Hanover. The Green Week has started at the exhibition center in Berlin – after a two-year corona break and with 1400 exhibitors from around 60 countries. Traditionally, the food industry shows the hottest culinary trends, specialties from all kinds of countries and the latest developments in the agricultural industry. But there is something else that is on the agenda in Berlin these days in particular: the effects of our diet on the climate.

Several exhibitors are doing exactly that, including the Rewe chain. In Berlin, it shows what supermarkets are doing to somehow stop climate change. These are, for example, environmentally friendly cargo bikes for suppliers, “green supermarkets” and a newly introduced shopping bus for citizens of rural areas, which is intended to minimize individual traffic and save emissions.

The Catholic Rural People’s Movement provides information about wind turbines, and at the stand of the Ministry of Agriculture, visitors can find out how sustainability in agriculture can be promoted with peas, field beans and lupins.

Two thirds want to eat more environmentally conscious

Almost all speeches at the start of the fair, for example by the President of the Farmers’ Association, Joachim Rukwied, and the Minister of Agriculture, Cem Özdemir (Greens), were also devoted to the topic of climate protection and sustainability. The alliance “We’ve had enough” demonstrated on Saturday at the fair for an agricultural turnaround with species-appropriate animal husbandry and consistent climate protection.

But climate change is not only an issue in the food industry – decisions on this have long been made at the private kitchen table too. Several surveys in recent years have shown that consumers want to eat more environmentally conscious. According to Survey by consumer association BEUC two-thirds of Europeans are willing to change their diet to protect the climate and the environment.

The only question that arises is: What influence does our diet and the associated agriculture have on climate change at all? What role do individual decisions at the kitchen table play? And could the tide be turned again with changed consumer behavior?

Greenhouse gases and land use

In any case, one thing is certain: the share of daily food consumption in greenhouse gases is quite high. In Germany, that’s 145 million tons of greenhouse gases per year that are released into the air through food, like that Federal Environment Ministry declared. For comparison: the emissions from traffic are almost 171 million tons.

Overall, according to the ministry, nutrition accounts for the proportion of total greenhouse gases per capita at 15 percent. Only the areas of transport (18 percent) and consumption (38 percent) are higher.

In addition to greenhouse gases, there are other environmentally harmful factors, such as land use. In Germany alone, half of the area is used for agriculture – this endangers many animal and plant species. Sometimes intensive agriculture favors the insect die-off.

Many foods are climate killers

But it is also clear that not all nutrition is the same. While some foods and their production methods can be described as climate killers, others can be consumed without a guilty conscience.

Animal products are at the top of the list of culinary climate sinners. The production of one kilo of beef causes around 14 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2). For comparison: With vegetables, such as beans, it is only 150 grams in the same quantity, with fruit around 500 grams of CO2.

Meat production causes all sorts of other greenhouse gases. The production of beef and lamb in particular produces large amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. Factory farming is also accompanied by the creation of arable land – often at the expense of balanced ecosystems and forests. And last but not least, factory farming also causes enormous water and energy consumption, especially for feeding the animals.

Butter worse than meat

In particular, those who eat meat every day not only harm their own health – but also the climate. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Agriculture, particularly livestock farming, contributes to a whopping 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Other animal products are not much better. Cheese is a problem child when it comes to climate friendliness – emissions arise in particular from the production of milk and the subsequent processing into cheese.

Butter is even worse: it takes 18 liters of cow’s milk to produce one kilogram of butter. While the animal emits a lot of methane, large amounts of CO2 are produced for further transport and processing. In total, around 24 kilograms of CO2 equivalents are emitted per kilogram of butter.

Vegetables are not fundamentally climate-friendly

But even vegetables and fruit are not always a climate-friendly alternative. This is especially true for those varieties that first have to be transported halfway across the world before they can be consumed. Avocados, for example, have a comparatively poor CO2 balance – the plant also needs a lot of water for its production. Exotic fruits such as pineapples, mangoes and papayas also have a higher ecological footprint than regional fruit.

However, rice is even more harmful to the climate: Flooding rice fields produces large amounts of methane – according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), rice production even contributes to 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Beverages are often forgotten when it comes to the climate balance: Lemonade, for example, has a high CO2 footprint because the ingredients have to travel long distances – the same applies to the coffee beans. Beer production also requires large amounts of water and energy, especially for grain cultivation and processing. Viticulture has a major impact on the environment, particularly because of the use of pesticides and fertilizers and its high water consumption.

It should be local

If you want to eat less harmful to the climate, you are basically right with plant-based foods. Fruit, vegetables and whole grains tend to have lower greenhouse gas emissions and water use than meat and dairy.

It becomes even more climate-friendly if the products are grown regionally: potatoes and legumes, carrots, cabbage, beetroot, regional mushrooms and other local and seasonal vegetables are considered foods with a good CO2 balance. When it comes to fruit, the best choice is always seasonal produce that doesn’t have to travel by plane.

Animal products can also be climate-friendly under certain circumstances. This applies to game from the region, for example, but also regional chicken and lamb in moderation. In contrast to cheese, dairy products such as yoghurt, quark, skyr, buttermilk or kefir are considered to be comparatively climate-friendly. For fish, for example, trout, herring and carp are suitable.

The insider tip for a climate-friendly diet is Mediterranean cuisine with olive oil instead of animal fats and lots of vegetables. It cuts in terms of climate balance almost as good as a purely vegetarian cuisine.

What are the effects of our eating habits?

But what impact would the decision to adopt a more climate-friendly diet have on climate protection? Several studies have attempted to find out in recent years.

Michael Eisen, Professor of Genetics and Development at the University of California, and biochemist Patrick Brown from Stanford University have used modeling and computer simulations to run through various scenarios of what would happen if all of humanity switched to a climate-friendly, meat-free diet within the next 15 years would switch.

The result: A rapid global phase-out of livestock would stabilize greenhouse gases for 30 years and offset 68% of CO2 emissions. By 2050, i.e. in a relatively short time, positive effects would become apparent. The scientists assume that existing greenhouse gases decay and decrease if no new ones from agricultural livestock are added. Another positive effect would be the alternative use of farmland, with which the current CO2 emission value could be reduced.

Brown is also the founder of Impossible Foods, a company that develops plant-based meat and dairy substitutes. But other research has come to the same conclusions.

Meatless nutrition for the climate

An evaluation by the University of Loma Linda Of 49 research studies, it found that shifting from current dietary standards to ovo-vegetarian and vegan diets would reduce greenhouse gas levels by an average of 35 percent, land use for food production by an average of 42 percent, and agricultural water use by an average of 28 percent.

The WWF also had one study investigates how different diets affect land use and global warming.

With a vegetarian diet, our space requirements would be reduced by 46 percent, with a vegan diet by almost 50 percent and with a flexitarian diet by 18 percent. Similarly, food-related greenhouse gas emissions would also decrease significantly.

Watch out for superfoods

Another WWF study also says: A purely vegan diet is not enough. Anyone who buys fruit, vegetables or nuts from arid regions may harm the environment more than a meat eater.

According to the WWF, only 37 percent of the vegetables consumed here are currently grown in Germany – for tomatoes it is only four percent. Local nuts are almost impossible to find on the supermarket shelves. At the same time, the almond is booming as a superfood: 80 percent of the almonds cultivated worldwide come from California, which is arid. Deeper and deeper wells are being drilled for this, which has devastating effects on the environment.

In the end, climate-conscious nutrition is not just about omitting meat dishes – it is about taking a close look at each individual food.