Objectives: To investigate nutrition knowledge in the German population, its determinants and its association with food consumption. Methods: Data were obtained from the NEMONIT study (2014/15, n = 1,505, participants' age: 22–80 years). Nutrition knowledge was measured using the consumer nutrition knowledge scale (CoNKS) in a computer-assisted telephone interview. Two 24-h recalls were conducted to assess food consumption, which was evaluated using the Healthy Eating Index-NVS II. Results: Areas for knowledge enhancement were the understanding of health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption, the concept of a balanced diet and saturated fatty acids. Nutrition knowledge was higher among females, younger and high socio-economic status participants. Correlations between nutrition knowledge and a favorable diet were significant but low. Analyses of types of nutrition knowledge yielded similar results for procedural knowledge and knowledge on nutrients but not for knowledge on calories. Conclusions: Areas for knowledge enhancement were identified, but an increase in nutrition knowledge alone seems unlikely to result in large improvements of dietary behavior.

Abstract Meat consumption in Germany is presently higher than recommended for a healthy and sustainable nutrition. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to explore German consumers’ attitudes, perceptions and behaviours regarding meat consumption based on data from 1807 participants (20–80 years) of the NEMONIT study (2012/13). Data were obtained using computer-assisted telephone interviews including 24-h recalls and a food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ). The majority (97 %) of the participants were meat consumers and most of them stated that an ideal meal should contain meat. Their main motives for meat consumption were good taste, usual habit and the perception of meat as a healthy and satiable food. The stated meat consumption frequency was higher than the ‘desired’ consumption frequency, answered in a FFQ. Most participants would agree with two meat meals per week, but only 17 % assumed that the German population would agree. Therefore, framework conditions do not motivate people enough to reduce their meat consumption. Options for action which can be implemented in daily routine are needed. Meat is still a largely appreciated food in Germany, but the results indicate a potential for behavioural changes which must be exploited urgently to reduce meat consumption to a healthy and sustainable level.

Meat consumption in high-income countries is increasingly discussed due to its impact on environment and health as well as ethical considerations. The present paper aims to provide information on meat consumption behaviour, sociodemographic factors related to meat consumption and its associations with health and nutritional behaviour, based on the German National Nutrition Survey II. For 12 915 participants aged 18-80 years, food consumption was assessed by two 24-h recalls and further data by interviews. Participants were distinguished in non-meat consumers and meat consumers; meat consumers were further differentiated as low and high meat consumers (<86 g/d and ≥86 g/d). Group differences were analysed using binary logistic and linear regression models. More non-meat consumers were found among women, young and more educated persons. They showed equal or more preferable health characteristics, had a similar energy intake but ate more plant-based foods compared with meat consumers. More high meat consumers were found among men, young and middle-aged and lower-educated persons. Compared with low meat consumers, they showed equal or less preferable health characteristics, had a higher energy intake and ate more potatoes and sauces/spices and less of most other food groups in relation to their energy intake. To conclude, sociodemographic groups differ in their meat consumption and differences in meat consumption go together with differences in health behaviour and other food consumption.

Dieses Diskussionspapier skizziert Handlungsansatze fur politische EntscheidungstragerInnen zur Forderung von nachhaltigen Ernahrungssystemen in Deutschland. Es basiert auf den Ergebnissen aus sechs BMBF-Projekten, die sich im Rahmen der Fordermasnahme „Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften“ (im Rahmen der Sozial-Okologischen Forschung SOF) mit nachhaltiger Ernahrung befassten...

On behalf of the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the GfK SE market research company systematically studied the food waste in German private households from July 2016 to June 2017. The study was a representative diary study. Almost 7,000 households were surveyed over a period of two weeks each on their dealings with food waste (FW). The focus of the study was on types and amounts of avoidable and unavoidable food waste. Documented were reasons for disposal, condition of food products and means of elimination. Further differentiation was made on the basis of household size, age of the head of household and his/her education level, and regional location. Essentially this study offers much new information on dealing with food waste in private households in Germany, and is a good basis for the development of new political options to reduce food waste. Particularly information on the type and composition of food waste is revealing. For example, the study found that 16 % of the avoidable FW is 'cooked or prepared' (with a very high energy input). In part however other reasons for disposal are confirmed, and classified according to their relevance for the purposes of this study. One example is the food expiration date: only 5.8 percent of those surveyed refer to this as a reason for disposal, while ten times this number - overall 57.6 % - through food away due to storage problems, and one third of these foodstuffs were already spoiled. [...]

Organically produced food is often considered more environmentally friendly than conventionally produced food, and Germany is one of the most important and rapidly growing markets for organic food in Europe. However, the carbon footprints and land use of organic diets, and how they compare to conventional diets, have not yet been quantified. Using food consumption data from the German National Nutrition Survey II and carbon footprint and land-use data from life cycle assessment studies of conventional and organic food products, carbon footprints and land use of conventional and organic diets in Germany were calculated for three consumer categories: men, women and their combined unweighted average. Conventional diets are defined as the average diet of consumers who do not buy organic food products; organic diets are the average diets of consumers whose food purchases include a large share of organic food products. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with land use change are not included. The carbon footprints of the average conventional and organic diets are essentially equal (ca. 1250 CO2-eq cap(-1) year(-1)), while the land use to provide food is ca. 40% greater in the organic diet (ca. 1900 and 2750 m(2) of land cap(-1) year in the conventional and organic diets, respectively). The average conventional diet contains 45% more meat than the average organic diet, which on the other hand contains 40% more vegetables, fruits, and legumes (combined). Animal-based food products dominate the carbon footprints and land use (ca. 70-75%) in both diets. The organic diet, in particular that of women, is more aligned with health-based dietary guidelines. Diet-related carbon footprints and land use can be reduced by shifting toward diets with less animal-based food products (other measures are also discussed). General conclusions about the overall performance of conventional and organic agriculture are not supported by this study since only carbon footprints and land use were assessed, while other important issues, such as biodiversity, ecotoxicity impacts and animal welfare, were not considered. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In order to increase the consumption of wholegrain products or grain products with functional properties, it is important to understand consumer beliefs about such products and the impact of health claims. In a series of consumer studies several differences were found between countries. While consumers in Finland, Italy and the UK saw wholegrain products as having positive attributes, those in Finland had more negative beliefs about refined grain products. Health claims and wholegrain labels increased perceived healthiness but had a less positive impact on likelihood of buying, and in Italy both health claims and wholegrain labels even decreased the likelihood of buying.

Although consumer perception of the health claims and nutrition information has been studied widely there is relatively little understanding about the motivational factors underpinning claim perception. The objective of this study is to investigate how levels of perceived relevance influence consumers’ responses to health claims that either promise to reduce a targeted disease risk or improve well-being in comparison to other types of health-related messages, and how attitudes towards nutritionally healthy eating, functional food and previous experience relating to products with health claims affect the consumers’ perceptions of nutrition and health claims. The data (N = 2385) were collected by paper and pencil surveys in Finland, the UK, Germany and Italy on a target group of consumers over 35 year old, solely or jointly responsible for the family’s food shopping. The results showed that relevance has a strong influence on perceptions of personal benefit and willingness to buy products with health claims. However the impact of relevance is much stronger when the health risks are relevant to self than when it is relevant to those close to oneself, especially when the claim promises a targeted risk reduction with detailed information about function and health outcome. Previous experience with products with health claims and interest in nutritionally healthy eating promoted the utility of all claims, regardless of whether they were health or nutrition claims. However, to be influenced by health claims consumers also need to have a positive attitude towards functional food products.

BRAFO stands for Benefit-Risk Analysis for Foods. This European Commission funded project aims at developing a framework that allows quantitative comparison of human health risks and benefits of foods and food compounds based on a common scale of measurement. A methodology group brought together methodologies from several disciplines relevant to the evaluation of risks and benefits in food. This group reviewed and assembled the methodologies available. They produced this guidance document that describes a tiered ('stepwise') approach for performing a risk and benefit assessment of foods. This process starts with pre-assessment and problem formulation to set the scope of the assessment. This includes defining two scenarios, the reference and an alternative that are compared in the assessment. The approach consists of four tiers. In many cases, a lower tier assessment in which risks and benefits are qualitatively evaluated may be sufficient to show a clear difference between the health impacts of the two scenarios. In other cases, increasingly sophisticated methods to integrate risks and benefits quantitatively are used at higher tiers to assess the net health impact.

The objective of the present study was to explore the impact of health-related messages on the perceived overall healthiness and consumers’ likelihood to buy cereal-based products or non-cereal products containing beneficial compounds from grains, across four European countries. The data were collected from a sample of 2392 members of the public in Finland, Germany, Italy and the UK. The results from a conjoint task with a main effects additive model were reported. In general, the presence of a verbal health claim on foods had positive influence on respondents perception of healthiness and on likelihood to buy the products, whereas the pictorial health claims were found to have a weak influence on the two dependent variables. However, the findings showed that health-related information on food labels differently influenced the healthiness perception and the likelihood to buy the product across the four countries, suggesting that different cultures, traditions, and eating habits have to be taken into account before positioning cereal-based products containing beneficial compounds from grains on the market.

The present study focused on the role of the Health Belief Model (HBM) in predicting willingness to use functional breads, across four European countries: UK (N=552), Italy (N=504), Germany (N=525) and Finland (N=513). The behavioural evaluation components of the HBM (the perceived benefits and barriers conceptualized respectively as perceived healthiness and pleasantness) and the health motivation component were good predictors of willingness to use functional breads whereas threat perception components (perceived susceptibility and perceived anticipated severity) failed as predictors. This result was common in all four countries and across products. The role of ‘cue to action’ was marginal. On the whole the HBM fit was similar across the countries and products in terms of significant predictors (the perceived benefits, barriers and health motivation) with the exception of self-efficacy which was significant only in Finland. Young consumers seemed more interested in the functional bread with a health claim promoting health rather than in reducing risk of disease, whereas the opposite was true for older people. However, functional staple foods, such as bread in this European study, are still perceived as common foods rather than as a means of avoiding diseases. Consumers seek these foods for their healthiness (the perceived benefits) as they expect them to be healthier than regular foods and for the pleasantness (the perceived barriers) as they do not expect any change in the sensory characteristics due to the addition of the functional ingredients. The importance of health motivation in willingness to use products with health claims implies that there is an opening for developing better models for explaining health-promoting food choices that take into account both food and health-related factors without making a reference to disease-related outcome.