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

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

Although global food consumption costs more in terms of impact on human life than money is spent on it, health costs have not been consistently quantified or included in food prices to date. In this paper, a method to determine the external health costs of nutrition and dietetics is developed by employing the cost-of-illness (COI) and true cost accounting (TCA) approaches. This is done exemplarily for the reference country Germany. The results show that 601.50 € per capita and 50.38 billion € in total external health costs are incurred annually due to nutrition. Overall, most costs are accrued through excessive meat consumption (32.56% of costs), deficient whole grain intake (15.42% of costs), and insufficient uptake of legumes (10.19% of costs). Comparing the external health costs with the external environmental costs in Germany, it can be seen that of the total annual costs of around 153.86 billion €, 67.26% originate from environmental impacts and 32.74% from impacts on human life. In order to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and to increase family as well as public health, there is a need to internalise these external costs into actual food prices.

The Anthropocene, marked by human-induced climate change, necessitates urgent action to address climate goals and respect planetary boundaries. While sustainability research provides knowledge, the first challenge lies in communicating the findings in an adequate manner to the public and several stakeholders, such as economic and political actors. Therefore, this study explores the significance of science communication in sustainability science, focusing on a case study—the True Cost Accounting (TCA) campaign by the University of Greifswald, Technical Institute of Nuremberg, and German retailer PENNY. TCA herein serves as a transparency tool, economic incentive, and discussion basis for sustainable consumption. This study investigates consumer perceptions of ecological prices of foods through a face-to-face survey during the 2023 PENNY campaign, comparing results to an informational campaign carried out in 2021. Findings indicate a high awareness of the true cost campaign in 2023, with 50.8% of participants hearing about it. Consumers’ willingness to pay true costs and potential behavior changes were explored. In comparison to results from the informational campaign of 2021, customers showed a decrease in this WTP when the true prices would actually impact their spending, indicating an attitude–behavior gap. In addition, a willingness to reduce the consumption of animal foods—if TCA was implemented—of 60.5% was determined, which suggests that TCA has the potential for sustainable behavior change. This study highlights factors that influence consumer attitudes and preferences regarding the inclusion of TCAs, such as environmental, social, and animal welfare costs. Customers’ understanding of increased prices—like, in this case, the compensation for environmental and social costs—is an argument in favor of true prices. The results emphasize the need for differentiated scientific communication strategies to bridge knowledge and action gaps in sustainability science.