Sustainable diets promote health and wellbeing and have low environmental impact. They should be accessible, affordable, safe, equitable and culturally acceptable. Translating these general principles into Norwegian-specific dietary recommendations is essential, as foods beneficial for health tend to also be environmentally sustainable. Following the dietary recommendations is an important step towards sustainability.
Aim:
To identify challenges and potential solutions for transitioning towards more sustainable diets in Norway.
Methods:
We used scientific articles, reports, policy documents, and statistics on Norwegian food production and consumption to discuss a sustainable diet in a Norwegian context.
Results and discussion:
There is a large gap between dietary guidelines and actual consumption. More than 60% of the calories in the Norwegian diet are based on imported foods and feed. Changing people’s diet is identified as central in transforming the food system to become more sustainable, as is prioritizing the use of local resources. Good animal health and welfare are also fundamental premises for a sustainable food system.
Conclusions:
Transitioning to a more sustainable diet requires comprehensive efforts at multiple levels. There is considerable room for action to increase the use of Norwegian resources in a sustainable and responsible way. Potential strategies include reducing meat intake in favour of plant-based foods and fish, consuming more local products, decreasing food waste and supporting agricultural practices that promote environmental and social sustainability. A more sustainable diet may also lead to significantly increased self-sufficiency and food security in Norway.
WillettWRockstromJLokenB, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet2019;393:447-92.
6.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, et al. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2022. Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable. Rome: FAO, 2022.
7.
BardalenAPettersenIDombuSV, et al. Klimaendring utfordrer det norske matsystemet Report no. 110/2022, 2022. Ås, Norway: NIBIO, Vista Analyse, Ruralis, 2022.
8.
MeltzerHMEnerothHErkkolaM, et al. Challenges and opportunities when moving food production and consumption toward sustainable diets in the Nordics: A scoping review for Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023Food Nutr Res2024;68:10489. DOI: 10.29219/fnr.v68.10489.
9.
FinciASvennerudMSmedshaugCA, et al. Norsk selvforsyning av matvarer–status og potensial. Ås, Norway: NIBIO, AgriAnalyse, 2023.
10.
Landbruksdirektoratet. Omverdenen til norsk landbruk og matindustri. Oslo: Landbruksdirektoratet, 2024.
11.
Landbruks-og matdepartementet. Strategi for auka sjølvforsyning av jordbruksvarer og plan for opptrapping av inntektsmoglegheitene i jordbruket. Oslo: LMD, 2024.
12.
Vector Sustainability XIO Sustainability Analytics A/S. CaFEAN: Carbon footprint of the economic activity of Norway. Oslo: Miljødirektoratet, 2024.
13.
Riksrevisjonen. Matsikkerhet og beredskap på landbruksområdet. Oslo: Riksrevisjonen, 2023.
RockstromJSteffenWNooneK, et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature2009;461:472-5.
20.
TilmanDClarkM.Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature2014;515:518-22.
21.
IvanovichCCSunTGordonDR, et al. Future warming from global food consumption. Nat Clim Chang2023;13:297-302.
22.
PooreJNemecekT.Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science2018;360:987-92.
23.
XuXSharmaPShuS, et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat Food2021;2:724-2.
24.
CrippaMSolazzoEGuizzardiD, et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food2021;2:198-209.
25.
United Nations Environment Programme. Making peace with nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. Nairobi: UNEP, 2021.
CassidyESWestPCGerberJS, et al. Redefining agricultural yields: From tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ Res Lett2013;8:034015.
28.
FAO UNICEF WFP, et al. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2023. Urbanization, agrifood systems transformation and healthy diets across the rural–urban continuum. Rome: FAO, 2023.
AbelMHTotlandTH.Kartlegging av kostholdsvaner og kroppsvekt hos voksne i Norge basert på selvrapportering. Resultater fra Den nasjonale folkehelseundersøkelsen 2020. Report no. ISBN 978-82-8406-195-5. Oslo: Folkehelseinstituttet, 2021.
31.
TotlandTHMelnæsBKLundberg-HallénN, et al. Norkost 3. En landsomfattende kostholdsundersøkelse blant menn og kvinner i Norge i alderen 18-70 år, 2010-11. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate of Health, 2012.
32.
Helsedirektoratet. Utviklingen i norsk kosthold 2023. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet, 2023.
33.
HenriksenKSNafstadO.Utviklingen i norsk kosthold – animalske matvarer bidrar med mindre energi og protein enn tidligere. Norsk tidsskrift for ernæring2023;21:3-12.
34.
ClarsenB, et al. The burden of diet-related diseases related diseases and dietary risk factors in the Nordic and Baltic countries: A systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2021 for the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations. Food Nutr Res2024, in press.
35.
Folkehelseinstituttet. Folkehelserapporten – Helsetilstanden i Norge. Oslo: FHI, 2023.
BakkenAKBechmannMBonesmoH, et al. Bærekraft i norsk jordbruksproduksjon. Kunnskapsstatus for videre analyser. Trondheim: NIBIO, 2023.
42.
StrandG-HSvenssonARekdalY, et al. Verdiskaping i utmark: Status og muligheter. Ås, Norway: NIBIO, 2021.
43.
RekdalYAngeloffM.Arealrekneskap i utmark. Utmarksbeite – ressursgrunnlag og beitebruk. Ås, Norway: NIBIO, 2022.
44.
CICERO. Climate footprints of Norwegian dairy and meat – a synthesis. A literature study of emissions of Norwegian dairy and meat products compared to other relevant products and regions, commissioned by TINE SA. 2016. Oslo: Cicero.
Klimautvalget2050. Omstilling til lavutslipp. Veivalg for klimapolitikken mot 2050. Oslo: Ministry of Climate and the Environment, Ministry of Climate and the Environment, 2023.
WWF. Reducing Norway’s footprint – bringing our production and consumption within planetary boundaries. Oslo: World Wildlife Foundation, 2022.
62.
BreewoodHGarnettT. Meat, metrics and mindsets: Exploring debates on the role of livestock and alternatives in diets and farming. University of Oxford, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Wageningen University and Research, 2023.
63.
MuscatAde OldeEMde BoerIJM, et al. The battle for biomass: A systematic review of food-feed-fuel competition. Glob Food Sec2020; 25:100330.
64.
VorndranAMSteinhoff-WagnerJWindischW.421 Inherent livestock feed production: Abundance of non-edible biomass in the agricultural and processing sector in GermanyJ Anim Sci2023;101:155-6.
65.
Van HalOde BoerIJMMullerA, et al. Upcycling food leftovers and grass resources through livestock: Impact of livestock system and productivity. J Clean Prod2019;219:485-96.
66.
WoodAQueirozCDeutschL, et al. Reframing the local–global food systems debate through a resilience lens. Nat Food2023;4:22-9.
European Medicines Agency. Sales of veterinary antimicrobial agents in 31 European countries in 2021. Document no. EMA/795956/2022, 2022. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 2022.
69.
NORM/NORM-VET2021. Usage of antimicrobial agents and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in Norway. Report no. ISSN:1502-2307. Tromsø/Oslo: Norwegian Veterinary Institute and Norwegian Institute of Public Health, 2022.
70.
Mattilsynet. Mattilsynets arbeid med dyrevelferd. Oslo: Mattilsynet, 2022.
71.
FalkMReiersenAWolffC, et al. Dyrehelserapporten 2022. Ås, Norway:Veterinærinstituttet, 2023.
72.
Forbrukerrådet.Mat, helse og bærekraft. Forbrukernes rolle i et bærekraftig matsystem.Oslo: The Norwegian Consumer Council,2024.
73.
HårstadRMB. The politics of animal welfare: A scoping review of farm animal welfare governance. Rev Policy Res2023;41:1-24.
74.
SommersetIWiik-NielsenJOliveiraVHS, et al. Fiskehelserapporten 2022. Ås, Norway: Veterinærinstituttet, 2023.
ReganoldJPWachterJM.Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat Plants2016;2:15221.
77.
ChiriacòMVCastaldiSValentiniR.Determining organic versus conventional food emissions to foster the transition to sustainable food systems and diets: Insights from a systematic review. J Clean Prod2022;380:134937.
78.
DePontiTRijkBvan IttersumMK.The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric Syst2012;108:1-9.
79.
ErbKHLaukCKastnerT, et al. Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat Commun2016;7:11382.
80.
MullerASchaderCEl-Hage ScialabbaN, et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat Commun2017;8:1290.
81.
LacourCSecondaLAllesB, et al. Environmental impacts of plant-based diets: How Does Organic Food Consumption Contribute to Environmental Sustainability?Front Nutr2018;5:8.
82.
International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems. IPES-Food 2016. From Uniformity to diversity. A paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. 2016. Brussels, Belgium: IPES-food.
83.
FarstadMVingeHStraeteEP.Locked-in or ready for climate change mitigation? Agri-food networks as structures for dairy-beef farming. Agric Human Values2021;38.
84.
RønningenKFuglestadEMBurtonR.Path-dependencies in Norwegian dairy and beef farming communities: Implications for climate mitigation. Nor Geogr Tidsskr2021;75:1-15.
UldahlMBereET.Lavinntektsfamilier i Norge må bruke en større andel av inntekten sin for å spise i tråd med kostrådene. Norsk tidsskrift for ernæring2023;21:23-32.
87.
PoppeC.Utsatte grupper i dyrtiden. Husholdenes økonomiske trygghet i august 2023. Oslo: Forbruksforskningsinstituttet SIFO, OsloMet, 2023.
88.
StensgårdABerntsenICHohleSM, et al. Kartleggingsrapport for matbransjen og forbrukerleddet. Kråkerøy, Norway: NORSUS, 2023.
89.
Stortingsmelding 41 (2016–2017). Klimastrategi for 2030 – norsk omstilling i europeisk samarbeid. Oslo: Stortinget, 2017.
90.
Klima-og miljødepartementet. Regjeringas klimastatus og -plan. Oslo: KLD, 2022.
Matsvinnutvalget. Rapport fra matsvinnutvalget. Anbefalinger og helhetlige tiltak og virkemidler. Oslo: Matsvinnutvalget, 2023.
97.
Naturrisikoutvalget. I samspill med naturen. Naturrisiko for næringer, sektorer og samfunn i Norge. Oslo: Departementenes sikkerhets- og serviceorganisasjon. Teknisk redaksjon, 2024.
98.
VKMSvendsenCAmlundH, et al. Food and chemical substances relevant for monitoring. Report from the Scientific Steering Committee of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment. Oslo: Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM), 2022.
99.
PaulsenMMThomsenCBrantsæterAL, et al. Miljøgifter i norske barn. Resultater fra Miljøbiobanken. Oslo: Folkehelseinstituttet, 2023.
BeddariE.Rettighetsbrudd i norsk tomatimport. Oslo:Fremtiden i våre hender, 2024.
106.
Mattilsynet and NIBIO. Overvåkingsresultater for plantevernmiddelrester i næringsmidler 2022. Ås, Norway: Mattilsynet, 2023.
107.
MilfordABPrestvikASKårstadS.Markedshager i Norge. Utfordringer og muligheter med småskala grønnsaksproduksjon for direktesalg. Bergen, Norway: NIBIO, 2021.
SamuelsenR.Kommersialisering av ville bær - næringsutvikling i bygder. Tromsø: NIBIO Holt (tidligere Bioforsk Holt), 1991.
110.
BereEBrugJ.Towards health-promoting and environmentally friendly regional diets – a Nordic example. Public Health Nutr2009;12:91-6.
111.
PaassiltaMMoisioSJaakolaL, et al. Voice of the Nordic wild berry industry. A survey among the companies. Report no. ISBN 978-951-42-9041-1, 2009. Oulu, Finland: Oulu University Press.
112.
BakkenAKMittenzweiK. Produksjonspotensial i jordbruket og nasjonal sjølforsyning med mat. Utredning for Klimautvalget 2050. Trondheim, Norway: NIBIO, Ruralis, 2023.
113.
LiuBGuWYangY, et al. Promoting potato as staple food can reduce the carbon-land-water impacts of crops in China. Nat Food2021;2:570-7.
114.
EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Update of the risk assessment of inorganic arsenic in food. EFSA J2024;22:e8488. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8488
EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Risks to human and animal health related to the presence of deoxynivalenol and its acetylated and modified forms in food and feed. EFSA J2017;15:4718.
117.
HansenL.The weak sustainability of the salmon feed transition in Norway – a bioeconomic case study. Front Mar Sci2019;6:1-16.
118.
LeroyFAbrainiFBealT, et al. Animal board invited review: Animal source foods in healthy, sustainable, and ethical diets – an argument against drastic limitation of livestock in the food system. Animal2022;16:100457.
MeltzerHMAbelMHKnutsenHK, et al. What is a sustainable diet in the Norwegian context?Norwegian Journal of Nutrition2024;22:75–91.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
