Seek­ing effec­tive approach­es for peo­ple, ani­mals, and the environment

Sus­tain­able nutri­tion does not result from indi­vid­ual mea­sures, but from approach­es that have an impact along the entire food val­ue chain. That is why we are look­ing for non­prof­it orga­ni­za­tions through­out Ger­many that empow­er peo­ple, change the frame­work con­di­tions, and dri­ve innovation. 

Why ​“Seal of Impact Nutri­tion” is needed

What we eat has an impact far beyond our own plates: on our health, on ani­mal wel­fare, and on the con­di­tion of soil, water, and the cli­mate. Aware­ness of this is grow­ing. Already, 84 per­cent of peo­ple in Ger­many say they fre­quent­ly or occa­sion­al­ly give con­scious thought to their diet.

Nev­er­the­less, the gap between aspi­ra­tion and real­i­ty remains wide: A sig­nif­i­cant por­tion of the dis­ease bur­den in Ger­many is linked to our diet, and our food sys­tem accounts for near­ly 30 per­cent of glob­al green­house gas emis­sions. Indi­vid­ual con­sumer choic­es alone can­not off­set this. The root caus­es lie in the sys­tem itself – in the way food is pro­duced, processed, trad­ed, and served in food ser­vice establishments.

“Seal of Impact Nutri­tion” high­lights orga­ni­za­tions that are tack­ling these issues head-on. The focus is not on what indi­vid­ual peo­ple should eat, but rather on which approach­es effec­tive­ly con­tribute to solv­ing the struc­tur­al chal­lenges of our food system. 

Our stance: we need inter­con­nect­ed solu­tions across the val­ue chain

Dis­cus­sions about nutri­tion often revolve around dichotomies: meat ver­sus plant-based, region­al ver­sus glob­al, organ­ic ver­sus con­ven­tion­al. From our per­spec­tive, this debate falls short.

“Seal of Impact Nutri­tion” does not cer­ti­fy dietary styles or indi­vid­ual foods. Instead, it high­lights orga­ni­za­tions that make effec­tive con­tri­bu­tions to address­ing the struc­tur­al chal­lenges of our food sys­tem – at var­i­ous points along the val­ue chain and using dif­fer­ent approach­es. This is because the prob­lems of our food sys­tem can­not be solved by indi­vid­ual con­sump­tion choic­es alone, nor by polit­i­cal man­dates or tech­ni­cal inno­va­tions alone. What is cru­cial is the col­lab­o­ra­tion between gov­ern­ment, busi­ness, sci­ence, and civ­il soci­ety. Only then can real impact be achieved.

What needs to change?

We are look­ing for orga­ni­za­tions that address the issues at the very heart of our food sys­tem: along the entire val­ue chain, from farm to table. It is not enough to focus sole­ly on sus­tain­abil­i­ty, plant-based foods, or region­al prod­ucts. Rather, we need a vari­ety of inter­lock­ing strate­gies. This is because the goals of health, ani­mal wel­fare, and envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion are not auto­mat­i­cal­ly aligned. The fol­low­ing three exam­ples illus­trate this tension. 

Health: reduc­ing the bur­den of disease

Diet-relat­ed dis­eases such as car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease, type 2 dia­betes, and cer­tain types of can­cer are among the most com­mon and cost­ly pub­lic health issues in Ger­many. In 2017, 52.7 per­cent of adults were con­sid­ered over­weight, and 16.3 per­cent were con­sid­ered obese. The direct and indi­rect eco­nom­ic costs of obe­si­ty are esti­mat­ed at around 63 bil­lion euros annu­al­ly. At the same time, meta-analy­ses show that a healthy diet can reduce the rel­a­tive risk of car­dio­vas­cu­lar dis­ease, can­cer, and type 2 dia­betes by 15 to 22 percent.

This is pre­cise­ly where orga­ni­za­tions come in that strength­en nutri­tion edu­ca­tion, pro­mote pre­ven­tion, and improve access to healthy food — espe­cial­ly in places where social and eco­nom­ic fac­tors hin­der this access.

Ani­mal wel­fare: improv­ing hous­ing conditions

There is also a sig­nif­i­cant need for action when it comes to ani­mal wel­fare: About 15 per­cent of dairy cows in Ger­many are kept in tie-stall sys­tems year-round and thus have vir­tu­al­ly no free­dom of move­ment. A high pro­por­tion of pigs raised for meat are kept on ful­ly per­fo­rat­ed slat­ted floors with­out bed­ding. Vol­un­tary label­ing for prod­ucts pro­duced under par­tic­u­lar­ly ani­mal-friend­ly con­di­tions has done lit­tle to change this so far: Only about 1 per­cent of meat sales in Ger­many come from prod­ucts labeled as such.

Orga­ni­za­tions that advo­cate for more bind­ing stan­dards, bet­ter hous­ing con­di­tions, or more effec­tive label­ing are help­ing to address a key chal­lenge fac­ing the food system.

Envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion: a dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed rather than blan­ket assessment

One exam­ple illus­trates how impor­tant a dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed, evi­dence-based per­spec­tive is: Meat, milk, and eggs from organ­ic farm­ing do not auto­mat­i­cal­ly per­form bet­ter in terms of cli­mate impact than prod­ucts from con­ven­tion­al pro­duc­tion. In some cas­es, the oppo­site is even true. Accord­ing to cal­cu­la­tions by the ifeu Insti­tute, the car­bon foot­print of organ­ic beef is, on aver­age, slight­ly high­er than that of con­ven­tion­al beef. One rea­son for this is that organ­ic live­stock farm­ing typ­i­cal­ly requires more land per kilo­gram of meat. What pro­motes ani­mal wel­fare is there­fore not auto­mat­i­cal­ly the most cli­mate-friend­ly solu­tion. At the same time, live­stock farm­ing accounts for more than three-quar­ters of the agri­cul­tur­al nitro­gen sur­plus in Ger­many – a key cause of nitrate pol­lu­tion in groundwater.

Effec­tive approach­es must take such con­flict­ing goals into account and exam­ine inter­re­la­tion­ships in a nuanced way, rather than rely­ing sole­ly on labels or criteria.

Focus­ing more on the mid­dle of the val­ue chain

Until now, the focus has been pri­mar­i­ly on the begin­ning and end of the val­ue chain, that is, on agri­cul­ture and con­sumers. But it is in the mid­dle – in the retail sec­tor and insti­tu­tion­al food ser­vice – that what is avail­able and tak­en for grant­ed is effec­tive­ly deter­mined. For exam­ple, four retail groups now account for more than 85 per­cent of food sales in Ger­many. At the same time, mil­lions of meals are served dai­ly in cafe­te­rias, hos­pi­tals, and day­care cen­ters. Act­ing here changes not only indi­vid­ual pur­chas­ing deci­sions but also the con­di­tions under which many peo­ple eat day after day.

Civ­il soci­ety makes a difference

Civ­il soci­ety orga­ni­za­tions are not mere appendages of the food sys­tem, but rather inde­pen­dent, essen­tial actors along­side the gov­ern­ment, the pri­vate sec­tor, and acad­e­mia. The Sci­en­tif­ic Advi­so­ry Board for Agri­cul­tur­al Pol­i­cy, Nutri­tion, and Con­sumer Health Pro­tec­tion (WBAE) explic­it­ly describes envi­ron­men­tal and con­sumer advo­ca­cy groups as an impor­tant coun­ter­weight to busi­ness inter­est groups in food pol­i­cy. Their influ­ence is par­tic­u­lar­ly evi­dent where issues gain pub­lic atten­tion, such as in the debate over green genet­ic engi­neer­ing.

Numer­ous real-world exam­ples demon­strate just how effec­tive civic engage­ment can be: With the sup­port of its mem­bers and donors, NABU has devel­oped an app that allows con­sumers to ver­i­fy the envi­ron­men­tal cred­i­bil­i­ty of food labels. Through the por­tal lebens​mit​telk​larheit​.de, con­sumer advo­ca­cy groups and food­watch oper­ate a cen­tral hub for trans­paren­cy in food label­ing and adver­tis­ing. And the Ger­man Nutri­tion Soci­ety has, for the first time, explic­it­ly expand­ed its 2024 rec­om­men­da­tions to include sus­tain­abil­i­ty aspects – sup­port­ed by a grow­ing net­work of civ­il soci­ety expert organizations. 

Who we’re look­ing for 

We are look­ing for non­prof­it orga­ni­za­tions that con­tribute to struc­tur­al improve­ments in the food sys­tem along the val­ue chain – from pro­duc­tion, through pro­cess­ing and trade, to con­sump­tion and insti­tu­tion­al food ser­vice. The goal is a food sys­tem that pro­motes human health, enhances ani­mal wel­fare, and pro­tects bio­di­ver­si­ty, water, and the cli­mate. ​“Wirkt-Siegel Ernährung” high­lights such approach­es and helps fun­ders and part­ners invest where their con­tri­bu­tions actu­al­ly make a difference. 

Our focus is on three areas: 

1. Empow­er­ing peo­ple: Approach­es that strength­en knowl­edge and prac­ti­cal skills relat­ed to good food, such as through nutri­tion edu­ca­tion, hands-on learn­ing expe­ri­ences, or train­ing for professionals. 
2. Chang­ing frame­work con­di­tions: Approach­es that bring stake­hold­ers togeth­er and improve the con­di­tions under which peo­ple access food, for exam­ple through dia­logue for­mats, com­mu­ni­ty-based process­es, or fair­er access to good nutrition. 
3. Advanc­ing inno­va­tion: Approach­es that devel­op and test new solu­tions. These include, among oth­er things, new val­ue chains, cir­cu­lar econ­o­my con­cepts, or offer­ings that make sus­tain­able deci­sions eas­i­er in every­day life.

The path to ​“Seal of Impact Nutrition“

“Seal of Impact Nutri­tion” is finan­cial­ly sup­port­ed by exter­nal part­ners. The fund­ing cur­rent­ly avail­able can sup­port approx­i­mate­ly 50 analy­ses. There­fore, it is advis­able to apply for an analy­sis ear­ly on. Selec­tion takes place through a rolling appli­ca­tion and analy­sis process. This allows us to allo­cate our inter­nal resources opti­mal­ly and con­tin­u­ous­ly ana­lyze orga­ni­za­tions through­out the entire fund­ing peri­od – even dur­ing ongo­ing appli­ca­tion phases.

There are 3 appli­ca­tion phases:

1. Late August — late Sep­tem­ber 2026
2. Ear­ly Octo­ber — late Novem­ber 2026
3. Late Novem­ber 2026 — late Jan­u­ary 2027

You can decide for your­self which phase you’d like to apply for. How­ev­er, since the num­ber of fund­ed analy­ses is lim­it­ed, we can­not guar­an­tee that analy­sis slots will still be avail­able in the third phase. This depends on the num­ber of appli­ca­tions received in the pre­vi­ous phases.