to Prof. Dr Hannelore Daniel, Chair of Nutrition Physiology at the Research Center for Nutrition and Food Sciences (ZIEL) at the Technische Universtität München’s Weihenstephan campus. Prof. Daniel is also a member of the Bio-economy Council and its plant work group.

If we are to protect our natural resources and improve people’s health, current food habits must change. This is a view commonly held by experts. At the same time, however, consumer behaviour is being influenced by fierce price wars. How can this conflict of interests be resolved? We put five questions on this subject to Prof. Dr Hannelore Daniel, Chair of Nutrition Physiology at the Research Center for Nutrition and Food Sciences (ZIEL) at the Technische Universtität München’s Weihenstephan campus, and member of the Bio-economy Council.

1. Professor Daniel, discount supermarkets in Germany are conducting a bitter price war and offering food at such low prices that the actual costs of the goods – from production through to distribution – are scarcely covered. Fast food chains are advertising burgers costing less than one euro each. Will prices continue to spiral downwards indefinitely?

Daniel: No. This process is an exponential function, and we are nearing the axis. The variety of foodstuffs on offer militates against it. Supermarket shelves and freezer cabinets cannot keep on getting larger, as temperature control, cleaning and lighting etc. all cost money, and producers already pay premiums to have their new products positioned strategically on the shelves. We are also nearing the limits of optimisation in the production, processing, logistics and transport of foodstuffs.

In the food sector, therefore, real ‘added value’ and a profit to match are only being achieved these days by convenience and premium product ranges, and maybe by health foods, wellness products, or delicacies for ‘our beloved pets’. These ranges, too, are increasingly being exploited by the chains, with their new ‘premium range brands’. I see this as a sign that the discount supermarkets themselves believe they have almost reached the limit with commodities. It is still uncertain as to how global markets for food products and their raw materials are going to develop. With the growth in the world’s population and thus in demand for food, limited possibilities for substantially increasing crop yields on the farmland available, and a potential intensification of the competition for land between food production and renewable crops for energy use, there can be no doubt that we will see different price structures in the future.

2. Does this mean that foodstuffs will become scarce commodities again?

Daniel: Yes, even if this is not an imminent scenario. But we must be prepared for it. For me, at least, each visit to the supermarket raises the question of our values vis-à-vis food in general. Call me moralising if you like, but it bothers me when a litre of milk costs about the same as a few minutes chatting on my mobile phone, or when the nicely packaged dog food (1kg = 8.80 euro) costs three times as much as this week’s mincemeat for a Bolognese sauce from one of our discount supermarkets (1kg = 2.58 euro).

This state of affairs makes me consider more than just the production costs and resources needed – it takes, for example, around 16,000 litres of water as well as electricity and oil to produce 1kg of minced beef, and a considerable amount of CO2 is discharged into the atmosphere. What are we ‘achieving’ by this, and how much ‘ethics’ and animal health protection can we expect when meat is being produced at 2.58 euro per kilo? Moreover, a large proportion of the food bought by consumers is not eaten and ends up in the dustbin. Unfortunately we don’t have any reliable figures on this in Germany, but it may well be around 25–30% here, too. We are responsible for what is bought from supermarket shelves and how food is treated – our consumer behaviour drives markets, defines values and thus we need to use our conscience when shopping as well. In a world where resources are quite clearly limited, and where there is a rising number of people to feed who, like us, want access to high-quality and tasty foods, we must begin a new debate about our values. Even though the media continues to reinforce our romantic vision of how food is produced, we are not an island and we must face reality. We cannot have food for nothing, so we have to ask ourselves what food products are really worth to us, and what besides pleasure and nutritional value they can and ought to give us in the future.

3. By ‘healthy eating’ we generally understand a balanced diet with a lot of fruit, vegetables, meat and fish. Will this continue to be the right way to eat, or are researchers currently working to redefine the ‘balanced diet’? In future will we have to accept an increasing number of artificially developed and genetically modified foods as part of our diet? 

Daniel: However one defines healthy eating, the ideal diet will continue to be one which combines variety with pleasure. Never in human history has there been such a wide range of foods on offer that are safe to eat. Of course, the trend towards greater differentiation of lifestyles and eating habits will continue to develop in the food sector as well. And maybe we will see a new definition of a ‘balanced diet’, one that better suits people’s needs in the different phases of their lives.

It will be fascinating to see how much diversity the market will allow, and how much scope for choice our own consumer behaviour can cope with. When I visit a garden centre these days I am confronted by an endless range of specific composts which have clearly been developed for the specific needs of my garden, balcony and pot plants, strawberries, rhododendrons, roses or box. The same choice exists for fertilisers. Let’s draw a parallel to the human diet. In future, will there be different products to meet the individual needs of children, adolescents, men, women in their forties, fifties etc.? Hard to imagine! Even today the consumer finds it hard to orient themselves in the market or make informed choices – so how are they going to manage in the future? And as I mentioned above, the supermarkets themselves cannot get any bigger. Perhaps what will be needed are ‘all-round’ shops specifically geared towards life phases, i.e. shops offering food, body care products, cosmetics, medical care and other services. The functional and health foods would then be in the corresponding food and services section.

There are also other possible nutritional and health services based on genotyping and individually tailored advice, maybe even with personalised products. How these products are made – with or without genetic technology – will be of secondary importance. The COMMODITY of health will be paramount, as predicted by the ‘6^th Kondratieff cycle’.

4. Let us now consider the general public within this huge topic of food and nutrition. In your opinion what are the reasons for the lack of interest in food and nutrition research?

Daniel: Interest in food and nutrition is very big – maybe even too big. Interest in the science behind it, on the other hand, is tiny. In our field people expect simple answers to what appear to be simple questions. In the media these answers go no further than recommendations to drink green tea, to eat chocolate because of the many flavonoids it contains, or fruit because of the supposed good antioxidants etc. How can consumers form an opinion on the accuracy of these statements, their origin, and the science that underpins them, assuming that these claims can be substantiated? Even I find it hard to do so any more. The results of every study, however insignificant it may turn out to be, are evaluated by the media. Unfortunately even I’m being constantly asked to make public the significance of my most recent findings, and sometimes this request becomes a demand, citing the duty of science towards the public. In my opinion – and it’s something I witness every day – this multimedia coverage is giving rise to greater collective uncertainty and an increasing number of consumers unwilling to listen to advice.

Whereas in many areas of our lives we identify and demand minimum quality and safety standards, we are leaving information and (supposed) knowledge to pluralism of opinion and market forces. It would be desirable if the scientists, at least, sometimes showed greater discipline in committing themselves publicly. But here, too, ‘health’ has become the ideal to which research subordinates itself, serving the vastly increased public interest in health information.

At the same time, nutrition research finds it hard to be recognised as a ‘true science’. Nutrition research must have direct practical uses and offer clear courses of action. How can it achieve this? We haven’t even studied, let alone understood why healthy people react so differently to the same foodstuff or an identical diet. Admittedly, nobody was interested in this in the past. Back then the key thing was to provide people with sufficient calories and micronutrients. Then the world changed very quickly. Overeating, obesity, diabetes and other lifestyle diseases govern our daily lives and are now priority areas for scientific study. Hundreds of millions of euros are spent on researching these diseases and developing strategies to treat them, as if they were the product of our destiny and inevitable. As these are clinically important areas, science of course also values them higher. The levels of suffering they cause and their significance to the health system means that they hold greater weight in the political arena, too. By contrast, the fundaments of normal nutrition, the adjustment mechanisms that underpin this in the human biological system, and its socio-cultural dimension, attract little research, scarcely finding a place in the scientific community’s set of values. But where there’s life, there’s hope. The life sciences and genome research are emphasising that nutrition is probably the most important environmental factor affecting our pretty static genome on a day-to-day basis and throughout our lives, determining the cytological and biochemical responses of an organism in the context of its genome and epigenome. This will change the status of nutrition research. Even the parameters set by the EU, e.g. for the health claims of particular foods, need to be based on evidence from studies of human beings, and for this you also need good nutrition research. You could say that ‘the future’s bright for human nutrition research’.

5. Why is there fragmentation in the German food economy? Why are there no ‘big players’ in Germany comparable to those in other countries?

Daniel: Food production in Germany is seen as reflecting our image as a nation of regional, traditional, small-scale and artisanal producers. To a large extent production does take place along these lines, and no research is needed to show this. Producers are following well-established procedures which they only need to develop if cost pressures or new parameters (e.g. hygiene regulations) come into play. We Germans do not ‘want’ foods produced by large-scale agroindustries, even though we do buy them in the supermarket once they have been ‘romanticised’.

These products have been developed after a huge amount of research and using ‘high-end’ methods. In many cases – as far as their hygiene, sensory, environmental and even nutritional qualities are concerned – they are clearly superior to the ‘traditional’ products, but the German consumer does not want to see or hear this; it conflicts with their view of the world. What is more, the food industry is also reticent about highlighting these advantages. Industrial food production needs science, and for all stages of the value chain. Why should a ‘big player’ with all its research and development enter an arena where it is not wanted, and where there is no corresponding research environment with an adequate infrastructure?  I’m not trying to say that in Germany there is no good research into food technology, chemistry, hygiene, sensory technology or nutrition, but it is extremely fragmented throughout the country, scattered between a large number of universities and colleges. In most cases, moreover, the research is not as rigorously monitored as it could be.

The reason for this is that the work carried out by these educational establishments must first satisfy the range of teaching requirements; it cannot be research driven. But the mindset vis-à-vis industrial food production is also a factor here. Which student or junior academic wants to commit themselves to an academic discipline which is ‘geared towards the outside world’, offers apparently little innovation, and offers few prospects in German academia? It is a regrettable fact that in Germany we do not have a large research institution dedicated to all aspects of this subject, and which could act as a ‘beacon’. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate our models, values and research efforts – also for the sake of a bio-economy which is appropriate for the future.