Sustainable food choices are not simply a matter of taste
Imre Fertő
Research with 1,031 adults in Hungary suggests that people’s commitment to sustainable food develops in layers. Taste, freshness and trust are common starting points; social influence, environmental concerns and support for farmers reveal where stronger commitments begin.
Choosing food is an everyday act with consequences that reach far beyond the dinner table. What people buy can affect agricultural production, the environment and public health. But consumers do not arrive at sustainable choices by a single route, and saying that a food is “sustainable” does not tell us how strongly someone is committed to it.
Our study asks a more specific question: which food-related values are widely shared, and which ones distinguish people with stronger commitments? We analysed nationally representative survey data from 1,031 adults in Hungary, collected in 2021. The findings suggest that sustainability consciousness is better understood as a continuum than as a simple divide between sustainable and unsustainable consumers.
From familiar benefits to stronger commitments
Many people value food that tastes good, is fresh and seems trustworthy. These are compelling reasons to choose food, whether or not sustainability is on a shopper’s mind. In our survey, trust in direct farmers and beliefs about the taste and freshness of local food were among the most accessible attitudes. Even respondents at lower levels of the sustainability continuum tended to endorse them.
That broad agreement matters. It suggests that sustainable food does not always need to be introduced through abstract environmental claims. Qualities that people already care about, such as freshness and trust, may offer familiar starting points for conversations about how food is produced and where it comes from.
Yet agreement with these statements does not necessarily mean a person is deeply committed to sustainability. Someone can believe that local food is fresh without being willing to accept higher costs, change established habits or support wider changes to the food system. Familiar benefits are shared widely; they tell us less about who is prepared to take the next step.
Why friends’ views stand out
The most striking result concerned social influence. Statements about the importance of friends’ opinions on healthy food, environmental issues and local food were the strongest at distinguishing respondents at different levels of sustainability consciousness.
This does not mean that friends determine what people buy, or that a particular campaign using peer influence would change behaviour. Our survey measured reported attitudes, not purchasing decisions or the effects of an intervention. But the pattern points to the importance of the social setting around food choices. People’s ideas about what is normal or valued may be part of what separates general sympathy for sustainability from stronger commitment.
That finding complicates the familiar image of food shopping as a purely individual decision. Preferences are formed and expressed in households, friendship groups and communities. If researchers and practitioners want to understand how sustainable choices become part of everyday life, these shared contexts deserve attention alongside individual values.
Concern is not the same as action
Environmental concerns occupied a more complex middle ground. Respondents broadly recognised environmental benefits and issues such as pesticide use, biodiversity and packaging. But stronger agreement was more selective. In particular, recognising one’s own contribution to environmental pressures appeared to require a stronger commitment than endorsing environmental protection in general.
This resembles the value–action gap: people may support an environmental goal without consistently acting on it. The gap is not simply evidence of indifference. A person’s choices can depend on price, availability, convenience, trust in labels and whether a less harmful option is easy to find. Our survey cannot tell us how those factors affect actual purchases, but it does show why broad support for sustainability should not be mistaken for deep or consistent engagement.
The strongest threshold in our analysis was associated with supporting local farmers. Many respondents were open to local food, but strong endorsement of collective support for farmers was less common. The distinction is important: valuing a product for personal reasons is not the same as backing arrangements that support producers or benefit a wider community.
A different way to read survey answers
The study’s method helps make these differences visible. Surveys often combine answers into a single score or use statistical models that treat each motivation as contributing in much the same way. We used Item Response Theory, a method that examines both how widely an attitude is endorsed and how well it distinguishes people at different levels of an underlying characteristic.
In plain terms, it helps answer two different questions: “How easy is this idea for people to agree with?” and “Does agreement tell us anything about how strongly committed they are?” Taste and freshness were relatively easy to endorse. Friends’ views were particularly useful for distinguishing respondents. Strong support for farmers sat at the more demanding end of the continuum.
This approach does not label individuals as “good” or “bad” consumers. Nor does it predict exactly what they will put in their shopping baskets. It offers a more detailed picture of how different attitudes fit together—and a way to avoid treating every expression of support as equivalent.
What this means for research and practice
For food businesses, communicators and policymakers, the findings suggest that messages may need to meet people at different points. Taste, freshness and trust can connect with concerns shared by many consumers. Community and peer contexts may be relevant when trying to understand how stronger commitments take shape. Environmental and collective goals may also require practical support that makes action easier, such as trusted information, accessible choices or arrangements that reduce the costs of participation.
These are directions for consideration, not interventions tested by this study. The evidence is based on self-reported attitudes in one country, and people’s stated views do not always match their behaviour. The Hungarian context also matters: patterns may differ where food cultures, institutions and trust in producers are different. Further research across countries—and studies that observe actual choices or test interventions—can show how far these results travel.
One finding also cautions against relying too heavily on simple demographic categories. Women showed a small difference in average sustainability consciousness in the model, while education differences were not statistically significant. Overall, the layered pattern remained broadly similar across groups. Understanding where people are in their commitments may therefore require more than assuming their views from their gender or education.
Sustainable food consumption is not a single attitude waiting to be measured. It involves common concerns, social contexts, environmental values and willingness to support collective change. Seeing these layers can help researchers ask sharper questions—and help practitioners distinguish between widespread approval and the deeper commitments needed to change food systems.
LSE Impact’s site describes its articles as accessible, evidence-based writing that connects research with practice and wider debate.
 |
This post is based on Zoltán Bakucs, Lajos Baráth, Zsófia Benedek, Imre Fertő and László Sipos, “Mapping Layers of Sustainability Consciousness in Food Consumption Using the Item Response Theory (IRT) Approach,” published in the Journal of Food Science (2026).
|