2012 - wwf · 2013-02-13 · 1 problem definition and objectives 2 eating habits and dietary intake...

2012

STUDY

Nutrition Food losses Land consumption

ToNs For The Trash

Imprint

Published by WWF Germany, Berlin September 2012 Authors Steffen Noleppa, Harald von WitzkeCoordination Tanja Dräger de Teran/WWF Editors Tanja Dräger de Teran/WWF, Thomas Köberich/WWF, Andreas Müller-SeedorffContact [email protected] Design/Layout Thomas Schlembach/WWF Germany

summary 1 Problem definition and objectives 2 eating habits and dietary intake recommendations 3 sources, causes and the extent of food losses 4 Definition of scenarios for further analysis 5 Impacts of a healthier diet on Germany’s land footprint 6 Impacts of a reduction of food waste on Germany’s land footprint 7 Conclusions and outlook WWF recommendations WWF recommendations with respect to food losses WWF agricultural policy demands references

5

8

10

20

26

30

38

44

47

48

49

50

Tons for the trash | 3

Agricultural land use occupies approximately 5 billion hectares worldwide. Of those, 3.9 billion ha (80 %) are used for livestock, i.e. ultimately for the production of livestock-based foods. Already, one third of the global land surface is utilized for livestock production. And as global demand for meat continues to grow, so does the area of land needed for its production. Demographic forecasts predict that by 2050 we will need to feed 9 billion people. Based on this scenario, we can therefore expect that the competition for land will accelerate. But agricultural expansion is already causing drastic losses of natural ecosystems which in turn is leading to a dramatic decline in biodiversity.

But what can we do here in Germany? To what extent does our own lifestyle here, which includes our dietary preferences, contribute to global land consumption? The present study addresses this question and looks at how we can reduce land consump-tion by adopting a healthier diet and a more prudent attitude to dealing with food. There is considerable potential.

» At present, German annual per capita land consumption stands at 2,900 m².

» Due to its excessive requirement for land needed to satisfy domestic demand, Germany utilizes an additional 6.8 million ha of agricultural land outside of its territory.

» Feedstuffs are primarily responsible for this situation. Germany’s imports of soya beans and soya bean products alone require approximately 2.5 million ha of virtual net land areas outside of the EU, primarily in Brazil and Argentina.

» The reason is this: Compared to other countries, people in Germany eat too much meat. Not only does this impact on their health but their big appetite for meat is also detrimental to land resources.

» A further environmentally detrimental aspect of the way we eat are food losses. On average about 25 % of all purchased foods in Germany end up in the waste bin.

» It is estimated that end consumers in Germany throw away 6.6 million tonnes of food per year or 80 kg per head of population. In financial terms this equates to an estimated loss of EUR 25 billion.

» Some of the reasons for these food losses include: poor pre-shop planning, incorrect storage, not understanding the meaning of ‘best before’ dates, and often oversized portions in the catering industry.

Against this background, this study addresses the following questions:

» What is the current typical average German diet? » What kind of diet would be advisable from a health point of view? » What types of food are most often thrown out by consumers? » What is the estimated extent of avoidable losses?

summary


Based on scenarios, this study outlines in how far a healthier diet and a more prudent attitude to dealing with our food can impact on the Germans’ “land footprint”. The scenarios for both a healthier diet and improved handling of purchased foods respec-tively very clearly show that enormous “savings” can be made in terms of land consump-tion, thus freeing up land for other land uses.

» If, for example, the Germans refrained from meat consumption once a week, 595.000 ha of land could be available for other uses. This equates to twice the territory of the federal state of Saarland.

» A much greater effect could be achieved if the Germans followed the dieticians’ advice: 1.8 million ha of land could be ‘released’, an area the size of the federal state of Saxony. For soya production alone 826.000 ha of cropland would no longer be needed.

These examples demonstrate that a healthy diet reduces the pressure on land resources, especially in Argentina, Brazil and in other South American countries.

To eat a healthy diet also means to consume less of some foods and more of others, if they are beneficial to one’s health. This has been considered in the scenarios. For example, the increased demand for bread grains would necessitate an extra 800.000 ha of cereal cropland. Solely considering lowered meat consumption, the area of land needed would be reduced by 3.7 million ha. This means that if the entire German population followed the dieticians’ recommendations, the per capita land footprint of our meat consumption alone could almost be halved from 1,000 m² to a mere 577 m².

A more prudent attitude to dealing with food would also provide “savings” in terms of land area. 1.2 million ha could be “gained” if avoidable losses were even just halved and more than 2.4 million ha if avoidable losses were eliminated completely. The German per capita land footprint for food could be reduced by more than 13 % from approximately 2.300 m² to 2.000 m². Despite the relatively small quantities of meat that are thrown away, meat is significant in this context due to its specific land foot-print. The production of all the livestock-based foods that are being thrown out – be they yoghurt, egg products, sausage or other meat products – required 1.4 million ha of agricultural land of which 730.000 ha was needed for meat production alone.

The results make it very clear that a healthier diet and a more prudent way of dealing with food is not only badly needed but it is possible too and has the potential to subs-tantially reduce the area of land needed for food production. The areas thus released from production could be devoted to other land uses and contribute to meeting global challenges such as the protection of resources and ecosystems and the security of world food supplies.

If it was possible to motivate the Germans to tackle both issues, i.e. to change their eating habits and to waste less food, significantly less arable land and grassland would be needed. It would be possible to reduce the German per capita land footprint resulting from the consumption of agricultural commodities by at least 500 m² down to approximately 2.900 m².

Tanja Dräger de Teran, WWF

6

Globally, livestock production is the largest land use by far in terms of area. Already about a third of the land area world-wide is used to produce livestock. It is used either for grazing or as arable land to produce livestock feed.

Meat determines the type of land use Around the globe, people are consuming more and more meat. In response to the rising demand for meat and other agricultural commodities, significant land use change for agricultural purposes is underway all over the world such as the cutting down of tropical rainforests and ploughing up of grasslands, with serious repercus-sions for the climate, the global water regime and regional species diversity.

In how far does Germany contribute to this problem? How much land area do Germany’s inhabitants “use” as a result of their eating habits? What is the size of their meat consumption’s land footprint?

In light of the problems outlined above, these and other questions are at the core of the first part of a larger WWF project: a study entitled “Meat eats Land” (hereinafter cited as von Witzke et al., 2011). In brief, the study shows that our strongly meat-based diet is a key driver of land use – in Europe and beyond. A more conscious approach to food would appear to be not only appropriate but necessary.

Meat consumption is particularly high in Germany By international comparison, meat consumption is particularly high in Germany. Germany’s 16.9 million ha of domestic agricultural area are not sufficient to fully meet domestic demand for agricultural commodities. Germany “occupies” more than 6.8 million ha outside of its territory over and above its own agricultural land base (von Witzke et al., 2011). The bulk of that acreage is devoted to the production of livestock feed. The importation of soya and soya products alone results in virtual net land imports from outside of the EU in the order of 2.5 million ha, mostly from Brazil and Argentina.

To satisfy the demand for soya required to produce the meat products consumed within Germany, the entire territory of the Free State of Saxony would need to be devoted to soya cropping. If other feedstuffs are included in the calculation, more than 1.000 m² per inhabitant are currently required to meet the annual demand for meat in Germany. For comparison, the per capita demand for potatoes equates to 15 m², the demand for wheat to 100 m² of agricultural land.

The impact of changing eating habits and the way we deal with food Lower meat consumption would presumably have a significant impact on resource management and in particular on the amount of land used for agricultural produc-tion. Further research is needed on eating habits and their successive modification in order to verify this assumption. Many questions arise in this context: How can changes in dietary patterns be instigated and what would be the impact on Germany’s land consumption? How would changing eating habits impact on demand for feed-stuffs such as soya and other agricultural commodities? The following analysis will focus on these and other questions.

1 Problem definition and objectives

8

Aims of the study A reduction in land consumption by Germany’s inhabitants can be studied from two different perspectives:

» From a nutritional standpoint, Germans eat too much meat (von Witzke et al., 2011). The German Nutrition Society (DGE) recommends a level of meat consump-tion at about half of what is currently being consumed in Germany (DGE, 2009; MRI, 2008). The question remains as to the impact eating habits based on scientific recommendations would have on meat consumption and on the consumption of land resources.

» A second perspective is that of resource utilization and protection. Eating habits are not only reflected in consumption per se but also in a general approach to dealing with food. The high food losses in particular are a much discussed topic in both the general public and scientific circles (see i.a. Gustavsson et al., 2011; Stuart, 2011; WRAP, 2011). There are great overall food losses between initial production and final consumption. The question we ask here is about the expected impacts on food consumption and thus also on land consumption of a more conscious way of dealing with food and of efforts to minimize losses on the part of the consumers.

Report structure With a view to answering the above questions, this report, which also documents the results of the WWF study’s second part, is structured as follows:

» Chapter 2 describes today’s eating habits of Germany’s inhabitants and outlines how they could eat more healthily, with reference to DGE recommendations and additional scientific findings.

» Chapter 3 looks at food losses. It highlights the fact that not all the foodstuffs that are available are actually consumed and that the wastage of resources is a particu-lar burden resulting from our current eating habits.

» Chapter 4 presents possible scenarios of changes in dietary patterns. These pat-terns are based on the findings derived in Chapters 2 and 3 and serve as a basis for further analysis.

» Chapters 5 and 6 discuss specific results of the analysis. Chapter 5 discusses the impact of a diet guided by scientific recommendations. Chapter 6 describes the impacts of reductions in food waste. In particular, in this Chapter, a land footprint is calculated for Germany with a view to individual food groups or agricultural primary products.

Chapter 7 finally presents new interim conclusions and an outlook towards the third and final part of the WWF project which focuses on the impacts of meat consumption and land consumption on climate change.


Preferences v. recommendations – Meat consumption in Germany Nowadays, Germany’s inhabitants eat too much meat. In short, this is the key result of the study on eating habits (von Witzke et al., 2011). With an annual per capita meat consumption of more than 88 kg, Germany ranks almost 10 % above the EU average. Global average meat consumption stands at less than 40 kg per person (Weick, 2010). More than 56 kg of the 88 kg of meat consumed are pork, followed by almost 19 kg of poultrymeat and approximately 13 kg of beef. Since 1950, meat consumption in Germany has more than doubled.

Meat consumption is not a bad thing in principle. Amongst other constituents, meat proteins are a valuable addition to the human diet. However, there are also other foods that contain proteins. It is therefore all the more surprising that over the past decades other protein sources, primarily legumes (beans and pulses), have increasingly been dropped from the average diet. Until the mid-19th century, roughly equal quantities of meat and legumes were consumed. Nowadays, meat consumption outranks the consumption of peas, lentils and beans by a factor of more than 100:1. If one compares current meat consumption levels with available recommendations for healthy eating it is very evident that the Germans eat far too much meat. The DGE’s scientifically based recommendations for a “correct” diet clearly favour a more diverse diet with less meat and a greater focus on plant foods such as fruit, vegetables and cereals (DGE, 2008). Meyer and Sauter (2002) similarly advocate greater substitution of fruit and vegetables as well as dairy and cereal products for meat and animal fats. It seems reasonable therefore to use scientific findings such as those publicized by DGE as a basis for a comparison of actual eating habits with guidelines for recom-mended intakes.

A comparison of dietary intake recommendations and food consumption surveys

How can we make such a comparison? The DGE recommendations refer to net food consumption and thus consider losses during transport and at the consumer level. They are calculated based on dietary reference intakes (see DGE, 2008) and refer to individual food items such as sausage, cheese, yoghurt, bread or pasta. In contrast, gross and net food consumption data in sector-specific statistics (cf. BMELV, 2011; BVDF, 2010) are compiled on a completely different basis: » Gross consumption figures are usually taken from agricultural statistics and can be directly (for wheat, pork etc.) or indirectly (butter from milk, sugar from sugarbeet) assigned to agricultural primary products.

» Specific correction factors are applied to these figures to account for non-edible product components and arrive at actual consumption figures (Dämon & Widhalm, 2003). For example, a 30 % deduction is made in the case of meat. However, these consumption figures do not yet take account of losses due to spoilage and household-level processing or of the fact that some food is simply discarded.

2 eating habits and dietary intake recommendations

Germans eat 100 times more

meat than beans and pulses.

To eat a “correct” diet

means to eat much less meat and a lot

more vegetables, rice and cereals.

10

A solid comparison with the DGE recommendations would require realistic data on actual food consumption. But such data can only be gathered using weighing proto-cols, dietary recall surveys, diet histories and other types of food surveys (Dämon & Widhalm, 2003; MRI, 2011). Moreover, comparisons must be undertaken at the level of certain food groups and population segments to which the DGE recommendations relate.

DGE recommendations for adults As an example, Fig. 2 outlines a DGE recommendation, in this case the so-called basic plan for adults. Considering the DGE data, it must be pointed out that figures are not available for all age-classes and all sub-groups of the population. While the largest sub-group, i.e. adults of 19 years and over, is well catered for (DGE, 2009), children and adolescents are not. Moreover, while the DGE data contain recommendations for certain sub-groups such as the senior population, these recommendations do not significantly diverge from those for other adults. There is no comprehensive set of DGE reference values for all sub-groups of the population. It is therefore not possible, based on the DGE information alone, to arrive at a mean comparison between recom-mended and actual consumption amongst all sub-groups of the German population. Additional survey data will need to be obtained to this end.

Figure 2.1DGE Basic plan

for adults as a guideline for daily food intake

Source: Own illustration after DGE (2004)

Cereals, cereal products and potatoes »Bread 200–300 g (4–6 slices) or bread 150–250 g (3–5 slices) plus 50–60 g of cereal flakes »Potatoes 200–250 g (cooked) or pasta 200–250 g (cooked) or rice 150–180 g (cooked) »Give preference to wholemeal products

Vegetables and lettuce »Vegetables: total of 400 g or more »Vegetables 300 g cooked plus raw vegetables/lettuce 100 g or vegetables 200 g cookedplus raw vegetables/lettuce 200 g

Fruit »2–3 portions of fruit (250 g) or more

Milk and dairy products »Milk/yoghurt 200–250 g »Cheese 50–60 g »Give preference to low-fat products

Meat, sausage, fish and eggs (per week) »Meat and sausage: max. 300–600 g in total »Give preference to low-fat products »Fish: Marine whitefish 80–150 g plus marine oily fish 70 g »Eggs: up to 3 eggs (including eggs used in other dishes)

Fats and oils »Butter, margarine: 15–30 g »Oil (e.g. rapeseed, soya, walnut oil): 10–15 g

Beverages »1.5 litres, preferably low-calorie drinks


FKE recommendations for young children and adolescents Similar to the DGE providing recommendations for adults, the Forschungsinstitut für Kinderernährung (Research Institute for Childhood Nutrition, FKE) issues dietary intake recommendations for young children and adolescents. These are based on the so-called optimised mixed diet (Alexy et al., 2008). It is tailored to seven individual age groups from weaned infants to 18 year-olds. Similar to the approach taken by the DGE, recommended daily amounts of certain food groups are given as appropriate to the children’s age. Figure 2.2 gives an overview of available recommendations issued by DGE and FKE for age groups ranging from childhood to old age. Technically, the guidelines issued by DGE and FKE respectively can easily be combined. However, in contrast to DGE, the FKE datasets do not break down the ‘dairy products’ and ‘fats and oils’ categories.

Figure 2.2Available recommendations

issued by DGE and FKE for the intake of certain

food groups

Source: Own illustration

DGE FKE

Cereals, cereal products and potatoes

of which

potatoes P P

Bread/cereals P P

Vegetables and lettuce P P

Fruit P P

Milk and dairy products P

of which

Milk P

Dairy products P

Meat, sausage, fish and eggs

of which

Meat and sausage P P

Fish P P

Eggs P P

Fats and oils P

of which

Butter P

Vegetable oils P

Beverages P P

12

Consumption data for adolescents and adults: the National Nutrition Survey Real data are used for comparisons with recommendations. These are survey data obtained by the Max Rubner Institut (MRI) as part of the most recent large-scale German National Nutrition Survey (Nationale Verzehrstudie, NVS) (MRI, 2008). The study provides net consumption data for individual foods or food groups by age group, which were obtained using standard methods as outlined above (see Dämon & Widhalm, 2003; MRI, 2011). The NVS provides up to date gender-specific food consumption information for the following age groups:

» 14–18 Years » 19–24 Years » 25–34 Years » 35–50 Years » 51–64 Years » 65–80 Years

Consumption data by age group are broken down into i.a. the following food groups:

» Bread and cereal products » Vegetables, mushrooms and beans/pulses » Potatoes » Fruit and fruit products » Fats » Meat, sausage and other meat products » Fish » Beverages

Many of the food categories used for the purposes of the NVS therefore correspond to those used by DGE and FKE.

Consumption data for children and senior citizens: EsKiMo and ErnSTES data The NVS does not provide data for young persons below the age of 14 or for senior citizens above the age of 80. However, gaps in the data set can be filled in other ways:

» Data for young children aged six months to five years are available from the VELS survey on food intake by infants and young children (Verzehrstudie zur Ermittlung der Lebensmittelaufnahme von Säuglingen und Kleinkindern) (see Vohman et al., 2011). Data for 6 to 17 year olds were collected by the EsKiMo study (Ernährungs-studie als KiGGS-Modul), a nutrition survey carried out as part of the KiGGS (Kinder- und Jugendgesundheitssurvey), a study assessing the health of children and adolescents in Germany (see Mensink et al., 2007). The nutritional status of children and adolescents is thus well documented and the data are well suited to comparisons with the FKE recommendations since the studies use comparable food group classifications. The exception are carbohydrate foods such as potatoes and cereal products which are aggregated in the VELS and EsKiMo studies.

» Similar survey data are available for senior citizens aged 80 to about 95 from the 2008 ErnSTES study on nutrition of older people in elderly care facilities (Studie zur Ernährung älterer Menschen in stationären Einrichtungen) (cf. DGE, 2008).


Good quality real data are thus available as a basis for comprehensive comparisons with the DGE and FKE recommendations. They cover a variety of food groups and almost the entire age spectrum of the population. The only exception are infants less than six months of age; no comparison can be drawn for this age group.

Summary: Data sources for consumption data and recommended intakes Figure 2.3 gives a summary list of the data basis for different age groups utilized for the investigations to follow below.

Consumption data Recommended intakes

up to 1 Year VELS FKE

up to 4 Years VELS FKE

up to 5 Years VELS FKE

up to 7 Years EsKiMo FKE





up to 24 Years NVS DGE





over 80 Years ErnSTES DGE

Figure 2.3Comparable datasets on eating habits and dietary intake recommendations

in Germany for a range of age groups

Source: Own illustration

Figure 2.4The DGE uses this food circle

to visualize its recommendations.

A wholesome diet should include the food groups

shown and symbolized by selected representative foods

in the relative quantities as depicted.

1:Cereals, cereal products

potatoes2: Vegetables, lettuce

3: Fruit4: Milk, dairy products

5: Meat, Sausage, Fish, Eggs6: Fats, oils

7: Beverages

Copyright: Deutsche Gesell-schaft für Ernährung

e. V., Bonn

14

Required differentiation by age, gender, and food groups Whenever either the consumption data or the dietary intake recommendations changed from a given age onwards, a separate age group was defined for the purposes of this study. Exactly which of the data were juxtaposed is shown in Figure 2.5 by way of example for boys and girls aged 13-15 and for men and women aged 35-50.

It should be noted that in cases where DGE or FKE recommendations were not gender-specific but were given as a range, the higher value was assigned to males and the lower value to females. This might appear arbitrary but where gender-specific values are not given there is not really an alternative to this approach. Moreover, any potential impact this may have on the final result will be more or less cancelled out by the fact that at 50.9 % females and 49.1 % males, gender ratio in Germany’s population is almost even.

Age group 13-15 years

Males FemalesEsKiMo

consumption figures

FKE recom-mendations

EsKiMo consumption

figures

FKE recom-mendations

Meat, meat products 148 75 98 65

Fish, fish products 9 14 8 14

Eggs 27 20.7 21 20.7

Milk, dairy products 401 450 314 425

Fats 36 40 30 35

Bread, rolls, pastry, cake 197 300 165 250

Carbohydrate foods (pasta,etc.) 160330

124270

Potatoes, potato products 99 87

Vegetables, vegetable products 204 300 218 260

Fruit, fruit products 185 300 187 260

Jam, marmalade 9 n.a. 4 n.a.

Sugar, sweets 75 n.a. 67 n.a.

Alcohol-free beverages 1.716 1.300 1.615 1.200

Age group 35-50 years

Males FemalesNVS

consumption figures

DGE recom-mendations

NVS consumption

figures

DGE recom-mendations

Meat, meat products 167 86 88 43

Fish, fish products 30 31 22 20

Eggs 21 25 17 17

Milk, dairy products 261 310 236 260

Fats 30 45 20 25

Bread, rolls, pastry, cake

327

300

250

200

Carbohydrate foods (pasta) 250or 180or 250

200or 150or 200

Rice


Vegetables, vegetable products 230 400 260 400

Fruit, fruit products 217 250 259 250Jam, marmalade 17 n.a. 15 n.a.Sugar, sweets 41 n.a. 35 n.a.Alcohol-free beverages 1.806 n.a. 1.844 n.a.

Figure 2.5Actual consumption figures

and dietary intake recommendations in

Germany for the “13-15 years” and

“35-50 years” age groups (in g or ml per day)

Source: own compilation


Judging from the data in Fig. 2.5 and analogous information for the other age groups, which can be made available on request, it indeed appears that in Germany people across all ages consume too much meat and insufficient amounts of other food groups such as fruit and vegetables or carbohydrate foods.

Changes in consumption data if dietary intake recommendations were adopted

How would the consumption data change and what specific changes would there be in the food groups given above if every person living in Germany, from infants to the oldest senior citizens, fully adopted the dietary intake recommendations? This is the question we will address below.

To answer this question, the individual discrepancies between actual consumption (based on VELS, EsKiMo, NVS and ErnSTES) and the corresponding recommenda-tions (after FKE and DGE) were weighted appropriately for the proportion of each age group in the overall population (see Destatis, 2011). The result is given in Fig. 2.6.

However, the food groups listed in Fig. 2.6 slightly diverge from those given in Fig. 2.5, which calls for some discussion:

» To recap: It is the aim of the study to determine the land footprint of altered dietary patterns in Germany. To this end it is important to closely correlate dietary styles with the agricultural primary products consumed. The definition of food groups as given in Fig. 2.6 has already achieved this in part.

» It is not always easy to assign certain foods to food groups, especially the carbohy-drate foods identified in Fig. 2.5. This is because different sources deal with them at different levels of aggregation, resulting in differences in the composition of food groups. Some of the consumption surveys refer to them as components of other foods (high level of aggregation) while others list them as discrete items (potatoes, rice, cereal products), making it more difficult to arrive at generalized conclusions across all sub-sections of the population. However, it has been possible in many cases to disaggregate existing aggregations into discrete items, for example by referring to DGE menu recommendations and the ratios of individual carbohydrate foods contained therein. This approach allowed for the separation of cereals, rice, and potatoes respectively and rendered later analysis considerably more product-specific.

Figure 2.6Ratio of dietary guidelines

to current consumption habits in Germany

(current consumption = 100 %)

Source: own calculations

Meat, meat products 56.0 %

Fish, fish products 98.6 %

Eggs 117.0 %

Milk, dairy products 115.6 %

Fats 137.5 %

Cereals, cereal products 144.0 %

Rice 157.6 %

Potatoes, potato products 67.6 %

Vegetables, vegetable products 175.4 %

Fruit, fruit products 106.4 %

Sugar, sweets 65.9 %

16

» A note on sugar: DGE recommends to refrain from any additional consumption of sugar as the daily food already contains large quantities of monosaccharides and disaccharides, e.g. in baked goods (DGE, 2009). According to the food consumption surveys, every person in Germany consumes almost 13 kg of sugar per year in the form of sweeteners and with beverages. People could do completely without this excess consumption (DGE, 2009) which represents almost a third of the total per capita sugar consumption of 38 kg (DGE, 2008; Südzucker, 2011), a fact that has been considered in Fig. 2.6.

Too much meat and sugar – not enough vegetables and cereals The results reveal some major discrepancies between actual and recommended consumption in the different food groups:

» All food groups, except for fish and fish products, are consumed in quantities diverging from the recommended amounts.

» The meat consumption figure postulated by Witzke et al. (2011) at being approxi-mately twice as high as necessary has roughly been verified by the calculations.

» In contrast, consumption figures for other livestock-based foods (milk, eggs) are slightly below the recommended levels.

» With the exception of potatoes and sugar, consumption of plant-based products is below, and in part well below, recommended levels. This is particularly true for vegetables as well as for rice and other cereals.

Fruit consumption is also somewhat below recommended levels.

Incredibly sweet: Germans consume

38 kg sugar per person

per year.


A note on the further treatment of the different bases of consumption data We conclude this chapter with a special note on data acquisition. The various possible survey methods used to establish food intake were given earlier in this text. As every method is flawed in one way or another (Dämon & Widhalm, 2003; MRI, 2011) the results are associated with a degree of uncertainty. The example of meat consumption demonstrates the impact of methodological discrepancies which may result in misin-terpretations. At the time the NVS survey data were collected, the statistics showed a per capita meat consumption of just under 60 kg in Germany (BVDF, 2010; MRI, 2008). The NVS data however indicated a per capita meat consumption of only just under 45 kg. How can this 25 % discrepancy be explained? In addition to the inherent methodological errors there are two reasons in particular that must be considered in any further analysis:

» The NVS ‘meat and meat products’ food group does not include all items consumed, as meat or animal fats are also eaten as part of other food groups. These include, for example, German-style open sandwiches and other sandwiches (breads), pizza (savoury baked goods), lard (fats), soups, stews and a variety of meat extracts (others). But even though the meat content of such composite dishes can be quite high, such imprecise allocations in the NVS can by no means explain the 25 % discrepancy.

» Rather, these discrepancies can be explained by consumer food losses (spoilage, food that is discarded etc.) which are not considered as part of the 30 % statistical correction factor used to calculate net food consumption from gross food con-sumption figures (see the reasoning earlier in the text). Dämon & Widhalm (2003) therefore propose a second correction of approximately 15 %.

In total, the additional correction in conjunction with the difficulties of allocation and the methodological differences may roughly explain the 25 % discrepancy between NVS intake data and statistical consumption data. But this cannot be said with cer-tainty. A more detailed analyses of food losses caused by the consumers sheds more light on the matter. The following chapter is devoted to precisely this issue.

18

End consumers in Germany throw out approximately 6.6 million tons of food every year. That is more than 80 kg per person. The bulk of this food “waste” is avoidable. And that’s not all: A family of four could save around 1200 Euro per year.

Food losses take many forms and generally any initial categorization distinguishes by source. Considering the entire food supply chain from the producer to the consumer, a distinction is generally made between food losses and food waste (see i. a. Foresight, 2011; GIZ & SIWI, 2011; Glanz, 2008; Grethe et al., 2011; Gustavsson et al., 2011; Parfitt et al., 2010):

» “Food losses” include all losses of food occurring at farm level, between farmer and processor and further along the supply chain up to and including the wholesale level. These include weather-related losses, harvest and post-harvest losses resul-ting for example from poor harvesting and transport techniques. Additional losses result from poor or overly long storage at the processing and sales levels, from compliance with required quality and packaging standards, at the slaughter and butchering of livestock, as well as from dehydration, cooling etc.

» In contrast, “food waste” is defined at the retail and consumer stages and comprises all losses of food for direct consumption occurring at the retail level, in the catering industry and above all at the level of private households. Food waste includes for example food that is discarded due to expired shelf life dates and confusion over ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates. Additionally there is spoilage of food prepared in excess of requirements in private households, canteens and restaurants. It would be wrong to label all these losses as ‘wasted food’ as this category also includes fruit and vegetable peelings, nut shells, bones in meat chops or chicken bones and so on. However, a significant proportion of these losses could be avoided by the consu-mers, as will be outlined further below.

It is quite clear from the definitions that any attempt at accurately quantifying food losses is fraught with difficulty, as major uncertainties are associated with their documentation and estimation (Grethe et al., 2011). These uncertainties are particu-larly significant with respect to food losses as defined above, but they are not without significance either, when it comes to food waste. As a result, estimates covering both types of losses vary significantly. Parfitt et al. (2010) found that ranges between 10 and 50 percent of total global food productionare quoted in the literature.

Focus on consumer food waste As it is the aim of this study to examine dietary patterns and changes in eating habits of end consumers, the remainder of the study will deal solely with food waste, i.e. those losses that are due to or caused by consumers. While an analysis of pre-consumer food losses, i.e. losses at the production and trading levels, would certainly be useful, consumer food waste is generally held to be of much greater significance, at least in industrialized countries. Monier et al. (2010) estimate that in the EU more than 56 % of overall food losses and waste are generated at household level. The corresponding figure for Germany is as high as 74 %. In developing countries the situation is very different (Grethe et al., 2011; Gustavsson et al., 2011).

3 sources, causes and the extent of food losses

More food is lost in the hands of end

consumers than at the production

and trade levels.

It is very difficult to accurately

quantify food losses.

20

So, what is the scale of food losses at the consumer level? It is estimated that in Britain 31 % of all foods ready for consumption are lost immediately prior to being purchased or after having been purchased by consumers (WRAP, 2008). Initially this proportion appears to be greater than the 27 % estimated for the US (Kantor et al., 1997), 25 % estimated for Australia (Morgan, 2009), or the estimates for Germany of at least 21 % (Cofresco, 2011) or at least 25 % (Schneider, 2009), with the latter figure equating to the estimate for Switzerland. However, Hall et al. (2009) now consider consumer-level food losses in the US to be as high as 40 %, i.e. significantly higher than the estimate given by Kantor et al. (1997). Due to the lack of comparable methodological standards it is difficult to assess these and other figures (see Parfitt et al., 2010), a problem that once again highlights the evident uncertainties which must be considered in the further analysis of the data. Given these uncertainties, Grethe et al. (2011) conservatively assume a wastage rate by consumers in industrialized countries of about 25 % of all available foods.

In light of the range of figures cited in the literature it would appear appropriate therefore to assume a rate of 25 % consumer food losses as an initial rough appro-ximation for the purpose of further analysis. For Germany, more detailed estimates are not yet available but a study has been commissioned (Aigner, 2011). However, this study aspires to not only discuss the general issue of food waste but to also look at specific products. We must therefore look at losses in the individual food groups.

Considerable differences in levels of wastage between different food groups In recent years a number of authors have analysed the scale of food losses, and in particular household food waste, in various industrialized countries around the world. These studies include the work of Gustavsson et al. (2011) which covers all of Europe and North America, Muth et al. (2011) for the United States, Selzer (2010) forAustria and WRAP (2008) for Great Britain. Taken together, the data contained in these studies give an indication of the relative differences in food losses by food groups. Figure 3.1 provides an overview of these data which have been adapted to the food group classification used in Chapter 2 for reasons of comparability.

It is still not possible to paint a clear picture or derive a clear message from the data. The differences between the individual studies in terms of their definitions of food groups and target regions are simply too large. Moreover, the ranges cited for individual food groups are quite considerable, although they are mostly a result of differences in terms of freshness and the degree of processing of the products concerned. Losses in fresh vegetables for example tend to be considerably higher than for preserved vegetables.

It is estimated that in private households in

Germany roughly a quarter of all food

is discarded.


However, given the estimated average 25 % food waste discussed above, some general trends may be deduced:

» This 25 % average does indeed roughly represent the mean of the range of data given in Fig. 3.1 and is therefore useful as a rough estimate.

» Consumer food waste in the “meat and meat products” food group would appear to be below this value across all the studies identified.

» Values for wastage of the main carbohydrate foods, and in particular of cereals and cereal products, are close to this mean.

» Wastage of fresh fruit and vegetables as well as fruit and vegetable products would appear to be, at least in part, considerably higher.

Figure 3.1Levels of consumer food waste for individual food

groups (in %)

Source: Own illustration after Gustavsson et al. (2011), Muth et al. (2011), Selzer

(2010) and WRAP (2008)

Food group Gustavsson et al. (2011) Muth et al. (2011)

Selzer (2010)

WRAP (2008)

Target region/country Europe North

America USA Austria Great Britain

Meat, meat products 15 15 15–29 9 13

Fish, fish products 20 42 17–40 13

Eggs, egg products 23 8

Milk, dairy products 8 15 8–42 8 3

Oils, fats 5 5 15–35

Cereals, cereal products

27 29 14–33 16–19 15–31

Potatoes, potato products

24 37 16–28

Vegetables, vegetable products

29 40 7–47 19 19–45

Fruit, fruit products 29 40 8–54 19 26

Sugar, sweets 15–34 15 11–17

22

Causes of food wastage at the consumer level Why is overall food wastage so high? And why is it apparently higher in some food groups and lower in others? Food waste is attributable to a range of causes (see i.a. Cofresco, 2011; Kantor et al., 1997; Monier et al., 2010; Parfill et al., 2010; Schneider, 2009; Selzer, 2010; WRAP, 2008). Some of the primary reasons are as follows:

» Poor pre-shop planning by householders is an important factor. Often too much food is bought and not eaten in time. Shopping strategies are often poor, especially if stocks at home are not checked prior to shopping. Additionally shoppers may respond to offers which tempt them to purchase foods which will not necessarily be consumed.

» Foods are often not consumed in time because they are stored incorrectly at home. Improper storage impacts adversely on taste, freshness and appearance which leads to food being discarded prematurely.

» Special preparation techniques such as the peeling, coring and trimming of fruit and vegetables results in waste, some of which is unavoidable.

» A further factor are misinterpretations of food date labels. Many products are discarded prematurely as shelf life dates are unclear, inconsistent or misleading or because they are misinterpreted. For example, many consumers do not know that the ‘best before’ date merely implies that the product will retain its expected quality until that date, not that it must be used by that date.

» This latter factor is, for example, an important determinant of the fact that potential wastage is closely linked to both food date labels and the general shelf-life of food products. It explains why fruit and vegetables as well as other fresh products are more often thrown away unnecessarily than others.

» Leftovers in catering establishments are a significant factor. More often than not, portions served at buffets and in the catering sector are too large. Food is often prepared ahead of demand and must, for reasons of food hygiene, be used promptly or discarded if it is not requested.

» Householders also often prepare meals in quantities that are too large to be fully eaten and which are then discarded, despite the fact that most households have refrigeration.

The overall picture that emerges in terms of food waste at the consumer level may be somewhat vague but is nonetheless remarkable. The amount of food loss at the household level in Germany was estimated by Cofresco (2011) to cost approximately EUR 25 billion; according to the same author 6.6 million tons of food are thrown out annually by German end consumers. This is more than 80 kg per head of population. It fits with the figure given by Monier et al. (2010) for the EU of 76 kg food waste per person and year at household level. WRAP (2008) give a figure of 70 kg for Britain. Gustavsson et al. (2011) have however arrived at a higher figure of 95-115 kg per person for Europe and the US together which may be due to the much higher relative losses in the US (see also Hall et al., 2009).

Much food is discarded

because the “best before”

date is misinterpreted.

end consumers throw away

6.6 million tons of food every

year.


These figures refer solely to edible food and must not be confused with kitchen waste, 15 million tons of which are generated annually in Germany (Adhikari et al., 2006). Such waste generally also includes packaging and inedible components such as fruit and vegetables peelings or bones (also see WRAP, 2008; 2010).

What are avoidable losses and what is the scale of avoidable losses?

Realizing the scale of the losses one must inevitably ask how much of the wastage listed in Fig. 3.1 is avoidable and also what the term ‘avoidable’ is taken to mean in this context.

Many of the issues touched on in the definition of ‘food waste’ given earlier already hint at wastage that can generally be avoided. The main options are as follows:

» Portions served in canteens and catering establishments could be more closely adapted to actual requirements.

» Food purchases could be more closely tailored to actual need by checking stocks beforehand.

» If an item is past its ‘best before’ date, this does not necessarily mean that it must be thrown out. Consumers should check the food’s quality as there may be no need to discard it.

» Leftovers may be frozen or used to make other meals. Firm data on avoidable consumer food waste are scarce too and major uncertainties remain. However, two rather similar figures, based on surveys and calculations, are available in the literature. These help to give an idea of the scale:

» Cofresco (2011) estimates that 59 % of consumer food waste in Germany is avoidable.

» British studies support this figure (WRAP, 2008). According to the WRAP study, 4.1 million tons or 61 % of the 6.7 million tons of food waste in Britain are avoida-ble. This figure is almost identical to the figure determined by Cofresco (2011) for Germany. In an update to their earlier study, WRAP (2011) recently confirmed the figure of 61 %.

Similar to food waste in general, the proportion of avoidable food waste does however vary between food groups, as other studies mentioned earlier have shown. In view of the above, we summarize this chapter with the data in Fig. 3.2. Due to the lack of more detailed data for Germany, Fig. 3.2 only indicates relative food waste in the first column, averaged from the data listed in Fig. 3.1. As was highlighted above, the derived figures are in the order of 25 %.

The majority of food waste

is avoidable.

24

What is interesting in this context is the figure of 16 % waste determined for meat and meat products, as this is almost identical to the 15 % correction factor mentioned in the previous chapter for losses in this product category at consumer level as proposed by Dämon & Widhalm (2003).

The second column of Fig. 3.2 gives the proportion of avoidable waste, based on the figures in WRAP (2008; 2010) for Britain. In the context of this study it would appear reasonable to use these figures as an approximation to the German situation, given that both per capita losses and overall avoidable losses are strongly congruent between the two countries, as described earlier.

In conclusion we can say that the majority of consumer food waste is principally avoidable. This is somewhat less true for perishable agricultural primary products such as meat and meat products, fish and fish products as well as fruit and vegetables. But even in these food groups approximately half of all wastage can be avoided by way of better pre-shop planning, proper use and preparation of foods as well as by making use of leftovers. For the other food groups analysed, the proportion of avoidable food waste is higher accordingly.

Figure 3.2Average relative food waste and avoidable food waste at consumer level in Germany

(in %)

Source: own calculations and representation after Gustavs-

son et al. (2011), Muth et al. (2011), Selzer 82010) and

WRAP (2008; 2010)

Food group

Average relative food waste

(as a proportion of reported consumption)

Avoidable food waste

(as a proportion of relative food waste)

Meat, meat products 16 48

Fish, fish products 26 48

Eggs, egg products 16 91

Milk, dairy products 14 91

Oils, fats 15 67

Cereals, cereal products 23 88


Vegetables, vegetable products 29 45

Fruit, fruit products 29 46

Sugar, sweets 15 87


The primary aim of this study is the analysis of land footprints resulting from a com-parison of dietary recommendations with eating habits and food losses respectively. The findings of the investigations so far, as given in Chapters 2 and 3, already allow us to sketch scenarios on potentially changed dietary patterns and eating habits. These scenarios are fundamental to the further analysis. A detailed rationale and definition of the scenarios will be given below.

What happens if actual eating habits more closely follow dietary recommendations? Let us recall the analysis of actual food consumption in Germany and recommended dietary guidelines. The differences between the two “dietary styles” are summarized in Fig. 2.6. The core message here was that the average person eats too much meat and not enough cereals, especially wholegrain products (also see DGE, 2008). Fish is the only food group where dietary guidelines are met, but fish consumption is not relevant to the further analysis as part of this project (cf. von Witzke et al., 2011).

The first scenario is based on the information given in Fig. 2.6 and can be defined as follows. Net consumption and the corresponding gross consumption for the purposes of human nutrition would

» decrease by 44.0 % for meat and meat products,

» decrease by 32.4 % for potatoes and potato products,

» decrease by 34.1 % for sugar and sweets,

» increase by 17.0 % for eggs,

» increase by 15.6 % for milk and dairy products,

» increase by 37.5 % for (vegetable) fats,

» increase by 44.0 % for cereals and cereal products (incl. all types of flour),

» increase by 57.6 % for rice,

» increase by 6.4 % for fruit and fruit products,

» increase by 75.4 % for vegetables and vegetable products.

Hereinafter this scenario will be referred to as “Scenario Ia: Comprehensive change in diet”. However, these changes would in part be rather drastic, so much so that without doubt they would be quite difficult to implement. For this reason, and also in order to demonstrate the considerable impact even small changes in eating habits can have, a second scenario will be defined below. It refers to dietary changes and is based on the following premise: at least one day a week without meat.

4 Definition of scenarios for further analysis

Comprehensive change in

diet means: 75 %

more vegetables, 44 % less meat

26

Meat consumption would thus drop by 14.3 % , representing almost precisely a third (32.5 % exactly) of the reduction seen under Scenario Ia. In order to ensure a balan-ced diet in this second scenario all changes are calculated as 32.5 % of the reductions or increases respectively of those in Scenario Ia. Hereinafter this second scenario will be referred to as “Scenario Ib: Gradual change in diet”.

Under Scenario Ib, net consumption and the corresponding gross consumption for the purposes of human nutrition would: » decrease by 14.3 % for meat and meat products,

» decrease by 10.5 % for potatoes and potato products,

» decrease by 11.1 % for sugar and sweets,

» increase by 5.5 % for eggs,

» increase by 5.1 % for milk and dairy products,

» increase by 12.2 % for (primarily vegetable) fats,

» increase by 14.3 % for cereals and cereal products (incl. all types of flour),

» increase by 18.7 % for rice,

» increase by 2.1 % for fruit and fruit products,

» increase by 24.5 % for vegetables and vegetable products.

In order to arrive at comparable land footprints of human food consumption in Germany, these rates of change are confronted with the analysis by von Witzke et al. (2011). This approach is referred to as “shocking the model”.

For reasons of methodology the analysis by von Witzke et al. (2011) is based on FAO data (FAO, 2011), i.e. the freely accessible “food balance sheets” for Germany. These balance sheets show the proportion of agricultural primary products available for human consumption after deductions for losses incurred on the way to the consumer. For the purposes of further analysis, the previous three years’ values for this “net food consumption” are averaged and the mean values used as a baseline. The baseline values are then “shocked” with the percentage changes according to the two scenarios.

The following two examples may help to illustrate the approach taken: The quantity of meat for human consumption in Germany reported in FAO (2011) is reduced by 44.0 % (Scenario Ia) and 14.3 % (Scenario Ib) respectively while the quantity of oranges is increased by 6.4 % (Scenario Ia) and 2.1 % (Scenario Ib) respectively. The changes in consumption thus triggered – assuming that all other parameters remain unchanged – would result in corresponding changes in terms of land consumption both inside and outside of the EU. In analogy to Witzke et al. (2011), these changes can be determined for individual agricultural primary products.

Gradual change in diet

means: 24,5 %

more vegetables, 14,3 %

less meat


The potential impact of reducing food waste While the FAO (2011) data consider some of the food losses incurred on the way to the consumers, they do not take account of food losses at the level of the end consu-mers as described in Chapter 3. Therefore it is useful to compare these data to their corresponding reduction potential and to analyse their impact on the land footprint of human nutrition in Germany.

To this end we must again go back to the already completed analysis, or more speci-fically to the results given in Figure 3.2 for the average avoidable food waste by food group. Similar to the two scenarios for aligning actual eating habits with dietary recommendations, it is useful here to define two scenarios for the reduction of food waste:

» The first scenario examines the impact of a complete reduction of avoidable food waste at the consumer level in Germany on the net consumption and the corresponding gross consumption for human nutrition. This is “Scenario IIa: Complete reduction of avoidable food waste”.

» In contrast, “Scenario IIb: Partial reduction of avoidable food waste” assumes “only” a 50 % reduction of avoidable food waste. Similar to Scenario Ib this is based on the assumption that a complete change in consumer behaviour appears unrealistic for the time being. But even a partial change in the way consumers deal with food would have significant impacts which are worth analysing.

28

Figure 4.1 below shows the rates of change which are to be used to “shock” the data by von Witzke et al. (2011), as described above. Again, the following two examples help to understand the approach: Currently, approximately 16 % of the beef that reaches the consumer is lost as a result of preparation, spoilage, passing the ‚best before‘ date and so on. In Scenario IIa about half of these losses, i.e. 8 %, are taken to be avoidable; the corresponding figure for Scenario IIb is 4 %. On average, 23 % of wheat products are lost at the consumer level. Of these, 90 % are considered avoi-dable in Scenario IIa, equating to a reduction of approximately 20 percentage points. In Scenario IIb, 45 % of the losses are considered avoidable, equating to a reduction of about 10 percentage points.

Scenarios Ia and Ib as well as IIa and IIb provide the framework for further analysis. As this framework is based on a common set of data it allows for (a) dietary styles and (b) the German population’s “throw-away” mentality to be discussed independently of each other but also allows for comparisons.

Food groupSzenario IIa:

Complete reduction of avoidable food waste

Szenario IIb: Partial reduction of

avoidable food waste

Meat, meat products 8 % 4 %

Fish, fish products 12 % 6 %

Eggs, egg products 14 % 7 %

Milk, dairy products 12 % 6 %

Oils, fats 10 % 5 %

Cereals, cereal products 20 % 10 %

Potatoes, potato products 18 % 9 %

Vegetables, vegetable products 14 % 7 %

Fruit, fruit products 14 % 7 %

Sugar, sweets 14 % 7 %

Figure 4.1Reduction in net

consumption and corresponding gross

consumption for human nutrition resulting from

a reduction in avoidable food waste

Source: own calculations based on Figure 3.2


The term “healthy” is taken to mean a closer alignment of actual eating habits with scientific dietary recommendations, more precisely those given by DGE and FKE. In particular, the impact on overall agricultural land consumption of the first two scenarios set out in the previous Chapter, i.e. “Scenario Ia: Comprehensive change in diet” and “Scenario Ib: Gradual change in diet”, are to be shown.

The status quo: Every person in Germany has a land footprint of 2.900 m2

As an introduction let us take a brief look at Germany’s current land footprint, as analysed by von Witzke et al. (2011). The authors calculated Germany’s average land footprint for 2008-10.

» Germany’s utilized agricultural area comprises 16.9 million ha. Germany also “occupies” a further 6.8 million ha outside of its territory in order to meet its domestic demand for food and feedstuffs as well as for other agricultural commodities. In purely arithmetical terms this equates to a per capita land use of 2,900 m². In the near future however only a maximum of 2000 m² may be available per head of our global population (Doyle, 2011). Therefore, our basic problem will be to find a way to reduce our future land footprint.

» Approximately one third of the area currently “used” by each German citizen, 1,030 m² to be precise, is needed to meet our meat consumption level of almost 90 kg per person per year. Meat is therefore a critical determinant of the size of our land footprint and also for changing this footprint. For comparison, the annual land consumption per person in Germany for wheat for human consumption is as small as 123 m² and that for potatoes a mere 15 m².

» Of the land area required to meet our demand for meat, 230 m² are needed to produce soya beans. This one single crop plant is particularly relevant in terms of our demand for land resources outside of Germany. Of the 6.8 million ha of agricultural land mentioned above, 2.2 million ha serve the trade in soya and soya products from South America. Soya produced in that region alone therefore accounts for a third of our net land imports for agricultural purposes.

5 Impacts of a healthier diet on Germany’s land footprint

2.900 m²of agricultural land

per year are needed by every person in

Germany; 2300 m² of this land are required for food production.

30

Even small changes can reduce the land footprint So how do these figures change if we alter our dietary patterns and align them with scientific recommendations for a healthy diet? In order to answer this question, three analytic steps must be taken:

» As a first step, German food demand must be established, using the FAO data (FAO, 2011). In contrast to national consumption statistics, the FAO “food balance sheets” are based on agricultural primary products, which is the relevant level for the purposes of determining effects on land area requirements.

» As a second step, the rates of change established for Scenarios Ia and Ib in Chapter 4 will be applied to these data, i.e. the demand data will be reduced or increased as appropriate.

» Finally, under otherwise unchanged conditions, the changed figures for the demand of food products can be used to calculate new trade balances and in turn new land footprints. Figure 5.1 shows the changes in Germany’s virtual land trade resulting from the implementation of Scenario Ia and Scenario Ib respectively.

One day a week without meat frees up almost 600.000 ha Even just a gradual adaptation of our dietary style, such as forms the basis of Scenario Ib, could considerably alter our land footprint. An example would be to refrain from eating meat for one day per week. Instead of the current 6.8 million ha of agricultural land utilized outside of Germany’s territory, only 6.2 million ha would be needed. Such a small change in eating habits could reduce our land footprint by an area twice the size of the federal state of Saarland.

Full implementation of recommendations would free up 1.8 million ha of land The impact of a complete change in diet in line with the scientific recommendations, as issued by the DGE for example, would be even more significant. In this case, Germany’s land footprint could be reduced by more than 1.8 million ha down to 5 mil-lion ha required outside of its territory. A quarter of the area “occupied” by Germany in other parts of the world could thus be freed up for other types of land use, such as global food security or nature conservation. The area “occupied” by each inhabitant of Germany would be reduced by 230 m². The total area thus released is almost exactly the size of the federal state of Saxony.

Figure 5.1Germany’s virtual net land

use outside of its territory at present and resulting from

changed eating habits.


Status quo 6.836 million ha

Scenario Ia 5.000 million ha

Scenario Ib 6.240 million ha

a small reduction in meat consumption yields a significant

drop in land consumption.


Feedstuffs used to produce meat and other livestock productsare critical to the land trade balance The impact of changes in eating habits, such as for example the consumption of significantly more cereals and significantly less meat, on virtual land use differs for individual agricultural products. This in turn affects the overall land trade balance. It is well known that meat consumption in particular requires huge amounts of land resources to be committed to the production of feedstuffs and therefore has a major impact on our land trade balance. Changes in meat consumption levels therefore have a greater impact on the land trade balance than changes in the consumption levels for cereal products, as shown in Fig. 5.2.

Figure 5.2Virtual net land trade

balances for Germany with respect to individual

agricultural commodities – current levels and changes

resulting from modified eating habits (in 1,000 ha)


agricultural commodities Status quo Scenario Ia Scenario Ib

Total Total Change Total Change

Wheat 464 –77 –541 288 –176

Grain maize –208 –277 –68 –230 –22

Other cereals –106 –208 –102 –139 –33

Rice –97 –163 –66 –118 –21

Soya –2.090 –2.146 –56 –2.108 –18

Oil palm –493 –497 –4 –495 –1

Oilseed rape –855 –913 –58 –874 –19

Sunflower –420 –475 –55 –438 –18

Other oilseeds –423 –484 –61 –442 –20

Cocoa –990 –990 0 –990 0

Coffee –619 –619 0 –619 0

Tea –90 –90 0 –90 0

Tobacco –2 –2 0 –2 0

Fruit –765 –792 –26 –774 –9

Potatoes 8 61 52 25 17

Vegetables –65 –139 –74 –89 –24

Legumes –160 –205 –45 –175 –15

Sugar crops –14 79 92 16 30

Beef 179 1.594 1.415 639 460

Pigmeat 239 1.936 1.696 791 551

Poultrymeat –132 322 454 15 148

Sheepmeat –142 –26 116 –105 38

Eggs –226 –322 –96 –257 –31

Milk 362 –376 –738 121 –241

Cotton –191 –191 0 –191 0

Totals –6.836 –5.000 1.836 –6.240 595

32

A diet based on scientific recommendations would save 1.84 million ha of agricultural land In Figure 5.2, positive values for changes in acreage indicate that a modified diet would free up agricultural land for other uses to the extent denoted by the figures given. In contrast, negative values indicate additional need for cropland. Indeed, a change from the current (average) diet to a diet based on scientific recommendations would not be a ‘one-way street’, as a healthy diet would imply that lesser amounts would be consumed of some products and greater amounts of others as illustrated in Figure 5.3.

Potential developments in terms of land use requirements for individual crop types and livestock products vary accordingly. The data in Figure 5.2 show some interesting differences which will only be discussed for Scenario Ia below. Proportionate effects – at a ratio of about 1:3 – apply to Scenario Ib.

» As can be seen from Figure 5.3, if the dietary recommendations were followed a much greater amount of carbohydrates would need to be consumed in the form of cereal products for example (plus 44 %). The implication for Germany would be that virtual land use of cereal cropland, including for rice, would need to increase by just under 800,000 ha.

Figure 5.3Changes in the average German diet that would result if DGE and FKE

recommendations were followed


Mea

t and

mea

t pro

duct

s

Pot

atoe

s an

d po

tato

pro

duct

s

Sug

ar a

nd s

wee

ts Eg

gs

Milk

and

dai

ry p

rodu

cts

Vege

tabl

e fa

ts

Cer

eals

and

cer

eal p

rodu

cts

Ric

e

Vege

tabl

es a

nd v

eget

able

pro

duct

s

Frui

t and

frui

t pro

duct

s

32.4 %

17.0 %

44.0 %

15.6 %

37.5 %

44.0 %

57.6 %

6.4 %

75.4 %

34.1 %


» The slightly higher consumption of vegetable fats would also require a small increase in the area of virtual land needed for their production. In this context it is important to point out that the changes in cropland requirements shown in Figure 5.2, e.g. for soya or other oilseeds, only consider changes in human food consumption such as changes in consumption levels of vegetable oils or possibly oilseed-based products such as tofu etc. Changes in livestock feed consumption are not (!) yet considered in these calculations. They will however be considered in the calculation of land requirements and changes in consumption levels of livestock-based products resulting from dietary changes (see further below).

» A healthier diet would also entail greater consumption levels of fruit, vegetables and legumes, adding additional cropland requirements. A change in dietary style as outlined above would result in an additional requirement of 1.0 million ha of cropland for the production of all the crop primary products.

» In contrast, there would be a considerable drop in the area of land needed to satisfy the demand for livestock-based foods. Figure 5.2 shows that the change in pigmeat consumption alone would bring about the virtual release from land trade of almost as much land as the total change of 1.8 million ha in the virtual net land trade balance. DGE and others recommend that pigmeat consumption in Germany should be reduced by more than 3 million tons! Such a change would result in almost 3.7 million ha of land to be freed up, equating to more than half of Germany’s current virtual land trade. To summarize, the land consumption required to satisfy meat consumption is visualized in Figure 5.4.

» This reduction in land consumption is primarily due to the lesser amounts of livestock feed that would be needed, e.g. soya and oilseed rape as well as grain maize and other feed grains. The cropland thus released in Germany could for example be used to grow staple foods for export with a view to improving the global food situation. Moreover, lesser amounts of feedstuffs would need to be imported from abroad. This would in turn free up land for e.g. resource protection or nature conservation. The positive land trade balance resulting from a reduction in meat consumption levels as shown in Figure 5.2. is thus primarily due to improved land trade balances for feedstuffs.

» The latter would result from increased land exports by Germany (e.g. in the form of wheat) as well as from virtual land imports not occurring in the first place (e.g. in the form of soya). These areas could also be accounted for as part of the land trade balances for individual crop plants by subtracting the acreages from the balances for meat given above. We will demonstrate this approach below, using the example of soya.

Figure 5.4Impact of reduced meat

consumption on Germany’s land consumption


Current land consumption resulting from meat

consumption

Land consumption if meat consumption is based on dietary recommendations 4,72 million ha

8,42 million ha

7,22 million haLand consumption if meat

is not consumed for one day per week

34

» But first the discussion of Fig. 5.2 should be concluded. We have shown that reduced meat consumption could free up 3.7 million ha of agricultural land. However, some of this acreage would need to cater for the increased consumption of other livestock products as part of a healthier diet, such as eggs and milk. The calculations show the required acreage to be in the order of 834,000 ha.

» Considering all crops and livestock primary products together, a change to a diet that is fully based on scientific guidelines would still free up an area of approximately 1.84 million ha.

In conclusion it can be said that a change in meat consumption levels in Germany as described would free up an area of agricultural land equating to the size of the federal state of Baden-Württemberg. To ensure a healthy diet however, consumption levels for other products would increase, reducing this gain by half to an area roughly equating to the size of the federal state of Saxony, which is still a very substantial area.

The ‘soya footprint’ of a changed diet We have already touched on the fact that the potential of decreased meat consumption to free up land is primarily due to a lesser acreage being required for the production of livestock feed. These gains could therefore also be assigned to the relevant crop primary products instead of the livestock products, as was done in Fig. 5.2. The same is true for the increased consumption of milk and eggs. However, the methodology used by von Witzke et al. (2011) does not really allow for this approach to be taken. Nevertheless we can produce some sample calculations to give an indication of the dimensions involved.

In this context, and similar to the work by von Witzke et al. (2011), the land footprint of changes in meat consumption overall and, for comparison, the specific footprint of soya production need to be established. To recall, German annual per capita meat consumption stands at 88 kg, including 13 kg of beef, 56 kg of pork, 19 kg of poultry-meat, and 1 kg of sheepmeat (Fefac, 2010). Based on these figures we can calculate the area of land needed to satisfy this per capita meat consumption overall and specifi-cally for soya.

Total area Area of land needed Status quo Scenario Ia Scenario Ib

Product (m²/kg of product) (m²/person)

Beef 27.0 351 197 301

Pigmeat 8.9 498 279 427

Poultrymeat 8.1 154 86 132

Sheepmeat 27.0 27 15 23

Meat, total 1.030 577 883

Soya cropland Quantity of soya needed Status quo Scenario Ia Scenario Ib

Product (g/kg of product) (m2/person)

Beef 232 12 7 10

Pigmeat 648 143 80 123

Poultrymeat 967 73 41 63

Sheepmeat 232 1 1 1

Meat, total 229 128 196

Figure 5.5Annual land consumption

per person in Germany resulting from meat con-sumption at present and

under the scenarios of changed eating habits



Lowered meat consumption reduces specific land footprint to 577 m² If we multiply the meat quantities consumed with the land areas needed for their production in Germany (von Witzke et al., 2011), the resultant figures show that the current land area requirement to satisfy each person’s meat consumption comes to a total of more than 1,000 m². This land footprint of each individual person in Germany would be considerably lower under Scenarios Ia and Ib respectively. A complete change in diet would result in a per capita land footprint of 577 m², i.e. about half that of the status quo, and would free up 3.7 million ha of land.

Our cropland consumption for soya could be reduced by 700.000 ha Under Scenario Ia, per capita land consumption for soya production would be reduced from 229m² to only 128 m², if we focus solely on meat consumption. These figures result from calculating the current levels of soya fed to livestock per unit of livestock product divided by average soya yields based on the latest available figures on production and foreign trade structures (for details see von Witzke et al., 2011). Currently each person requires an area the size of a tennis court to produce this soya; under Scenario Ia only half a tennis court is needed. In other words, a change in diet based on scientific recommendations, including a significant reduction in meat consumption, would free up 826,000 ha of soya cropland alone (also see Figure 5.6).

Since the scenario aims at reflecting a comprehensive change in diet, some adjust-ments must be made. Firstly, the additional soya cropland required for the production of eggs and milk must be subtracted. This comes to approximately 75,000 ha (see von Witzke et al., 2011). Secondly, the additional consumption of vegetable oils must be accounted for. This would “cost” an additional 56,000 ha (please refer back to the discussion regarding Figure 5.2). Nevertheless, at about 700,000 ha the net land gain with respect to soya cropland alone would be quite considerable. And in contrast to Figure 5.2. this gain reflects not only food consumption per se but also the feedstuffs used in the production of this food. The “savings” made equate to an area roughly ten times the size of the city state of Hamburg or the annual increase in soya cropland in Brazil over roughly the past two decades (see FAO, 2011). These figures refer to Scenario Ia. Under Scenario Ib 225,000 ha could be free up, equating to an area the size of the federal state of Saarland.

The results demonstrate that a change in eating habits in the German population could result in substantial resource savings. Minimizing food losses is expected to have a similar effect. The following chapter aims at quantifying this effect and examines which food groups are particularly worth focusing on.

Germany’s land consumption resulting from soya imports

to meet current levels of meat consumption

Germany’s land consumption resulting from soya imports to meet meat consumption

levels based on dietary recommendations

1.05 million ha

1.60 million ha

1.87 million ha

Germany’s land consumption resulting from soya imports to meet meat consumption

levels if meat is skipped once a week

Figure 5.6Land consumption resulting

from soya imports


a change in eating habits

in the German population could

result in substantial resource savings

36

If the Germans changed their eating habits to be in line with the recommendations issued by dieticians they would consume less meat. Less meat means less soya imports. Lowered soya imports would free up 700,000 hectares of soya cropland for other uses. This is an area equating to the annual increase in soya cropland in Brazil over roughly the past two decades.

The following discussion addresses the two scenarios regarding consumer food waste as set out in Chapter 4, i.e. “Scenario IIa: Complete reduction of avoidable food waste” and “Scenario IIb: Partial reduction of avoidable food waste”. Figure 6.1 shows the status quo in terms of Germany’s virtual land use outside of its territory as well as the two food waste reduction scenarios.

A 50 % reduction in avoidable food waste frees up 1.2 million ha It is apparent that reductions in consumer-level food waste would lead to a significant decrease in Germany’s virtual land use. If avoidable food waste was even just reduced by half (Scenario IIb), 1.2 million ha of land would be ‘gained’ and would be available for other forms of land use. The complete elimination of avoidable food waste (Scena-rio IIa) would reduce virtual land use by 2.4 million ha, which means that instead of 6.8 million ha, Germany would only need to “occupy” 4.4 million ha in other coun-tries. In conjunction with its own agricultural area this acreage would be sufficient to meet current demand for agricultural primary and secondary products. The average German per capita land footprint for agricultural products would decrease by more than 10 % from 2,900 m² to 2,600 m².

Same as a change in eating habits based on scientific recommendations, a reduction in food waste clearly has considerable potential for freeing up agricultural land. The former would yield up to 1.8 million ha while a reduction in avoidable food waste at the consumer level alone could yield 2.4 million ha. However, the footprint effects of these two “strategies” should not be pitted against each other. Attention should instead be directed at synergies. It is very likely that simultaneous developments in both lines of action will yield considerably higher footprint effects than calculated here. However, it is beyond the scope of this comparative analysis to account for an aggregate impact.

6 Impacts of a reduction of food waste on Germany’s land footprint

Figure 6.1Germany’s virtual land use outside of its territory given

current levels of food wastage and under the

scenarios of reduced consu-mer level food waste


Status quo

Scenario IIa

Scenario IIb

6.836 million ha

4.430 million ha

5.633 million ha

38

Focus on the land footprints of individual products In this Chapter, the discussion on the footprint effects of Scenarios IIa and IIb takes a different focus than that in the previous Chapter. Moreover, the discussion below serves to widen this study’s framework for analysis. The focus is again on the land footprint of meat consumption but it also includes other agricultural primary and secondary products.

In this context, Figure 6.2 provides an overview of Germany’s virtual net land trade balances for individual commodities and total agricultural primary products at pre-sent (status quo) and under the two scenarios of reductions in avoidable food waste.

Figure 6.2Germany’s virtual net land

trade balances for individual agricultural products at

present and under consumer-level food waste

reduction scenarios (in 1,000 ha)


Agricultural commodity Status quo Scenario IIa Scenario IIb

Total Total Change Total Change

Soya –2.090 –2.072 18 –2.081 9

Cocoa –990 –821 169 –906 84

Oilseed rape –855 –836 19 –846 9

Fruit –765 –691 74 –728 37

Coffee –619 –513 106 –566 53

Oil palm –493 –492 1 –493 1

Wheat 464 751 287 608 144

Other oilseeds –423 –397 26 –410 13

Sunflower –420 –402 18 –411 9

Milk 362 960 598 661 299

Pigmeat 239 576 336 408 168

Eggs –226 –140 86 –183 43

Grain maize –208 –172 36 –190 18

Cotton –191 –191 0 –191 0

Beef 179 459 280 319 140

Legumes –160 –136 24 –148 –12

Sheepmeat –142 –119 23 –131 12

Other cereals –106 –52 54 –79 27

Poultrymeat –132 –42 90 –87 45

Rice –97 –71 27 –84 13

Tea –90 –75 15 –83 8

Vegetables –65 –48 17 –57 9

Sugar crops –14 43 57 15 28

Potatoes 8 52 44 30 22

Tobacco –2 –2 0 –2 0

Totals –6.836 –4.430 2.406 –5.633 1.203


Cutting wastage of cereals alone could save 50 m² per person Chapter 3 of this study has shown that almost a third of cereals intended for human consumption are discarded. More than that, most of this wastage is avoidable. The partial or complete avoidance of cereal waste could therefore give rise to substantial footprint effects. Under Scenario IIb, and including rice, a 50 % cut in avoidable waste of cereal-based foods would free up 200,000 ha. Cutting all avoidable waste of cereal-based foods would free up 400,000 ha, an area ten times the size of the city state of Bremen. This reduction in cereal consumption alone would save 50 m² per person and would thus reduce the current German per capita land footprint of 2,900 m² accordingly.

Oilseeds could free up an area the size of Hamburg The footprint effects of cutting wastage of oilseeds are less pronounced. Two aspects must be considered: Firstly, wastage of vegetable oils and fats are lower overall com-pared to for example cereals and these losses are also less avoidable (see Figure 3.2). Secondly, the calculations once again only include the usage and wastage of soya (in the form of soya beans, tofu, soya bean oil etc.) and other oilseeds for human consumption. Feedstuffs consumed by livestock to produce livestock products which are subsequently discarded have been assigned to the land footprint balances for meat etc. (see the rea-soning in the previous chapter). Nevertheless, the area of cropland that could be freed up by reducing consumer-level waste of oilseeds is not insignificant, with a complete reduction of wastage yielding approximately 80,000 ha. This area equates to a little more than the territory of the city state of Hamburg and would reduce the German per capita land footprint for food by about 10m².

All plant-based products taken together could free up almost 1 million ha of land Reducing food waste in other categories of plant-based foods could similarly bring about significant reductions in land consumption. Fruit and vegetables including potatoes would contribute more than 100,000 ha if all wastage was eliminated, while legumes and sugar could yield about 80,000 ha. Tropical crops such as coffee, cocoa and tea, for which average avoidable losses were assumed in accordance with Fig. 3.2 due to a lack of other data, could yield 290,000 ha. In total, the complete reduction of consumer-level waste of all plant-based products, excluding cereals and oilseeds, would free up 475,000 ha of cropland. This equates to a 60 m² decrease in the German per capita land footprint for food, with a partial reduction yielding half these savings accordingly.

In total, the reduction of losses, as defined for the purpose of this study, of crop primary products could lower Germany’s land consumption by 121 m² per person or 1,000,000 ha in total – eleven times the size of the country’s capital Berlin.

Lower meat consumption would save 90 m² per person Meat consumption ties up large areas of land needed to produce the necessary livestock feed. This key finding by von Witzke et al. (2011) has already been highligh-ted earlier. Avoidable meat waste is relatively minor (see Fig. 3.2) but minimizing consumer-level waste would nonetheless free up large acreages for other land uses.

40

Cutting wastage of pigmeat and poultrymeat alone could yield more land than cutting wastage of cereals for human consumption. If it was possible to actually avoid all avoidable waste of meat products, 730,000 ha of land could be “won”, reducing the German per capita land footprint for food by approximately 90 m². This area equates to about half the size of the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein or almost three times the Saarland.

Avoiding losses of all livestock products would yield 1,4 million ha In the discussion of footprint effects resulting from reducing food waste, milk is of particular significance. While only about 14 % of the milk products purchased are lost at the consumer level, in contrast to meat waste almost all of these losses are avoida-ble. Moreover, same as meat production, milk production ties up large areas of land. A complete reduction of dairy food waste could free up almost 600,000 ha of land, with a 50 % reduction in waste yielding close to 300,000 ha. The German per capita land footprint could thus be reduced by almost 75 m².

If we add the footprint effects of reducing wastage of eggs, the complete reduction of avoidable food waste in the ‘livestock products’ category could free up more than 1.4 million ha. A partial reduction could generate a saving of 700,000 ha of this precious resource which could be put to good use for e.g. global food security or nature conser-vation. The German per capita land footprint for food, currently at 2900 m², would shrink accordingly by more than 170 m². This is the size of a volleyball court or, in total, almost the size of the federal state of Schleswig-Holstein.

0.25 million ha of soya bean cropland would be freed up for other uses Finally a word on land consumption for soya bean production: It was determined ear-lier in the text (see Fig. 6.2) that a reduction in losses of soya bean oil etc. for human consumption could release up to 18,000 ha of cropland. Land that would no longer be required to produce livestock feed, given that reduced meat waste means that fewer animals need to be reared and fed, must be added to these ‘savings’. Analogous to Figure 5.5, Figure 6.3 below shows the changes that can be expected from a reduction in consumer-level meat waste.

Reduced meat consumption could yield “savings” of up to 20 m² per person in soya cropland alone. That does not sound like much but the sum total for all of Germany’s 81.8 million inhabitants comes to a rather considerable 164.000 ha which is greater than the territory of London, one of the largest cities in Europe. The redundant area of soya cropland would however be even bigger since the production of milk and eggs

Soya cropland Quantity of soya needed Status quo Scenario IIa Scenario IIb

Product (g/kg of product) (m2/person)

Beef 232 12 11 12

Pigmeat 648 143 131 137

Poultrymeat 967 73 67 70

Sheepmeat 232 1 1 1

Meat, total 229 209 219

Figure 6.3Annual land consumption per person in Germany resulting

from meat consumption at present and under the

scenarios of reductions in consumer-level meat waste


Meat consumption ties up

large areas of land needed to produce

the required livestock feed.


also consumes soya feed. A complete elimination of avoidable waste of milk and eggs at the consumer level would add further “savings” of 65,000 ha. Taking all food and feed uses of soya together, just under 250,000 ha of cropland could be saved if food waste was eliminated. This would be an area almost the size of the federal state of Saarland.

If both food and feed uses are considered, the land savings for soya are again signifi-cantly higher than those shown in Figure 6.2, which solely considers soya for human consumption. This shows how important it is to always put calculations and figures into the correct perspective and not to jump to conclusions. The issue of food and land consumption is indeed a complex one and it has many facets as both von Witzke et al. (2011) and the present study have shown.

Food consumption alone is responsible for an estimated land footprint of 2,300 m² It had not been possible until now to deduce, using the data and methods employed in this WWF project, a land footprint for Germany solely for the consumption com-ponent “Food”. What was known was only that the consumption of all agricultural primary products, i.e. for food, clothing, energy etc., fairly precisely required 2,900 m² per person and that meat consumption accounted for approximately 1,000 m² of this footprint.

However, we can now combine the calculated reductions in the specific land foot-prints of individual crops or agricultural products with the rates of change resulting from the avoidance of food waste as given in Figure 4.1. This allows for conclusions on the approximate size of the German land footprint that is solely due to food consump-tion. The estimates for individual food groups and the resultant total land footprint of our food consumption are shown in Figure 6.4.

Figure 6.4

Land footprint of food consumption in Germany in

2008-2010 (in m²/person)


Cereals (incl. rice)Oilseeds

Coffee/cocoa/teaFruit and vegetablesOther plant products

BeefPigmeat

Milk and dairy productsOther livestock products

212

86

208

62

66

351

498

579

250

42

Land consumption solely for food can thus be estimated at 2,312 m² per person in Germany or 80 % of the area needed to meet the demand for all agricultural products and goods produced thereof . The total German land footprint for food therefore comes to almost exactly 19 million ha. In addition to the 1,030 m² land footprint for meat, the footprint for milk also stands out, accounting for a quarter of the total area. Plant-based foods add another 600 m².

This synopsis allows us to draw final conclusions on the reduction potential of avoi-ding food waste and of implementing changes in eating habits:

» A complete reduction of all avoidable consumer-level food waste in Germany would free up more than 290m² per inhabitant. This equates to a 13 % reduction in the land footprint for food. A 50 % reduction of food waste would yield half of these savings accordingly.

» At the same time, dietary changes in line with scientific recommendations could yield savings of almost 230 m². This would represent a reduction of just under 10 % in the land footprint of our food consumption.

a healthy diet and less food

waste can reduce our land footprint

by almost a quarter.


The land footprint of our strongly meat-based diet is very large. This is the interim result of the first part of this WWF project on the interconnections between food, meat and land consumption, the protection of natural resources and climate change. The focus on land footprint effects of consumption taken in this part of the study is of course a strong simplification of the issues involved as “land” is also representative of other resources such as water or biodiversity.

The results of the second part of the study presented here have confirmed the interim conclusions drawn in the first part and allow for these conclusions to be extended. The findings are as follows:

» We need a more conscious approach to dealing with food. Both a healthier diet that is more closely in line with existing dietary recommendations and a correction of our throw-away mentality are realizable options. They can both provide substantial savings in agricultural land consumption, thus contributing to meeting global challenges such as resource protection, ecosystem conservation and safeguarding global food security.

Dieticians recommend to stay away from meat more often and to eat more fruit, vegetables, and particularly more cereals instead. If it was possible to achieve such a change in eating habits in Germany, a net area of up to 1,8 million ha of agricultural land that is currently drawn on outside of Germany’s territory could be freed up for other uses. Or to take a different perspective: In view of the growing world population and the increasing pressure on land, 1.8 million ha of intact ecosystems would not need to be converted into farmland.

7 Conclusions and outlook

18.8 million ha/yearCurrent German global land consumption for food1)

if all unnecessary food waste was avoided2)

1.8 million ha/yearif meat consumption wasreduced to a healthy level3)

2.4 million ha/year

Figure 7.1Current German land consumption for food

and achievable reductions resulting from

healthy eating habits and a more prudent attitude

to dealing with food.


Key: 1) at a meat consumption level of 1.16 kg per person per week 2) if approximately 50 kg of food waste per person per year is avoided 3) at a meat consumption level of max. 600 g per person per week

44

Even greater footprint effects could be achieved if all avoidable consumer-level food waste was avoided. For Germany alone the pressure on land resources could be redu-ced by more than 2.4 million ha. And this does not even include the potential effects of avoiding food losses at the producer, processing and marketing levels.

Changes in eating habits and minimization of food waste would free up at least 4 million ha of arable land and grassland

Given the above, we may put forth the following hypothesis for Germany: If it was possible to motivate the end consumers to tackle both issues, i.e. to change their eating habits and to minimize food waste, significantly less arable land and grassland would be needed, with possible savings amounting to more than 4 million ha. It would be possible to reduce the German per capita land footprint resulting from the consumption of agricultural commodities by at least 500 m² down to approximately 2,900 m². We should recall in this context, that global-level forecasts predict only 2000 m² of land to be available per person by 2050 to meet all food needs.

It is clear that such developments are not realistically achievable in the short-term and perhaps never will be in their entirety. But even gradual changes in behavioural patterns can have noticeable footprint effects as this study has shown. It is therefore important to raise people’s awareness of their individual responsibility for land as a scarce resource and for the agricultural commodities produced on this land, i.e. primarily food and also feedstuffs used to produce food.

Such a raised awareness would not only help the climate and biodiversity and serve other ecological objectives but it would additionally make an important contribution to safeguarding the supply of agricultural commodities for a growing world popula-tion. This change in awareness would therefore not only be of relevance to Germany but it would be of global societal significance.

Figure 7.2 Current annual per capita land consumption for food and achievable reductions

resulting from healthy eating habits and a more prudent

attitude to dealing with food.


2.900 m2

Land consumption for all agricultural

commodities per year

2.300 m2

for food per year1)

2.000 m2

per person globally availablearable land in 2050

230 m2

if meat consumption was reduced to a

healthy level 2)

290 m2

if all unnecessaryfood waste

was avoided3)

Key: 1) at a meat consumption level of 1.16 kg per person per week

2) at a meat consumption level of max. 600 g per person per week 3) if approximately 50 kg of food waste per person per year is avoided


This is where the second part of this WWF project ends. It also marks the beginning of the third and final part which will focus on the issue of climate impacts. Land use and land consumption always entail direct or indirect greenhouse gas emissions or the avoidance thereof. Agriculture is a direct and significant emitter of climate gases, primarily nitrous oxide and methane. Agriculture’s indirect emissions are the result of regional land use changes which result in sequestered carbon being released into the atmosphere. Consequently, the focus taken here on the impact of individual agricultural products on land trade balances must be extended to include a regional component. More specifically, we must look at the potential impact of the scenarios defined in this part of the study on footprint effects in individual world regions and on the resultant climate impacts.

The question that remains to be addressed by the project as a whole can thus be phrased as follows: How large are the German food and food waste climate foot-prints? In pursuing this question we will calculate and discuss the climate footprint of our food consumption in addition to its land footprint as detailed in this study.

46

The “land footprint” and the “soya footprint” of our strongly meat-based diet are very large and have negative repercussions for the environment. Moreover, at an average of 60 kg of per person and year we would also be well advised to reconsider our meat consumption levels from a health point of view. The German Nutrition Society (DGE) recommends a level of 300-600 g per week which is significantly less than half of what is currently being consumed. A healthy and balanced diet in which vegetables and cereal products are more frequently substituted for meat can thus make an important contribution to both our health and to the protection of rainforests and other species-rich ecosystems.

Furthermore, the WWF recommends that when consumers buy meat they do so more consciously and buy meat that is produced with the least environmental impact. Generally this includes meat produced to the standards of the EU Organic Regulation, the organic farming associations or the Neuland producer association, as well as “pastured meat” from livestock kept on pasture year-round.

It is the view of the WWF Germany that key criteria for “good” meat are as follows:

» In the production of feedstuffs the use of chemical nitrogen fertilizers is not per-mitted. The aim should be that material and energy cycles are closed to the greatest extent possible.

» In the production of feedstuffs the use of synthetic plant protection products is not permitted.

» In the production of feedstuffs the use of genetically modified crop plants is not permitted.

» Livestock management fulfils the animals’ welfare requirements. This includes i.a. that the animals enjoy sufficient space for movement throughout the year and have access to pasture / outdoor runs year-round. Fully slatted houses are not permitted.

» Painful procedures may only be carried out under anaesthesia and with pain treatment. Moreover, practices such as for example tail-docking or tooth-cutting in pig production, as they are frequently used in conventional livestock production, are prohibited.

» The use of conventional medication is only permitted in exceptional cases. Pre-ventive use of antibiotics and the use of antibiotics for fattening are prohibited. Similarly, synthetic growth promoters and production enhancers must not be used.

» Cattle, sheep and other ruminants spend much of their time on pasture and their feed consists largely of green feed (grass, hay, silage, clover) (“pastured meat”).

» Live transports of livestock should not exceed a duration of four hours.

For further information please see: www.wwf.de/themen/landwirtschaft/

WWF recommendations


» A broad and long-term information campaign on household food waste Information campaigns at the political and social levels are generally useful, as evidenced by the current discussion on misinterpretations of “best before” dates. However, one might doubt whether information campaigns of short duration would truly be able to impact on the fundamental lack of awareness on how to correctly deal with food. The process of altering engrained behaviour, such as our attitude to dealing with food, is premised on a change in values, and that takes time. Such a change in values will either be born out of shortages brought on crisis situations, which are not to be wished on anyone, or out of the knowledge of the consequences of our wasteful behaviour. To achieve the latter, the findings presented in this study would need to become common knowledge, just like energy-savings options have become common currency. Changes in either area impact positively on household budgets. It has proven useful to highlight that financial savings can result from changes in behaviour. Possible savings are therefore an essential part of the message and should encourage a more prudent attitude to dealing with food. A family of four could save about 1,200 Euro per year by making the most of the food they buy.

» Promoting an appreciation of food in kindergartens and schools Attitudes to dealing with food are instilled in childhood, primarily at home. Kindergartens and schools should be given much greater scope for conveying practical knowledge on food production, storage and preparation so as to enable them to promote an appreciation of food amongst children from an early age. To this end, kindergartens and schools would need greater financial resources for e.g. school gardens and kitchens.

» Shift in values urgently needed in the catering sector Leftovers arising in the catering sector significantly contribute to overall food wastage. More often than not, portions served or offered at buffets and in cate-ring in general are too large. Restaurants and canteens should increasingly offer different portion sizes or adapt portion sizes more closely to actual requirements. Caterers’ associations could issue recommendations and run campaigns to promote such changes.

» Retailers: Less XXL – more S and M Advertising and pricing often lead consumers to buy extra large portions. The bigger the individual packages and the larger the pack or case sizes, the lower the price per unit. As a result, consumers buy more than necessary and originally inten-ded. A course correction in the retail sector is badly needed in this respect.

» Raising consumer awareness on date labels on food items Many products are thrown out because of confusion over ‘best before’ and ‘use by’ dates. The political arena and the trade sector need to step in here and swiftly raise awareness.

Increasing food losses in the food supply chain, the trade sector and at household level have also been described as a key problem in the „Charter for Agriculture and Consu-mers“ published by the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. Now it is time for the government to take action.

WWF recommendations on food waste

48

In the context of the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform process WWF has developed a vision calling for a fundamental reorientation of the CAP. The propo-sed future “Common Environmental and Rural Development Policy” (CERP) is based on the principle that public money should only be used for the provision of public goods. These public goods include for example the preservation of biodiversity, the protection of soils, and the protection of water resources. Financial support should be paid to those farmers who provide these goods to the benefit of society at large and who rigorously implement the principles of sustainability. Moreover, WWF calls for renewed support for the production of feedstuffs within the EU in order to have alter-natives to soya at hand. Such changes in the policy environment would significantly contribute to improved sustainability in meat production in the future.

» From 2021 onwards European farmers should no longer receive direct payments. In order to qualify for premia, any farmer should for example adhere to ambitious crop rotations, devote 10 % of the holding’s agricultural area to conservation measures, and protect grasslands.

» Investment support for farmers must be subject to environmental impact assessments.

» Investment support must not be payable for the construction of large-scale livestock production units.

» The enormous nitrogen surpluses, which are particularly prevalent in regions with high livestock densities, must be radically reduced. To this end there should be a significant reduction in stocking rates (linking livestock production to available land area).

» European funding should be more strongly focused on supporting ethologically sound livestock management systems.

» In the future, support should only be directed at farmers who actively contribute to nature conservation, environmental protection and animal welfare in the context of their work.

For further information please see: www.wwf.de/themen/landwirtschaft/

WWF’s agricultural policy demands


Adhikari, B.K.; Barrington, S.; Martinez, J. (2006): Predicted growth of world urban food waste and methane production. In: Waste Management Research 24, p. 421–433.

Aigner, I. (2011): Rede der Bundesministerin für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucher-schutz anlässlich des FAO Kongresses Save Food am 16. Mai 2011. Berlin: BMELV.

Alexy, U.; Clausen, K.; Kersting, M. (2008): Die Ernährung gesunder Kinder und Jugendlicher nach dem Konzept der optimierten Mischkost. In: Ernährungsumschau 3/08, S. 168–177.

BMELV (Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz) (2011): Statistisches Jahrbuch über Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten 2010. Bremerhaven: Wirtschaftsverlag.

BVDF (Bundesverband der Deutschen Fleischwarenindustrie) (2010): Geschäftsbericht des Deutschen Fleischer-Verbandes 2009/2010. Bonn: BVDF.

Cofresco (2011): Vermeidbare Lebensmittelverschwendung in europäischen Haushalten: Erkenntnisse und Lösungsansätze. Minden: Cofresco.

Dämon, S.; Widhalm, K. (2003): Daten zum Lebensmittelverbrauch, zur Energie- und Nährstoff-zufuhr – sind sie realistisch? In: Journal für Ernährungsmedizin 5. S. 15–18.

Destatis (2011): Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit: Bevölkerungsfortschreibung 2009. Wiesbaden: Destatis.

DGE (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung) (2008): Ernährungsbericht 2008. Bonn: DGE.DGE (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung) (2009): Die Nährstoffe: Bausteine für Ihre

Gesundheit: Bonn: DGE.Doyle, U. (2011): Wie wir überleben? Ernährung in Zeiten des Klimawandels – Fokus Fleisch.

Berlin: Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen.FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2011): FAOSTAT statistical database. Rome: FAO.Fefac (2010): Feed and food: Statistical yearbook 2009. Brussels: Fefac.Foresight (2011): Foresight project on global food and farming futures: synthesis report C7:

reducing waste. London: Foresight, Government Office for Science.GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit); SIWI (Stockholm International Water

Institute): Ending food waste from field to fork. Issue paper November 16, 2011. Eschborn: GIZ.Glanz, R. (2008): Causes of food waste generation in households – an empirical analysis.

Vienna: University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences.Grethe, H.; Dembele, A.; Duman, N. (2011): How to feed the world’s growing billions:

understanding FAO world food projections and their implications. Berlin: WWF Deutschland.Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U. (2011): Global food losses and food waste: extent,

causes and prevention. Rome: FAO.Hall, K.D.; Guo, J.; Dore, M.; Chow, C. (2009): The progressive increase of food waste in

America and its environmental impact. In: PLoS ONE 4, e7940.Kantor, L.S.; Lipton, K.; Manchester, A.; Oliviera, V. (1997): Estimating and addressing

America’s food losses. In: Food Review 20, 2–12.Mensink, G.B.M.; Kleiser, C.; Richter, A. (2007): Lebensmittelverzehr bei Kinder und Jugend

lichen in Deutschland: Ergebnisse des Kinder- und Jugendgesundheitssurveys (KiGGS). In: Bundesgesundheitsblatt Bd. 50, Heft 5/6, Mai/Juni 2007. S. 609–623.

Meyer, R.; Sauter, A. (2002): Entwicklungstendenzen von Nahrungsmittelangebot und -nachfrage und ihre Folgen – Basisanalysen. In: TAB (Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag) (Hrsg.): TA-Projekt Basisanalysen, Arbeitsbericht Nr. 81. Berlin: TAB.

Monier, V.; Mudgal, S.; Escalon, V.; O’Connor, C.; Gibson, T.; Anderson, G.; Montoux, H.; Reisinger, H.; Dolley, P.; Ogilvie, S.; Morton, G. (2010): Preparatory study on food waste across EU27, Executive Summary. Brussels: European Commission.

Morgan, E. (2009): Fruit and vegetable consumption and waste in Australia. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria.

references

50

MRI (Max Rubner Institut) (2011): Ernährungserhebungen in Deutschland. Karlsruhe: MRI.MRI (Max Rubner Institut) (2008): Nationale Verzehrstudie II (NVS II): Ergebnisbericht Teil 2.

Karlsruhe: MRI.Muth, M.K.; Karns, S.A.; Nielsen, S.J.; Buzby, J.C.; Wells, H.F. (2011): Consumer-level food loss

estimates and their use in the ERS loss-adjusted food availability data. Technical bulletin no. 1927. Washington, DC: USDA.

Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. (2010): Food waste within food supply chains: quantifi-cation and potential for change to 2050. In: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, p. 3065–3081.

Schneider, F. (2009): Lebensmittel im Abfall – mehr als eine technische Herausforderung. In: Ländlicher Raum – Online-Fachzeitschrift des Bundesministeriums für Land- und Forstwirt-schaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft. Wien: Lebensministerium.

Selzer, M. (2010): Die Entsorgung von Lebensmitteln in Haushalten: Ursachen – Flüsse – Zusammenhänge. Wien: Universität für Bodenkultur.

Stuart, T. (2011): Aufessen statt wegwerfen. In: Le Monde diplomatique, edition no. 10, p. 98–101.

Südzucker (2011): Zahlen zum Zucker 2009/10. Mannheim: Südzucker AG.Vohmann, C.; Oepping, A.; Heseker, H. (2011): Verzehrstudie zur Ermittlung der Lebensmit-

telaufnahme von Säuglingen und Kleinkinder für die Abschätzung eines akuten Toxizi-tätsrisikos durch Rückstände von Pflanzenschutzmitteln (VELS). Paderborn: Universität Paderborn.

von Witzke, H.; Noleppa, S.; Zhirkova, I. (2011): Fleisch frisst Land: Ernährung, Fleischkonsum, Flächenverbrauch. Berlin: WWF Deutschland.

Weick, S. (2010): Fleischkonsum. Brot für die Welt Kampagne für Ernährungssicherheit. Kampagneblatt 9. Stuttgart: Brot für die Welt.

WRAP (2011): New estimates for household food and drink waste in the UK. Banbury: WRAP.WRAP (2010): Waste arisings in the supply of food and drink to households in the UK. Banbury:

WRAP.WRAP (2008): The food we waste. Banbury: WRAP.

© C

opyright from W

WF International ®

Trade mark from

WW

F International • Status:: 10/11

100%RECYCLED

WWF DeutschlandReinhardtstr. 14 10117 Berlin | Germany

Tel.: +49 (0)30 311 777 0Fax: +49 (0)30 311 777 199

Please Support the WWF!

Spendenkonto 2000

Bank für Sozialwirtschaft

BLZ 550 205 00

healthy diet

resources are limited. The enormous wastage of food and land is not sustainable. We should change course now.

Foodwaste

Wastage of land resources

Land footprint

Dieticians recommend: 75 % more vegetables, 44 % less meat. This would free up 700,000 ha of soya cropland – an area almost 3 times the size of the federal state of Saarland.

Every inhabitant of Germany needs 2,900 m² of agricultural land per year. 2,300 m² of these are needed for food production. A healthier diet and a more prudent attitude to dealing with food would considerably reduce this land footprint: by 23 % or 520 m².

Private households throw a quarter of their food into the bin – 80 kg per person per year. Most of this “waste” is avoidable.

Our present behaviour equates to turning the whole of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania into one huge area of cropland only to throw out the entire harvest.

Why we are hereTo stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment andto build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.

wwf.de | [email protected]

2012 - wwf · 2013-02-13 · 1 problem definition and objectives 2 eating habits and dietary intake...

Documents