Chapter 5. Understanding of food sustainability

Respondents’ understanding of sustainability in food was explored by asking people to rank sustainability dimensions according to importance, to select aspects that they associate with sustainability in food and to compare dimensions of sustainability in terms of how supportive of each other or opposing they are. After these, the focus was placed on specific product categories and respondents reported the importance of sustainability aspects in relation to their choice of products from that category. Finally, the focus was narrowed to food products and respondents were asked to compare specific product types in terms of how sustainable they are.

Respondents were asked to rank ten dimensions of sustainability in terms of importance to them. The dimension ‘Pollution reduction’ and ‘Nature preservation’ were among the top two most important dimensions across countries, whereas the dimension ‘Culture’ was among the least important across countries. There were differences between countries, though, in terms of the most important dimensions (Table 14). ‘Climate change prevention’ was ranked higher, on average, in the Nordic countries and it was in the top two most important dimensions in all countries, except Latvia and Estonia. ‘Health’ was ranked in the top two most important dimensions in the Baltic countries and Finland, whereas it was ranked lower in the other Nordic countries. ‘Biodiversity’ was one of the top two dimensions in Norway. ‘Animal welfare’ was ranked higher in the Nordic countries compared to the Baltic countries and it was one of the top two most important dimensions in Finland.  

To assess respondents’ understanding of sustainability in food, respondents were presented with several statements regarding various sustainability issues in food and asked to select all those statements that they believed had something to do with food sustainability.

There are similarities as well as several differences between countries in the frequency with which these statements were selected, for instance in terms of the top three most common and three least common aspects they perceive as being about food sustainability (Table 15). Most respondents across the countries associated food sustainability with ‘less food waste’. There was also a lot of agreement regarding the ‘recyclable packaging’ aspect. This was one of top three statements most frequently associated with food sustainability in all countries, except Denmark, however, its prevalence in Denmark was similar to most of the other countries. The statement was less commonly selected in Latvia. Furthermore, ‘local or short supply chain’ was among the top three most selected statements in Finland, Sweden and Estonia, however, this was similarly prevalent in Norway as well as Denmark and much less frequently selected in Lithuania or Latvia. One of the top associations with sustainability in Denmark after ‘less food waste’ was ‘minimising carbon emissions when producing goods’. This was also frequent in Sweden as well as Norway and Finland, but less so than in Denmark. The respondents in the Baltic countries associated food sustainability less frequently with ‘minimising carbon emissions when producing goods’. Interestingly, ‘reducing meat consumption’ was selected by less than 50% of respondents across countries, but this was more common in the Nordic countries compared to the Baltic countries. Among the statements least frequently selected as having something to do with food sustainability were ‘cultural acceptability of food’ and ‘lower prices for consumers’, although the latter was not among the least common associations to sustainability in Lithuania and Latvia even if it had similar prevalence to most of the other countries. It is also apparent that social aspects of sustainability are less frequently associated with food sustainability, although some of these aspects are prevalent in certain countries, for example ‘ensuring fair prices and working conditions for producers’ was selected by more than half of the respondents in Finland.

Table 15 also shows that there were many statements selected by more than 50% (in yellow highlight) of the respondents that participated in the study in all countries, except Lithuania and Latvia. This seems to show that in most countries people have a varied understanding of sustainability in food where they associate quite strongly several issues with it, whereas in Lithuania and Latvia fewer issues were selected frequently as having something to do with sustainability, which can imply a more focused understanding of sustainability.

Sustainability in food is a complex concept that encompasses many goals or dimensions that are not always possible to achieve at the same time. The perceived conflict between different aspects of sustainability was explored by asking respondents to what extent certain dimensions support each other or are in contradiction.

As Table 16 shows, respondents perceived in general that ‘healthy eating’ and ‘sustainable eating’ support each other. There were only minor differences between countries in this, with a tendency in Estonia towards lower perception of support. The pattern of answers for the comparison between ‘environmental goals’ and ‘social goals’ is similar. Finally, respondents lean towards seeing some level of contradiction between the achievement of ‘economic growth’ and ‘sustainable development goals’, but this is less the case in Latvia and Lithuania (which does not differ from Sweden). Generally, there were very small country differences in these respects.

The choice of products from specific product categories can be influenced by multiple attributes of the product, and such attributes can vary by category. To assess respondents’ associations with sustainability when making choices within specific food categories (i.e., meat, dairy, fresh fruits and vegetables, sweet and savoury snacks), respondents were asked to select the three most important attributes for them when choosing a sustainable product within these categories. The attributes were: animal welfare (shown only for meat and dairy), antibiotics use (shown only for meat and dairy), climate impact (CO2 emissions), country of origin, degree of processing, energy use, local, mode of transportation (e.g., by plane, by truck), nutrition or health-related information, organic production method, pesticides use (shown only for fresh fruits and vegetables), seasonality (shown only for fresh fruits and vegetables), social aspects (workers’ conditions; fair pay for farmers), type of energy (renewable or not) and type of packaging (recyclable or not). There was also the option to select ‘I never buy products in this category’ or ‘none of these’, and respondents could not choose another answer if any of these two was selected.

The attributes that were among the top three most selected ones in any of the countries as being important for respondents’ sustainable choices within the category, and the frequency with which they were selected per country and product category are shown in Figures 1–4. Overall, there are some differences between product categories as well as between countries.

The meat and the dairy product categories are similar to each other, but they differ from fruits and vegetables and sweet and savoury snacks. The latter is most different in terms of what is important to respondents when making a sustainable choice. In terms of similarities between product categories, ‘local’ is one of the most important attributes, whereas ‘type of energy’ is among the less frequently selected attributes.

For the meat and the dairy product categories, ‘animal welfare’ and ‘antibiotics use’ are among the most important characteristics in addition to ‘local’, which is not surprising as these are aspects especially relevant to these categories. Respondents in the Baltic countries selected ‘animal welfare’ less frequently than those in the Nordic countries, whereas in Lithuania and Latvia more chose ‘antibiotics use’ as compared to the remaining countries. ‘Local’ was particularly important in Sweden and Estonia. ‘Country of origin’ is one of the top three considerations in Finland, whereas ‘climate impact (CO2 emission)’ is one of the top three considerations in Denmark. For dairy products, ‘type of packaging (recyclable or not)’ is one of the top three considerations in Estonia and Lithuania, whereas ‘organic production’ is one of the top three considerations in Denmark. Among the least frequently selected attributes were ‘mode of transportation’ and ‘energy use’, in addition to ‘type of energy’.

For fruits and vegetables, the most important attributes were ‘seasonality’ and ‘pesticides use’, in addition to ‘local’. As these aspects are particularly relevant for this product category, their frequency is warranted. ‘Seasonality’ was more frequently selected in Latvia, followed by Denmark and Finland. ‘Pesticides use’ was more frequently selected in the Baltic countries as opposed to the Nordic countries. ‘Country of origin’ was among top three considerations in Finland similar to the meat and the dairy categories, and instead of ‘pesticides use’. Among the least frequently selected attributes were ‘energy use’ and ‘degree of processing’, in addition to ‘type of energy’.

For sweet and savoury snacks, ‘type of packaging (recyclable or not)’ and ‘nutrition and health-related information’ were among the most important considerations in addition to ‘local’. ‘Nutrition and health-related information’ is particularly important in the Baltic countries and Finland. ‘Local’ is among the top three important aspects in the Baltic countries and Sweden. ‘Climate impact (CO2 emissions)’ was among top three considerations in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, with highest frequency in Denmark. ‘Country of origin’ was among the top three considerations in Finland similar to the other product categories. In Denmark, ‘energy use’ was among the top three considerations for this product category.  Among the least frequently selected attributes was ‘mode of transportation’, in addition to ‘type of energy’.

Note. Each attribute is among the top three most selected in at least one of the countries and product categories, animal welfare and antibiotics use were only asked for meat and dairy categories.

Note. Each attribute is among the top three most selected in at least one of the countries and product categories, animal welfare and antibiotics use were only asked for meat and dairy categories.

Note. Each attribute is among the top three most selected in at least one of the countries and product categories, pesticides use and seasonality were not asked for all other product categories.

Note. Each attribute is among the top three most selected in at least one of the countries and product categories.

Respondents perceived sustainability somewhat differently between product categories, however, even within product categories, some products may be more sustainable than others. To uncover such perceptions of sustainability at product level, respondents were asked to compare a series of products in terms of how sustainable they think these are.

The comparisons showed that respondents had difficulty in differentiating between the products, especially in the case of ‘tofu’ versus ‘cheese’, and ‘milk’ versus ‘soy drink’. Overall, the country differences were minor in terms of how people perceived these products (Table 17).

When comparing ‘beef’ with ‘chicken’, respondents perceive ‘beef’ on average as less sustainable than ‘chicken’, especially in Denmark and Norway. ‘Plant-based alternatives to meat’ were seen as more sustainable than ‘meat’, especially in Denmark (which did not differ from Sweden). ‘Potatoes’ were seen as more sustainable than ‘rice’ on average, but in Latvia and Lithuania respondents saw these two products as similar to some extent. Respondents across countries perceived ‘apples’ as more sustainable than ‘mangoes’. This latter comparison was the one where respondents showed the clearest pattern of seeing a difference between the products in terms of sustainability.

After rating the comparisons, respondents were asked which aspects they considered when comparing all the products. ‘Local’ and ‘country of origin’ were among the most frequently selected aspects across all or most countries. ‘Climate impact’ was among the top three considerations in Denmark and Sweden. One of the top three most frequently selected attributes in Finland and Norway was ‘animal welfare’, whereas in the Baltic countries it was ‘pesticides use’. Some attributes were selected among the three most common aspects only in one of the countries. These were ‘mode of transportation’ in Denmark, ‘antibiotics use’ in Lithuania and ‘nutrition or health-related information’ in Latvia.