Nutrition is a key element that affects health, climate change, biodiversity and other ecological areas. Various approaches, such as the Planetary Health Diet, show that a plant-based diet with ecological food production has a positive impact on sustainable development. In addition, organically and biodynamically produced foods are considered healthier due to their higher content of health-promoting ingredients such as secondary plant compounds, and at the same time their production is more sustainable and climate-friendly than conventional foods. However, the higher price of organic and Demeter products is a barrier to purchase for many people, especially since the rise in inflation in recent years. In Austria, for example, 12% of the population is already affected by moderate to severe food poverty. A recent study from Austria shows that organic quality in the diet is possible without additional costs – provided that people eat more healthily, pay more attention to how they use food and avoid waste [1].
Implementation
The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) was commissioned by the environmental protection organisation WWF Austria to investigate how a healthier and more sustainable diet compares to current consumption patterns in terms of food costs, climate impact and health. Different dietary patterns were analysed, such as omnivorous[1] in the as-is situation, i.e. what is actually consumed, and omnivorous in the desired situation according to dietary recommendations, as well as vegetarian and vegan. The researchers used data from Austrian consumption statistics and current national dietary recommendations for their calculations. The typical weekly and monthly food shop of a family of four was simulated. This was based on the current prices of the 75 most important food items. For each virtual shopping basket created, there was both a conventional and an organic version. The corresponding quantities and calorie values were taken into account to determine the climate impact.
At the same time, a so-called NGKL index was developed, which links the aspects of sustainability, health, climate protection and affordability of a diet. The higher the value, the better the rating.
Results
Due to inflation, the price of a conventional shopping basket rose by over 30%, compared with only 19% for organic food in the same period.
Food costs can be significantly reduced by up to 21% simply by reducing meat consumption. For a family of four, this represents a cost saving of €29 per week. A vegetarian or vegan diet can save €43 or €52 per week (31% or 37% cost reduction) respectively.
With a simultaneous reduction in food waste, it is possible to eat entirely organic at no extra cost, even though product prices are higher. This means that an average family of four can eat entirely organic if they eat a healthier and more environmentally friendly diet and waste less food.
This also has a positive effect on CO2 emissions: reduced meat consumption and organic food reduce emissions from the current 1,653 kg per person per year with a conventional mixed diet to 761 kg (-54%). An organic vegetarian and organic vegan diet can contribute to a reduction in CO₂ emissions to 724 kg (-56%) or even 470 kg (-72%) respectively. Simply adjusting your daily diet to an optimised, healthy diet in line with scientific nutritional recommendations, without overconsumption and food waste, contributes to a 44% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The NGKL index showed that a diet containing organic products makes a very important contribution to ecological, health and socio-economic goals: it was highest for all organic variants.
Discussion
The study found that the best results were achieved with a vegetarian or vegan organic diet. However, even reducing meat consumption has positive effects on health and the environment. Ultimately, it is about striking a balance, as livestock farming is essential for building soil fertility in biodynamic agriculture. Therefore, completely avoiding animal products is not recommended – rather, a healthy diet and conscious consumption of food are key. By only buying what is actually processed and eaten, food waste can be effectively avoided, resulting in significant savings on food costs. Shopping behaviour also reflects the value placed on food. Anyone who is aware of the long journey a banana takes from the plantation to the plate and how many hands are involved in the process is unlikely to throw it away carelessly. Mindful consumption of food is therefore an effective contribution to greater sustainability – and it starts with shopping. With this approach, it is possible to provide a family of four in Central Europe with all their food from organic sources.
Various studies have already shown that organic food could even feed the world [2, 3]. Interestingly, they also concluded that meat consumption and food waste would have to be reduced for this to happen.
If you compare the retail prices of conventional and organic or biodynamic foods, the latter are initially more expensive. However, this price usually only reflects the direct production costs. However, if we consider the full costs – i.e. also the indirect, external costs such as environmental impacts, social or health-related follow-up costs, the so-called "truecosts" – the result is different. For example, if nitrate levels in groundwater are elevated due to excessive livestock numbers in conventional animal husbandry , the water must be treated to achieve drinking water quality. This incurs costs that are borne by the general public. These additional costs are not included in the current retail price of conventional food. The "true price" of these foods would therefore be higher than that of organic or biodynamic foods, whose production causes less environmental damage and even improves soil fertility and promotes biodiversity.
The higher value and sustainability benefits of organic and biodynamic foods are also not factored into the price. These can be monetised using the Regional Value Calculator, for example. This method involves farms recording and evaluating around 400 parameters relating to ecology, social issues and the regional economy. This makes sustainability measurable and visible [4]. Against this background, the fundamental question arises as to whether a different pricing system for food would be appropriate.
[1] Omnivorous: Mixed diet consisting of both plant and animal foods.
Bibliography
[1] Schlatzer M and Lindenthal T (2025): "Affordability of different diets in Austria
and their impact on climate, health and sustainability" WWF Austria https://www.wwf.at/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/WWF-Ernaehrungsstudie-2025.pdf accessed on 07.07.2025
[2] Reganold J, Wachter J (2016): "Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century" Nature Plants 2, 15221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.221
[3] Muller A, Schader C, El-Hage Scialabba N. et al. (2017): "Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture" Nat Commun 8, 1290. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w
[4] Regional value services: "Agriculture needs appreciation and agriculture also needs understanding" https://www.regionalwert-leistungen.de/ accessed on 25 July 2025
