What would true cost look like in our food consumption?

Buying and preparing food: it costs money. But it's not just us as consumers who incur costs for food production. There's a lot going on in the background that we're not aware of when we eat our daily meals - and we're far from having cost transparency for the entire society.

The so-called "True Cost" calculation, which is a breakdown of the true cost of all the natural and human resources invested in food production, includes numerous expenses that we don't think about while eating our sandwiches. These resources mainly include environmental and social follow-up costs, which are borne by society as a whole. A trivial example: as consumers, we are responsible for the release of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. This can be seen as value-neutral - everyone does it, there's no other way. It gets a bit more complicated when it comes to the contamination of agricultural land that is enriched with fertilizer. Unfortunately, this fertilizer often reappears in groundwater that we want to use as drinking water. This groundwater must be treated expensively and extensively, and the costs are not borne by any farmer or supermarket, but by society as a whole via the drinking water system. The so-called True Cost Accounting deals with such complex issues and tries to comprehensively quantify the impacts of our food production in monetary terms.

Meat is expensive for the community
One researcher who deals with such issues is Dr. Tobias Gaugler from the Institute for Materials Resource Management at the University of Augsburg. And in an interview with the university's information platform, he says: "Our research reveals enormous differences between the paid producer prices and the true costs." According to the results of his study, a conventionally produced apple should cost about 8% more, while mozzarella should cost 52% more. Meat is particularly difficult. A study commissioned by a Swiss think tank found that not only are subsidies by the federal government very high in this area, but external costs also have an unreasonably large impact. A meat-based diet, according to the study, has a cost impact of over 1,500 Swiss francs more than a vegan diet - and this amount is borne by society as a whole if the study is taken at face value.

Controversial study
Swiss Farmers' Association President Markus Ritter naturally views the numbers critically because they touch on the foundations of Swiss agriculture. The results do not match his association's numbers, he said on SRF. The study is "bypassing effective consumption and does not take into account the current federal practice for the amounts for animal production." Kilian Baumann, a member of the Swiss National Council for the Green Party, wants to give the study broad impact and says in the same story that the community promotes the most climate-damaging consumption.

We're not helpless, but not solely responsible either
Well, if you've read this far, here's a brief summary: Due to democratic processes and Swiss federalism, it will take a long time to enact truly effective regulations for sustainable and cost-effective food production, and the concept of cost-effectiveness is always a matter of worldview. However, at Soil to Soul, we advocate taking enjoyable responsibility for oneself and the environment. So, eat less meat, shop consciously, whenever possible, opt for products that are produced without or with minimal industrial support (fertilizers, pesticides), avoid food waste consistently, buy regionally and seasonally. This is how we make progress step by step. And we also enjoy life along the way.