Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dietary models and challenges for economics

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This introductory article presents the three main challenges faced in economics to issues raised by dietary models. The first part of this paper examines the dietary models that maximise the health profile of a population under various constraints, including environmental and agronomic criteria. The second part introduces the possibilities of economic modelling to complement these dietary models, despite the limitations of economic approaches. The third part suggests new research proposals by asserting that overlooked questions deserve further scrutiny. We emphasise that economic models are particularly useful to analyse trade-offs between the various objectives underlying a sustainable food system. However, possible improvements should tackle, first, possible substitutions between food categories by consumers; second, adjustments in supply chains; and third, measures of inequality resulting from significant changes towards sustainability. Such improvements may be difficult to realise but are technically possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Modifying diets is not the only way to make food systems more sustainable. The supply side can also contribute to better health thanks to product reformulation, for example, or by lowering GHG emissions due to changes in production methods. However, following Poore and Nemecek (2018), dietary changes are requested to include more sustainable food systems in the future.

  2. In Vieux et al. (2018), consumers are supposed to choose a new diet that minimizes a distance function between the observed diet and the optimized one (the so-called ‘optimized diets’). To make solutions acceptable, ad-hoc constraints (denominated ‘palatability constraints’) are frequently added to nutritional constraints or environmental constraints (e.g., a limit in GHG emissions). This differs from Tilman and Clark (2014) and Whitmee et al. (2015), where exogenous new diets, based for example on nutritional goals, are assumed and the consequences evaluated.

  3. These recommended reductions are much greater than the small ones observed in many Western countries over the past decade. For example, in France, per-inhabitant meat consumption fell by 11% between 2007 and 2017 (Tavoularis and Sauvage 2018).

  4. In developing countries, many farmers face the food prices as both producers and consumers.

  5. By considering many countries, Sans and Combris (2015) underscore the positive link between the income per inhabitant and the meat consumption per inhabitant.

  6. It should be noted that originally, many models in agricultural economics were not designed for complementing dietary models but rather to analyse the impact of agricultural and/or environmental policies.

  7. Note that GHG taxes on all food products have a negative health impact (Springmann et al. 2017). However, a scenario that combines GHG taxes on most polluting products (animal products) and subsidies on fruit and vegetables leads to a health improvement.

  8. Remler (2004) underlines this regressivity effect for tobacco, and Allcott et al. (2019) discuss the case of soda taxes.

References

  • Agrimonde-Terra. (2018). Land use and food security in 2050: a narrow road. Edited by M. De Lattre-Gasquet and Olivier Mora. Quae editor, Paris.

  • Afshin, A., & GBD 2017 Diet Collaborators. (2019). Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet, 393(10184), 1958–1972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allcott, H., Lockwood, B. B., & Taubinsky, D. (2019). Should we tax sugar sweetened-beverages? An overview of theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(3), 202–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antimiani, A., Fusacchia, I., & Salvatici, L. (2018). GTAP-VA: an integrated tool for global value chain analysis. Journal of Global Economic Analysis, 3(2), 69–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blezat Consulting, le Crédoc et Deloitte Développement Durable (2017). Étude prospective sur les comportements alimentaires de demain et élaboration d’un dispositif de suivi des principales tendances de consommation à destination des entreprises de la filière alimentaire. La France en 2025. Janvier 2017. Paris, France.

  • Boland, M. A., Crespi, J. M. and Turner, T. M. (2014). Measuring sunk costs in agricultural and food industry assets: Why some assets sell below appraisal. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 12(1), 1–15.

  • Bonnet, C., & Bouamra-Mechemache, Z. (2016). Organic label, bargaining power, and profit-sharing in the French fluid milk market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 98(1), 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnet, C., Bouamra-Mechemache, Z., & Corre, T. (2018). An environmental tax towards more sustainable food: empirical evidence of the consumption of animal products in France. Ecological Economics, 147, 48–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunelle, T., Coat, M., & Viguié, V. (2017). Demand-side mitigation options of the agricultural sector: potential, barriers and ways forward. OCL, Oléagineux Corps gras Lipides, 24(1), D104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A., & Muellbauer, J. (1980). Economics and consumer behavior. Cambridge University Press.

  • Disdier, A. C., & Marette, S. (2012). Taxes, minimum-quality standards and/or product labeling to improve environmental quality and welfare: experiments can provide answers. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 41, 337–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2019) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. FAO, July 2019, Roma.

  • Fapri (Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute) (2019) General information available at http://www.fapri.iastate.edu/used. Ames, IA, USA.

  • Globiom (Global model to assess competition for land use between agriculture, bioenergy, and forestry) (2019). General information available at http://www.globiom.org/. Vienna, Austria.

  • GTAP (2019). General trade analysis project. https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/ Purdue, USA.

  • Harguess, J.M., Crespo, N.C., & Hong, M.Y. (2020). Strategies to reduce meat consumption: a systematic literature review of experimental studies. Appetite, 144, Article 104478.

  • Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2017). Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: a systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 61, 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2019). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems at its 50th Session held on 2–7 August 2019.

  • Irz, X., Leroy, P., Réquillart, V., & Soler, L. G. (2015). Economic assessment of nutritional recommendations. Journal of Health Economics, 39, 188–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. M., Garcia, C. G., & Braun, H. J. (2019). Perspective: whole and refined grains and health – evidence supporting “make half your grains whole”. Advances in Nutrition, 2019(00), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmz114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. (1992). Valuing public goods: the purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22, 57–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, J. A. (2020). Motivations, barriers, and strategies for meat reduction at different family lifecycle stages. Appetite, 150, 104644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krystallis, A., Grunert, K. G., de Barcellos, M. D., Perrea, T., & Verbeke, W. (2012). Consumer attitudes towards sustainability aspects of food production: insights from three continents. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3–4), 334–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakdawalla, D., Philipson, T., & Bhattacharya, J. (2005). Welfare-enhancing technological change and the growth of obesity. American Economic Review, 95(2), 253–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock, K., Smith, R. D., Dangour, A. D., Keogh-Brown, M., Pigatto, G., Hawkes, C., Fisberg, R. M., & Chalabi, Z. (2010). Health, agricultural, and economic effects of adoption of healthy diet recommendations. The Lancet, 376(9753), 1699–1709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L. (2014). Are you smart enough to know what to eat? A critique of behavioural economics as justification for regulation. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 41(3), 355–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lusk, J. L., & Shogren, J. F. (2007). Experimental auctions. Methods and applications in economic and marketing research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marette, S., Roosen, J., & Blanchemanche, S. (2008). Taxes and subsidies to change eating habits when information is not enough: an application to fish consumption. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 34, 119–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masset, G., Vieux, F., Verger, E. O., Soler, L.-G., Touazi, D., & Darmon, N. (2014). Reducing energy intake and energy density for a sustainable diet: a study based on self-selected diets in French adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99, 1460–1469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meunier, G. (2019). Economic assessment of nutritional recommendations: a comment. Journal of Health Economics, 65, 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milford, A. B., Le Mouël, C., Bodirsky, B. L., & Rolinski, S. (2019). Drivers of meat consumption. Appetite, 141(2019), 104313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NBER (2019). The economics of poverty traps. Editors: C. B. Barrett, M. Carter, J-P. Chavas. University of Chicago Press and National Bureau of Economic Research. Washington D.C., USA.

  • Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360, 987–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranganathan J., Vennard D., Waite, R., Lipinski, B., Searchinger, T., Dumas, P., Forslund, A., Guyomard H., Manceron S., Marajo-Petitzon E., Le Mouël C., Havlik P., Herrero M., Zhang X., Wirsenius S., Ramos F., Yan X., Phillips M. and Mungkung R. (2016). Shifting diets for a sustainable food future. Working paper, installment 11 of creating a sustainable food future. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Accessible at http://www.worldresourcesreport.org.

  • Remler, D. K. (2004). Poor smokers, poor quitters, and cigarette tax regressivity. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 225–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roosen, J., & Marette, S. (2011). Making the ‘right’ choice based on experiments: regulatory decisions for food and health. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(3), 361–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sans, P., & Combris, P. (2015). World meat consumption patterns: an overview of the last fifty years (1961–2011). Meat Science, 109, 106–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searchinger, D., Wirsenius, S., Beringer, T., & Dumas, P. (2018). Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature, 564, 249–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springmann, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Robinson, S., Wiebe, K., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2017). Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities. Nature Climate Change, 7, 69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springmann, M., Mason-D’Croz, D., Robinson, S., Wiebe, K., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2018). Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: a modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts. PlosOne, 13(11), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavoularis G., & Sauvage E. (2018). Les nouvelles générations transforment la consommation de viande. Credoc. Consommation et Mode de Vie, n° 300. Paris, France.

  • Thaler R. (2015). Misbehaving. Norton. New York. USA.

  • Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieux, F., Darmon, N., Touazi, D., & Soler, L. G. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France: changing the diet structure or consuming less? Ecological Economics, 75, 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieux, F., Perignon, M., Gazan, R., & Darmon, N. (2018). Dietary changes needed to improve diet sustainability: are they similar across Europe? European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72(7), 951–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., Boltz, F., Capon, A. G., Ferreira de Souza, B., Dias, A., Ezeh, A., Frumkin, H., Gong, P., Head, P., Horton, R., Mace, G. M., Marten, R., Myers, S. S., Nishtar, S., Osofsky, S. A., Pattanayak, S. K., Pongsiri, M. J., Romanelli, C., Soucat, A., Vega, J., & Yach, D. (2015). Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of the Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. The Lancet, 386(10007), 1973–2028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO. World Health Organization. (2009). Global health risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks, 70 pp. Geneva: Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO. World Health Organization (2015). Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. Oct. 26, 2015, Geneva, Switzerland.

  • Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L. J., Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J. A., Vries, W. D., Sibanda, L. M., Afshin, A., Chaudhary, A., Herrero, M., Agustina, R., Branca, F., Lartey, A., Fan, S., Crona, B., Fox, E., Bignet, V., Troell, M., Lindahl, T., Singh, S., Cornell, S. E., Reddy, K. S., Narain, S., Nishtar, S., & Murray, C. J. L. (2019). Food in the anthropocene: the eat–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WWF. World Wildlife Fund (2018). Vers une Alimentation Bas Carbone, Saine et Abordable. October 2018, Paris France.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the editor Ronan Le Velly and two anonymous reviewers for their comments. The authors only are responsible for any omissions or deficiencies.

Funding

This research has been financed by the project DIETPLUS, grant ANR17-CE21-0003 provided by the French National Agency for Research (ANR). It has also been financed by the ANR under the Investments for the Future (Investissements d’Avenir) program, grant ANR-17-EURE-0010.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR Economie Publique, Avenue Lucien Bretignières, 78850, Grignon, France

    Stéphan Marette

  2. Toulouse School of Economics, INRAE, University of Toulouse Capitole, Toulouse, France

    Vincent Réquillart

Authors
  1. Stéphan Marette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincent Réquillart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stéphan Marette.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marette, S., Réquillart, V. Dietary models and challenges for economics. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud 101, 5–22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-020-00113-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-020-00113-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation