• Articles
• Features
• Impact

• DE
• EN

• Articles
  • Environment
  • Impact Economics
  • Society
  • Knowledge
  • Act Now
• Features
  • Sustainable Digitalisation
  • Sustainable Agriculture
  • Smart Buildings
  • Green Mobility
  • Energy Transition
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Satellites and Drones
  • Civic Tech
  • Blockchain
  • E-Mobility
• Impact
• About RESET
• Donate Now
• Newsletter

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

post

In order for consumers to purchase more sustainability, better information regarding the environmental impact of products is required. However, deciphering exactly the impact and origins of various ingredients and items is not an easy feat. Even for food producers themselves, it’s not always entirely clear exactly how sustainable their products are - or are not.

Researchers at the UK’s Oxford University have developed a new algorithm which can help to shed some light on this situation. Their work, published in PNAS journal, attempts to combine all the information of various products into a simple, easily understood score which can be printed onto packaging. It’s hoped this easily accessible information will help  consumers make more sustainable choices, especially between similarly priced items.

Whereas previous efforts have concentrated on evaluating the environmental impact of individual ingredients, such as beef, wheat or fruits, the new approach understands that many products are a combination of many different ingredients - complicating their environmental blueprint. The new algorithm is able to access the full list of ingredients in items and then compare them to available environmental databases. It then creates results for each type of food with an environmental score based on four main metrics: greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water stress, and eutrophication potential (the impact of over-fertilisation on land and aquatic environments).

The Results Are In...

Their results, derived from 57,000 items in UK supermarkets, makes for some predictable, but also surprising reading. All products are given a numerical ‘eco-score’ rating between 0 and 40, with 0 being the lowest environmental impact and 40 the highest. Of course, meat and dairy products are way out on top, with beef and lamb in particular gaining the highest rating of 34.72. Nuts, tea, coffee and chocolate also rate relatively high for their categories, although all are only a fraction of the overall impact of meat. What is perhaps most surprising is fizzy drinks and cola earning the lowest score of 0.23.

However, the researchers themselves suggest their approach does not all take all factors into consideration. For example, country of origin is not addressed, a factor which can have a major impact on the carbon footprint of certain items, such as fish, vegetables and drinks. Additionally, the manner of production is also not addressed. Therefore, items such as ready meals rank relatively low, even though they may use controversially intensive farming methods to create cheap meat. Meanwhile, many large food producers such as Nestlé and Coca Cola also have a long legacy of human rights scandals, which is also not addressed in the algorithm. There are also wide discrepancies within certain items; the least environmentally damaging sausage had only a third of the score of the most damaging.

This issue hits at the challenge of such a rating system. In order to be accessible, the information must also be somewhat simplified and various factors may need to be excluded to provide practical and useful results. The team themselves understand that their eco-score may be most useful then cross-referenced with other rating systems, such as the common ‘Nutri-score’ which rates the nutritional value of food items. When this is done, the choice between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ foods - both environmentally and nutritionally - becomes a bit more complex.

Regardless, such scores are generally a step in the right direction, even if they do not provide a completely clear picture of reality. Plus, they are not only useful for consumers. Producers themselves are often in the dark about the environmental impact of their own products. With some producers pledging themselves to net zero by 2030 goals, this kind of information can become invaluable. For example, the research team discovered that the addition of one ingredient can greatly impact the overall score of a product, such as adding chocolate to biscuits.

A Change in Shopping Behaviour?

It is also possible scores such as this can open up a new avenue of competition between food producers. If the environmental impact of products was made much clearer to consumers, it may compel manufacturers to improve their sustainability to appear more attractive compared to rivals. Although such an objective eco-score labelling is unlikely to become compulsory in the near future - at least in the UK - the voluntary adoption of an independent rating system could boost certain brands. If such practices can be seen to improve profitability amongst a more environmentally conscious consumer-base, the general sustainability of the entire food network could improve.

Of course, cost is usually the bottom-line for many consumers, especially considering the burgeoning cost of living crisis, and is debatable how much such information will truly affect buying behaviour. But if consumers themselves are to be believed, there is a desire for more sustainable options. According to a recent study by First Insight, two-thirds of American consumers say they were willing to pay up to 10 percent more for sustainable products. Among GenZ consumers, this increased to 90 percent. Conversely, two-thirds of retailers suggested consumers did not want to pay more for sustainable products - driving their marketing behaviour.

In reality, these kinds of surveys had been largely theoretical, as no reliable information regarding the sustainability of products was widely available. At the very least, rating systems such as those outlined above could finally give consumers some kind of insight into how their shopping impacts the environment.

For farmers on Indonesia’s ​​Sumbawa Island, nature has always traditionally kept them informed about weather cycles and patterns. For generations, farmers have looked to the tamarind and kapok trees to predict rainfall and plan the sowing of their seeds. However, climate change is throwing off these natural rhythms as well as the traditional knowledge that depends on them, potentially ruining crops and livelihoods.

To solve this issue, a collaboration of international agencies have developed a weather prediction app specifically tailored to the needs of Indonesia’s farmers. However, the effort does not simply end there. The team, including the Bandung Institute of Technology, USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance and international development nonprofit World Neighbors, understands creating the app is only one - and arguably the most simple - part of the solution. Farmers, some of them in remote areas, also need to understand and trust the new technological approach.

The app is the brainchild of Dr. Armi Susandi, an Indonesian lecturer at the Bandung Institute with extensive experience in developing early warning and smart agriculture applications. Using meteorological information, local historical data and annual yields, the app provides rainfall, wind speed, humidity and air pressure predictions for the local area, as well as recommendations for which crops to grow. In extreme situations, it can also provide advance warning of coming hydrometeorological disasters. The app can provide short term predictions, updating the next three days' forecast every three hours, and monthly predictions for as much as five years in the future. For the many sloped dryland farms of Indonesia’s Dompu Regency, knowing when and how much rain is going to fall is essential to farming success.

But there are immediate challenges to the uptake of the new app. Firstly, there is the fact that only around 45 percent of Indonesian farmers have access to a smartphone - with most of those being younger farmers. Even those with a smartphone, may have limitations in terms of signals. But perhaps the most salient issue is the natural reticence of traditional smallholder farmers to adopt and rely on unfamiliar technology. After their initial workshops, around 60 percent of farmers agreed to use the technology. Although a significant figure, it also illustrated that many were not yet ready to hitch their livelihoods to a mobile phone application.

In an interview with Inhabitat, Edd Wrights, World Neighbors’ regional director for Southeast Asia, explained the steps being taken to solve these problems. The most significant development is the creation of local agricultural extension workers. These are specially trained locals who accompany the NGOs to educate and familiarise the farmers with the technology. In cases where the farmer does not own a smartphone, they can also provide access or give them offline analog copies of the apps' coming predictions.

Importantly, the new technology is not simply thrust upon them. Farmers are taken through a step-by-step education process in which traditional methods, climate change and the technology behind the predictions are all discussed. This hopefully creates an environment where traditional and modern methods are brought together and not seen as in competition. In the final stage, farmers are shown how to implement the models and develop comparative assessments of yields between those who used the rainfall predictions and those who did not.

It is hoped that adoption amongst some leading members of the farming communities will help greatly increase trust in the app overall. It seems to be working. After reluctant farmers saw the success of early adopters, more agreed to join a trial of the app. Now around 3,700 farmers in 36 communities are trained in the use of the app.

Currently, the app is being trailed largely in select areas of Dompu, but now World Neighbors hope to expand it further to the regions’ 200,000 inhabitants in 81 villages. Although face-to-face workshops have been instrumental in kickstarting adoption, World Neighbors also understands continuing this process on a large scale would be prohibitive in terms of time and cost. To this end, there are endeavouring to fully digitalise the training experience and make it available online.

This is not the first time Indonesia's farmers have been given some digital support in their farming careers. Previously, RESET has written about another digital app, Dr. Tania, which helps farmers identify pests and disease amongst their crops.

As the global population booms, how do we make sure there’s food for everyone? Food insecurity is an evermore urgent issue. Traditional agriculture faces many complaints, including its carbon footprint, excessive land use, and questionable animal ethics. In a recent paper, a group of researchers argue that there is a more efficient and environmentally friendly alternative: microbial biomass.

Microbial biomass, also called microbial protein or single-cell protein (SCP), is rich in protein and other nutrients. In a new paper published in PNAS, researchers analysed the efficiency of using solar energy to produce SCP, and found that it significantly outperformed key crops like wheat, rice and soybean.

“Microbial biomass” doesn’t sound like the tastiest dish, but it’s becoming a popular alternative for producing sustainable protein. Several companies already use SCP derived from algae, fungi and bacteria to produce food for humans and animals. Products like these have been on the market for decades: take Quorn, a popular meat substitute that sells tasty meat-free nuggets and lasagnes made from mycoprotein.

According to the researchers’ analysis, SCP can reach over ten times the yield of protein and at least twice the yield of calories compared with any staple crop per unit of land. Staple crops include corn, wheat and rice, and the researchers used the most efficient of them in terms of protein and calories – soybean and sugar beet – as the basis for their comparison.

The method to produce SCP analysed in the study used solar panels, land, nutrients and carbon dioxide from the air. The protein-rich biomass that results from the complex array of scientific processes (illustrated below) can then be processed into an edible powder. The researchers investigated the energy needed for each step of this process, and found that for each kilogram of protein produced, the microbes required only 10 per cent of the land area required by the most protein-efficient plant crop, the soybean.

The results hold even in northern climates with less sunshine, and the production could take place in regions previously unsuitable for agricultural production, such as deserts.

The researchers note that SCP is better suited to replace some crops than others. Soybean, for example, is an ideal candidate, as it is primarily cultivated as animal feed to begin with. Maize, on the other hand, is used not just as food, but for bioenergy production.

SCP holds promise for tackling food insecurity without having disastrous consequences on the environment. But, as the paper observes, its adoption into the mainstream depends on a number of factors, including its economic competitiveness and its appeal to consumers. 

While SCP is edible for humans, many envisage that it will play a big role in feeding farm animals. While animals such as cows, fish and insects provide protein to humans, these farm animals also need to be fed protein-rich food. SCP is also suitable as a food supplement.

These days, many people are seeking a healthier relationship with the food they eat. That might include ditching meat, eating organic or cutting out plastic packaging. For others, it’s not just a relationship with the food they want to build, but also with the farmers who produced it. With the help of an online platform, it may now be easier than ever to get to know the local farmer.

The Open Food Network bills itself as a digital farmers market, in which local producers, wholesalers and buyers can come together and create and support the birth of new, more cooperative, ways to buy and sell food. In particular, Open Food Network envisions their software being used by networks of families, neighbours or producers to create an online community in which goods, advice and expertise can be shared for the benefit of all.

For primary producers, such as farmers, Open Food Network can be simply used as an online portal to directly sell their goods to customers. Alternatively, wholesalers can also use the platform to create and manage local buying groups, as well as create national or regional food hubs to be distributed further.

The platform, which is provided open source, has also been specifically tailored to the needs of smallholders, farmers and market sellers. In some cases, farmers have developed their own distribution networks using social media, however this comes with issues of administration, organisation and payment. Open Food Network looks to provide this infrastructure in one place, as well as tailoring it to farmers' needs.

For example, traditional online selling platforms often do not have the inherent flexibility required when it comes to selling actual real produce. Supermarkets regularly reject produce which does not meet their specifications, either in terms of size or aesthetics. Open Food Network understands this and allows farmers to sell produce that comes in all manners of shape and size. Open Food Network is arranged into various regional networks which users can search to find something local.

However, the idea goes beyond a mere online storefront for farmers and producers. Central to the ethos of the Open Food Network is the creation of more local, sustainable and circular food chains supported by local communities. The platform can also be used by individuals, cooperatives and groups of families or neighbours to create regular digital farmers markets drawing on producers in the region. Not only does this cut out the middleman (which is usually a supermarket) but can also work as the basis of a broader project in which advice, expertise and a sense of community can be shared.

Sharing is Caring

For example, when families in one Melbourne suburb found it extremely difficult - and expensive - to get hold of organic produce, they decided to deal directly with the farmers themselves. This resulted in the Westies Buying Group, an informal collective of members, who carry out weekly bulk purchases of organic goods from local producers. Members pay a small administrative members fee, and then use the Open Food Network platform to place their orders. One member then receives the orders, packages them in reusable packaging and leaves them out to be picked up by the others.

Another Australian project is the Prom Coast Food Collective, which although similar to the Westies Buyer Group, started at the other end of the spectrum. Local farmers wished to improve their ability to deal directly with customers within their communities. What resulted was an online portal in which farmers of a similar attitude and outlook, including a desire to farm sustainably, were brought together to market their produce. 

For the first two weeks of every month, each individual farmer can place online what produce they have available to sell. The cooperative has selected farmers whose products ideally complement, not compete with each other. Then on the third Sunday of the month, all 24 farmers come together at one farm to pass the produce onto the customers. Importantly, each ‘Convergence Day’ also acts as a small community gathering in which friendships are formed, recipes are exchanged or new partnerships developed.

The model provides a number of advantages over dealing with supermarkets. Firstly, the farmers can set their own prices, secondly they know exactly how much produce to bring to the market, reducing waste, and finally, the farmers can pool their resources to more effectively market their goods.

A Supermarket Alternative?

By creating direct relationships between producers and buyers, small farmers are partly able to sidestep some of the issues of dealing with large supermarkets, wholesalers and other agricultural giants. It has often been stated that farmers are often held hostage by demands from their buyers and from their suppliers, meaning they are often squeezed from both ends. 

In 2020, around a third of small US farms said they expected to go bankrupt, with the biggest concern being unsold produce. Supermarkets are highly subject to fluctuations in supply and demand, meaning farmers are often left with harvested produce they cannot sell. This issue is compounded by the fact that in some countries, such as the US, only a handful of powerful corporations dominate the wholesaling environment. Meanwhile, as consumers expect lower and lower prices for basic foodstuffs, profit margins become slimmer and slimmer, especially in areas such as dairy. In the so-called supermarket price wars, which can lead to the rapid reduction in prices, farmers are often the main casualties.

Technology, such as Open Food Network - which has a civic and community purpose at its core - not only puts more cash into farmers wallets, but it can also provide them with a support network that has a vested interest in them surviving and thriving. ​​By pooling their money, resources and time into cooperative groups, they are also concentrating their ability to advocate on the behalf of individuals or groups of farmers. If the idea of cooperative, digital farmers markets becomes more mainstream, it could help to shift industry practices away from the current system which results in massive food waste, packaging and heartache for some farmers.

Open Food Network is available globally, and has projects stretched all across the globe, from Europe, to South Africa, the US and Australia.

The article is part of our Special Feature "Civic Tech - Ways Out of the Climate Crisis with Digital Civic Engagement". You can find all articles of the Special Feature here: Special Feature Civic Tech

The Special Feature is part of the project funding of the German Federal Environmental Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt - DBU), in the framework of which we are producing four special features over two years on the topic of "Opportunities and potentials of digitalisation for sustainable development".

More information here.

A customer strolling around a supermarket produce section often encounters row upon row of largely identical fruit and vegetables, many of them sporting near perfect shape, colour and size. In reality, many supermarket fruit and vegetable aisles are not true representations of what agricultural produce looks like, but are instead highly curated showcases of only the produce deemed most likely to sell. Behind the scenes, tons of produce are rejected every day, often for failing to meet the largely aesthetic quality standards set by stores.

But now a French startup, Proteme, is looking for a way to give fruit and vegetables more of a fighting chance of making it to the shop floor. They have developed a specialised nano-thin protective coating designed to extend the life of fruit anf vegetables.

Proteme is relatively vague on what the protective film, dubbed Prosane, exactly consists of, but states it is a synergistic combination of biopolymer and natural components which is entirely edible, biodegradable and allergen-free. The team claim that Prosane functions as a ‘second skin’ for the fruit, and hinders the fruits’ natural reaction to the air - all without denaturing the food or detracting from its natural flavour. Although the protective film is invisible, odorless and tasteless, it can still be simply washed off with normal water if preferred. By preventing bacterial or microbial growth, as well as protecting fruit from physical damage, Proteme claims their coating solution extends produce shelf life by several weeks.

The startup is also dedicated to developing and utilising Prosane in a more ecological and circular agricultural sector, especially as a reaction to the use of traditional post-harvest phytosanitary products, such as waxes, hormones and disinfectant products. Additionally, Prosane could also help in reducing the amount of plastic used as packaging for fruit and vegetables. Ultimately, according to Proteme, a circular philosophy has been maintained through the development and production process, which it hopes to extend to distribution.

Currently, Proteme is working on developing a functional prototype and is aiming its product mostly towards apple and apricot producers, as these fruits have a long shelf-life and therefore act as a contamination risk to other produce. It is also largely targeting groups which share its approach to ecologically responsible intensive agriculture, such as market gardeners, arborists and agricultural cooperatives.

The Food Waste Crisis

The statistics involved in food loss and food waste are often staggering. According to FoodPrint.org, roughly 40 percent of America’s food goes to waste, with loss and waste occurring all across the production chain. Loss can occur for a variety of reasons, such as crops left in fields, produce being damaged in transportation or left for too long in storehouses. Once it reaches stores there’s also no guarantee it will make it to customers. For example, fruit or vegetables may be rejected if they do not reach supermarket standards in terms of colour or size. Indeed, it is often the case that wasteful practices are also seen as good business practices by supermarkets. For example, supermarket studies have shown customers are more likely to buy produce, such as a lettace, when it is in a pile of many, as opposed to on its own. This encourages overstocking which inevitably leads to unsold food and waste.

Some of this wasted food, around 10 to 33 percent, does re-enter the cycle, usually as animal feed. However, this is still a loss in terms of the amount of resources - such as land and water - that was used to produce the food in the first place.

In recent years, supermarkets have been increasing their commitments to cutting food waste. US giants, Walmart and Kruger have joined the 10x20x30 initiative which pledges members to meeting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Others have introduced policies to simplify and clarify expiration and best used by dates, as well as sell ‘ugly’ produce at discount prices. Elsewhere, farmers are working with stores to improve guidance on quality standards and ensure healthy produce still makes it to supermarkets.

Ultimately, however, the majority of food waste occurs in the home. This is partly a result of supermarket practises, especially deals which encourage bulk buying, but is also a result of consumer behaviour. Overbuying, poor preparation and impulse purchases all contribute to food eventually being discarded in the home. Individuals may need to become more aware and critical of what and how much they are purchasing, and whether it is likely to be used before it spoils. Alternatively, consumers may wish to shop at specialist surplus stores, which are becoming increasingly available both online and on the high street.

We rarely make the connection between biodiversity of plants and animals, which we celebrate in the wild and our culture of food and lifestyles. But it is important to make the link – as disappearance of biodiversity in the world affects our bodies.

The Business of Food Has Changed to The Business of Profit

Take honey. We never think about the golden product we buy off the shelf and consume from the jar with a label we trust is linked to the biodiversity of bees in the world. We never consider how, as this biodiversity disappears and how, as Indian-adapted bees (Apis cerana and Apis dorsata) are replaced by foreign, in this case European bees (Apis mellifera), the business of food changes. It changes because now, instead of the bee that is naturally found in our backyards, our forests and fields, we move towards bee cultivation. Then industry grows. It replaces the small informal bee producers, to build an organised business with reach across the country to outsource production and collection. The company that sells us the honey under its label, has little to do with its production. It buys from the organised business, bottles and sells. The business of food has changed to the business of profit.

New Diseases and New Threats

The biodiversity of food is lost – only one bee type now produces our honey – and the biodiversity of business is lost. But nature has a way of getting back at us. As industry thrives in pumping up production by overworking the bees – taking out immature honey so that bees have to make more and then feeding them supplements and antibiotics for growth – it finds that it is dealing with new diseases and new threats to its profits. This industrial agribusiness – which our honey now belongs to – needs more inputs of antibiotics to keep business going and bees healthy.

But this only means that our food – our honey that we take with trust and belief in goodness and purity – is full of contaminants of antibiotics as the Centre for Science and Environment’s laboratory found. All major brands – including two big foreign brands – had antibiotics far in excess of any standards in the world. This contaminant is bad for our bodies as it builds antibiotic resistance and even toxicity. The circle is complete: loss of biodiversity, loss of food culture and bad health and disease.

The Art of Food

There are two ways ahead in this biodiversity-food-body connection. First, we need to build the science of food regulation, which is protective of our health. Current efforts at creating a food policeman in the shape of the Food Safety and Standards Authority have been disastrous. The Authority, set up a few years ago, has been dead on entry. It does little to protect consumer interest in food, instead works to protect business interest over our food. This is even more deadly, when you consider how the business of food has changed and become more powerful and more global. Clearly, big business and weak regulators are bad for our bodies.

Second, we need to build the art of food again. This means understanding food as an outcome of living and lived biodiversity and culture. We cannot take all diversity out of our food and expect to have good health. It is clear we are losing the connection between what we eat and why and where and how it grows as we blindly and foolishly allow industry to take over the business of our kitchens.

Food is about the ultimate celebration of nature. Let us not lose it.

Author: Sunita Narain, Director of Centre for Science and Environment

In order for consumers to purchase more sustainability, better information regarding the environmental impact of products is required. However, deciphering exactly the impact and origins of various ingredients and items is not an easy feat. Even for food producers themselves, it’s not always entirely clear exactly how sustainable their products are - or are not.

Researchers at the UK’s Oxford University have developed a new algorithm which can help to shed some light on this situation. Their work, published in PNAS journal, attempts to combine all the information of various products into a simple, easily understood score which can be printed onto packaging. It’s hoped this easily accessible information will help  consumers make more sustainable choices, especially between similarly priced items.

Whereas previous efforts have concentrated on evaluating the environmental impact of individual ingredients, such as beef, wheat or fruits, the new approach understands that many products are a combination of many different ingredients - complicating their environmental blueprint. The new algorithm is able to access the full list of ingredients in items and then compare them to available environmental databases. It then creates results for each type of food with an environmental score based on four main metrics: greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water stress, and eutrophication potential (the impact of over-fertilisation on land and aquatic environments).

The Results Are In...

Their results, derived from 57,000 items in UK supermarkets, makes for some predictable, but also surprising reading. All products are given a numerical ‘eco-score’ rating between 0 and 40, with 0 being the lowest environmental impact and 40 the highest. Of course, meat and dairy products are way out on top, with beef and lamb in particular gaining the highest rating of 34.72. Nuts, tea, coffee and chocolate also rate relatively high for their categories, although all are only a fraction of the overall impact of meat. What is perhaps most surprising is fizzy drinks and cola earning the lowest score of 0.23.

However, the researchers themselves suggest their approach does not all take all factors into consideration. For example, country of origin is not addressed, a factor which can have a major impact on the carbon footprint of certain items, such as fish, vegetables and drinks. Additionally, the manner of production is also not addressed. Therefore, items such as ready meals rank relatively low, even though they may use controversially intensive farming methods to create cheap meat. Meanwhile, many large food producers such as Nestlé and Coca Cola also have a long legacy of human rights scandals, which is also not addressed in the algorithm. There are also wide discrepancies within certain items; the least environmentally damaging sausage had only a third of the score of the most damaging.

This issue hits at the challenge of such a rating system. In order to be accessible, the information must also be somewhat simplified and various factors may need to be excluded to provide practical and useful results. The team themselves understand that their eco-score may be most useful then cross-referenced with other rating systems, such as the common ‘Nutri-score’ which rates the nutritional value of food items. When this is done, the choice between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ foods - both environmentally and nutritionally - becomes a bit more complex.

Regardless, such scores are generally a step in the right direction, even if they do not provide a completely clear picture of reality. Plus, they are not only useful for consumers. Producers themselves are often in the dark about the environmental impact of their own products. With some producers pledging themselves to net zero by 2030 goals, this kind of information can become invaluable. For example, the research team discovered that the addition of one ingredient can greatly impact the overall score of a product, such as adding chocolate to biscuits.

A Change in Shopping Behaviour?

It is also possible scores such as this can open up a new avenue of competition between food producers. If the environmental impact of products was made much clearer to consumers, it may compel manufacturers to improve their sustainability to appear more attractive compared to rivals. Although such an objective eco-score labelling is unlikely to become compulsory in the near future - at least in the UK - the voluntary adoption of an independent rating system could boost certain brands. If such practices can be seen to improve profitability amongst a more environmentally conscious consumer-base, the general sustainability of the entire food network could improve.

Of course, cost is usually the bottom-line for many consumers, especially considering the burgeoning cost of living crisis, and is debatable how much such information will truly affect buying behaviour. But if consumers themselves are to be believed, there is a desire for more sustainable options. According to a recent study by First Insight, two-thirds of American consumers say they were willing to pay up to 10 percent more for sustainable products. Among GenZ consumers, this increased to 90 percent. Conversely, two-thirds of retailers suggested consumers did not want to pay more for sustainable products - driving their marketing behaviour.

In reality, these kinds of surveys had been largely theoretical, as no reliable information regarding the sustainability of products was widely available. At the very least, rating systems such as those outlined above could finally give consumers some kind of insight into how their shopping impacts the environment.

Content to: food

© PxHere (Creative Commons Zero License)

Environment

Green Innovation

Will a New Algorithm Rating the Sustainability of Our Food Change Consumer and Producer Behaviour?

When it comes to your weekly shopping, which products are the most sustainable? A new project ranks 57,000 popular food items.

© World Neighbors

Environment

Green Innovation

Project Gives Indonesian Farmers Digital Tools to Predict the Weather – and the Confidence to Use Them

Traditional methods of predicting rain are being affected by climate change, but encouraging farmers to adopt modern tools is not aways straightforward.

© Solar Foods

Environment

Green Innovation

Solar-Powered Food: Study Reveals Microbial Proteins Could Lead the Way in a Sustainable Future for Food

A new study has revealed edible proteins that are much more efficient and sustainable than traditional staple crops. But does the world have an appetite for powdered microbial proteins?

© Open Food Network

Environment

Green Innovation

Open Food Network: The ‘Digital Farmers Market’ Trading Food – and Ideas

Open Food Network takes 'buying local' to the next step by introducing communities of shoppers to the farmers and producers that live around them.

© Proteme

Environment

Green Innovation

Proteme: Can Invisible, Edible Nano-films Protect Our Fruit and Reduce Food Waste?

A large portion of our perishable foods never make it to the dinner plate. A French startup hopes their innovative protective nano-film can help keep fruit fresher, for longer.

M.G.N. - Marcel ON OF

Environment

Knowledge

Bitter Truth: Biodiversity and The Business of Food

2010 was the International Year of Biodiversity and offered the world the opportunity to reflect on the role of biodiversity in our daily lives – in fact our bodies and our selves.