Vegocracy Report 2023

THE VEGOCRACY REPORT ’23

HOW DO WE CLOSE THE GREEN GAP?

An international study about how the way we eat is affecting not only our health, but the health of the planet too.

THE VEGOCRACY REPORT ’23

HOW DO WE CLOSE THE GREEN GAP?

An international study about how the way we eat is affecting not only our health, but the health of the planet too.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

“WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE GREEN GAP GLOBALLY, OTHERWISE IT’LL BE TOO LATE TO ACT. BUT WE STILL HAVE TIME.”

DAVID VON LASKOWSKI, PRESIDENT & CEO PICADELI

WE HAVE A PROBLEM. AND A SOLUTION

In 2022, we launched the first ever Vegocracy Report; an international study examining our eating habits. With a focus on nutrition and healthy eating, we uncovered staggering statistics including the fact that a third of families across the seven countries we surveyed, couldn’t afford to eat fruit and vegetables according to the recommended guidelines*.

It prompted us to ask, should healthy eating be a privilege? We think not. And feel ever more determined on our mission to democratise healthy eating and education. But no planet, no people. We’re not only putting the spotlight on the health of ourselves this year, but on the health of the planet too.

Time is running out to reverse the catastrophic outcome of climate change. The United Nations’ Paris Agreement has called on the global community to work hard to reduce carbon emissions across all countries and industries. It’s no longer a secret that the food we eat accounts for 30% of the global carbon dioxide emissions** and this has to shift in the interest of supporting the planet’s health and future. So, for the 2023 Vegocracy Report, we wanted to ask - how much do we really know about eating green? Why are we not eating more sustainably?

Is this as a result of the cost-of-living crisis? And how can we help break these barriers down? One individual can have a considerable impact on their own carbon footprint, and to achieve the food system shift needed a wider political-economic change of mindset needs to become a reality.

And the big question for 2023 is, how do we close the green gap? A gap in knowledge, intention and awareness around the need to eat greener, both for nutrition and sustainability.

It is our hope that this year’s Vegocracy Report can serve as a real point of inspiration throughout the food industry to demonstrate exactly why we can, and should, be doing more to support the food systems shift. We need to address the green gap globally, otherwise it’ll be too late to act. But we still have time.

WE’RE ON A MISSION TO HELP THE WORLD EAT GREENER, ONE SALAD AT A TIME

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?

We want the world to eat greener. And that’s not just so you can pump iron or see in the dark, it’s also to help look after the health of the planet which affects us all, young or old. But despite knowing we need to eat greener, we’re still not doing it. Last year we used the Vegocracy Report to shine a light on the barriers to eating green. This year, we’re asking what’s changed? Why haven’t things changed? And how can we help everyone eat greener? Is it a cost-of-living issue or a carbon misinformation problem or other?

WHY DO WE CARE?

Picadeli is a Swedish salad pioneer, driven by the belief that fast food should also be food that’s good for you (and good for the planet, too). We want to raise the bar to democratise healthy food for both ourselves and our natural world. Since 2009 we’ve served-up fresh, accessible and appetising healthy fast food in more than 2000 stores around Europe and the US. Through pioneering high-tech salad bars we’ve reduced waste, promoted fast healthy food offerings and showed people fast food de la future. We truly feel a responsibility to the health of our consumers, but this can no longer be separated from the health of the planet too.

HOW WE DID IT

The Vegocracy Report is an extensive international survey conducted by global research firm, Kantar, across 10,500 recipients in seven countries: Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom & United States with a minimum of 1,000 participants in each country. Each survey lasted around 10 minutes, and was conducted in each country’s native language. All of the questions were answered by men and women aged 18-65. The survey took place online between December 2022 - January 2023. In addition, we used leading independent thinkers and academic institutions for expert guidance and support for the study hypotheses.

KEY FINDINGS FOR THOSE ON THE GO

Drum roll please. Here are the key findings from our 2023 international survey, broken down into bitesize statistics for busy people. Or dive on into the full report but please, mind the (green) gap.

49%

One in two (49%) participants selected taste as the most important consideration when choosing what to eat. Our taste buds really do peak in self-importance.

3%

Only 3% of respondents labelled the environment as the most important factor when choosing their meals. The priority of the planet is low in everyday decisions.

Over half of recipients (53%) stated clearer labelling would help them make more sustainable food choices. Yes, we’ve heard of our carbon footprint, but carbon calories? Not a clue.

Around a quarter (24%) of recipients felt they could have no impact on their carbon footprint and, of those who said yes, only 12% thought that food could have the most impact on their carbon footprint. We don’t seem to realise the carbon emissions of our dishes.

Cost over climate - nearly half of participants (49%) stated the main barrier to not eating more sustainably is because it’s too expensive. But can we afford not to?

IN OTHER WORDS: WE’RE PICKING PALATE AND PRICING OVER THE PLANET

18% 32%

Only 18% of recipients could correctly identify the WHO’s recommended amount of fruit and vegetables daily. Do we lack the education, or do we lack the inclination?

Across all seven countries, of those not eating their fruit and veg portions daily, 32% state it’s due to affordability. A stat that remains unchanged from 2022.

34%

34% of respondents not following the daily guidelines said they don’t prioritise eating fruit and veg—what the health?

WE’D EAT BETTER IF WE HAD THE KNOW-HOW AND ASSISTANCE

Over half (53%) stated clearer labelling around nutrition would help them to make better food choices.

COST-OFLIVING IS IMPACTING OUR HEALTH

27% are now ditching veg in favour of the bank statement when it comes to making cost reductions in the weekly shop.

THERE EXISTS A GREEN GAP

Less than one in five respondents across all seven countries (16%) are able to meet the WHO daily dietary guidelines.

THE AGE OF THE GREEN GAP

Time is ticking in the race to tackle the global impact of climate change, and it’s not over yet.

The United Nations’ Paris Agreement has called on the global community to work hard to reduce carbon emissions across all countries and industries. We know now that the food we eat accounts for 30% of the global carbon dioxide emissions* and this has to shift in the interest of supporting the planet’s health and future. The shift is possible. It can be done.

But with the green gap this is hard to do. And what is the green gap? It’s the discovery that many people are still struggling to afford to eat green or even know how to. And, not only this, we have literally no idea when it comes to the carbon in our food (net zero knowledge). And both these things are bad. Bad for our health, but also the health of the planet too.

*IPCC, 2019

WE HAVE A GREEN PERCEPTION PROBLEM THAT SUSTAINABLE = NOT TASTY

Nearly half (49%) of recipients selected taste as the most important consideration when choosing what to eat, which dropped dramatically to just 3% choosing environment as the top concern. Building on this, only 22% stated that sustainable food meant “tastier” for them and, as we continue to prioritise palate over planet, this could be a key barrier to eating greener. Sure, we want to play our part, but we also want to enjoy doing it.

PEOPLE WANT TO EAT MORE SUSTAINABLY, BUT AREN’T

There’s no great conspiracy theory about why we’re eating our planet out of a future. Around a quarter (24%) of participants felt they could have no impact on their carbon footprint, and of those who said yes, only 12% thought that food could have the most impact on their carbon footprint. We lack the understanding of how our meal choices affect the rising temperature of the planet. And it’s no surprise when you consider that 82% of recipients didn’t know what the UNs’ Paris Agreement targets are for a meal’s carbon emissions, despite having heard of the Agreement itself. This was highest in the USA with 89% identifying it incorrectly or unable to answer.

Q: Have you heard of the United Nations’ environmental Paris Agreement?

THE GREEN GAP EXISTS BETWEEN

COUNTRIES—BUT DOES IT MATTER?

As part of the food industry, we want to be doing more to help consumers make clearer decisions around the climate impact of their food. As it is, there is currently no standard method or mandatory labelling system for food brands to use to share information around the carbon in their products. Where does this leave consumers that want to eat greener?

CONFUSED IN CARBON

Without proper guidance for consumers, it’s impossible to decode the carbon contents of food. We found that a quarter (25%) of respondents thought red meat was the most sustainable food in a list of red meat, seafood, poultry, fruit and vegetables and plant-based protein, which rose to nearly two in five people in Germany (38%). Also over in Germany, an alarming 43% selected fruit and vegetables as the least climate friendly food. If we lack the know-how before we even begin the weekly food shop, we cannot expect a shift in our food systems when we place all responsibility on the consumer.

THE GAP CANNOT BE CLOSED BY AWARENESS ALONE

Despite Sweden being the country with the greatest awareness of the UNs’ environmental Paris Agreement (83%), only 3% of participants in Sweden prioritised the environment when making meal choices. In the UK, just 32% had heard of the UNs’ Paris Agreement, and yet the number of people prioritising the environment when picking food remained nearly the same as Sweden (4%). Awareness of initiatives alone will not shift the dial, we still need an added layer to communicate with consumers to help them decode the carbon in their food. Would something as simple as a carbon label help to save the planet?

Q: Would clearer labelling of sustainable food encourage you to make more sustainable food choices in the grocery store?

STEFFEN HIRTH has a PhD in Sociology and a degree in Social and Economic Geography. He is Research Fellow at the Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, UK. Together with his colleagues of the H3 – Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People project, his work on food supply chains seeks to transform the UK food system towards sustainability and resilience.

The survey found that one in four people feel that, as an individual, they cannot impact their carbon footprint, and only 12% of respondents think that food can make the most impact on their carbon footprint (compared to other sectors such as leisure travel, energy, daily commuting, and consumption). Why do you think not more people feel they have an influence on their footprint, e.g. through their food choices?

It’s tricky. We do have an influence on our individual carbon footprint, and food is one of the easier, effective, levers an individual has. However, if somebody flies a lot , that lever might be higher than food. It does not matter though - to meet climate targets we must use both levers.

In terms of food, most of us do our daily shopping and choosing a fresh, plant rich diet is not necessarily expensive. Yet, there are factors that limit choice. With the cost-of-living crisis, an increasing number of people depend on food charities. Organic foods are not everywhere available, or affordable. So, how people respond to these questions depends on where they live. Wealthy people in big cities have the highest impact on their footprint, because they can afford choice and often have a high footprint to begin with. A sustainable society depends on regulation that enforces a socially just

DR. STEFFEN HIRTH, RESEARCH FELLOW IN SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT FOOD SYSTEMS.

transformation, high prices for high emissions, and drastic changes to producer and retailer practices. In that sense, I understand the feeling that we cannot significantly impact our footprint – even if, to varying degrees, we all can.

wrong impression. Carbon stored in soil through regenerative grazing does not outweigh the climate mitigation effect by substituting “better” meat for plant-based foods. Coming back to the question, we have two options. Raising consumer awareness is obvious, but this is a classic political and business campaigns strategy. It has led us nowhere near sustainability. The other option is accepting that people may not be aware and removing the need for them to be so by regulating food availability and farming practices on their behalf. Assertively pursuing both options could be the best strategy towards a sustainable food system.

How important is it for us to vote with our meal choices, when it comes to the food system shift?

To achieve climate targets, we need to reduce EU per capita emissions by a factor of three or four by 2030. Within seven years, “our” meal choices must be dramatically different to avoid Earth becoming an inhabitable environment. When I say “our” choices, I do not mean individual people. I mean us, as a species and society. Voting is a vital democratic tool, but I am not sure I endorse “voting” for or against foods that bring doom or relief.

25% of respondents picked red meat as the most sustainable food in a list of red meat, seafood, fruit and veg and plant-based alternatives. Why do you think there’s such a low awareness around the impact of red meat on the environment?

Either people are badly informed or they misunderstood the question. Society is rife with misleading discourses. Regarding red meat, debates on “better” meat and regenerative grazing, popularised through documentaries create the

Democratising food cannot mean encouraging consumers to choose between “good” or “bad” foods, even if they are well informed (which this report shows many are not). Food democracy should mean to collectively regulate the amounts of beef, dairy, heated greenhouse-tomatoes, etc., that global agriculture may safely produce, if at all, and create personal carbon budgets for equal access to those remaining high-emissions foods, while enabling citizen’s sovereignty over healthy, sustainable foods.

“A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY DEPENDS ON REGULATION THAT ENFORCES A SOCIALLY JUST TRANSFORMATION, HIGH PRICES FOR HIGH EMISSIONS, AND CHANGES TO PRODUCER AND RETAILER PRACTICES.”

IGNORANCE IS (UNHEALTHY) BLISS

Even if you didn’t read the 2022 Vegocracy Report, you must have heard at some point that it’s a good idea to eat your fruit and vegetables. But it seems not so? And are we getting worse? And why? We wanted to look into why the UK, USA, Sweden, Finland, Germany, France and Belgium are still not getting onto the broccoli train. Could it be the green gap?

NEITHER THE WILL, NOR THE INFORMATION

63% of recipients had not even heard of the WHO dietary guidelines, with only one fifth across all countries (16%) able to meet them. And there’s a generational divide too, where nearly three quarters (72%) of those aged 45-65 had not heard of the WHO dietary guidelines compared to just over half of 54% of 18-34 YOs. Are we ignoring the inconvenient truth that we need to eat fruit and vegetables, and if so, why?

EVEN THOSE IN THE KNOW, STILL STRUGGLE

Nearly all of the participants in France had heard of the country’s national dietary guidelines (94%) which fell to 54% & 56% for Sweden & Germany respectively with only 11% of German participants confirming that they ate fruit and veg portions daily.

Interestingly in France, despite the greater knowledge awareness, just 17% were able to meet the daily fruit and veg guidelines, with 45% of those unable to do so stating cost as the main barrier. In Sweden, close to half of those not meeting the daily guidelines (46%) stated it was due to a lack of prioritisation. So even when we know we should be eating better, cost and a lack of understanding about the importance of eating fruit and vegetables are built-up barriers to eating greener. The issue is bigger than the individual, and alongside education and clarity, consumers need support from governments and organisations to close the green gap too.

Q: How often do you eat a salad for lunch?

THE GREEN GAP GOES INTERNATIONAL

Respondents in Sweden had the lowest awareness of the national dietary guidelines (54%) and the lowest awareness of the WHO’s dietary guidelines (18%). In Finland, of those who had heard of the WHO’s guidelines, 44% gave the incorrect answer of 500g fruit and vegetables daily and in Germany nearly two in five (37%) didn’t even have a go at answering the question. Close to all French respondents had heard of the national dietary guidelines (94%) which dropped to just under half (49%) for the WHO dietary guidelines. This was consistent across the board with all countries showing greater knowledge of their national dietary guidelines, compared to those from the WHO.

LESS THAN ONE IN FIVE COULD IDENTIFY THE WHO’S DAILY GUIDELINES

Only 18% of recipients could correctly identify the WHO’s recommended amount of fruit and vegetables daily. Let that sink in. Less than one in five adults. And this time, it’s a knowledge gap, not a country, generational or gender issue, with less than 22% across all seven countries correctly identifying the answer as 400g.

Just one fifth (20%) of Millennials & Gen Z (18-34) that had heard of the WHO guidelines correctly identified 400g, which dropped only by 6% in those aged 45-65. Between men and women, the difference was an insignificant 3% too. If the education problem is across the board, should we be blaming ourselves or looking elsewhere?

Q: Have you heard of the national dietary guidelines regarding how much fruit and vegetables to eat per day?

Q: Would clearer labelling of food encourage you to make healthier food choices in the grocery stores?

Over half (53%) stated clearer labelling around nutrition would help them to make better food choices. When faced with the facts, we find them harder to ignore. But the information needs to be presented in a clear, and quick way for us to process.

DR. P.K. NEWBY is a self-proclaimed salad friend. She is also a scientist and author dedicated to researching and communicating what we eat and why it matters, farm to fork. She is an internationally recognized expert and inspiring speaker on plant-based diets and chronic disease prevention. She brings evidence (and humour) to today’s food and nutrition conversations through her second company, Food Matters Media.

P.K. is a recovering academic who holds a doctorate from Harvard, two master’s degrees from Columbia, and previously served on the faculties at Tufts, Boston University, and Harvard.

that impacts how and where and what we eat, day in and day out. Values like health and sustainability also influence our food choices but still need to fit into everyday diets in a way that keeps taste at the forefront. Meals have to deliver on flavour while at the same time fitting food budgets and dining habits. Almost half of respondents (49%) reported not eating more sustainably was due to cost, while 26% didn’t like the taste or found it too complex (14%) to eat greener. So there’s a lot of work to be done still in showing eaters how delectable eating green can be in a way they can prepare at home in their own kitchens—and at a price they can afford.

Why do you think it is that even when countries have a greater awareness of environmental initiatives, it’s not directly affecting our dishes?

Study after study is clear that the main factors that drive eating behaviour are taste, cost, and convenience, a trifecta

Why do you think so few respondents are eating green, when it comes to sustainable decision-making?

It’s noteworthy that around one in four survey respondents reported that clearer guidance and information about benefits would “make them eat more sustainable food.” Although knowledge alone seldom drives lasting diet behaviour

DR. P.K. NEWBY, SCIENTIST & AUTHOR

“STUDY AFTER STUDY IS CLEAR THAT THE MAIN FACTORS THAT DRIVE EATING BEHAVIOUR ARE TASTE, COST, AND CONVENIENCE.”

changes, it provides a foundation to guide decision-making when it comes to dinner. Sustainable eating is a relatively new concept to many, and there remains confusion about which foods are more (or less) sustainable, as some of the findings in the report suggest.

Plus, not everyone understands the complexities of what makes a food (or diet) more or less sustainable. For example, 66% of respondents said that sustainable food meant “locally produced,” which isn’t accurate. In fact, where food is produced has a relatively small impact on an eater’s overall carbon footprint. Far more important is what they are eating: calorie for calorie, plant-based foods and diets emit far fewer greenhouse gases regardless of where they’re produced. Eating locally has amazing benefits and delivers unparalleled flavours: yay for community agriculture! But the most eco-conscious thing an eater can do for the environment is to consume more plants and fewer animals and animal products.

Respondents selected a lack of prioritisation to eat fruit and veg as a main barrier to eating healthy (based on the finding that 34% of people globally are not eating 400g fruit or vegetables per day due to this reason), how can we help consumers to understand why it’s so important?

It is not surprising that about one in three participants don’t prioritise eating the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables daily. Makes sense given the everyday stresses of life in a post-pandemic world. More interesting is seeing that about 28% reported a lack of inspiration was a barrier to eating healthier and more sustainable foods, including fruit and vegetables. And, about a quarter of respondents cited time and ease as obstacles. So there’s work to be done in helping eaters learn how to quickly and easily pre-

pare sumptuous plant-based dishes in their own kitchens. Making healthier eating on the go more affordable and accessible is important, too, given many people rely on restaurants to meet diet needs during the week; a healthy and sustainable food environment is critical.

If the green gap of knowledge exists regardless of location, gender or age—is it consumers’ responsibility to educate themselves, or are our governments at fault to do more?

After someone who’s been talking about plant-based diets and sustainable eating for several decades, I am thrilled that eaters are finally beginning to understand the powerful impact everyday food choices have on climate change and the environment. It’s about time! While sustainable diets are a new concept to many people, particularly older adults accustomed to meat at the centre of a meal, it’s exhilarating that Gen Z is more attuned to making eco-conscious choices. Knowledge is a funny thing when it comes to diet and lifestyle, however, it’s usually not enough to lead to behaviour change. Our diet is shaped by an array of internal and external drivers, like taste preferences and cultural traditions, and external drivers, like the food environments in the home, schools, businesses, and institutions.

Still, there are need-to-know facts that all eaters should comprehend in order to prevent disease, live longer, and protect the planet. But, when it comes to the large-scale changes we need to see in the world, like reducing preventable chronic diseases and curbing climate change, governments and the food industry have the biggest roles to play by producing and providing a healthy and sustainable food supply to support the survival of our species on earth.

PHEW! A LOT TO DIGEST? HERE ARE SOME MORE SNACKABLE STATS FOR YOU

Just 16% of recipients selected health as the top concern when planning meals which dropped to only 6% in Belgium and Finland. Palate over the planet, sure, but heartiness over health too. Lettuce eat salad. USA, France + Germany are already on the green side, as the top salad munchers.

Nearly a fifth (18%) of U.S. males consume red meat every day compared to 3% of French females. Oh, la la.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents aged 45-65 never eat plant-based protein, compared to two in five (39%) of Gen Z and Millennials that eat plant-based protein weekly. The future is generation vegetation.

Boomers and Gen X are better at reducing waste, with 56% of respondents aged 45-65 throwing out food more seldom than every month. In contrast 36% of Gen Z and Millennials (18-34) throw out food weekly. Is the older “waste not, want not” approach falling out of fashion?

Our definition of “sustainable food” is not set in stone. 84% of Swedes stated sustainable food meant “locally produced” whereas 56% of U.S. respondents choose “healthy” as the top answer.

DOES EATING GREEN PUT US IN THE RED?

Nearly one in three (32%) of recipients who admitted to not eating their fruit and veg portions daily, stated it’s due to affordability. Similarly, of those across the age groups of 1834, 35-44 and 45-65, around a third selected afforability as a key barrier to eating fruit and vegetables—cost does not discriminate when it comes to generational concerns (30%, 33% & 33% respectively). As the cost-of-living crisis affects countries around the world, we’re finding the issue of affordability is not going away.

OUR EATING HABITS ARE BEING HIT BY THE COST-OFLIVING CRISIS

Nearly two in three recipients across all seven countries (63%) are cutting back on eating out, with only 16% stating they’re not currently trying to save costs on food. 51% of respondents are also cutting back on red meat consumption to save pennies. It comes as no surprise that we’re having to pull back on our food spending in a record cost-of-living crisis, but it’s interesting to note that despite red meat being seen as the top “treat” to save on, 69% in Finland stated they’re eating red meat on a weekly or daily basis. This is the same country where the most people (45%) out of all seven countries surveyed cited affordability as a barrier to not eating daily portions of fruit and vegetables. Is it a cost issue then, or a prioritisation issue? Across all seven countries, red meat was the most common food category selected to cut back on, over options including seafood, fruit and vegetables, poultry, dairy and eggs. So why do we still think eating fruit and veg is breaking the bank?

STAYING IN TO SAVE THE CENTS

During the cost-of-living crisis, eating out topped the polls for the most common way to save on food occasions, with nearly two in three recipients (63%) selecting this as the top way to cut back. Women were also the most likely to cancel that restaurant outing, with 69% stating they’re saving on this occasion in comparison to 58% of men. Takeaways are now being perceived as a treat, with half (50%) stating they’re pulling back on the pizza. This was highest in the UK, with close to two thirds (62%) reporting they’re now eating less takeaways, and lowest in the USA with only 38% stating they’re reducing the number of takeaway nights.

Q: During the cost-of-living crisis, in which food type/occasion do you try to save on costs? (Multiple choice)

VEG IS LOSING OUT TO THE BANK BALANCE

27% of respondents across all seven countries are now ditching veg in favour of the bank statement. Amongst those not eating their daily fruit and veg portions 40% of men stated it was due to a lack of prioritisation, whereas over a third (36%) of women selected affordability as the top concern. Last year, we found women were more concerned about their diet than men, and this is still proving true 12 months later as we move deeper into a global cost-of-living crisis.

THE COST-OF-LIVING AFFECTS US ALL

Five out of seven countries also showed a growth in the number of people unable to afford to eat fresh fruit or vegetables as inflation hits our food inspiration. It’s impossible to ignore now how affordability is going to affect both our health and the health of the planet moving forward.

34% of respondents in Finland stated cost was the most important consideration when choosing a meal, in comparison to just 18% of Swedes. As the cost-of-living affects us all, and we begin to respond in different ways, we see the green gap of concern emerging.

Q: How often do you eat fruit and vegetables?

Q: What are your reasons for not eating 400g of fruit or vegetables per day?

NO ONE IS PRIORITISING THE PLANET ON THEIR PLATES, WHY?

TWO IN THREE PEOPLE CANNOT IDENTIFY CARBON EMISSION GOALS

And why should we be able to? If we’re not being taught in schools and the information isn’t available for us in supermarkets, how can we understand the carbon targets of governments and how they apply to our food? Remember that 82% of respondents didn’t know what the UNs’ Paris Agreement targets are for a meal’s carbon emissions, despite having heard of the Agreement itself. And if we’re being honest, would you know? Test yourself!

Q: Do you think the carbon emission goal for a meal from the Paris Agreement is:

1) Less than 0,8kg C02e

2) 0,9 - 1,5 kg C02e

3) 1,6kg C02e

PALATE OVER PLANET—CAN I HAVE BOTH, PLEASE?

Only 3% of respondents labelled environment as the most important factor when choosing their meals but nearly half (49%) selected taste as the most important consideration when choosing what to eat. Taste buds are coming before the global temperature goals.

WHAT CAN I DO, I’M JUST ONE PERSON?

Around a quarter (24%) of participants felt they could have no impact on their carbon footprint, and of those who said yes, only 12% thought that food could have the most impact on their carbon footprint. We lack an understanding of how important the food systems shift could be in protecting our future home and how we can contribute as an individual with something as simple as our meal choice. We have an abundance of choice not only in what we decide to eat, but also in what we decide to omit from our diets. If cost is a barrier to eating more plant-based foods, one way we can help to eat more sustainably as consumers is to remove the red meat. Simple.

CARBON CONFUSION

We found that a quarter (25%) of respondents thought red meat was the most sustainable food in a list of red meat, seafood, poultry, fruit and vegetables and plant-based protein, which rose to nearly two in five people in Germany (38%). For the record, red meat, for a variety of reasons, is widely recognised to be the least sustainable food.

THERE EXISTS A GREEN GAP

EDUCATION VS. INFLATION

Despite 67% of recipients stating they’d eat more sustainably if it was cheaper over half (53%) stated clearer labelling would also help them make more sustainable food choices. When the information is there, we will do our best to make the right choice for ourselves and the planet.

Less than one in five across all seven countries (16%) are able to meet the WHO daily dietary guidelines. In goose pimple-inducing news, this is even less than in 2022 (18%). Whether due to a lack of education or a lack of currency, the green gap cannot be ignored.

I’D LIKE TO HAVE MY PLANET AND EAT IT TOO

OUR DISHES ARE LOST IN (CARBON) TRANSLATION

We asked each country to rank four dishes in order of the least and most carbon emissions. Here’s a few of the findings… In the USA we asked respondents to rank a cheeseburger, cheesecake, Greek salad and deep fried chicken’s meal emissions. 25% of recipients didn’t know how to answer, and less than a quarter (23%) selected the correct answer in a cheeseburger. In France, steak tartare, poulet frites, goat’s cheese salad and chocolate mouse went under examination.

Again chicken was selected as having the most carbon emissions (37%) with only one in three people (31%) correctly selecting steak tartare. Confusion is rife—both the USA and France selected red meat as the least sustainable option in a list of red meat, seafood, poultry, fruit and vegetables and plant-based protein. But both didn’t identify the red meat dish as having the most carbon emissions in a list of four meals. Are we lost in translation when it comes to emissions?

Q: How often do you eat red meat (i.e. beef and pork)?

Q: What food do you think is the most sustainable from red meat, seafood, poultry, fruit and vegetables and plant-based protein?

BRIDGING THE (GREEN) GAP

We’ve unearthed a trove of statistics that has unveiled the green gap. A gap in knowledge, accessibility, understanding and impact. And whilst it’s easy to be all doom and gloom, we’re problem solvers. Solution finders. Salad makers. So, we asked, how can we truly enact change and what could we be doing in the food industry to help?

EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION

There’s a lack of understanding and, therefore, action when it comes to the carbon in our food and the nutritional guidelines we should all be following. 63% of respondents had not heard of the WHO dietary guidelines, so are we burying our heads in the sand, or do we lack the understanding of its importance? There’s more to be done to bring awareness to the issues, not only in schools, but in public debate and from governments to support scientific data that can no longer be ignored.

…MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR ALL

We now think it’s time to make carbon labelling mandatory for all food companies. We no longer have the luxury of procrastination. Waiting is not an option, otherwise tomorrow won’t be a reality. We are calling on governments across the EU to implement a standardised method of carbon labelling, and to make this mandatory across all major food outlets and brands.

FOR PEOPLE AND PLANET, WE NEED CLARITY NOT CONFUSION

We know now for both nutrition and carbon consumers need better labelling. As it is, there is currently no standard method or mandatory labelling system for food brands to use to share information around the carbon in their products. Where does this leave consumers? Over half of recipients (53%) stated clearer labelling would help them make more sustainable food choices and if we know this is paramount for the food systems shift, why aren’t companies and governments doing more to make this easy for consumers?

WAITING ISN’T AN OPTION, OTHERWISE TOMORROW WON’T BE A REALITY

THE TIME FOR DEBATE HAS PASSED, NOW IT’S TIME TO ACT

The Vegocracy Report is based on applied research with over 10,500 respondents across seven countries. It is a serious attempt to investigate the implications our diet has on the planet and on our health. The study has shown that consumers demand clearer and better labelling to help them both with sustainable choices and better nutrition. Affordability is an issue that continues to persist and limit accessibility to fresh fruit and vegetables across countries and generations and gender, but we have also found when consumers are presented with the right information, it can nudge them to make better choices. At Picadeli, we know that we’re not the only ones concerned. For the first time ever, a food pavilion was present at COP27, bringing food closer into the conversation around global emissions, but we know we now need to do more than talk. Annual environmental meetings are an important moment in the media calendar to raise topics, but actions speak louder than words.

We truly feel a commitment and responsibility to, not only the health of our consumers, but also the health of the planet. However, for real change in the food system, we need to help educate consumers and bring them closer to this journey. And we need to hold our governments and politicians accountable for helping to drive this change. One way we can do this is by calling for carbon labelling to be mandatory to create real systemic change, that’s not wholly reliant on the consumer seeking out better options.

It’s our belief, based on our findings in the 2023 Vegocracy Report, that if consumers want to do more to cut their carbon impact, but lack the ability to do so, we then have to do everything within our power to close the green gap, help educate our consumers and support the much needed food systems shift to protect our planet.