on the Netherlands, a country aiming to halve its dietary footprint by 2050. The research examines the environmental impacts of consumer groups across water, land, biodiversity, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It also investigates the potential environmental benefits of adopting two alternative diets: the EAT-Lancet diet and a “No-Milk” diet, where cow milk is replaced by soy milk. Furthermore, the study incorporates gender- and age-specific willingness to reduce meat and dairy consumption to estimate the actual impact reduction potential of partially shifting to the EAT or No-Milk diets. The study aims to provide more realistic estimates of consumers’ willingness to mitigate food environmental impacts in their food choices by combining consumer behavior and footprint analysis.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The study found that meat and dairy significantly contribute to the dietary GHG footprint (59%), land footprint (54%), and biodiversity footprint (59%) of all consumer groups.
- Male consumers impose a 30%–32% greater burden than women across these impact areas.
- Simply replacing cow milk with soy milk could reduce the GHG, land, and biodiversity footprints by ≈8% if widely adopted by the Dutch adult population.
- Full adoption of the EAT-Lancet diet could reduce the footprints by ≈20%, but with a significantly increased blue water footprint.
- When incorporating gender- and age-specific willingness to reduce meat and dairy consumption, environmental gains from the No-Milk diet and EAT diet diminish to a mere ≈0.8% and ≈4.5%, respectively.
- The Dutch agricultural sector contributes 14% to domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 40% to domestic land use, and 70% to domestic nitrogen emissions.
- Animal products significantly contribute to the eutrophication footprint (38%), GHG footprint (59%), land footprint (54%), and biodiversity footprint (59%).
- The main driver of the blue water footprint was the consumption of non-alcoholic beverages (31%) and fruits (13%).
- When focusing on the pressures contributing to total biodiversity loss, animal products play a predominant role in driving biodiversity loss.
- Male consumers aged between 51 and 60 exhibit the highest overall environmental footprint (≈45% above the national average) and contribute ≈10% to total domestic environmental impacts, across all environmental footprints modeled.
- Overall, all male consumer groups exhibit a footprint that surpasses by ≈30% that of female consumers across all environmental impact categories, except for water consumption.
- Men have overall a higher impact than women across all environmental footprints (on average 4% more) except for their water footprint.
- When the EAT diet is fully adopted by the entire Dutch population, it can reduce the food-related GHG footprint by 20.5%, the biodiversity footprint by 21.1%, the land footprint by 19.9% and the eutrophication footprint by 6.5%, but it can increase the blue water footprint by 7.6%.
- The study examines 16 consumer groups distinguished by gender and age (intervals of 10 years from 1 to 80 years old).
- The results indicate that no individual group distinctly exhibits a significantly higher footprint than another when the corresponding population size of groups is taken into account.
Other Important Findings
- The current Dutch diet has a negligible reduction in the dietary GHG footprint compared with results from the 2007–2010 DNFCS.
- The main driver of the blue water footprint was the consumption of non-alcoholic beverages and fruits.
- Animal products significantly contribute to the eutrophication footprint, GHG footprint, land footprint, and biodiversity footprint.
- The study found that a uniform policy does not necessarily result in the most significant reduction of environmental impacts.
- Directing specific demographic groups to adopt the No-Milk diet while others adopt the EAT diet would yield the most substantial environmental benefits.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study’s analysis is limited by the scope of available data, including the specificity of environmental impacts of diets, the stratification of consumer impacts, and the granularity of consumer preference data for estimating dietary adoption rates.
- The sourcing profiles of the Netherlands were derived from bilateral food trade accounts with countries grouped by region, and not country-specific sources.
- The environmental impact coefficients employed in the analysis do not reflect recent improvements in agricultural efficiency or climate-induced yield changes.
- The study only focuses on gender and age due to limited socio-demographic attributes in the DNFCS 2012–2016.
- The willingness to change rates used in this study were adopted from Koch and colleagues, but these rates were only available for meat and dairy products, not per food item.
- The temporal mismatch between the consumption and behavioral surveys adds further uncertainty to the scale of hypothetical dietary change and associated impacts.
Conclusion
The research highlights the crucial role of group-level environmental footprinting in understanding the differentiated roles, impacts, and priority consumption shifts of consumers within a sustainable dietary transition. The study’s findings indicate that achieving the goal of halving the food footprint in the Netherlands by 2050 will not be met without systemic changes. While full adoption of a sustainable diet could yield significant environmental benefits, the study demonstrates that consumer motivation alone is insufficient. The research emphasizes the importance of integrating consumer behavior into the analysis of dietary transition scenarios. Furthermore, the study underscores the necessity of complementing survey-based studies with more granular information on behavioral preferences and by exploring the dynamic treatment of behavior change. The study’s insights suggest that targeted approaches, such as directing specific demographic groups to adopt certain diets, may be more effective. The key takeaway is that dietary shifts alone will not be sufficient to reach the objective of halving the Dutch dietary footprint, and changes to food consumption and production practices must be pursued in tandem. This study underscores the importance of considering consumer behavior in the context of dietary transitions, highlighting that effective and realistic pathways for a sustainable food future must incorporate actor-based approaches, along with policy actions.