Making Our Food Fit For The Future - Citizens' Expectations

Special Eurobarometer 505
Report
Making our food fit for the future – Citizens’ expectations
Fieldwork
August-September 2020
Publication
December 2020
Survey requested by the European Commission,
Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety
and co-ordinated by the Directorate-General for Communication
This document does not represent the point of view of the European Commission.
The interpretations and opinions contained in it are solely those of the authors.
Special Eurobarometer 505 – Wave EB93.2 – Kantar

Special Eurobarometer 505
Report
Survey and report by Kantar at the request of the European Commission,

Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety
Survey co-ordinated by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication

(DG COMM “Media Monitoring and Eurobarometer” Unit)
Project title Special Eurobarometer 505
Report
Linguistic version EN
Catalogue number EW-03-20-628-EN-N
ISBN 978-92-76-23035-9
doi:10.2875/826903
© European Union, 2020
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion
Making our food fit for the future – Citizens’
expectations Special Eurobarometer 505
August-September 2020 Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
KEY FINDINGS 5
I. SUSTAINABLE FOOD 9
1. Key drivers influencing consumer food purchase 9
2. Main characteristics of “sustainable” food according to consumers 15
II. SUSTAINABLE DIETS 23
1. What make a diet “sustainable”? 23
2. Adopting a sustainable diet 36
III. MAKING FOOD SYSTEMS SUSTAINABLE 47
1. Who plays a role? 47
2. Opinion about actions and policies to undertake and implement 54
3. Concern about food fraud 73
CONCLUSION 79
ANNEXES
Technical specifications
Questionnaire
Tables
1
INTRODUCTION
At the heart of the European Green Deal, the Farm to Fork Strategy aims to develop a fair, healthy
and environmentally-friendly food system in the EU.
Central to the Commission’s agenda to achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), the Strategy is seen as a chance to improve lifestyles, health and the environment, making it
easier for citizens to choose healthy and sustainable diets and giving food producers, processors,
retailers, hospitality and food service providers the chance to make sustainability their trademark and
safeguard their future.
The strategy is built around three central planks:
• ensuring the food chain has a neutral or positive environmental impact;
• ensuring food security, nutrition and public health; and
• preserving the affordability of food while generating fair returns for the supply chain.
Among the strategy’s aims are stimulating sustainable production and processing, ensuring food
security, promoting sustainable consumption, reducing food waste and combatting food fraud.
To do this, the Commission recognises the need for a collective approach involving public authorities
at all levels, the private sector, NGOs and citizens. It is therefore appealing to them all to participate
in transforming our food system.
To gauge public knowledge of the current system and citizens’ appetite for change, this Special
Eurobarometer survey aims to uncover what factors influence their food buying and eating habits,
find out what they believe constitutes ‘sustainability’, assess what would help them adopt a healthy,
sustainable diet and find out who they think has a role to play in change. It also seeks to discover
what their concerns are and what should be done to ensure the EU’s transition to a sustainable food
system.
This report presents the results of the Special Eurobarometer survey 93.2 which was carried out
between 3 August and 15 September 2020 in the 27 EU Member States.
3
Methodology used for this survey

Exceptionally, this Special Eurobarometer survey 93.2 was conducted during summer (August-
September) because of the coronavirus pandemic and in some countries, alternative interview
modes to face-to-face were necessary as a result of the situation.
When possible, the methodology used was that of the Special Eurobarometer surveys carried out by
the Directorate-General for Communication (“Media monitoring and Eurobarometer” Unit) 1. However,
because of the coronavirus pandemic, it was difficult, and sometimes impossible to conduct face-to-
face interviews in a number of countries of the European Union. In these countries, we have
interviewed respondents online, mostly after recruiting them in a probabilistic way by telephone. A
technical note concerning the interviews conducted by the member institutes of the Kantar network
is annexed to this report. It also specifies the confidence intervals 2.
Following the EU General Data Protection Regulation 3 (GDPR), respondents were asked whether or not
they would agree to be asked questions on issues that could be considered “sensitive”.
Note: In this report, countries are referred to by their official abbreviation. The abbreviations used in
this report correspond to:
Belgium BE Lithuania LT
Bulgaria BG Luxembourg LU
Czechia CZ Hungary HU
Denmark DK Malta MT
Germany DE The Netherlands NL
Estonia EE Austria AT
Ireland IE Poland PL
Greece EL Portugal PT
Spain ES Romania RO
France FR Slovenia SI
Croatia HR Slovakia SK
Italy IT Finland FI
Republic of Cyprus CY* Sweden SE
Latvia LV
European Union – weighted average for the 27 Member States EU27
* Cyprus as a whole is one of the 27 European Union Member States. However, the ‘acquis communautaire’ has been suspended in the part
of the country which is not controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus. For practical reasons, only the interviews carried out in
the part of the country controlled by the government of the Republic of Cyprus are included in the ‘CY’ category and in the EU27 average.
We wish to thank the respondents throughout the European Union

who have given their time to take part in this survey.
Without their active participation, this study would not have been possible.
1
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm
2
The results tables are annexed. It should be noted that the total of the percentages indicated in the tables in this report may exceed 100%
when the respondent was able to choose several answers to the same question.
3
2016/679
4
KEY FINDINGS
Europeans prioritise taste, food safety and cost over sustainability concerns when
purchasing food
 Taste (45%), food safety (42%) and cost (40%) are the main factors influencing Europeans’
food purchases. One in three consider where the food comes from (34%) or its nutrient
content (33%) and, one in five mention the amount of available shelf-life. Whether a
food is “minimally processed” or one’s own personal “ethics and beliefs” (for instance, animal
welfare concerns) are less often cited (each cited by 16%) followed by considerations as to a
product’s “environmental and climate impact” (15%), while “convenience” (9%) is the least
influencing factor.
Sustainable food and diets are primarily associated with nutrition and health
 The multi-dimensional nature of sustainable food and sustainable food systems 4 – i.e.
integrating economic, social (including health) and environmental dimensions – is not
generally reflected in how Europeans view sustainable food and diets.
 For Europeans, food is “sustainable” when it is nutritious and healthy (41%), it has been
produced with little or no use of pesticides (32%) and when it is affordable for all
(29%). Nearly a quarter consider “local or short supply chains” (24%) as an important
characteristic of sustainable food and over one in five cite the “low environmental and climate
impact” of food (22%).
 For nearly six Europeans in ten, a healthy and sustainable diet involves eating a “variety
of different foods, having a balanced diet” and “eating more fruit and vegetables”
(both 58%). While nearly one in two mention eating seasonal, local (47%), at least four in
ten respondents mentioned “eating more home-cooked meals” (43%), “little or no pesticides”
(43%) “avoiding wasting food” (42%),“ and “avoiding or not eating too much food high in fat,
sugars and/or salt” (40%).
 Europeans consider food being healthy for them (74%) as the most important aspect of a
sustainable diet, far above all other items. One in two refer to food choices that support the
local economy while around four in ten consider that sustainable diets “minimise waste”
(40%), address social concerns (such as fair “wages and workers’ rights” – 39%) and protect
the environment (“what you eat is good for the planet” – 37%).
The majority of Europeans say they eat a healthy and sustainable diet most of the
time, however responses vary greatly by country
 Two thirds of Europeans say that they eat a healthy and sustainable diet most of the time
(56%) or always (10%). However, there are significant differences in citizens’ responses
4
The definition of sustainable food/diets was not given in the questionnaire. The Food and Agriculture Organization defines a sustainable
food system as one “…that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to
generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised”. (Sustainable food systems: concept and framework (FAO,
2018))
5
among Member States, ranging from 83% and 81%, respectively, for the Netherlands and
Finland, to 32% in Bulgaria and 46% in Lithuania.
Affordability and availability of healthy, sustainable choices and clear information

on food labelling are the most likely factors to help Europeans adopt a sustainable
diet
 Nearly half of those surveyed say affordability of healthy and sustainable food (49%)
and having healthy, sustainable food choices available where they usually shop for
food (45%) would help them in adopting a healthy and sustainable diet. Just over four in ten
also mention that they would be helped by “clear information on food labelling regarding a
product’s environmental, health and social impacts” (41%).
 The role of education in helping citizens to adopt healthy, sustainable diets is cited by less
than three out of ten (29%). However, the youngest respondents are most likely to cite
education as important whereas the oldest respondents are least likely to do so (34% for
those aged 15-24 vs. 28% for those aged 40-54 and 27% for those aged 55 and over).
Food producers and manufacturers are seen as key actors in making the food system
sustainable, above public authorities, but not all Europeans recognise their own role
as consumers.
 Around two thirds of those surveyed say that producers (farmers, fishers, aquaculture
producers) (65%) have a role to play in making our food systems sustainable - these are
the most-mentioned actors in 20 of the EU Member States. Nearly six in ten also cite food
manufacturers (58%). National governments (47%) are the third most-mentioned actor.
 EU citizens consider that they themselves only have a secondary role in making our food
systems sustainable or may place a greater reliance on other actors to do so. A little over
four in ten (43%) say that consumers have a role in making our food systems sustainable.
This is also not the most common response anywhere in the EU and it is only the second
most-given answer in two countries: Luxembourg (56%) and France (55%).
Almost all Europeans call on the public and private sectors to improve access to
sustainable food and information on food sustainability on food labels
 Around nine in ten respondents agree that food offered in public institutions should be
sustainable (91%), that producers and food companies should themselves take
action to raise their products’ sustainability standards (89%) and that information
on food sustainability should be compulsory on food labels (88%). As regards labelling,
consumers consider that there should be one logo to help them choose healthy
sustainable food (85%).
 Only 46% of Europeans consider that public authorities are doing enough to encourage and
promote food sustainability.
 More than eight in ten Europeans agree that regulations should force food producers and
other food business operators to meet more stringent sustainability standards (83%), with
significant differences observed between Member States. High levels of agreement are
6
expressed by citizens in Cyprus (97%), Greece (95%) and Malta (93%) while the lowest levels
of agreement can be found in Estonia and Finland (both 68%) and Denmark (72%), though
these are still relatively high levels of agreement.
 Nearly eight in ten (79%) consider that marketing and advertising that do not contribute
to healthy, sustainable diets should be restricted. However, the level of agreement
varies considerably by Member State, with four in ten respondents in Finland and a third of
those surveyed in Denmark (35%) disagreeing with this statement.
 Moreover, the international dimension of food systems is also recognised by 87% of
respondents who state that the EU should be more proactive in promoting food sustainability
worldwide.
Clear information about food and its importance for health are also reflected in
citizens’ concerns about food fraud
 When it comes to food fraud, the majority of respondents are concerned about being misled
about the true qualities of a food (61%) and the risks that it might represent for their health
(55%).
 And as regards food fraud, around four in ten mention that they want to be certain that food
with specific characteristics (e.g. labelled as organic) meets EU standards (41%) and that they
want to be as confident in food imported into the EU as that produced in the EU (40%).
7
I. SUSTAINABLE FOOD
Part one of this report looks at the attitude of EU respondents to food, in particular which factors
contribute to their food purchasing decisions and which characteristics they consider to be important
when it comes to food sustainability.
1. Key drivers influencing consumer food purchase
Europeans prioritise taste, food safety and cost over sustainability concerns when
purchasing food
Respondents were asked what the most important characteristic for them when buying food 5 is. They
were able to give up to three answers from a list of 10 items.
More than four in ten respondents say that taste (45%) is the most important factor in their food
purchasing decisions, followed by food safety (42%) and cost (40%). At least a third of respondents
think that where food comes from (34%) and nutrient content (33%) are important factors, while
a fifth cite the amount of available shelf-life (20%) among their top priorities.
Other aspects are less frequently mentioned by respondents. More than a tenth mention food being
minimally processed, their ethics and beliefs (both 16%), and the food’s impact on the
environment (15%) as important to them, but less than a tenth (9%) mention convenience as a
major influence in their food buying.
5
QB1a/b When you buy food, which of the following are the most important to you? (a) Firstly? .(b) And them? (a: ONE ANSWER ONLY / b:
TWO ANSWERS MAXIMUM) Your ethics and beliefs (whether the item complies with your ethics and beliefs, e.g. in terms of religion, animal
welfare or fair payment of producers); Food safety (e.g. if there is a risk in eating this food); Cost; Nutrient content (e.g. the amount of
vitamins, fibre, proteins, sugar or fats); Taste; Where the food comes from (e.g. geographical origin); Convenience (e.g. the easiness to use,
prepare); Minimally processed; Amount of shelf-life available; Its impact on the environment and climate (e.g. carbon footprint); Other
(SPONTANEOUS); Don’t know
9
10
Country-level analysis
Taste is among the three most mentioned answers in 21 EU Member States, and the most mentioned
in eight of these, particularly by respondents in Portugal (59%), and Poland and Slovakia (both 55%).
It is also the most mentioned aspect, cited alongside cost, by respondents in Czechia (both 58%) and
Belgium (both 47%). Food safety is the one of the three most mentioned answers in 24 countries,
but only in five of these – mostly countries of Southern Europe – do respondents rank it at the top,
with the largest proportions observed in Italy (58%), Greece (55%) and Cyprus (51%).
Finally, cost is among the three most mentioned factors in 17 EU Member States, and the most
mentioned by respondents in seven, chiefly in Portugal (70%) and the Baltic countries (Lithuania 61%,
Latvia 60%, and Estonia 55%).
Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)
11
Where food comes from is considered the most important reason behind food purchases only in
three countries – Slovenia (57%), Sweden (44%) and Germany (43%) – and it is the second most
given answer in five other countries – France (45%), Finland (42%), Italy (40%), Austria (39%) and
Luxembourg (37%).
The Netherlands is the only EU country where nutrient content is the most common response
alongside taste (both 46%), but it is also the second or the third most-given answer in 12 other EU
countries (see table below).
The amount of available shelf-life is not the most common answer in any EU country, though it
is the third most given answer in Lithuania (41%), Romania (38%) and Croatia (35%).
12
The socio-demographic analysis reveals some interesting variations in responses to this question,
including:
• Men (47%) are more likely than women (42%) to say taste is the most important factor
when buying food. By contrast, women (35%) are slightly more likely than men (31%) to say
that nutrient content is one of the most important factors.
• The younger the respondent the less likely they are to cite food safety as an important
factor, with only 37% of those aged 15-24 mentioning this as opposed to 46% of those who
are aged 55 and over. The same applies to those mentioning where food comes from: only
27% of those aged 15-24 cite it, against 38% of those aged 55 and over.
• Education appears to have more of an influence on respondents’ answers. The longer the
respondent remained in education, the more likely they are to say that nutrient content is
the most important factor (36% of those whose education finished aged 20 or over compared
with 29% of those who completed their education aged 15 or under). By contrast, cost is
mentioned more frequently by those who completed education at an early stage (49% of
those who completed their education aged 15 or under compared with 34% of those who
completed it aged 20 or over).
• Students (48%), the unemployed and manual workers (both 47%) are more likely to mention
taste, and in a similar manner, students (46%), unemployed (51%) and house persons (51%)
are more likely to mention cost. On the other hand, managers (38%), other white collar
workers (36%) and self-employed (35%) are more likely to mention nutrient content
compared with the other socio-professional groups.
• Those who have difficulties paying bills most of the time (58%) are far more likely to mention
cost of food than those who almost never/never struggle to pay bills (36%).
13
Items mention by at least 20% of respondents

14
2. Main characteristics of “sustainable” food according to consumers
“Nutritious and healthy” is the most important characteristic of sustainable food
Respondents were then asked what they consider to be the most important characteristics of
‘sustainable’ food 6.
Nutritious and healthy (41%) is the most common response, with four in ten of those surveyed
mentioning it as one of the main characteristics of sustainable food.
Close to a third of respondents mention little or no use of pesticides (32%) and nearly three in
ten cite affordability of food for all (29%) as their most important sustainable food
characteristics. Under a quarter of respondents mention local or short supply chains (24%) and
low environmental and climate impact (e.g. carbon footprint) (22%) as main characteristics
of “sustainable” food, while a fifth say high animal welfare standards, and minimal packaging,
no or little plastic.
Slightly less than a fifth mention respect for workers’ rights, health and safety and fair pay
(19%), organic and minimally processed, traditional (both 18%).
Fair revenue for producers is mentioned among the most important characteristics of sustainable
food by just 16% of respondents, while only a tenth cite availability (10%).
6
QB2a/b Which of the following do you consider to be the most important characteristic of “sustainable” food? (a) Firstly? (b) and then? (a:
ONE ANSWER ONLY / b: TWO ANSWERS MAXIMUM ) Nutritious and healthy; Low environmental and climate impact (e.g. carbon footprint);
Availability; Affordability of food for all; Little or no use of pesticides; Local or short supply chains; Fair revenue for producers; High animal
welfare standards; Organic; Minimally processed, traditional; Minimal packaging, no or little plastic; Respect for workers’ rights, health and
safety and fair pay; Other (SPONTANEOUS); Don’t know
15
Nutritious and healthy is among the three most mentioned answers in 24 EU Member States, and
in 18 of these it is ranked in first place. The share of respondents giving this as their first choice
ranges from the 74% of those surveyed in Cyprus, 63% in Slovakia and 60% in Greece, to 36% in
Germany, 37% in France and 40% in Belgium.
Little or no use of pesticides is the second most-given answer at EU level, but in none of the EU
Member States it is ranked as the most important characteristic of sustainable food. Notwithstanding,
it is ranked in the top three characteristics in 18 countries, principally by respondents in Croatia (45%),
Malta (42%) and Romania (41%).
Affordability of food for all is among the three most mentioned characteristics in 15 EU Member
States, among which it is the most mentioned option only by respondents in Portugal (47%) and Spain
(28%).
16
Local or short supply chains is the most popular response in three EU Member States – Sweden
(45%), Finland (42%) and Austria (37%) – and also the joint most-given answer by respondents in
Slovenia alongside “nutritious and healthy” (both 41%). It also appears among the top three most
mentioned characteristics in another four countries – Estonia (39%), Luxembourg and Germany (both
32%) and Italy (28%).
Low environmental or climate impact is the most mentioned answer in three countries – the
Netherlands (51%), Ireland (34%) and Denmark (33%), and the second most common response in
Sweden (42%) and Belgium (27%). The only other country where it appears in the top three choices
is Finland (33%).
Affordability of food for all is among the top three most mentioned answers in 15 EU Member
States, and among these it is the most common choice by respondents in Portugal (47%) and Spain
(28%).
High animal welfare standards is the most popular answer among respondents in Germany (36%),
and the second or third most mentioned answer in another three EU countries – Sweden (34%),
Denmark (32%) and Austria (30%).
Minimal packaging, little or no plastic (35%) is the most mentioned characteristic by respondents
in Luxembourg (35%) and the second most-common answer in the Netherlands (31%) and Belgium
(27%).
In four countries, organic is ranked in the top three choices, mainly Lithuania and Slovenia (both
32%), while “minimally processed, traditional” and “respect for workers’ rights, health and
safety and fair pay” are among the top three most mentioned in three countries each (see table
below).
17
18
Among the socio-demographic variations in responses to this question are:

• The older the respondent, the more likely they are to mention little or no use of pesticides
as a fundamental characteristic of “sustainable” food: 36% of those aged 55 and over
mention it, compared with just a quarter of those aged 15-24. But it does not mean that
younger respondents are less sensitive to environmental aspects: indeed, those aged 15-24
(29%) are more likely to mention low environmental and climate impact compared with
aged 55 or over (19%).
• The age at which respondents finished their education appears to influence answers. Those
who have completed their education the earliest (36%) are most likely to mention little or
no use of pesticides compared with those who are still studying (27%). The same pattern
applies to those who consider affordability of food for all as the main characteristic of
“sustainable” food, which is more likely to be mentioned by those who completed education
aged 15 or under (36%), than students (29%) or to those whose completed their education
aged 20 or over (23%). On the other hand, students (31%) and those who have completed
their education the latest (29%) are more likely to mention low environmental and climate
impact than those who completed their education aged 15 or under (13%).
• When comes to socio-professional categories, nutritious and healthy is more likely to be
mentioned by house persons (46%) and the retired (44%), than the self-employed (36%) and
managers (35%). The same pattern occurs when it comes to affordability of food for all:
again, the unemployed and house persons (both 36%) are more likely to mention it compared
with managers (21%) and the self-employed (22%). On the other hand, students (33%) and
managers (31%) are more likely to mention low environmental and climate impact than
house persons (16%) and the retired (17%). But this last group of respondents is the most
likely to mention little or no use of pesticides compared with all other socio-professional
groups (retired 37% vs. 26-33% for all the other categories).
• Those who have difficulties paying bills from time to time or most of time (33-34%) are more
likely to mention affordability of food for all as an important characteristic than those
who never or almost never have such difficulties (27%).
19

20
When looking at those who consider “cost” one of the most important factors when buying food, we
can observe a change in the ranking of the most important characteristics of “sustainable” food, with
“affordability of food for all” becoming the second most mentioned characteristic (41% vs. 29%
for the EU average).
Changings in the ranking can be observed also for those who consider the “impact on the environment
and climate” as one of the most important factors when buying food: “low environmental impact”
becomes the first most mentioned characteristic of “sustainable” food (41% vs. 22% of the EU
average), and “high animal welfare standards” the third most mentioned (28% vs. 20% of the EU
average).

21
II. SUSTAINABLE DIETS
The second part of this report investigates Europeans’ views about sustainable diets. Firstly, it covers
the particular qualities that respondents consider make a diet sustainable before then exploring which
aspects of a sustainable diet are most important to them.
Next, it looks at how often respondents eat a healthy and sustainable diet and what factors would
help them to do so more often than they do currently.
1. What make a diet “sustainable”?
A majority of respondents say a sustainable diet involves eating a variety of different

foods and more fruit and vegetables
Respondents were asked what they think eating a healthy and sustainable diet involves 7. Almost six
in ten of those surveyed say they believe it involves “eating a variety of different foods, having
a balanced diet” or “eating more fruit and vegetables” (both 58%).
Under half of respondents say it involves eating seasonal, local food (47%), while over four in ten
believe it consists of eating more home-cooked meals, eating food with little or no pesticides
(both 43%) and avoiding wasting food (42%).
Four in ten respondents consider eating a healthy and sustainable diet means avoiding or not
eating too much food high in fat, sugars and/or salt and around a third say they think it involves
eating meat less often (35%) or eating fish more often (33%).
Three in ten of those surveyed say they think eating a healthy and sustainable diet involves eating
more wholegrain, high-fibre foods, while a slightly lower proportion think it involves not eating
too many calories (28%). Finally, around a quarter of respondents think it involves eating organic
food (26%) or eating foods with a low carbon footprint (24%).
Around a fifth of respondents say they think it involves eating foods produced by companies that
protect workers’ social rights (21%). Finally, over one in ten of those surveyed say it involves
eating vegetarian or vegan (12%).
7
QB4 We often hear people talking about the importance of eating a healthy and sustainable diet. What do you think "eating a healthy and
sustainable diet" involves? (MULTIPLE ANSWER POSSIBLE) Eating a variety of different foods, having a balanced diet; Avoiding or not eating
too much food high in fat, sugars and/or salt; Eating more fruit and vegetables; Eating more home-cooked meals; Eating more wholegrain,
high-fibre foods; Eating meat less often; Eating fish more often; Eating vegetarian or vegan; Eating seasonal, local; Not eating too many
calories; Eating organic food; Little or no pesticides; Eating foods with a low carbon footprint; Eating foods produced by companies that
protect workers’ social rights; Avoiding wasting food; Other (SPONTANEOUS); Don’t know
23
24
“Eating a variety of different foods, having a balanced diet” and “eating more fruit and
vegetables” are both ranked in the top three most mentioned answers in 25 EU Member States and
each is the most given response in 13 of these countries. This common pattern is confirmed by the
results of those surveyed in Lithuania, where these items are the joint most mentioned option by
60% of respondents.
“Eating seasonal, local” is not the most common answer anywhere in the EU, but is the second or
the third most popular choice in ten EU countries, particularly in Slovenia (64%) and Luxembourg and
Sweden (both 52%).
Also “eating more home-cooked meals” is not the most mentioned answer in any of the EU
Member States, but it is the second or third most popular choice in eight countries, most notably in
Malta (64%) and Slovenia (62%).
25
Little or no pesticides is the most given answer in Croatia (54%), the second most popular choice
in two other countries – Lithuania (48%) and Poland (36%) – and the third most frequently mentioned
item in Hungary (45%) and Italy (43%).
Avoiding wasting food is the second most-given answer in Denmark (66%), the Netherlands (63%),
Estonia (55%) and Sweden (52%), and it is the third most popular option in three other Member States
– Belgium (53%), Luxembourg (50%) and Finland (38%).
Avoiding or not eating too much food high in fat, sugars and/or salt is among the three most
popular answers in four EU Member States - Portugal (67%), Greece (61%), Bulgaria (47%) and
Lithuania (45%) -, while eating fish more often is among the top three choices only in two – Czechia
(42%) and Poland (35%).
26
Among the highlights from the socio-demographic analysis are the following:
• Women (46%) are slightly more likely than men (40%) to mention most items; this is
especially the case for eating more home-cooked meals.
• The older the respondent, the more likely they are to mention most items. The largest
differences can be found in items such as “eating more fruit and vegetables”, with 62%
of those aged 55 and over mentioning this compared with 53% of those aged 15-24, and
“eating seasonal, local” food, with 49-50% of those aged 40 and over citing this, versus
44% of those aged 25-39 and 41% of those aged 15-24. But significant differences can also
be seen for “little or no pesticides” (45% of those aged 55 or over vs. 38% of those aged
15-24) and “eating fish more often” (38% of those aged 55 or over vs. 26% of those aged
15-24).
• The longer respondents stayed in education, the more likely they are to mention that a health
and sustainable diet involves eating a variety of different foods, having a balanced
diet (63% of those who completed their education aged 20 or over, compared with 52% of
those who ended their education aged 15 or under). There is a similar pattern when it comes
to those who mention avoiding wasting food (47% vs. 37%), whereas eating more fruit
and vegetables is mentioned more frequently by those whose education finished at an early
stage (66% of those of those who completed their education by the age of 15, compared
with 55% of those who completed it aged 20 or over).
• Eating a variety of different foods, having a balanced diet is most likely to be
mentioned by managers (63%) and the self-employed (62%), and least likely to be cited by
house persons (50%) and manual workers (55%). Similarly, managers (53%) and the self-
employed (54%) are also more likely to mention eating seasonal, local compared again
with manual workers (42%) and the unemployed (44%).
• When it comes to the respondents’ perceived belonging to a social class, those who consider
belonging to the upper (58%) or upper middle (66%) classes are more likely to mention
eating a variety of different foods, having a balanced diet than those who self-identify
as the working class (56%) or lower middle class (54%). The same pattern occurs for those
mentioning that a healthy and sustainable diet involves eating seasonal, local (55% of
those who consider belonging to the upper middle class, versus 42% of those self-identify as
lower middle class) or eating meat less often (40-42% of those who think they belong to
the upper or the upper middle class, compared with 31-32% of those who self-identify as
working or lower middle class).
On the other hand, those who consider belonging to the working class (46%) or the middle
class (44%) are more likely to mention eating more home-cooked meals than those who
consider themselves upper middle (39%) or upper class (34%). While little or no use of
pesticides appears to be mentioned equally by respondents from all social classes (42-44%)
except for those who think they belong to the upper one (34%).
27
Items mention by more than 30% of respondents

28
When looking at those who consider food’s “impact on the environment and climate” as one of the
most important factors when buying food, we can observe some changes in what respondents think
eating a healthy and sustainable diet involves:
• 42% think that it involves “eating food with a low carbon footprint”, compared with 24%
for the EU average;
• 45% think that it involves “eating meat less often”, compared with 35% for the EU
average;
• 31% think that it involves “eating food produced by companies that protect workers’
social rights”, compared with 21% of the EU average.
Items mention by more than 20% of respondents

29
For respondents in every EU Member State, the number one response to this question is what you
eat is healthy for you, particularly in Greece (89%), Cyprus and Estonia (both 88%) and Slovakia
(87%). At least six in ten respondents across the EU give this as their response.
What you eat supports local economy is ranked in the top three most mentioned answers in 24
EU Member States, and is the second most-frequent response in 20 of them, chiefly Greece (68%),
Estonia (63%) and Malta (60%).
What you eat has been produced in a way that minimises waste is among the three most-
chosen answers in seven EU countries, mainly Portugal (54%), the Netherlands (52%) and Austria
(49%).
In ten EU Member States, “what you eat is produced by a company that pays fair wages and
respects workers' rights, safety and health (both in and outside the EU)” is ranked in the top
three most mentioned answers, principally in the Netherlands (56%), Finland (55%), Ireland (54%)and
Sweden (52%).
The second most frequent response in France is what you eat is good for the planet (47%) and
this is the third most-given answer in Greece (55%), Sweden (49%) and Denmark (46%).
In only three EU Member States is what you eat has minimal packaging the third most common
answer – Malta (41%), France (39%) and Czechia (32%).
What you eat is organic is the second or the third most-given response to this question in nine
countries, most notably in Lithuania (53%), Slovenia (51%) and Romania and Slovakia (both 48%).
31
32
The socio-demographic analysis reveals a number of interesting variations, including:

• Women (34%) are slightly more likely to mention “what you eat is organic” than men (29%)
but there is very little difference between the genders when it comes to the other responses.
• The older the respondent, the more likely they are to mention “what you eat supports the
local economy” with those aged 55 and over (53%) more likely to say this than those aged
15-24 (42%). On the other hand, younger respondents are more likely to mention “what you
eat is good for the planet” than the older ones (44% of those aged 15-24 vs. 34% of
those aged 55 or over).
• “What you eat supports the local economy” is more likely to be mentioned by those who
completed their education aged 19 or under (51-52%) than those who completed it aged 20
or over (49%) or are still studying (43%). Respondents who ended their education the earliest
are also least likely to mention “what you eat is produced by a company that pays fair
wages and respects workers' rights, safety and health (both in and outside the EU)”:
32% of those who completed their education aged 15 or under cite this, compared with 43%
of those who completed it aged 20 or over. Those still studying (48%) are the most likely to
mention “what you eat is good for the plane” especially when compared with those who
completed their education aged 19 or under (33-34%).
• Profession appears to have a bearing on responses to this question. House persons and retired
respondents (both 79%) are the most likely to mention “what you eat is healthy for you”,
while students (70%) and manual workers (71%) are the least likely to do so. Moreover,
retired, self-employed (both 53%) and unemployed (52%) respondents are more likely to
mention “what you eat supports the local economy” than students (42%).
On the other hand, managers (45%) are more likely to say that “what you eat is produced
by a company that pays fair wages and respects workers' rights, safety and health
(both in and outside the EU)” is an important factor compared with all the other categories,
especially retired (36%) and self-employed (37%) respondents. Managers and other white
collar workers (both 35%) are also the most likely to mention “what you eat is organic”,
while the unemployed (26%) and house persons (27%) are the least likely to do so.
• Respondents who identify themselves as belonging to the upper classes are the most likely
to mention that what they eat is produced by a company that pays fair wages and
respects workers' rights, safety and health (both in and outside the EU) is important:
46% of those positioning themselves in the upper middle class say this, compared with 36%
of those considering themselves working class. In a similar manner, “what you eat is good
for the planet” is most likely to be mentioned by those who self-identify as upper class
(44%) or upper middle class (43%), compared with those who say they belong to the working
class (33%).
33
34
Those who consider food’s “impact on the environment and climate” one of the most important factors
when buying food are also more likely to mention as important aspects of a sustainable diet the
following:
• “what you eat is good for the planet” (51% vs. 37% for the EU average);
• “what you eat has been produced in a way that minimises waste” (49% vs. 40% for
the EU average;
• “the food you eat has a minimal packaging” (41% vs. 33% for the EU average);
• “what you eat is organic” (40% vs. 32% for the EU average).
35
2. Adopting a sustainable diet
A majority of respondents say they eat a healthy and sustainable diet most of the time
Overall two thirds of EU respondents say that they usually eat a healthy and sustainable diet. More
than half of those surveyed say that they eat a healthy and sustainable diet most of the time
(56%) 9 and a tenth of respondents say they eat such a diet always (10%).
Over a quarter of respondents say they eat a healthy and sustainable diet from time to time (27%)
and just over one in 20 of those surveyed say they never (7%) do so.
9
QB6 Would you say that personally, you eat a healthy and sustainable diet… (ONE ANSWER ONLY) Always; Most of the time; From time to
time; Never; Don’t know
36
There are significant differences at a national level in terms of the responses to this question. No
more than a fifth of respondents in any EU Member State say they always eat a healthy and
sustainable diet, with proportions ranging from almost a fifth in Malta (19%) and Slovenia (17%) to
no more than one in 20 in Bulgaria, Finland and Lithuania (all 4%) and just 1% in Estonia.
The picture is more varied when it comes to respondents who say they eat such a diet most of the
time. A majority in 16 EU countries say they do this, with the highest proportions observed in Finland
(77%), the Netherlands (76%) and Sweden (73%). However, only a relative majority say this in Croatia
and Slovakia (both 50%) and less than half give this answer in ten EU Member States, with the lowest
proportions found in Bulgaria (28%), France (40%) and Lithuania (42%).
Adding up these two answers, more than three quarters of respondents say that they generally eat
a healthy and sustainable diet (“always” or “most of the time”) in eight Member States:
the Netherlands (83%), Finland, Ireland and Spain (81% in the three countries), Slovenia and Germany
(both 80%), Sweden (78%) and Malta (77%).
Close to half the respondents in Bulgaria (47%) and over four in ten in Lithuania (45%) and Czechia
(44%) say they eat a healthy and sustainable diet from time to time, while at the other end of the
scale, just over a tenth in Malta (14%) and the Netherlands (17%) take this position.
It is a low proportion of respondents in all EU countries who say they never eat such a diet. Just
above a quarter of those surveyed say this in France (26%) and a fifth in Bulgaria (20%) take this
position, while at the other end of the scale, no respondents in Sweden and the Netherlands (both
0%) give this as their answer.
37
Among the highlights of the socio-demographic analysis are the following:

• Women are slightly more likely than men to say that they eat a healthy, sustainable diet
always (11% vs. 8%) or most of the time (59% vs. 52%), while men are more likely than
women to say they eat such a diet from time to time (31% vs. 24%).
• The older the respondent, the more likely they are to say they eat a healthy, sustainable diet
always or most of the time, with those aged 55 and over saying this more often than those
aged 15-24 (12% vs. 7% and 57% vs. 52% respectively).
• Education also plays a role: respondents who completed their education aged 20 or over
(63%) are more likely to say that they eat a healthy and sustainable diet most of the time
compared with those who ended their education aged 15 or under (49%).
• Managers (68%) and the self-employed (60%) are the most likely to say that they eat a
healthy and sustainable most of the time, while the unemployed (48%) and manual workers
(49%) are the least likely to say so. In a similar manner, unemployed respondents (12%) are
the most likely to say that they never eat such a diet, while managers (4%) and self-
employed respondents (5%) are the least likely to say so.
• Those respondents who consider themselves upper class (17%) are more likely to say they
always eat a healthy and sustainable diet than those who position themselves part of the
working or the lower middle class (both 9%). There is a similar pattern in relation to those
who mention they eat such a diet most of the time: respondents who position themselves
in the upper middle class (67%) are most likely to mention it compared with those who think
they belong to the working class (46%).
38
39
Those who consider the “impact on the environment and climate” as one of the most important factors
when buying food are also more likely to mention that they eat a healthy and sustainable diet always
or most of the time (77%) than the EU average of respondents (66%). On the contrary, those who
consider “cost” one of the most important factors when buying food are less likely to say so (55%)
40
Affordability is the most common factor that would help respondents adopt a healthy,
sustainable diet
Respondents were asked what would help them adopt a healthy and sustainable diet 10. Nearly half
of those surveyed say that availability of healthy, sustainable food that is affordable (49%)
would help them adopt such a diet, this being the most common response.
Almost the same proportion of respondents say if healthy, sustainable food choices were
available where they usually shop for food (45%) it would help them, while just over four in ten
say they would be helped by clear information on food labelling regarding a product’s
environmental, health and social impacts (41%).
Besides the aforementioned top three choices, three other items are cited by 20% to 30% of
respondents: education about healthy sustainable diets (29%) would help nearly three in ten
respondents adopt them, while around a quarter of respondents say either food, meals being quick
and easy to prepare or product placement in-store facilitates selection of healthy,
sustainable food (both 23%) would aid their adoption of such a diet.
Less than a fifth of respondents say menu guides and other practical tools (18%) would help
them adopt a healthy, sustainable diet.
Only 1% of respondents spontaneously answer “nothing (you are not interested to adopt a healthy
and sustainable diet)”.
10
QB7 What would help you to adopt a healthy and sustainable diet? (THREE ANSWER MAXIMUM) From the options below, please select the
three most important for you. Clear information on food labelling regarding a product’s environmental, health and social impacts; Education
about healthy, sustainable diets; Healthy, sustainable choices are affordable; Menu guides and other practical tools to help you select
healthy, sustainable diets; Healthy, sustainable food choices are available where you usually shop for food; Product placement in-store
facilitates selection of healthy, sustainable food; Food, meals are quick and easy to prepare; Other (SPONTANEOUS); Nothing (you are not
interested to adopt a healthy and sustainable diet); Don’t know
41
In all EU Member States but Italy, one of the three most-given answers by respondents is that
healthy, sustainable food is affordable. In 21 of these countries it appears as the most chosen
option, this being particularly the case in Estonia (72%), Finland (69%) and Bulgaria (66%).
Similarly, healthy and sustainable food choices are available where you usually shop for
food is among the three most mentioned answer in all EU countries except in Spain, and is the first
most mentioned option in four of them, particularly in Germany (53%) and Austria (46%).
Clear information on food labelling regarding a product’s environmental, health and social
impacts is the top answer in Luxembourg (57%) and Spain (54%) and among the top three most
mentioned answers in another 14 EU countries.
42
Education about healthy, sustainable diets is considered less of a factor likely to encourage
respondents to adopt such diets; it is the second most popular choice only in Italy (41%) and the third
most-given response in five other EU countries – Malta (45%), Cyprus (40%), Germany (35%), Spain
and Romania (both 32%).
Portugal (45%) is the only country where product placement in-store facilitates selection of
healthy, sustainable food appears in the top three most mentioned factors that would aid
respondents to adopt a healthy, sustainable diet.
Food, meals are quick and easy to prepare is the third most mentioned factor in seven countries,
most notably Slovakia (38%), and Czechia and Estonia (both 36%), though it is not among the top
three choices anywhere else.
43
The socio-demographic analysis reveals generally few variations between categories. Some of them
should nevertheless be highlighted:
• Respondents aged 55 and over (48%) are more likely to say that availability of healthy,
sustainable food choices where you usually shop for food would help them adopt a
healthy and sustainable diet, than those aged 15-24 (41%). Whereas, the youngest
respondents (35%) are more likely to say education about healthy, sustainable diets
would help than those aged 25 or over (27-29%).
• Those who continued their studies until the age of 20 or beyond (46%) are the most likely to
say that clear information on food labelling regarding a product’s environmental,
health and social impacts would help them adopt a healthy and sustainable diet, while
those who completed their education aged 15 or under are the least likely (33%) to say so.
Education about healthy, sustainable diets appears to be the main driver for students:
36% of those surveyed mention that it would help, compared with 29-28% of those who
completed their education aged 16 or over, and 26% of those who completed it earlier.
• Managers (49%) are more likely than unemployed respondents (38%) to mention that
availability of healthy, sustainable food choices where you usually shop for food
would help them in adopting a healthy and sustainable diet. In a similar manner, managers
(49%) are the most likely to mention that clear information on food labelling would help
them, whereas manual workers (37%) are the least likely to say this. But this last socio-
professional group is the most likely to mention that food, meals that are quick and easy
to prepare would help: 27% of manual workers say this compared with 18% of self-
employed respondents and 19% of house persons.
• Respondents who have difficulties paying bills most of the time (31%) are the least likely to
mention clear information on food labelling regarding a product’s environmental,
health and social impacts, while those who seldom struggle to pay bills are the most likely
(43%) to mention it.
• When it comes to social classes, those who think they belong to the working class (52%) are
the most likely to mention the affordability of healthy, sustainable food choices, while at
other end of the scale those who think they belong to the upper middle (45%) or the upper
class (44%) are the least likely to mention it.. On the other hand, those who consider belonging
to the upper middle class (50%) are more likely to mention that clear information on food
labelling would help, than those who consider themselves working (35%) or lower middle
class (38%). A similar pattern applies when it comes to saying that education about
healthy, sustainable diets would help: those who believe they belong to the upper class
(40%) are the most likely to mention it, while those who position themselves in the working
class (25%) are the least likely to say so.
44
45
Those who consider “cost” as one of the most important factors when buying food are also more
likely to mention that affordable sustainable choices would help them in adopting a healthy and
sustainable diet (56% vs. 49% for the EU average).
46
III. MAKING FOOD SYSTEMS SUSTAINABLE
1. Who plays a role?
This section of the report discusses which actors, according to respondents, play a role in making our
food systems sustainable and what should be done to achieve this.
It then looks at respondents’ attitudes towards food fraud, in particular what they are most concerned
about when it comes to the subject.
Food producers and manufacturers are seen as key actors in making the food system
sustainable, above public authorities, but not all Europeans recognise their own role as
consumers
Respondents were asked which actors they think have a role to play in making our food system
sustainable 11. Two thirds of those surveyed say they think producers (65%) have this role, and nearly
six in ten say they believe food manufacturers (58%) have this role to play. Noticeably, the food
industry is seen as the most important actor to make food systems sustainable, above
public authorities.
Almost half of respondents say they think national governments (47%) have a role to play in
making our food system sustainable, and more than four in ten say they think consumers (43%)
play a role too. Just under four in ten believe EU institutions (38%) have a role to play, followed by
shops and retailers (35%) and regional governments (33%)
More than a quarter of respondents identify a role for cities, local authorities (27%) in making our
food system sustainable, while just under this proportion refer to hospitality and food services
(24%) and just over a fifth of those surveyed cite education providers (22%)..
According to over a tenth of respondents, non-governmental organisations (15%) and investors,
banks and financial institutions (14%) have a role to play in making our food system sustainable.
11
QB5 According to you, which actors from the list below have a role to play in making our food systems sustainable? (MULTIPLE ANSWERS
POSSIBLE) Producers (farmers, fishers, aquaculture producers); Food manufacturers; Shops and retailers; Hospitality and food services
(hotels, restaurants, canteens, hospitals…); EU institutions; National governments; Regional governments; Cities, local authorities; Non-
governmental organisations; Investors, banks, or financial institutions; Education providers (schools etc); Consumers; Other (SPONTANEOUS);
Don’t know
47
When considering private actors in their totality (producers, food manufacturers, shops and retailers,
hospitality and food services), 85% of respondents mention that they have a role to play in
comparison with 65% who cite public authorities (EU institutions, national and regional governments,
and cities and local authorities).
48
Producers (farmers, fishers, aquaculture producers) are the first or the second most mentioned
players in all EU Member States, most notably in six countries where more than eight in ten
respondents mention them: Portugal (86%), Sweden (85%), Greece (84%), Malta and the Netherlands
(both 83%) and Ireland (81%).
Food manufacturers are among the three most given answers in all countries but Spain. The highest
proportions of respondents mentioning them can be found in Sweden (78%), the Netherlands (77%),
Malta (71%) and Lithuania (72%). In Austria, producers and manufacturers share first place (both
59%)
National governments appear among the three most mentioned players in 14 EU countries, but it
is not the most mentioned in any country, and only in Spain (55%) are they ranked as second most
common answer.
49
Individuals are also seen by respondents as having a secondary role in making our food systems
sustainable: “consumers” is not the most common response anywhere in the EU and it is only the
second most-given answer in two countries- Luxembourg (56%) and France (55%) - and the third
most common response in seven countries (see table below).
Supra-national organisations are seen by respondents as having less of a role, with “EU
institutions” mentioned among the top three choices in just two countries: Belgium (58%) and Spain
(53%).
“Shops and retailers” is the second most-given answer in Austria (44%) and the third top choice
in five other countries – Finland (56%), Malta (50%), Slovenia (46%), Croatia (41%) and Czechia
(40%).
Other actors are considered by respondents to have even less of a role. Only in one country – Austria
(41%) – is “regional governments” among respondents’ top three choices and the same is true
when it comes to “hospitality and food services (hotels, restaurants, canteens, hospitals…)”,
which is the joint third most-given response in Austria (41%).
No other player in the food system is mentioned among the top three in any EU Member State.
50
51
Analysis of the socio-demographic results reveals a range of interesting variations:

• Older respondents are slightly more likely to say they think producers have a role to play in
making our food system sustainable than their younger counterparts (67% of those aged 40
or older compared with 62% of those aged 15-39). The same pattern applies to those
mentioning that food manufacturers have a role to play: 58-60% of those aged 25 or older
cite this, compared with 54% of those aged 15-24. On the other hand, a larger share of those
aged 15-54 (39-40%) say they think that EU institutions have a role to play than those
aged 55 or over (34%). Finally, it appears that age does not have an influence on respondents’
opinion about the role consumers have.
• Variations are more significant when looking at the age the respondents completed their
education: those who finished it at an older age are more likely to mention that all the listed
actors have a role to play. The largest differences can be seen among those mentioning that
EU institutions play a role, with an 18 percentage point difference between those who
completed education aged 20 or over (46%) and aged 15 or under (28%). Other significant
differences between these two groups can be found when looking at those mentioning
consumers (50% vs. 34%, respectively) and shops and retailers (40% vs. 30%
respectively).
• Managers (70%) are the most likely to mention that producers have a role to play, while
manual workers (61%) and house persons (61%) are the least likely to mention producers.
There is a similar pattern for those thinking that consumers have a role to play: managers
(52%) are again the socio-professional group most likely to mention them, while manual
workers (39%) and house persons (38%) are the least likely to say so. Other white collar
workers (63%) are the most likely to mention food manufacturers, whereas house persons
are the least likely (54%) to say so. Unemployed respondents (53%) are the most likely to
mention that national governments have a role to play, while manual workers (41%) are
the least likely to mention this. Finally, students and managers (both 45%) are the two socio-
professional groups most likely to mention that EU institutions have a role to play, with
retired respondents (33%), and again manual workers (33%) and house persons (31%) the
least likely groups to say this.
• Those who consider themselves upper or upper middle class are also those most likely to
mention that all the listed actors have a role to play in making our food systems sustainable.
The only exceptions are regional governments (32% of those considering themselves
working class mention this, vs. 28% of those identifying themselves as upper class) and
shops and retailers (35% of those considering themselves working class mention this vs.
31% of those who say they are upper class).
52

53
2. Opinion about actions and policies to undertake and implement
Almost all Europeans call on the public and private sectors to improve access to
sustainable food and information on food sustainability on food labels
Respondents were asked to what extent they agree or disagree with a range of statements concerning
food and sustainability 12. In all but one instance, a higher proportion of respondents agree with the
statements than disagree. The exception is the statement that public authorities are doing enough
to encourage and promote food sustainability (campaigns, food labelling and other
standards, taxes and other incentives), with nearly half of respondents saying they disagree
(47%) and a slightly smaller proportion saying they agree (46%).
The statement most commonly agreed with by respondents is “food offered in public institutions
should be sustainable (healthy, environmentally-friendly…)”, which nine in ten of those
surveyed say they agree with (91%) and over half saying they “totally agree” (52%). Just 6% say
they disagree with this statement.
Nearly nine in ten respondents say they agree producers and food companies should themselves
take action to raise their products’ sustainability standards (89%), with more than four in ten
saying they “totally agree” (44%) and nearly half saying they “tend to agree” (45%). Under a tenth of
respondents disagree (8%).
A similarly large majority of respondents say they agree information on food sustainability
should be compulsory on food labels (88%), half saying they “totally agree” (49%) and four in
ten saying they “tend to agree” (39%). Again, under a tenth say they disagree with this (9%).
The EU should be more proactive in promoting food sustainability worldwide according to
nearly nine in ten respondents (87%) with virtually the same proportion saying they either “totally
agree” (44%) or “tend to agree” (43%). Less than a tenth of respondents do not agree with this
statement (8%).
Over eight in ten respondents say they agree there should be one logo to help you choose
healthy, sustainable foods (85%): over four in ten “totally agree” (44%) and just over that
proportion “tend to agree” (41%). More than one in ten respondents say they disagree with this (11%).
Similarly, more than eight in ten respondents agree that regulations should force farmers,
fishers, food manufacturers, shops and retailers, restaurants and cafés to meet more
stringent sustainability standards (healthier foods, less greenhouse gas emissions, water
use etc…), including close to four in ten who “totally agree” (39%) and over four in ten who “tend to
agree” (44%); just over one in ten say they disagree (13%).
12
QB8 - Please tell me to what extent do you agree or not with each of the following statement? (ONE ANSWER PER LINE) Regulations
should force farmers, fishers, food manufacturers, shops and retailers, restaurants and cafés to meet more stringent sustainability
standards (healthier foods, less greenhouse gas emissions, water use etc…); Producers and food companies should themselves take action
to raise their products’ sustainability standards; The EU should be more proactive in promoting food sustainability worldwide; Food prices
should reflect costs for society (i.e. including environmental, and health impacts associated with food consumption); Public authorities are
doing enough to encourage and promote food sustainability (campaigns, food labelling and other standards, taxes and other incentives);
Marketing and advertising of foods that do not contribute to healthy, sustainable diets should be restricted; Food offered in public
institutions should be sustainable (healthy, environmentally-friendly…); Moving to stricter sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides)
could mean that we do not produce enough food to feed people; Moving to stricter sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could
increase food prices; You are ready to spend more money for food which protects your health and the planet; There should be one logo to
help you choose healthy, sustainable foods; Information on food sustainability should be compulsory on food labels
54
These proportions are reflected when it comes to the statement food prices should reflect costs
for society (i.e. including environmental, and health impacts associated with food
consumption), with more than eight in ten saying they agree (81%), a third totally agreeing (33%)
and nearly half tending to agree (48%) and over a tenth saying they disagree (13%).
A large majority of respondents agree with the statement marketing and advertising of foods
that do not contribute to healthy, sustainable diets should be restricted (79%), with just over
four in ten saying they “totally agree” (41%) or “tend to agree” (38%) and 16% saying they disagree.
Close to eight respondents in ten also agree with the statement moving to stricter sustainability
standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could increase food prices (78%). However, agreement
is milder, with 30% of answers “total agree” and half saying they “tend to agree” (48%). Conversely,
17% of respondents say they disagree.
Three quarters of those surveyed say they agree with the statement you are ready to spend more
money for food which protects your health and the planet, three in ten totally and over four in
ten tending to agree (45%). However, more than a fifth of respondents disagree with this (22%), more
than a tenth tending to disagree (15%) and 7% totally disagreeing.
When respondents were asked to what extent they agree with the statement moving to stricter
sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could mean that we do not produce
enough food to feed people, a majority say they agree with this (60%), a quarter totally (24%)
and more than a third tend to agree (36%). A third of those surveyed say they disagree, with a quarter
tending to disagree (23%) and a tenth saying they “totally disagree”.
55
56
Food offered in public institutions should be sustainable (healthy, environmentally-

friendly…).
At a national level, a majority in each EU Member State agree food offered in public institutions
should be sustainable, ranging from almost all respondents in Greece (98%), Cyprus (97%), and
Belgium and Slovenia (both 96%) to just over eight in ten in Czechia (84%) and Romania (82%).
A very small proportion of respondents disagree with this statement, with the highest levels found
in Romania (16%), Estonia (12%) and Czechia (11%). Barely any respondents in Cyprus and Greece
(both 1%) and Portugal (2%) disagree with it.
Of those who agree with the statement, a majority in 16 countries say they “totally agree”, particularly
in Cyprus (71%), Greece (69%) and Slovenia (68%) and in fact, the lowest level of total agreement is
still fairly high at nearly four in ten in Estonia (37%).
57
Producers and food companies should themselves take action to raise their products’
sustainability standards
A large majority in each EU Member State agree with this, ranging from over three quarters in
Romania (78%), and Czechia and Hungary (both 85%) to over nine in ten respondents in Cyprus,
Greece and Ireland (all 96%).
Only in eight EU countries do over a tenth of respondents disagree with this, most notably in Romania
(19%), Finland (13%) and Hungary (12%), while almost none of those surveyed in Malta (1%) and
Spain (2%) disagree with it.
Among those who agree, only a majority in seven countries “totally agree”, principally in Cyprus (69%),
Greece (57%) and Bulgaria (55%). A majority in six countries say they “tend to agree” with the
statement, particularly in Finland (68%), Estonia (65%) and Portugal (57%).
58
Information on food sustainability should be compulsory on food labels
A majority of respondents agree with this statement in all EU Member States, with the highest levels
of agreement found in Cyprus (98%), Greece (97%) and Belgium (96%). Even at the lower end of the
scale, over three quarters of respondents agree in Finland (77%) and Romania (78%).
At least a fifth of respondents in Finland (23%) and Romania (20%) disagree with the statement,
though there are negligible levels of disagreement in Cyprus (1%), Greece (2%) and Malta (2%).
A majority of respondents in 11 countries say they “totally agree” with the statement, chiefly in Cyprus
(70%), Greece (63%) and Bulgaria (62%), though only slightly more than a fifth take this position in
Finland (21%), where a majority say they “tend to agree” (56%).
59
The EU should be more proactive in promoting food sustainability worldwide
There is only one EU Member State where less than eight in ten respondents agree with the statement
– Romania (79%). Almost all respondents in Cyprus (97%), Greece (96%) and Belgium (95%) agree
with it.
Only in nine countries are there at least a tenth of respondents who disagree with this, with the
highest proportions found in Romania (18%), Estonia (17%), and Austria and Czechia (both 12%). No
respondents in Malta (0%) and barely any in Cyprus and Portugal (both 1%) take this position.
Of those who agree, a majority in only eight EU Member States, most notably Cyprus (70%), Greece
and Spain (both 60%), and a relative majority in Luxembourg and Sweden (both 50%) say they “totally
agree”. A majority in just five countries say they “tend to agree”, mainly Finland (60%) and Estonia
(56%).
60
There should be one logo to help you choose healthy, sustainable foods
More than three quarters of respondents in all EU Member States agree with the statement, with
proportions ranging from over nine in ten in Cyprus (95%), and Portugal, Spain and Greece (all 93%)
to just over three quarters in Finland, Latvia and Lithuania (all 77%).
At least a fifth of respondents in Finland (23%) and Austria (20%) disagree with this statement, a
view echoed by over a tenth of those surveyed in a further 15 countries. In contrast, there are barely
any respondents in Malta (2%) and Portugal (3%) who take this position.
A majority in only five countries say they “totally agree” with the statement, mainly in Cyprus (67%),
and Malta and the Netherlands (both 56%), and under a fifth also take this view in Finland (19%),
where nearly six in ten respondents say they “tend to agree” (58%).
61
Regulations should force farmers, fishers, food manufacturers, shops and retailers,
restaurants and cafés to meet more stringent sustainability standards (healthier foods,
less greenhouse emissions, water use, etc.)
A large majority of respondents in all EU Member States agree with this statement, with higher levels
of agreement in Cyprus (97%), Greece (95%) and Malta (93%), while the lowest can be found in
Estonia and Finland (both 68%) and Denmark (72%).
32% of respondents in Estonia and Finland and 24% in Denmark (24%) say they disagree with it,
though there are very low levels of disagreement in Malta (2%), Cyprus (3%), and Bulgaria and Greece
(both4%).
Of those who agree, a majority in Cyprus (71%), Greece (61%), and Malta and Bulgaria (both 57%)
say they “totally agree”, though less than a fifth say this in Estonia (19%) and only just over a tenth
take this position in Finland (14%). A majority in five EU countries say they “tend to agree”, with the
highest proportion found in Finland (54%), and Belgium and Poland (both 52%).
62
Food prices should reflect costs for society (i.e. including environmental, and health
impacts associated with food consumption)
At least two thirds of respondents in all EU Member States agree with this statement, and this opinion
is expressed most frequently in Cyprus (96%), Lithuania (91%), and Greece and Ireland (both 89%)
and less often in Czechia (68%), Portugal (73%) and Finland (74%).
Around a quarter of respondents in Finland (26%) and Czechia (24%) say they disagree with this
statement as do more than a tenth in a further 18 Member States, though this view is shared by
under one in 20 respondents in Cyprus and Lithuania (both 3%).
Of those who say they agree, only a majority in Cyprus (66%) say they “totally agree”, while just over
a tenth in Finland (14%) also take this view. A majority in 10 countries say they “tend to agree”, most
notably in Finland (60%), and Belgium and Estonia (both 56%).
63
Marketing and advertising of foods that do not contribute to healthy, sustainable diets
should be restricted
At least six in ten respondents in all EU Member States agree with this statement, most notably in
Greece and Malta (both 87%), and Slovakia and Slovenia (both 86%). At the other end of the scale,
at least six in ten respondents say they agree in Finland (60%), Denmark (61%), and Czechia and
Sweden (both 71%).
Four in ten respondents in Finland and a little over a third of those surveyed in Denmark (35%) say
they disagree with the statement and this view is shared by at least a fifth of respondents in seven
other EU Member States. Under a tenth of respondents say they disagree with the statement in Malta
(5%) and Bulgaria (7%).
When it comes to those who agree, a majority in just three countries say they “totally agree” – Bulgaria
and Slovenia (both 53%) and Greece (52%) – while at the other end of the scale, less than a fifth of
those surveyed in Finland (19%) and under three in ten in Denmark (27%) and Sweden (28%) also
take this view. At least three in ten respondents in all EU Member States say they “tend to agree”.
64
Moving to stricter sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could increase food
prices
A majority in all EU countries agree with this statement, with proportions ranging from seven in ten
in Malta, 74% in France, and three quarters in Lithuania and Romania to around nine in ten of those
surveyed in Sweden (91%), Estonia (90%) and Cyprus (88%).
No more than a quarter of respondents in any EU country disagree with this statement, with the
highest proportions taking this view located in Belgium and Malta (both 23%), and Luxembourg and
Romania (both 21%). A tenth or less share this opinion in Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Estonia (all 10%) and
Sweden (9%).
Among those who agree, a majority in six countries say they “tend to agree”, principally in Finland
(65%), Sweden (63%) and Ireland (61%), whereas a majority in only Cyprus (53%) say they “totally
agree”.
65
You are ready to spend more money for food which protects your health and the planet
There are wider variations at a national level when it comes to the statement you are ready to
spend more money for food which protects your health and the planet. While a majority in
each EU Member State say they agree, only a slight majority take this view in Portugal (51%), Bulgaria
(60%), and Czechia and Lithuania (both 61%). This opinion is expressed by a higher proportion of
respondents in the Netherlands (90%), and Germany and Sweden (both 85%).
Nearly half of respondents in Portugal (48%) and more than a third in Greece (37%), Lithuania (35%)
and Estonia (34%) disagree with this statement as do at least a tenth in all other EU countries, though
the proportions are lower in the Netherlands (10%), Malta (12%), and Denmark, Germany and Sweden
(all 14%).
More than half of respondents in seven EU countries say they “tend to agree” with the statement,
most notably in Finland (64%), Malta (55%) and Ireland (54%), a view which is shared by at least a
third in all other Member States. In contrast, under a fifth of respondents in seven countries say they
“totally agree”, with the lowest levels found in Estonia (15%), Czechia (16%) and Finland (17%).
66
Moving to stricter sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could mean that we
do not produce enough food to feed people
A majority of respondents in 24 EU nations agree with this statement, principally in Hungary and
Cyprus (both 79%) and Slovakia (77%). This opinion is held by minority in three countries: the
Netherlands (43%), Germany (44%) and Ireland (49%).
At least half the respondents in Ireland and the Netherlands (both 51%) and Germany (50%)
disagree with the statement, a view shared by more than a quarter of respondents in 17 further
countries. At the other end of the scale, under a fifth of respondents share this view in Bulgaria (16%),
and Cyprus and Slovakia (both 17%).
In all but four EU Member States, the proportion of respondents who say they “tend to agree” with
the statement is higher than the proportion who say they “totally agree”. The exceptions are Cyprus
(49% totally agree vs. 30% tend to agree), Hungary (42% vs. 37%), Bulgaria (38% vs. 31%) and
Romania (35% vs. 32%).
67
Public authorities are doing enough to encourage and promote food sustainability
(campaigns, food labelling and other standards, taxes and other incentives)
Public opinion is much more divided about this statement: a majority of respondents agree in 15
countries, most notably in Hungary (76%), Cyprus (66%), and Portugal and Slovakia (both 62%).
However, this is a minority view in 11 EU Member States and there are particularly low levels of
agreement in Germany (29%), and the Netherlands and Spain (both 36%).
Over half the respondents in eight countries disagree with this statement, chiefly in Germany (64%),
the Netherlands (61%) and Spain (59%). At the other end of the scale, under a fifth of respondents
disagree with it in Hungary (19%), while at least a quarter share this view in Portugal (25%) and
Cyprus (27%).
In terms of those who disagree, the proportions saying they “tend to disagree” are higher in each
instance than the proportions who say they “totally disagree”. In only two countries do a higher
proportion of respondents say they “totally agree” with the statement than “tend to agree” with it:
Cyprus (38% totally agree vs. 28% tend to agree) and Bulgaria (29% vs. 28%).
68
The socio-demographic analysis looks at the total percentages of respondents who ‘agree’ or
‘disagree’ and reveals some variations:
• Older respondents are more likely to agree with all the polled statements than the younger
ones. This is particularly the case for those agreeing with “marketing and advertising of
foods that do not contribute to healthy, sustainable diets should be restricted”,
where 82% of those aged 55 and over said that they agree with it, compared with 75% of
those aged 15-24. The same pattern applies to the statement ”moving to stricter
sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could mean that we do not
produce enough food to feed people” that sees those aged 15-24 the least likely to agree
with it (56% vs. 62-60% for all the other age groups).
• Students (90%) and those who completed education aged 20 or over (89%) are more likely
to agree with the statement “the EU should be more proactive in promoting food
sustainability worldwide” compared with those who completed their education aged 15 or
under (82%). Respondents with the longest education (80%) are also the most likely to say
that they “are ready to spend more money for food which protects your health and
the planet”, while those who completed their education aged 15 or less are the least likely
to say this. Those who completed their education the earliest are also the least likely to
mention that producers and food companies should themselves take action to raise
their products' sustainability standards (85% vs. 89-90% for all the other groups), and
that information on food sustainability should be compulsory on food labels (85%
vs. 91-89% for all the other groups).
On the other hand, respondents that have completed their education before their twenties
are more likely to mention (50-48%) that public authorities are doing enough to
encourage and promote food sustainability than those who completed it aged 20 or
more (42%). The same pattern occurs for those mentioning that moving to stricter
sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could mean that we do not
produce enough food to feed people: 64% of those who completed their education aged
19 or under agree with this statement, compared with 57% of those who are still studying,
and 54% of those who completed their education aged 20 or more.
• There is little difference between the professional categories, with a few exceptions:
managers (86%) are the most likely to agree with the statement “you are ready to spend
more money for food which protects your health and the planet”, while the
unemployed are the least likely (65%) to say so. Managers (86%) and other white collar
respondents (87%) are also more likely to agree that there should be one logo to help
you choose healthy, sustainable foods, while the unemployed are the least likely to agree
with this (81%).
On the other hand, manual workers (64%) are the most likely to agree that moving to
stricter sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could mean that we do
not produce enough food to feed people and managers (54%) are the least likely to agree
with this. The same pattern occurs for those agreeing with the statement that “public
authorities are doing enough to encourage and promote food sustainability” (50%
of manual workers vs. 39% of managers).
• Respondents who have difficulties paying bills most of the time are the least likely to agree
with the statements related to cost: they are the least likely to agree that food prices should
reflect costs for society (74% vs. 83% of those who never face these difficulties), moving
to stricter sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could increase food
69
prices (71% vs. 79%), moreover they are ready to spend more money for food which
protects their health and the planet (56% vs. 79%).
70
71
Compared to the EU average (75%), those who consider the “impact on the environment and climate”
one of the most important factors when buying food are also more likely to mention that they are
ready to spend more money for food which protects their health and the planet (87%); while
those who consider “cost” one of the most important factors when buying food are less likely to
mention it (63%).
72
3. Concern about food fraud
Respondents are most concerned about being misled about a food’s qualities when it
comes to food fraud
Respondents were asked what their main concerns are when it comes to food fraud 13. They were able
to give up to two answers from a list of four items.
The biggest concern for respondents is that they don’t want to be misled about the true qualities
of a food (e.g. its ingredients), which is given by over six in ten respondents (61%) as either their
first or second major concern about food fraud.
Moreover, more than half of respondents (54%) also say that they don’t want to put their health
at risk (e.g. contamination of a food with a toxic substance), while just over four in ten
respondents cite that they want to be certain that food with specific characteristics (e.g.
labelled as organic) meets EU standards (41%). Finally, the least mentioned statement
concerning food fraud is the one about feeling as confident in food imported into the EU as
that produced in the EU, which is still cited by a large share (40%) of respondents across the EU.
13
Q9a/b Food fraud can lead to serious disruption of the food supply chain, undermining consumer confidence and putting both food safety
and food security at risk. When it comes to food fraud, what is your main concern? (a) Firstly? (b) And secondly? (a/b: ONE ANSWER ONLY)
73
In all EU Member States one of the three most frequent responses is “you don't want to be misled
about the true qualities of a food (e.g. its ingredients)”, and this is particularly the case in
Malta (78%), Estonia (76%) and the Netherlands (74%) where it is the most common answer. This is
also the joint most-given answer by respondents in Lithuania (57%) alongside with “you don't want
to put your health at risk”.
You don't want to put your health at risk (e.g. contamination of a food with a toxic
substance) is the one of the three most mentioned answers in all countries but Romania. It is the
most mentioned answer in nine of these countries, chiefly in Portugal (71%), Denmark (66%) and
Belgium (65%). This is also the joint most-given answer by respondents in Poland (52%) alongside
with “you want to feel as confident in food imported into the EU at as that produce in the
EU”.
“You want to be certain that food with specific characteristics (e.g. labelled as organic)
meets EU standards” is among the three most mentioned answer in 16 EU countries, especially in
Romania where it is the most mentioned answer by 58% of respondents.
74
You want to feel as confident in food imported into the EU as that produced in the EU is
the second most chosen option in six EU Member States, mainly Slovakia (56%), Romania (53%) and
Greece (52%), and the third most mentioned answer in other 12 countries (see table below).
75
A look at the socio-demographic analysis reveals generally few variations between categories:
• Those who completed their education aged 16 or over (40%) are the most likely to mention
they want to be certain that food with specific characteristics (e.g. labelled as
organic) meets EU standards, while those who completed their education at an earlier age
are the least likely to say so (34%).
• At least 60% of respondents from all socio-professional groups, except one, say that they
don’t want to be misled about the true qualities of a food, with the highest share seen
among the unemployed (66%) and the exception being manual workers (58%). The
unemployed (60%) are also the group that is most likely to say that they don’t want to put
their health at risk, while other white collar workers (51%) are the least likely to say so. .
On the other hand, the unemployed (34%) are the least likely to say that they want to be
certain that food with specific characteristics (e.g. labelled as organic) meets EU
standards, while managers are the most likely to mention it (46%). Finally, manual workers
(43%) are the most likely to mention that they want to feel as confident in food imported
into the EU as that produced in the EU, while students (36%), the unemployed and
managers (both 36%) are the least likely to say so..
• Respondents who consider themselves middle class (61%), upper middle class or working
class (62%) mention that being misled about the true qualities of a food is one of their
biggest concerns, while those who self-identify as upper class (54%) are the least likely to
mention it. A similar pattern can be found for those who say that they don’t want to put
their health at risk: those who identify as working class (60%) are more likely to mention
this statement than those who self-identify as upper class (53%). On the other hand, those
who consider themselves upper class (42%) are the most likely to mention that they want
to feel as confident in food imported into the EU as that produced in the EU, while
those self-identifying as working and upper middle class are the least likely to say so (both
37%) Respondents who consider themselves working class are also the least likely to mention
that they want to be certain that food with specific characteristics (e.g. labelled as
organic) meets EU standards (35% vs. 42-44% of respondents from all the other social
groups).
76
77
CONCLUSION
This Special Eurobarometer survey conducted in August-September 2020 examines the attitudes of
EU citizens towards food and sustainability in the European Union. The results confirm that
respondents have very clear ideas about who has a role to play in changing our food system and
what needs to be done to effect that change. Moreover, they seem to view food sustainability as
something that exists to protect their health more than as a way of safeguarding society and the
environment.
Most respondents say the main drivers influencing their food-buying decisions are personal. They
prioritise taste, whether something is safe for them to eat and how much it costs over
factors often associated with sustainability such as origin of food, animal welfare concerns or impact
on the environment.
These opinions are reflected when respondents are asked about what the most important
characteristics of sustainable food are, what they think constitutes a sustainable diet and what
aspects of such a diet are important for them. Just over four in ten respondents say “nutritious
and healthy” is the most important characteristic of sustainable food, while for nearly
three quarters of respondents, the most important aspect of a sustainable diet is that the
food is healthy for them. When asked what factors make a diet ‘sustainable’, a large majority of
respondents cite health-related aspects such as variety, balance and eating more fruit and
vegetables.
In contrast, less than half of respondents mention factors more commonly associated with
‘sustainability’ as important aspects of a sustainable diet for them: for instance, food produced in a
way that minimises waste or is good for the planet.
Overall, a large majority of respondents say that they eat a healthy and sustainable diet:
more than half say they eat such a diet “most of the time” and two thirds regularly (“most of the
time”, or “always”). When asked about what would help them adopt healthy and sustainable diets, EU
citizens refer to aspects that reflect their concerns and ideas about the importance of affordability
and the health properties of food. More than four in ten EU citizens mention as main factors that
food and sustainable choices are affordable (49%) and available where they usually shop for
food (45%), and that food is clearly labelled with information on a product’s environmental,
health and social impacts (41%).
The fact that respondents do not necessarily associate environmental and social dimensions of
sustainability to foods and diets as such may reflect a need for information about the effect that
adopting a healthy and sustainable diet can have on food systems and society as a whole and, more
generally, education about the benefits of sustainable food systems. In this regard, only 29% of
Europeans recognise that better education about healthy, sustainable diets could help them in
adopting such diets. This need is recognised more by younger respondents (34%) than older ones
(27-29%), showing the opportunity of addressing in particular the younger generations.
There is also a strong sense among respondents that producers (farmers, fishers, etc.) and
food manufacturers have a role in making our food systems sustainable, ahead of public
authorities. Around two thirds of respondents say food producers (65%) have a role to play in this
field, while nearly six in ten (58%) say food manufacturers do. This is well ahead of other actors such
as national governments (47%), EU institutions (38%), regional governments (34%) and cities, local
authorities (27%), which under half of respondents at the most say have a role in changing the
system. Less than half of respondents (43%) consider themselves as actors in the shift
towards sustainable food systems.
79
Almost all respondents call on the public and private sectors to improve access to sustainable food
and information on food sustainability on food labels. For example, more than nine in ten
respondents think food offered in public institutions should be sustainable (91%) while
almost the same proportion think that producers and food manufacturers should raise their
products’ sustainability standards (89%) and that information on food sustainability should
be compulsory on food labels (88%).
A request for clearer information about food and its potential impact on health is also
evident in citizens’ responses to concerns about food fraud: they mostly fear being misled about the
true qualities of food and the risks it could pose for their health, while they also have concerns about
food measuring up to EU standards.
At a socio-demographic level, age and length of education appear to influence how those
surveyed respond to the questions. Younger respondents are less concerned about food safety or
its origin than their older counterparts and are more likely to mention low environmental and climate
impact as an important characteristic of sustainable food and more likely to be influenced by ethics
and beliefs.
In addition, respondents who finished their studies at or before the age of 15 are more likely
than their counterparts who spent a longer time in education to consider food safety and
cost as important and less likely to be influenced by environmental and climate impact, ethics and
beliefs or avoiding food waste.
This pattern is reflected in the responses from groups who see themselves as belonging to a certain
social class. Those who consider themselves to be working class are the most likely to
mention cost as important for them when buying food, and say they eat a healthy and
sustainable diet less often.
Meanwhile, those see themselves as belonging to the upper class or the upper middle class are the
least likely to be concerned with cost, but the most likely to be influenced by a food’s impact on the
environment and climate, animal welfare standards and whether or not food is organic. This group is
also more likely to mention issues such as avoiding wasting food, while the working class are the
least likely to do so.
Finally, those who consider “cost” one of the most important factors when buying food are
also more likely to mention the financial aspects of adopting healthy and sustainable food and diets.
For example, they are more likely to mention affordability as one of the most important aspects of
sustainable food and one of the main factors that would help them in adopting healthy and
sustainable diets.
Similarly, those who consider the “impact on the environment and climate” one of the most
important factors when buying food are also more likely to mention the environmental aspects of
healthy and sustainable food and diets. For example, they are more likely to mention that sustainable
food should have a low environmental and climate impact, and that food produced in a way
that minimises waste, has minimal packaging and is organic are important aspects of a
sustainable diet.
80
Technical
August-September 2020 specifications
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Between the 3rd August and 15th September 2020, Kantar carried out the wave 93.2 of the
EUROBAROMETER survey, at the request of the European Commission, Directorate-General for
Communication, “Media monitoring and Eurobarometer” Unit.
The wave 93.2 covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member
States, resident in each of the 27 Member States and aged 15 years and over.
The basic sample design applied in all States is a multi-stage, random (probability) one. In each
country, a number of sampling points was drawn with probability proportional to population size (for
a total coverage of the country) and to population density.
In order to do so, the sampling points were drawn systematically from each of the "administrative
regional units", after stratification by individual unit and type of area. They thus represent the whole
territory of the countries surveyed according to the EUROSTAT NUTS II (or equivalent) and according
to the distribution of the resident population of the respective nationalities in terms of metropolitan,
urban and rural areas.
In each of the selected sampling points, a starting address was drawn, at random. Further addresses
(every Nth address) were selected by standard "random route" procedures, from the initial address. In
each household, the respondent was drawn, at random (following the "closest birthday rule"). If no
one answered the interviewer in a household, or if the respondent selected was not available (not
present or busy), the interviewer revisited the same household up to three additional times (four
contact attempts in total). Interviewers never indicate that the survey is conducted on behalf of the
European Commission beforehand; they may give this information once the survey is completed, upon
request.
The recruitment phase was slightly different in the Netherlands and Denmark. In these countries, a
sample of addresses within each areal sampling point (1km2 grid) were selected from the address or
population register. The selection of addresses was done in a random manner. Households were then
contacted by telephone and recruited to take part in the survey.
TS1
Technical
N° F IE LD W O R K P O P ULAT IO N P R O P O R T IO N
C O UNT R IE S INS T IT UT E S
INT E R VIE W S D AT E S 15+ E U27
BE B elgium K antar B elgium (K antar T NS ) 981 13/08/2020 15/09/2020 9,188,369 2.45%
BG B ulgaria K antar T NS B B S S 1,057 03/08/2020 24/08/2020 5,995,194 1.60%
CZ C z ec hia K antar C Z 1,027 04/08/2020 24/08/2020 8,956,740 2.39%
DK D enmark K antar G allup 1,022 07/08/2020 03/09/2020 4,848,611 1.29%
DE G ermany K antar D eutsc hland 1,527 05/08/2020 07/09/2020 71,728,398 19.10%
EE E stonia K antar E mor 1,104 17/08/2020 31/08/2020 1,073,224 0.29%
IE Ireland K antar B elgium 1,239 27/08/2020 15/09/2020 3,896,482 1.04%
T aylor Nelson S ofres Market
EL G reec e 1,016 07/08/2020 30/08/2020 9,187,524 2.45%
R esearc h
T NS Investigac ión de Merc ados y
ES S pain 1,049 13/08/2020 15/09/2020 40,006,943 10.65%
O pinión
FR F ranc e K antar P ublic F ranc e 1,001 03/08/2020 31/08/2020 52,732,499 14.04%
HR C roatia Hendal 1,019 05/08/2020 24/08/2020 3,488,460 0.93%
IT Italy K antar Italia 1,021 04/08/2020 26/08/2020 52,397,331 13.95%
CY R ep. O f C yprus C YMAR Market R esearc h 505 03/08/2020 01/09/2020 734,695 0.20%
LV Latvia K antar T NS Latvia 1,024 06/08/2020 01/09/2020 1,568,124 0.42%
LT Lithuania T NS LT 1,008 10/08/2020 03/09/2020 2,300,257 0.61%
LU Luxembourg K antar B elgium 608 20/08/2020 15/09/2020 503,275 0.13%
HU Hungary K antar Hoffmann 1,058 08/08/2020 24/08/2020 8,351,017 2.22%
MT Malta MIS C O International 502 05/08/2020 31/08/2020 426,055 0.11%
NL Netherlands T NS NIP O 1,086 05/08/2020 31/08/2020 14,165,638 3.77%
AT Austria D as Ö sterreic hisc he G allup Institut 1,008 07/08/2020 23/08/2020 7,580,083 2.02%
PL P oland K antar P olska 1,057 03/08/2020 25/08/2020 32,139,021 8.56%
Marktest – Marketing, O rganiz aç ão
PT P ortugal 1,061 05/08/2020 30/08/2020 8,869,051 2.36%
e F ormaç ão
C entrul P entru S tudierea O piniei si
RO R omania 1,103 03/08/2020 30/08/2020 16,372,216 4.36%
P ietei (C S O P )
SI S lovenia Mediana D O O 1,011 04/08/2020 19/08/2020 1,767,202 0.47%
SK S lovakia K antar S lovakia 1,046 06/08/2020 23/08/2020 4,592,379 1.22%

FI F inland K antar T NS O y 1,099 20/08/2020 03/09/2020 4,488,064 1.20%
SE S weden K antar S ifo 998 18/08/2020 10/09/2020 8,149,850 1.90%
T O T AL E U27 27,237 03/08/2020 15/09/2020 375,506,702 100%*

* It should be noted that the total perc entage shown in this table may exc eed 100% due to rounding
** R ec ruitments in Luxembourg, Ireland, B elgium and S pain are c arried out by R onin International, K antar B elgium, K antar S pain, Infas and
G D C C . Non-probabilistic sample in Luxembourg and Ireland was randomly drawn from K antar’s LifeP oints panel.
TS2
Technical
N° O F C AP I N° O F C AW I T O T AL N°
C O UNT R IE S
INT E R VIE W S INT E R VIE W S INT E R VIE W S
BE B elgium 388 593 981
BG B ulgaria 1,057 1,057
CZ C z ec hia 1,027 1,027
DK D enmark 936 86 1,022
DE G ermany 1,527 1,527
EE E stonia 1104 1,104
IE Ireland 1239 1,239
EL G reec e 1,016 1,016
ES S pain 302 747 1,049
FR F ranc e 1,001 1,001
HR C roatia 1,019 1,019
IT Italy 1,021 1,021
CY R ep. O f C yprus 505 505
LV Latvia 1,024 1,024
LT Lithuania 1,008 1,008
LU Luxembourg 608 608
HU Hungary 1,058 1,058
MT Malta 502 502
NL Netherlands 754 332 1,086
AT Austria 1,008 1,008
PL P oland 1,057 1,057
PT P ortugal 1,061 1,061
RO R omania 1,103 1,103
SI S lovenia 1,011 1,011
SK S lovakia 1,046 1,046
FI F inland 1,099 1,099
SE S weden 998 998
T O T AL E U27 20,431 6,806 27,237
C AP I : C omputer-Assisted P ersonal interviewing

C AW I : C omputer-Assisted W eb interviewing
Consequences of the coronavirus pandemic on fieldwork

Where feasible, interviews were conducted face-to-face in people's homes or on their doorstep and
in the appropriate national language. In all countries where face-to-face interviewing was feasible
CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing) was used. At the start of the fieldwork it was intended
to have interviewers to offer respondents the possibility to answer the question online, if they were
reluctant to do it face-to-face. Eventually this option was not needed (except in Denmark and
Netherlands), as the number of required interviews could be reached through regular face-to-face
interviewing. For all interviews conducted face to face, hygiene and physical distancing measures
have always been respected in line with government regulations, and whenever possible, interviews
were conducted outside homes, on doorsteps, to remain in open air and maintain social distance.
In Netherlands and Denmark, face-to-face interviewing was feasible, but it was not possible to
reach the target number of interviews within the fieldwork period. Therefore, to hit the target number
of interviews within the fieldwork period an online survey was offered to those who refused the face-
to-face option at the telephone recruitment stage. As a result, data collection was made through
interviews via CAPI and CAWI modes.
TS3
Technical
Due to the coronavirus pandemic, face-to-face interviews were not possible in Belgium,
Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain and Sweden. In these countries, interviews were
conducted online with Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) technique. However, at a later
stage during the fieldwork, face-to-face interviews became feasible in Belgium and Spain, where
388 and 302 interviews were conducted with this methodology.
The online design in each country differed based on what was feasible within the fieldwork period. In
all but Luxembourg the online sample was based on a probabilistic sample design: in other terms,
respondents were recruited in a probabilistic random manner, ensuring that all individuals in this
country have an equal chance to be interviewed.
In Belgium, Ireland and Spain, respondents were recruited by telephone via a probabilistic dual
frame sample of telephone numbers, drawn from national telephone numbering plan.
In Luxembourg, the same approach was initiated. However, the response rates were not sufficiently
large to achieve the target sample size in the fieldwork period, so this sample was supplemented with
a non-probabilistic sample randomly drawn from Kantar’s LifePoints panel. In total 155 interviews
were conducted via the probabilistic sample and 453 via the LifePoints panel in Luxembourg. The
sample for Ireland was also supplemented from the same panel but to a lesser extent (349
interviews).
In Estonia, Finland and Sweden, only people randomly selected through a probabilistically drawn
sample were interviewed online.
In Estonia and Finland, the respondents are recruited through a telephone survey. In Estonia a dual
frame random sample is drawn from the national telephone numbering plan whilst in Finland and
Sweden a random sample is drawn from the telephone register.
TS4
Technical
Margins of error
Readers are reminded that survey results are estimations, the accuracy of which, everything being
equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observed percentage. With samples of about 1,000
interviews, the real percentages vary within the following confidence limits:
TS5
12
August-September 2020 Tables
COUNTRY TABLES
QB1a When you buy food, which of the following are the most important to you? Firstly?
(%)
Where the food comes from (e.g. geographical origin)

with your ethics and beliefs, e.g. in terms of religion,
Food safety (e.g. if there is a risk in eating this food)

Your ethics and beliefs (whether the item complies
Convenience (e.g. the easiness to use, prepare)

Nutrient content (e.g. the amount of vitamins,
animal welfare or fair payment of producers)
Its impact on the environment and climate

Amount of shelf-life available
fibre, proteins, sugar or fats)
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
(e.g. carbon footprint)
Minimally processed
Don't know
Taste
Cost
EU27 7 20 16 11 17 12 2 5 6 4 0 0
BE 5 15 19 14 20 7 2 9 4 5 0 0
BG 2 27 21 9 18 6 2 3 11 1 0 0
CZ 2 17 27 14 19 10 2 2 5 2 0 0
DK 11 18 16 12 17 10 3 3 4 6 0 0
DE 15 17 14 10 16 15 1 2 3 7 0 0
EE 5 20 19 12 24 9 2 5 4 0 0 0
IE 7 20 15 18 12 8 3 11 3 3 0 0
EL 3 28 13 18 20 8 1 4 3 2 0 0
ES 5 21 13 15 14 11 2 12 4 3 0 0
FR 3 14 18 7 21 19 2 5 8 3 0 0
HR 3 27 23 11 10 9 2 4 10 1 0 0
IT 6 30 12 11 12 14 3 2 5 4 0 1
CY 1 25 16 12 16 8 2 6 11 3 0 0
LV 2 20 27 14 15 8 2 2 9 1 0 0
LT 3 13 27 18 19 5 1 1 12 1 0 0
LU 11 13 12 10 22 15 2 5 5 5 0 0
HU 3 20 25 14 17 7 4 2 5 3 0 0
MT 2 21 10 21 18 4 4 8 7 1 0 4
NL 7 17 9 19 20 3 3 11 5 6 0 0
AT 11 14 11 11 19 16 5 2 5 5 1 0
PL 4 13 20 8 22 7 4 8 10 4 0 0
PT 1 22 34 8 19 7 2 1 4 2 0 0
RO 10 19 15 11 14 5 3 5 13 5 0 0
SI 4 18 14 8 13 28 1 5 7 2 0 0
SK 2 25 17 14 20 10 3 2 5 2 0 0
FI 4 16 13 18 18 18 2 7 2 2 0 0
SE 9 14 11 15 16 20 2 3 2 8 0 0
T1
QB1T When you buy food, which of the following are the most important to you? Firstly? And then?
(%)
(MAX. 3 ANSWERS)
Where the food comes from (e.g. geographical origin)

with your ethics and beliefs, e.g. in terms of religion,
Food safety (e.g. if there is a risk in eating this food)

Your ethics and beliefs (whether the item complies
Convenience (e.g. the easiness to use, prepare)

Nutrient content (e.g. the amount of vitamins,
animal welfare or fair payment of producers)
Its impact on the environment and climate

Amount of shelf-life available
fibre, proteins, sugar or fats)
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
Minimally processed
Don't know
Taste
Cost
EU27 16 42 40 33 45 34 9 16 20 15 0 0
BE 10 35 47 32 47 22 9 27 18 17 0 0
BG 6 54 59 25 54 22 10 11 37 6 0 0
CZ 7 41 58 36 58 31 9 8 22 6 0 0
DK 30 38 37 33 43 31 11 13 17 23 1 0
DE 31 40 32 34 41 43 6 9 11 23 0 0
EE 9 42 55 33 52 28 12 16 28 5 0 0
IE 16 41 44 42 38 23 10 24 11 14 0 0
EL 11 55 48 46 52 29 8 20 16 9 0 0
ES 9 42 39 36 33 26 7 28 10 9 0 0
FR 8 34 45 23 52 45 5 18 26 19 0 0
HR 7 50 54 34 37 32 10 13 35 5 0 0
IT 19 58 31 35 35 40 12 10 20 15 0 1
CY 4 51 46 34 49 28 6 18 30 12 0 0
LV 6 45 60 34 47 27 11 9 34 4 0 1
LT 8 34 61 41 54 20 7 6 41 3 1 0
LU 22 33 32 31 44 37 5 16 16 15 0 0
HU 9 43 52 45 47 27 12 11 22 11 0 0
MT 5 41 38 48 54 15 13 32 24 7 1 4
NL 17 40 35 46 46 14 11 32 20 22 0 0
AT 30 37 31 33 50 39 17 13 18 19 2 0
PL 12 35 48 25 55 22 13 25 30 10 0 0
PT 5 42 70 30 59 30 9 6 26 6 0 0
RO 22 43 36 29 39 20 12 16 38 16 0 0
SI 10 39 42 24 39 57 6 16 28 9 0 0
SK 10 49 40 41 55 33 15 11 23 8 0 0
FI 16 37 39 41 46 42 13 23 11 14 0 0
SE 24 36 37 36 37 44 8 13 11 27 0 0
T2
QB2a Which of the following do you consider to be the most important characteristic of "sustainable" food? Firstly?
(%)
Low environmental and climate impact
Minimal packaging, no or little plastic
Respect for workers' rights, health

Minimally processed, traditional
High animal welfare standards
Little or no use of pesticides
Local or short supply chains

Affordability of food for all
Fair revenue for producers
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
and safety and fair pay
Nutritious and healthy
Don't know
Availability
Organic
EU27 19 10 3 10 12 8 5 6 8 6 6 6 0 1
BE 21 16 1 9 9 9 6 5 4 7 6 7 0 0
BG 32 3 4 13 14 6 2 1 7 11 1 5 0 1
CZ 25 2 6 21 13 8 2 3 6 6 6 2 0 0
DK 12 18 2 11 11 9 2 10 12 1 6 6 0 0
DE 14 14 2 8 11 12 4 12 11 1 8 3 0 0
EE 23 7 4 15 10 15 4 3 2 5 6 6 0 0
IE 9 20 4 10 5 7 8 8 6 7 8 8 0 0
EL 28 5 3 11 14 2 3 5 7 16 2 3 0 1
ES 14 13 1 11 10 7 8 3 8 9 5 9 0 2
FR 18 7 2 12 14 6 8 5 6 5 8 7 0 2
HR 27 3 5 10 17 8 4 3 6 10 2 5 0 0
IT 27 6 4 7 14 10 2 4 6 7 4 8 0 1
CY 39 3 3 11 10 0 4 3 11 8 1 6 0 1
LV 24 2 6 18 9 6 3 2 12 5 7 5 0 1
LT 26 3 6 12 12 3 2 3 17 5 2 4 1 4
LU 9 13 2 5 14 13 6 7 8 6 11 6 0 0
HU 30 6 6 15 13 5 4 2 5 8 3 3 0 0
MT 27 3 3 12 12 4 3 2 2 10 11 6 0 5
NL 9 34 0 6 5 5 5 6 8 9 6 7 0 0
AT 14 11 4 7 10 15 5 11 9 3 6 4 0 1
PL 25 4 6 12 7 7 3 5 10 11 6 3 0 1
PT 20 12 1 20 14 3 1 4 9 5 2 5 0 4
RO 19 6 5 7 17 5 4 4 11 10 4 7 0 1
SI 18 4 3 11 11 18 5 2 14 6 4 4 0 0
SK 36 2 4 19 11 4 2 3 6 6 4 3 0 0
FI 16 16 2 10 4 16 7 7 3 11 3 5 0 0
SE 10 23 2 6 6 19 4 11 7 2 3 7 0 0
T3
Making our food fit for the future – Citizens'
QB2T Which of the following do you consider to be the most important characteristic of "sustainable" food? Firstly? And then?
(%)
(MAX. 3 ANSWERS)
Low environmental and climate impact
Minimal packaging, no or little plastic
Respect for workers' rights, health

Minimally processed, traditional
High animal welfare standards
Little or no use of pesticides
Local or short supply chains

Affordability of food for all
Fair revenue for producers
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
and safety and fair pay
Nutritious and healthy
Don't know
Availability
Organic
EU27 41 22 10 29 32 24 16 20 18 18 20 19 0 1
BE 40 27 6 26 26 25 23 16 10 22 27 21 0 0
BG 58 13 15 38 40 21 11 7 21 30 11 17 0 1
CZ 54 7 25 49 37 22 5 13 15 20 20 7 0 1
DK 30 33 10 28 32 25 9 32 29 8 24 18 1 0
DE 35 28 6 25 30 32 15 36 23 6 24 17 0 0
EE 49 16 18 37 27 39 14 10 7 18 27 19 0 0
IE 28 34 10 26 19 21 21 23 13 20 26 27 0 0
EL 60 16 12 43 37 9 16 20 17 39 9 14 0 1
ES 27 25 5 28 25 18 20 11 15 20 19 26 0 2
FR 37 20 7 32 35 20 26 17 14 14 29 21 0 2
HR 54 11 18 27 45 25 12 11 18 30 11 12 0 0
IT 51 19 12 22 40 28 10 16 16 24 15 25 0 1
CY 74 13 8 39 28 4 12 15 28 24 8 20 0 1
LV 50 8 19 47 27 23 10 8 25 17 20 12 0 1
LT 57 10 20 34 34 17 8 13 32 21 11 7 1 4
LU 25 25 6 15 28 32 24 18 16 14 35 20 0 0
HU 59 16 21 43 37 18 16 10 13 23 15 9 0 0
MT 48 11 14 39 42 15 9 12 10 30 26 18 1 5
NL 26 51 2 19 22 19 27 21 19 23 31 28 0 0
AT 32 28 14 23 30 37 19 30 22 15 19 19 1 1
PL 48 15 19 36 23 22 11 16 27 27 17 9 0 1
PT 46 21 7 47 45 13 9 23 17 18 11 17 0 4
RO 42 16 17 23 41 17 14 13 26 27 14 19 0 1
SI 41 9 9 31 33 41 16 10 32 18 20 13 0 0
SK 63 12 15 52 33 18 11 14 20 19 14 14 0 0
FI 38 33 11 25 15 42 20 19 8 28 16 27 0 0
SE 27 42 7 18 23 45 14 34 17 9 16 26 0 0
T4
QB3a What aspects of a sustainable diet are important to you? Firstly?

(%)
What you eat is produced by a company that pays
safety and health (both in and outside the EU)

The food you eat has minimal packaging
fair wages and respects workers' rights,

What you eat supports local economy
What you eat is good for the planet
What you eat has been produced
The food packaging is recyclable

What you eat is healthy for you
in a way that minimises waste
What you eat is organic
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
Don't know
EU27 8 46 9 7 8 5 5 11 0 1
BE 10 48 9 6 4 4 6 13 0 0
BG 3 65 8 5 9 3 3 4 0 0
CZ 5 62 12 4 4 5 5 3 0 0
DK 10 41 7 5 14 5 4 14 0 0
DE 7 41 8 7 13 5 5 14 0 0
EE 4 65 13 3 4 3 2 6 0 0
IE 9 46 10 7 4 4 5 15 0 0
EL 8 61 10 6 6 1 3 5 0 0
ES 10 41 9 8 5 3 3 20 0 1
FR 12 45 8 6 5 7 6 8 1 2
HR 4 59 10 6 11 3 2 5 0 0
IT 9 42 10 11 9 3 6 9 0 1
CY 4 61 10 3 11 3 5 3 0 0
LV 4 63 7 3 11 2 4 4 1 1
LT 3 62 5 3 14 2 5 4 2 0
LU 9 33 13 8 10 5 8 14 0 0
HU 4 58 8 8 7 4 4 7 0 0
MT 3 64 7 5 2 6 6 2 1 4
NL 15 43 3 11 5 4 4 15 0 0
AT 5 39 15 6 9 6 7 9 3 1
PL 7 50 9 7 8 7 6 5 0 1
PT 7 49 10 9 8 3 4 6 0 4
RO 5 46 7 7 13 5 5 11 0 1
SI 3 53 12 3 16 4 3 4 1 1
SK 6 65 8 3 7 3 4 4 0 0
FI 8 42 18 7 3 3 3 16 0 0
SE 19 40 11 5 7 2 2 14 0 0
T5
QB3T What aspects of a sustainable diet are important to you? Firstly? And then?
(%)
(MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE)
What you eat is produced by a company that pays
safety and health (both in and outside the EU)

The food you eat has minimal packaging
fair wages and respects workers' rights,

What you eat supports local economy
What you eat is good for the planet
What you eat has been produced
The food packaging is recyclable

What you eat is healthy for you
in a way that minimises waste
What you eat is organic
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
Don't know
EU27 37 74 50 40 32 33 33 39 0 1
BE 44 76 48 38 20 31 30 45 0 0
BG 33 86 58 41 46 25 32 29 0 0
CZ 27 83 57 32 16 32 29 15 0 0
DK 46 72 36 46 39 44 37 49 1 0
DE 31 75 51 41 41 41 36 43 0 0
EE 20 88 63 23 33 34 21 35 0 0
IE 37 73 51 42 19 32 36 54 0 0
EL 55 89 68 48 42 34 42 45 1 0
ES 34 67 44 32 21 24 21 49 0 1
FR 47 76 47 37 22 39 37 35 1 2
HR 30 81 59 38 40 25 27 27 0 0
IT 41 72 51 48 32 27 35 37 0 1
CY 33 88 59 35 44 23 40 24 0 0
LV 21 85 49 31 41 20 28 22 1 0
LT 25 86 48 27 53 25 35 21 2 0
LU 28 62 48 33 23 31 31 47 0 0
HU 26 80 51 48 32 33 32 36 0 0
MT 34 81 60 39 22 41 36 24 1 4
NL 48 72 29 52 24 37 37 56 0 0
AT 38 69 59 49 41 45 43 48 4 1
PL 27 72 50 33 36 29 27 23 0 1
PT 48 75 55 54 24 28 27 28 0 4
RO 34 69 46 36 48 27 30 40 1 0
SI 27 83 54 36 51 37 30 26 2 1
SK 39 87 55 36 48 34 32 24 0 0
FI 25 72 59 27 12 24 30 55 0 0
SE 49 69 44 36 25 16 22 52 0 0
T6
QB4 We often hear people talking about the importance of eating a healthy and sustainable diet. What do you think "eating a
healthy and sustainable diet" involves?
(%)
Eating a variety of different foods, having a balanced diet
Avoiding or do not eating too much food
Eating more wholegrain, high-fibre foods
Eating foods with a low carbon footprint
Eating foods produced by companies

that protect workers' social rights
Eating more home-cooked meals
Eating more fruit and vegetables
high in fat, sugars and/or salt
Not eating too many calories

Eating vegetarian or vegan
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
Avoiding wasting food
Eating fish more often
Eating meat less often
Little or no pesticides
Eating seasonal, local
Eating organic food
Don't know
EU27 58 40 58 43 30 35 33 12 47 28 25 43 24 21 42 0 0
BE 61 39 56 44 30 38 22 9 52 23 18 36 26 22 53 0 0
BG 58 47 63 46 28 21 39 7 38 40 28 44 19 12 31 0 0
CZ 54 31 62 33 29 21 42 7 40 30 16 41 16 7 40 0 0
DK 69 36 59 45 42 37 43 15 56 29 40 48 41 30 66 1 0
DE 69 38 68 58 43 54 36 13 51 31 34 52 33 31 55 0 0
EE 68 30 53 39 24 16 23 4 46 18 14 30 15 11 55 0 0
IE 70 41 51 44 29 26 24 12 37 21 17 28 33 24 41 0 0
EL 63 61 73 57 43 45 49 14 52 34 38 52 29 28 32 0 0
ES 65 40 46 32 15 17 20 6 48 18 15 28 19 19 33 0 0
FR 60 43 59 52 20 37 32 8 55 27 21 47 28 24 53 0 1
HR 50 34 52 43 27 16 40 11 46 25 25 54 17 14 27 0 0
IT 44 39 57 33 28 31 34 14 44 32 24 43 16 17 28 0 1
CY 59 44 70 51 38 45 50 13 45 36 39 48 31 19 28 0 0
LV 56 25 54 43 23 16 32 5 42 25 29 33 8 8 31 0 0
LT 60 45 60 36 30 20 28 7 40 26 38 48 13 11 29 0 1
LU 61 31 47 40 20 37 12 11 52 16 18 34 23 22 50 0 0
HU 48 37 63 40 35 19 35 9 37 30 22 45 20 10 33 0 0
MT 76 63 77 64 49 53 59 15 53 52 18 53 14 12 41 0 4
NL 67 44 51 39 36 49 23 17 51 26 28 36 33 27 63 0 0
AT 58 43 57 50 44 36 29 18 51 33 36 45 33 27 40 0 1
PL 36 32 54 27 23 31 35 13 34 26 26 36 16 11 30 0 0
PT 70 67 75 51 26 36 49 15 44 31 30 53 19 14 44 0 1
RO 36 30 46 39 28 28 33 17 37 25 33 35 17 16 24 0 1
SI 57 37 68 62 36 33 41 14 64 39 46 51 27 19 36 0 0
SK 58 37 71 51 37 33 43 9 43 28 16 46 16 13 45 0 0
FI 70 12 33 25 23 28 19 10 42 7 10 18 25 13 38 0 0
SE 69 40 49 43 25 34 24 22 52 20 23 35 28 21 52 0 0
T7
QB5 According to you, which actors from the list below have a role to play in making our food systems sustainable?
(%)
Producers (farmers, fishers, aquaculture producers)
(hotels, restaurants, canteens, hospitals…)
Investors, banks, or financial institutions
Education providers (schools etc.)

Non-governmental organisations
Hospitality and food services
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
Regional governments
Cities, local authorities

National governments
Food manufacturers
Shops and retailers
Public authorities
EU institutions
Private actors
Don't know
Consumers
EU27 65 58 36 25 38 47 34 27 15 14 22 43 0 1 85 69
BE 75 61 43 28 58 53 39 28 16 22 25 55 0 0 91 77
BG 59 68 35 20 35 47 31 27 13 11 14 31 0 4 86 67
CZ 53 65 40 23 25 34 17 14 8 10 9 34 0 1 86 51
DK 74 69 43 18 42 53 24 12 14 14 26 68 1 1 90 69
DE 76 65 38 31 40 42 36 27 15 11 31 55 0 1 89 67
EE 75 62 38 16 33 46 21 17 9 13 20 52 0 0 91 60
IE 81 68 51 31 52 66 33 21 18 17 33 55 0 0 95 77
EL 84 70 38 27 45 67 35 43 15 16 25 33 0 1 93 83
ES 65 52 22 20 53 55 39 22 12 13 23 50 0 1 81 73
FR 68 50 48 21 35 50 36 31 16 21 24 55 0 2 87 68
HR 61 62 41 28 20 27 19 20 7 5 10 32 0 0 91 51
IT 50 47 20 15 31 45 35 25 14 10 12 19 0 3 77 70
CY 78 68 44 29 38 48 26 33 18 17 31 43 0 0 93 70
LV 63 51 27 11 28 30 16 20 6 11 14 30 0 3 84 55
LT 66 72 35 23 28 42 20 19 11 7 18 31 0 1 86 59
LU 72 53 40 25 50 52 30 21 14 19 25 56 0 0 90 72
HU 66 62 36 33 29 40 21 27 13 13 15 37 0 0 88 63
MT 83 71 50 40 37 45 30 31 24 12 28 27 0 5 87 73
NL 83 77 48 33 53 63 29 20 13 30 34 71 0 0 96 79
AT 59 59 44 41 34 38 41 28 22 15 32 36 1 1 88 72
PL 46 55 25 16 20 33 28 28 16 8 9 17 0 2 80 62
PT 86 69 48 41 38 53 31 27 13 12 31 50 0 2 93 64
RO 45 44 28 28 32 39 33 37 19 13 20 24 0 1 71 74
SI 75 65 46 32 34 39 16 25 15 13 20 43 0 0 92 57
SK 59 68 46 21 32 49 24 18 11 10 10 22 0 0 85 70
FI 61 62 56 24 50 47 24 19 14 17 22 56 0 0 83 67
SE 85 78 59 37 52 59 39 31 24 30 29 71 0 0 96 69
T8
QB6 Would you say that personally, you eat a healthy and sustainable diet…
(%)
Total 'always or most of the time'

From time to time
Most of the time
Don't know
Total 'eat'
Always
Never
EU27 10 56 27 7 0 65 93
BE 7 62 27 4 0 69 96
BG 4 28 47 20 1 32 79
CZ 5 45 44 6 0 50 94
DK 8 64 27 1 0 72 99
DE 9 71 19 1 0 80 99
EE 1 61 36 2 0 62 98
IE 10 71 18 1 0 81 99
EL 14 46 32 8 0 60 92
ES 11 70 18 1 0 82 99
FR 11 40 22 26 1 51 73
HR 9 50 39 2 0 59 98
IT 12 46 32 9 1 58 91
CY 11 44 35 10 0 55 90
LV 8 59 29 4 0 67 96
LT 4 42 45 9 0 45 91
LU 5 63 28 4 0 68 96
HU 7 52 38 3 0 58 96
MT 19 58 14 3 6 77 91
NL 7 76 17 0 0 82 100
AT 10 49 36 3 2 59 95
PL 8 44 43 5 0 51 95
PT 13 54 30 3 0 66 97
RO 12 54 30 4 0 65 96
SI 17 63 19 1 0 80 99
SK 8 50 39 3 0 58 97
FI 4 77 18 1 0 82 100
SE 5 73 22 0 0 77 100
T9
QB7 What would help you to adopt a healthy and sustainable diet? From the options below, please select the three most
important for you.
(%)
(MAX. 3 ANSWERS)
a product's environmental, health and social impacts
Product placement in-store facilitates selection

Healthy, sustainable food choices are available
Menu guides and other practical tools to help
Clear information on food labelling regarding
Healthy, sustainable choices are affordable
Food, meals are quick and easy to prepare

Education about healthy, sustainable diets
Nothing (you are not interested to adopt

you select healthy, sustainable diets
where you usually shop for food
a healthy and sustainable diet)

of healthy, sustainable food
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
Don't know
EU27 41 29 49 18 45 23 23 0 1 1
BE 44 27 53 19 49 20 22 0 0 0
BG 37 13 66 15 47 23 28 0 1 1
CZ 22 14 59 15 44 24 36 0 0 0
DK 38 16 61 20 57 17 33 1 0 1
DE 50 35 50 10 52 21 18 0 0 0
EE 35 17 72 15 62 17 36 0 0 0
IE 51 29 62 20 56 18 25 0 0 0
EL 41 30 63 17 54 23 27 2 1 0
ES 54 32 53 21 31 20 17 0 0 1
FR 42 26 32 20 44 21 23 0 6 3
HR 28 23 48 19 46 32 35 0 0 0
IT 40 41 39 21 43 24 20 0 0 1
CY 30 40 53 13 50 23 25 0 2 1
LV 34 22 62 13 36 20 32 0 1 1
LT 30 25 56 8 46 19 26 1 2 1
LU 57 29 31 20 50 23 20 0 0 0
HU 32 15 61 18 43 26 28 0 1 0
MT 30 45 52 19 50 35 27 1 1 6
NL 49 20 61 16 57 22 19 1 0 1
AT 40 25 43 19 46 32 27 3 4 2
PL 26 26 52 19 41 20 29 0 0 1
PT 25 25 63 15 51 45 29 0 0 3
RO 31 32 36 22 35 27 26 0 1 1
SI 24 22 59 9 47 16 33 2 1 1
SK 27 24 53 14 46 28 38 0 0 0
FI 27 8 69 18 55 18 30 0 0 0
SE 47 15 55 20 50 18 26 0 0 1
T10
QB8.1 Please tell me to what extent do you agree or not with each of the following statement?
Regulations should force farmers, fishers, food manufacturers, shops and retailers, restaurants and cafés to
meet more stringent sustainability standards (healthier foods, less greenhouse gas emissions, water use etc…)
(%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 39 44 10 3 4 83 13
BE 38 52 8 2 0 90 10
BG 57 33 3 1 6 90 4
CZ 33 47 12 3 5 80 15
DK 28 44 18 6 4 72 24
DE 33 42 15 5 5 75 20
EE 19 49 26 6 0 68 32
IE 38 50 10 2 0 88 12
EL 61 34 4 0 1 95 4
ES 50 39 6 2 3 89 8
FR 40 46 8 1 5 86 9
HR 41 45 11 2 1 86 13
IT 42 45 6 1 6 87 7
CY 71 26 2 1 0 97 3
LV 36 44 10 3 7 80 13
LT 37 49 5 1 8 86 6
LU 42 45 11 2 0 87 13
HU 44 45 7 2 2 89 9
MT 57 36 2 0 5 93 2
NL 28 48 19 4 1 76 23
AT 34 42 16 6 2 76 22
PL 31 52 7 4 6 83 11
PT 37 44 13 0 6 81 13
RO 41 37 16 3 3 78 19
SI 50 37 8 2 3 87 10
SK 40 51 5 1 3 91 6
FI 14 54 27 5 0 68 32
SE 30 51 15 4 0 81 19
T11
Producers and food companies should themselves take action to raise their products' sustainability standards
(%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 44 45 6 2 3 89 8
BE 43 50 6 1 0 93 7
BG 55 35 4 1 5 90 5
CZ 37 48 9 1 5 85 10
DK 46 45 5 1 3 91 6
DE 47 44 5 2 2 91 7
EE 27 65 7 1 0 92 8
IE 51 46 3 0 0 97 3
EL 57 39 3 0 1 96 3
ES 54 41 2 0 3 95 2
FR 39 48 5 2 6 87 7
HR 42 47 9 1 1 89 10
IT 40 46 7 1 6 86 8
CY 69 27 2 1 1 96 3
LV 41 50 5 1 3 91 6
LT 39 51 4 1 5 90 5
LU 42 50 7 1 0 92 8
HU 40 45 10 2 3 85 12
MT 54 41 1 0 4 95 1
NL 37 53 8 2 0 90 10
AT 53 38 7 1 1 91 8
PL 34 51 7 3 5 85 10
PT 34 57 3 1 5 91 4
RO 43 35 16 3 3 78 19
SI 50 36 9 1 4 86 10
SK 40 50 5 1 4 90 6
FI 19 68 12 1 0 87 13
SE 47 47 4 2 0 94 6
T12
The EU should be more proactive in promoting food sustainability worldwide (%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 44 43 6 2 5 87 8
BE 52 43 4 1 0 95 5
BG 58 32 3 1 6 90 4
CZ 35 47 11 1 6 82 12
DK 48 37 7 2 6 85 9
DE 41 43 8 3 5 84 11
EE 27 56 13 4 0 83 17
IE 53 41 5 1 0 94 6
EL 60 36 2 0 2 96 2
ES 60 33 3 1 3 93 4
FR 37 47 4 2 10 84 6
HR 42 46 9 1 2 88 10
IT 45 42 6 1 6 87 7
CY 70 27 1 0 2 97 1
LV 41 44 6 3 6 85 9
LT 37 51 5 1 6 88 6
LU 50 41 7 2 0 91 9
HU 48 39 7 2 4 87 9
MT 57 37 0 0 6 94 0
NL 43 45 9 2 1 88 11
AT 44 41 10 2 3 85 12
PL 38 51 5 2 4 89 7
PT 38 53 1 0 8 91 1
RO 45 34 15 3 3 79 18
SI 55 35 5 1 4 90 6
SK 43 49 3 1 4 92 4
FI 29 60 8 3 0 89 11
SE 50 38 8 3 1 88 11
T13
Food prices should reflect costs for society (i.e. including environmental, and health impacts associated with
food consumption) (%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 33 48 10 3 6 81 13
BE 32 56 10 2 0 88 12
BG 38 39 7 2 14 77 9
CZ 21 47 17 7 8 68 24
DK 31 48 11 3 7 79 14
DE 34 50 9 2 5 84 11
EE 21 56 19 4 0 77 23
IE 34 55 9 2 0 89 11
EL 49 40 7 1 3 89 8
ES 42 44 8 2 4 86 10
FR 27 49 9 4 11 76 13
HR 30 54 12 2 2 84 14
IT 33 49 9 2 7 82 11
CY 66 30 3 0 1 96 3
LV 32 50 7 3 8 82 10
LT 43 48 3 0 6 91 3
LU 34 51 12 3 0 85 15
HU 40 45 9 2 4 85 11
MT 40 45 5 2 8 85 7
NL 35 52 9 2 2 87 11
AT 34 44 15 3 4 78 18
PL 35 51 7 2 5 86 9
PT 26 47 16 1 10 73 17
RO 38 37 18 3 4 75 21
SI 44 37 10 3 6 81 13
SK 35 50 7 2 6 85 9
FI 14 60 19 7 0 74 26
SE 27 54 14 5 0 81 19
T14
Public authorities are doing enough to encourage and promote food sustainability (campaigns, food labelling
and other standards, taxes and other incentives) (%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 14 32 34 13 7 46 47
BE 8 32 48 11 1 40 59
BG 29 28 21 10 12 57 31
CZ 14 34 30 9 13 48 39
DK 14 41 31 7 7 55 38
DE 6 23 40 23 8 29 63
EE 11 45 39 5 0 56 44
IE 11 33 48 8 0 44 56
EL 26 29 33 9 3 55 42
ES 10 26 46 13 5 36 59
FR 9 32 36 14 9 41 50
HR 16 33 35 14 2 49 49
IT 21 39 25 6 9 60 31
CY 38 28 20 7 7 66 27
LV 14 37 28 9 12 51 37
LT 14 32 31 12 11 46 43
LU 9 32 48 11 0 41 59
HU 32 44 15 4 5 76 19
MT 23 37 29 5 6 60 34
NL 7 29 47 14 3 36 61
AT 21 34 33 9 3 55 42
PL 19 37 26 9 9 56 35
PT 18 44 20 5 13 62 25
RO 26 34 26 10 4 60 36
SI 17 23 37 19 4 40 56
SK 22 40 22 8 8 62 30
FI 11 50 36 3 0 61 39
SE 10 39 40 11 0 49 51
T15
Marketing and advertising of foods that do not contribute to healthy, sustainable diets should be restricted (%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 41 38 12 4 5 79 16
BE 38 43 16 2 1 81 18
BG 53 32 5 2 8 85 7
CZ 35 36 19 5 5 71 24
DK 27 34 22 13 4 61 35
DE 44 35 13 4 4 79 17
EE 32 43 19 6 0 75 25
IE 37 42 17 4 0 79 21
EL 52 35 10 0 3 87 10
ES 50 35 10 3 2 85 13
FR 41 37 10 5 7 78 15
HR 34 45 16 4 1 79 20
IT 34 47 9 2 8 81 11
CY 50 31 9 5 5 81 14
LV 42 39 10 6 3 81 16
LT 36 41 13 3 7 77 16
LU 42 40 14 4 0 82 18
HU 46 38 10 3 3 84 13
MT 44 43 5 0 8 87 5
NL 36 39 18 6 1 75 24
AT 42 40 12 4 2 82 16
PL 37 44 9 3 7 81 12
PT 34 39 16 2 9 73 18
RO 44 31 17 5 3 75 22
SI 53 33 8 4 2 86 12
SK 44 42 7 3 4 86 10
FI 19 41 33 7 0 60 40
SE 28 43 20 9 0 71 29
T16
Food offered in public institutions should be sustainable (healthy, environmentally-friendly…) (%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 52 39 5 1 3 91 6
BE 54 42 3 1 0 96 4
BG 63 30 2 1 4 93 3
CZ 40 44 10 1 5 84 11
DK 55 36 6 1 2 91 7
DE 54 39 4 1 2 93 5
EE 37 51 10 2 0 88 12
IE 52 42 5 1 0 94 6
EL 69 29 1 0 1 98 1
ES 65 30 3 0 2 95 3
FR 51 40 3 1 5 91 4
HR 48 43 7 1 1 91 8
IT 45 43 6 0 6 88 6
CY 71 26 1 0 2 97 1
LV 48 44 4 1 3 92 5
LT 48 42 5 1 4 90 6
LU 56 35 6 3 0 91 9
HU 53 37 7 1 2 90 8
MT 61 32 3 0 4 93 3
NL 44 46 7 2 1 90 9
AT 54 36 7 2 1 90 9
PL 41 48 5 2 4 89 7
PT 42 52 2 0 4 94 2
RO 47 35 13 3 2 82 16
SI 68 28 3 0 1 96 3
SK 48 47 2 1 2 95 3
FI 38 53 4 5 0 91 9
SE 59 33 5 2 1 92 7
T17
Moving to stricter sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could mean that we do not produce
enough food to feed people (%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 24 36 23 10 7 60 33
BE 14 37 38 10 1 51 48
BG 38 31 11 5 15 69 16
CZ 23 41 22 5 9 64 27
DK 19 34 25 15 7 53 40
DE 14 31 29 20 6 45 49
EE 14 47 34 5 0 61 39
IE 13 36 43 8 0 49 51
EL 27 41 21 6 5 68 27
ES 25 33 29 9 4 58 38
FR 19 37 21 12 11 56 33
HR 28 40 23 7 2 68 30
IT 33 39 15 5 8 72 20
CY 49 30 13 4 4 79 17
LV 26 37 19 8 10 63 27
LT 20 40 22 7 11 60 29
LU 22 35 33 10 0 57 43
HU 42 37 12 6 3 79 18
MT 24 35 13 19 9 59 32
NL 12 31 38 15 4 43 53
AT 28 31 27 11 3 59 38
PL 28 43 15 5 9 71 20
PT 30 43 17 1 9 73 18
RO 35 32 23 6 4 67 29
SI 32 34 21 9 4 66 30
SK 34 43 13 4 6 77 17
FI 9 42 42 7 0 51 49
SE 14 44 30 11 1 58 41
T18
Moving to stricter sustainability standards (e.g. using less pesticides) could increase food prices (%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 30 48 13 4 5 78 17
BE 19 58 17 6 0 77 23
BG 46 36 8 2 8 82 10
CZ 30 50 12 3 5 80 15
DK 39 46 9 2 4 85 11
DE 27 49 13 6 5 76 19
EE 31 59 8 2 0 90 10
IE 22 61 15 2 0 83 17
EL 40 42 14 2 2 82 16
ES 28 49 17 3 3 77 20
FR 26 48 13 5 8 74 18
HR 36 47 14 2 1 83 16
IT 32 49 11 1 7 81 12
CY 53 35 7 3 2 88 10
LV 29 48 12 4 7 77 16
LT 30 45 15 3 7 75 18
LU 28 51 18 3 0 79 21
HU 45 42 9 2 2 87 11
MT 23 47 6 17 7 70 23
NL 30 55 11 3 1 85 14
AT 36 44 12 5 3 80 17
PL 30 50 11 2 7 80 13
PT 29 48 14 1 8 77 15
RO 36 39 17 4 4 75 21
SI 40 44 12 2 2 84 14
SK 37 48 8 3 4 85 11
FI 18 65 16 1 0 83 17
SE 28 63 7 2 0 91 9
T19
You are ready to spend more money for food which protects your health and the planet (%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 30 45 15 7 3 75 22
BE 28 51 16 5 0 79 21
BG 23 37 21 11 8 60 32
CZ 16 45 23 10 6 61 33
DK 45 38 10 4 3 83 14
DE 42 44 9 3 2 86 12
EE 15 51 25 9 0 66 34
IE 30 54 13 3 0 84 16
EL 19 43 27 10 1 62 37
ES 28 51 16 3 2 79 19
FR 28 44 14 10 4 72 24
HR 27 47 19 5 2 74 24
IT 25 48 15 6 6 73 21
CY 44 36 10 8 2 80 18
LV 25 44 19 10 2 69 29
LT 18 43 23 12 4 61 35
LU 37 47 12 4 0 84 16
HU 29 41 18 10 2 70 28
MT 27 55 9 3 6 82 12
NL 41 49 8 2 0 90 10
AT 34 39 17 8 2 73 25
PL 19 43 21 11 6 62 32
PT 18 33 37 9 3 51 46
RO 32 40 20 5 3 72 25
SI 38 42 14 5 1 80 19
SK 25 51 15 7 2 76 22
FI 17 64 15 4 0 81 19
SE 38 47 11 3 1 85 14
T20
There should be one logo to help you choose healthy, sustainable foods (%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 44 41 8 3 4 85 11
BE 48 41 9 2 0 89 11
BG 50 36 5 2 7 86 7
CZ 35 44 13 2 6 79 15
DK 46 33 11 6 4 79 17
DE 46 38 9 4 3 84 13
EE 33 49 14 4 0 82 18
IE 47 42 10 1 0 89 11
EL 49 44 6 0 1 93 6
ES 53 40 5 0 2 93 5
FR 41 37 10 6 6 78 16
HR 36 46 12 3 3 82 15
IT 40 47 7 1 5 87 8
CY 67 28 3 1 1 95 4
LV 38 38 12 6 6 76 18
LT 30 47 13 4 6 77 17
LU 46 42 9 3 0 88 12
HU 39 43 10 5 3 82 15
MT 56 36 1 1 6 92 2
NL 56 30 9 4 1 86 13
AT 38 41 15 5 1 79 20
PL 37 48 6 3 6 85 9
PT 38 55 2 1 4 93 3
RO 42 35 14 5 4 77 19
SI 53 33 7 2 5 86 9
SK 39 50 5 2 4 89 7
FI 19 58 20 3 0 77 23
SE 47 40 10 2 1 87 12
T21
Information on food sustainability should be compulsory on food labels (%)
Tend to disagree
Totally disagree
Total 'Disagree'
Tend to agree
Totally agree
Total 'Agree'
Don't know
EU27 49 39 7 2 3 88 9
BE 55 41 4 0 0 96 4
BG 62 30 3 1 4 92 4
CZ 40 42 11 2 5 82 13
DK 47 36 10 4 3 83 14
DE 53 36 7 2 2 89 9
EE 41 48 9 2 0 89 11
IE 54 38 6 2 0 92 8
EL 63 34 2 0 1 97 2
ES 56 37 4 0 3 93 4
FR 49 40 5 2 4 89 7
HR 45 43 9 2 1 88 11
IT 48 42 5 0 5 90 5
CY 70 28 1 0 1 98 1
LV 52 38 4 2 4 90 6
LT 41 48 5 2 4 89 7
LU 53 39 5 3 0 92 8
HU 49 39 8 2 2 88 10
MT 57 35 1 1 6 92 2
NL 48 37 11 3 1 85 14
AT 49 35 12 3 1 84 15
PL 40 46 7 3 4 86 10
PT 43 48 5 0 4 91 5
RO 45 33 17 3 2 78 20
SI 59 34 4 0 3 93 4
SK 46 47 3 1 3 93 4
FI 21 56 20 3 0 77 23
SE 44 43 9 3 1 87 12
T22
QB9a Food fraud can lead to serious disruption of the food supply chain, undermining consumer confidence and putting both
food safety and food security at risk. When it comes to food fraud, what is your main concern? Firstly?
(%)
(e.g. contamination of a food with a toxic substance)

specific characteristics (e.g. labelled as organic)
the true qualities of a food (e.g. its ingredients)
You want to feel as confident in food imported
You don't want to put your health at risk

into the EU as that produced in the EU
You want to be certain that food with

You don't want to be misled about
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
meets EU standards
Don't know
EU27 33 20 17 29 0 1
BE 29 17 18 36 0 0
BG 46 14 15 25 0 0
CZ 35 25 13 26 0 1
DK 21 23 16 39 0 1
DE 41 18 19 22 0 0
EE 39 8 9 44 0 0
IE 32 19 14 35 0 0
EL 24 31 14 31 0 0
ES 35 15 16 34 0 0
FR 26 15 16 40 0 3
HR 28 30 12 30 0 0
IT 33 23 22 20 0 2
CY 24 24 18 33 0 1
LV 47 10 10 32 0 1
LT 33 22 14 28 1 2
LU 30 20 18 32 0 0
HU 22 27 16 35 0 0
MT 64 10 3 13 0 10
NL 33 11 13 43 0 0
AT 40 19 16 19 3 3
PL 31 29 18 21 0 1
PT 21 20 10 47 0 2
RO 26 31 22 20 0 1
SI 39 14 15 31 0 1
SK 37 32 13 18 0 0
FI 35 16 7 41 0 1
SE 28 19 17 35 0 1
T23
QB9T Food fraud can lead to serious disruption of the food supply chain, undermining consumer confidence and putting both
food safety and food security at risk. When it comes to food fraud, what is your main concern? Firstly? And secondly?
(%)
(MAX. 2 ANSWERS)
(e.g. contamination of a food with a toxic substance)

specific characteristics (e.g. labelled as organic)
the true qualities of a food (e.g. its ingredients)
You want to feel as confident in food imported
You don't want to put your health at risk

into the EU as that produced in the EU
You want to be certain that food with

You don't want to be misled about
Other (SPONTANEOUS)
meets EU standards
Don't know
EU27 61 40 41 55 0 1
BE 58 36 40 65 0 0
BG 71 30 40 58 0 0
CZ 58 48 36 56 0 1
DK 52 44 35 66 0 1
DE 66 40 42 50 0 0
EE 76 26 23 74 0 0
IE 64 40 35 61 0 0
EL 52 52 36 59 0 0
ES 68 33 39 58 0 0
FR 60 31 36 62 0 3
HR 57 49 43 51 0 0
IT 58 41 51 45 0 2
CY 48 48 41 60 0 1
LV 70 28 28 66 0 1
LT 57 43 37 57 1 2
LU 56 42 43 58 0 0
HU 51 46 42 59 0 0
MT 78 29 16 55 1 10
NL 74 27 28 71 0 0
AT 63 43 39 40 6 2
PL 52 52 48 45 0 1
PT 56 40 28 71 1 1
RO 44 53 58 40 0 1
SI 68 27 41 60 1 1
SK 61 56 36 46 0 0
FI 73 35 27 64 0 0
SE 60 37 37 64 0 1
T24

Making Our Food Fit For The Future - Citizens' Expectations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Our Food Fit For The Future - Citizens' Expectations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Eurobarometer 505

Making our food fit for the future – Citizens’ expectations

Special Eurobarometer 505 – Wave EB93.2 – Kantar

Making our food fit for the future – Citizens’ expectations

Survey and report by Kantar at the request of the European Commission,

Survey co-ordinated by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication

August-September 2020 Report

August-September 2020 Report

August-September 2020 Report

Methodology used for this survey

We wish to thank the respondents throughout the European Union

August-September 2020 Report

August-September 2020 Report

Affordability and availability of healthy, sustainable choices and clear information

August-September 2020 Report

August-September 2020 Report

1. Key drivers influencing consumer food purchase

August-September 2020 Report

August-September 2020 Report

Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)

August-September 2020 Report

Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)

August-September 2020 Report

August-September 2020 Report

Items mention by at least 20% of respondents

August-September 2020 Report

2. Main characteristics of “sustainable” food according to consumers

“Nutritious and healthy” is the most important characteristic of sustainable food

Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)

August-September 2020 Report

Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)

August-September 2020 Report

August-September 2020 Report

Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)

August-September 2020 Report

Among the socio-demographic variations in responses to this question are:

August-September 2020 Report

Items mention by at least 20% of respondents

August-September 2020 Report

Items mention by at least 20% of respondents

August-September 2020 Report

II. SUSTAINABLE DIETS

1. What make a diet “sustainable”?

A majority of respondents say a sustainable diet involves eating a variety of different

August-September 2020 Report

Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)

August-September 2020 Report

Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)

August-September 2020 Report

Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)

August-September 2020 Report

August-September 2020 Report

Items mention by more than 30% of respondents

August-September 2020 Report

Items mention by more than 20% of respondents

August-September 2020 Report

August-September 2020 Report

Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)

August-September 2020 Report

The socio-demographic analysis reveals a number of interesting variations, including:

August-September 2020 Report

Base: all respondents (n.= 27,237)

August-September 2020 Report