There is broad scientific consensus that current food systems are neither sustainable nor resilient: many agricultural practices are very resource-intensive and responsible for a large share of global emissions and loss of biodiversity. Consequently, current systems put large pressure on planetary boundaries. According to economic theory, food prices form when there is a balance between supply and demand. Yet, due to the neglect of negative external effects, effective prices are often far from representing the ‘true costs’. Current studies show that especially animal-based foodstuff entails vast external costs that currently stay unaccounted for in market prices. Against this background, we explore how informational campaigning on agricultural externalities can contribute to consumer awareness and tolerance of this matter. Further, we investigate the socially just design of monetary incentives and their implementation potentials and challenges. This study builds on the informational campaign of a German supermarket displaying products with two price tags: one of the current market price and the other displaying the ‘true’ price, which includes several environmental externalities calculated with True Cost Accounting (TCA). Based on interpretations of a consumer survey and a number of expert interviews, in this article we approach the potentials and obstacles of TCA as a communication tool and the challenges of its factual implementation in agri-food networks. Our results show that consumers are generally interested in the topic of true food pricing and would to a certain extent be willing to pay ‘true prices’ of the inquired foods. However, insufficient transparency and unjust distribution of wealth are feared to bring about communication and social justice concerns in the implementation of TCA. When introducing TCA into current discourse, it is therefore important to develop measures that are socially cautious and backed by relevant legal framework conditions. This poses the chance to create a fair playing (‘polluter pays’) with a clear assignment of responsibilities to policy makers, and practitioners in addition to customers.

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.

Land use change (LUC) is responsible for a large share of the emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) and is a major driver of global biodiversity loss. Although much of the global LUC-related CO₂ emissions and biodiversity loss occur in tropical countries, the actual drivers of this LUC can be located in the global North, particularly through the import of large quantities of agricultural commodities. The aim of this study is to quantify and monetize the LUC-related impacts of the consumption of animal-based food products in Germany and subsequently explore the potential benefits of transitioning to diets with lower dependence on animal-based products. We calculate the LUC-related impacts of consumption of animal-based products in Germany through a modeling approach that combines models for land balance, emissions, and physical trade. We determine the LUC-related CO₂ emissions of this consumption, as well as the deforested area and associated impacts on biodiversity loss. Following the true cost accounting approach (TCA), the LUC-related impacts are monetized to estimate the external costs of the German consumption of animal-based products. Our results show that the consumption of these products is responsible for the deforestation of 16.4 kha annually in the period between 2013 and 2016. Out of the six analyzed animal-based product groups, the largest shares of deforestation are associated with milk (35%) and pork (33%) consumption. However, beef meat consumption has the highest relative LUC-related CO₂ emissions at 0.75 tCO₂ per ton. The LUC-related externalities of the German meat-based product consumption incur annually societal costs of EUR 1.1 billion (plus EUR 0.5 billion for biodiversity loss). The results also show that the animal-based products imported in Germany have only slightly higher LUC-related CO₂ emissions than those produced within Germany. Overall, there is a great urgency for policy measures and shifts in consumer behavior to ensure that the consumption of animal-based products in Germany does not have unacceptably high negative sustainability impacts.