From indulgence to conscience: Why we care what we eat

What's for dinner tonight? What may seem like a broken record at first shows that for most people, diets are a constant topic of conversation - sometimes as part of their identity, sometimes as the subject of public debate. 

A closer look at what matters to people when it comes to food reveals that the topic is characterized by contradictions and tensions - both in the private sphere and in public discourse. After all, what we eat has an impact not only on the individual, but also on economic structures, societal changes, and the environment. 

For most people, eating is far more than just a duty. A study published by the Robert Bosch Stiftung and conducted by More in Common shows that people regard their diets as a sensitive issue closely linked to their self-perception. Eating healthily is associated with a mindful life. Cooking grandmother's recipes signifies a deep connection to one’s heritage and culture. Enjoying cake on Sundays reflects an ability to indulge and savor life. The results of the study confirm this direct link between food and identity: most respondents associate food with warmth and family and feel most satisfied with their own diet when it aligns with tangible aspects like "health" or "taste". 

At the same time, many people feel deeply insecure: About half of all respondents believe that their own diet could be improved and admit that it is a recurring challenge in daily life. For some, high prices make healthier food unattainable. Others struggle with the constant need to overcome their hidden temptations, repeatedly facing their own setbacks.  

This sometimes contradictory emotional landscape also characterizes the public debate. When people are asked how they perceive the discourse on food, one thing becomes clear: complex feelings and fears are at the forefront. Strong feelings prevail, especially about groups that exhibit certain eating habits. A full 74 percent of respondents have a negative attitude towards people who primarily consume fast food. Similarly, vegans are also significantly affected by negative associations. ‘We must not make the mistake of pitting groups against each other: vegans against meat lovers, and certainly not consumers against farmers. This approach will not help us advance the debate - the discussion must be conducted respectfully, acknowledging different experiences and perspectives’, Doreen Buchheiser explains, Senior Projectmanager Robert Bosch Stiftung.
 

In addition, there is a high level of mistrust towards those who play a major role in shaping the public debate, such as politicians, the media, influencers and the food industry. People tend to trust information that comes directly from their personal circles. This highlights the level of uncertainty and fear of judgement that characterizes the public debate – and this has consequences: ‘The debate is either avoided or highly emotionally charged,’ says David Melches from More in Common. ‘The results show that people are often unable to live up to their own expectations and fear, partly justifiably, being devalued. They therefore prefer to talk about their diets in private and avoid social debate.’

This does not mean that people consider their diet to be a purely private matter. On the contrary: 64% of respondents see a clear need for action when it comes to the food system in Germany. 58% feel that the current food policy is unfair. They would like to see a responsible policy that creates a framework for a sensible diet. Ideally, it should address rising prices (38%), food waste (36%) and unhealthy products for children (36%). But once again, there is an apparent contradiction: while calling for policy change, most respondents distrust politics and are cautious about granting it authority over such a personal aspect of their lives. A dilemma for food policy? 

Consumers and farmers are perceived as already taking on a great deal of responsibility, while politics is perceived as relatively ineffective. This is precisely why there are high opportunities to actively engage people as citizens on this issue.

The results of the study underline the importance of people being actively involved in policy change and being properly represented in the process: 75 percent of respondents would like to be able to vote on new directions for food policy, for example through referendums. 55 percent would like to be involved in advisory bodies, such as citizens' councils.  

In this context, Buchheiser critically evaluates how politicians deal with the results of large-scale participatory processes: ‘Participatory processes such as the German Bundestag's Nutrition in Transition' citizens' assembly are an important step towards more participatory policymaking, but the recommendations made by citizens must also be implemented afterwards.’

For positive societal development, people are willing to make sacrifices. More than half of those surveyed would accept higher prices if farmers were paid fairly or if animal welfare was improved. 47 percent would also be willing to pay more if it meant higher health standards. 40 percent of respondents are open to change if it improves the impact of our diet on the climate. This potential for change should be seized by policymakers. 

‘As a foundation, we can provide impetus and strengthen important civil society actors, such as the network of food policy councils,’ explains Buchheiser. The Robert Bosch Stiftung is currently funding ten projects and initiatives that establish civic participation and a culture of dialogue in rural areas on the topic of nutrition as part of the Future is served! programme. This also helps to strengthen people's confidence in the feasibility of change.