IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v228y2025ics0921800924003525.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Global land-use implications of preference shifts towards regional feed and sustainable diets in Germany and the European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Freund, Florian
  • Soisontes, Sakson
  • Laquai, Verena
  • Banse, Martin

Abstract

In Germany and other EU countries, preferences for regional and GMO-free feed can increasingly be observed. Many industries like to brand their dairy, eggs and meat products as produced with regional and GMO-free feed. This – among others – has resulted in decreasing soybean and soybean meal imports from Latin America and the USA over the last couple of years, which are often genetically modified. This pattern is likely to be reinforced in the future. According to a recent Delphi panel, 36 % of German soya imports could realistically be replaced with local GMO-free alternatives in 2030. We show that such a shift in the structure of international protein feed markets has implications for global land use patterns using an economic simulation model. An inward orientation by shortening the feed supply chains will likely increase the pressure on global land use. While land use in Brazil could decrease when soya imports are further reduced, land use in other parts of the world could increase. This is because when restricting oilseed imports from outside the EU's single market, the EU and Germany now have to partially fill in the gap of oilseed imports by producing them locally. This, however, comes at the cost of lower wheat production in Germany and the EU and hence, wheat production is shifting elsewhere to meet the demand. As production has shifted from higher to lower yield regions, global land use for agriculture will likely increase. Our analysis shows that unilateral actions in Germany would have little effect on global land use expansions of 880 km2. If, however, the EU mirrors the German preferences for regional and GMO-free feed, the situation will be different. In this case, the global land use change could increase by up to 13,800 km2. A shift to regional and GMO-free protein feed can indeed be counter-effective in reducing land and environmental pressure. We show that concomitant and comparably small dietary changes with lower amounts of animal-sourced foods would be enough to counterbalance the adverse land use implications.

Suggested Citation

  • Freund, Florian & Soisontes, Sakson & Laquai, Verena & Banse, Martin, 2025. "Global land-use implications of preference shifts towards regional feed and sustainable diets in Germany and the European Union," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:228:y:2025:i:c:s0921800924003525
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108455
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924003525
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108455?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hertel, Thomas & Hummels, David & Ivanic, Maros & Keeney, Roman, 2007. "How confident can we be of CGE-based assessments of Free Trade Agreements?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 611-635, July.
    2. Marco Springmann & Rita Dingenen & Toon Vandyck & Catharina Latka & Peter Witzke & Adrian Leip, 2023. "The global and regional air quality impacts of dietary change," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-8, December.
    3. Henseler, Martin & Piot-Lepetit, Isabelle & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mellado, Aida Gonzalez & Banse, Martin & Grethe, Harald & Parisi, Claudia & Hélaine, Sophie, 2013. "On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 166-176.
    4. Martin Banse & Hans van Meijl & Andrzej Tabeau & Geert Woltjer, 2008. "Will EU biofuel policies affect global agricultural markets?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(2), pages 117-141, June.
    5. Thomas J. Venus & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Justus Wesseler, 2016. "Lessons from EU Voluntary Labeling Schemes for GM-Free Processed Food Products," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Peter W.B. Phillips & Justus Wesseler & Stuart J. Smyth (ed.), The Coexistence of Genetically Modified, Organic and Conventional Foods, pages 379-386, Springer.
    6. Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Kaufman, James & Miller, Douglas, 2014. "Potential economic impacts of zero thresholds for unapproved GMOs: The EU case," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 146-157.
    7. Xiao-Peng Song & Matthew C. Hansen & Peter Potapov & Bernard Adusei & Jeffrey Pickering & Marcos Adami & Andre Lima & Viviana Zalles & Stephen V. Stehman & Carlos M. Bella & Maria C. Conde & Esteban J, 2021. "Massive soybean expansion in South America since 2000 and implications for conservation," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(9), pages 784-792, September.
    8. Erwin Corong & Thomas Hertel & Robert McDougall & Marinos Tsigas & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2017. "The Standard GTAP Model, version 7," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 2(1), pages 1-119, June.
    9. Andre Deppermann & Petr Havlík & Hugo Valin & Esther Boere & Mario Herrero & Joost Vervoort & Erik Mathijs, 2018. "The market impacts of shortening feed supply chains in Europe," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(6), pages 1401-1410, December.
    10. Keeny, Roman & Hertel, Thomas, 2005. "GTAP-AGR: A Framework for Assessing the Implications of Multilateral Changes in Agricultural Policies," Technical Papers 283422, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    11. Bullock, D. S. & Desquilbet, M., 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-99, February.
    12. Dixon, Peter & van Meijl, Hans & Rimmer, Maureen & Shutes, Lindsay & Tabeau, Andrzej, 2016. "RED versus REDD: Biofuel policy versus forest conservation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 52(PB), pages 366-374.
    13. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    14. George Philippidis & Heleen Bartelings & John Helming & Robert M’barek & Edward Smeets & Hans van Meijl, 2019. "Levelling the playing field for EU biomass usage," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(2), pages 158-177, April.
    15. D.S. Bullock & Marion Desquilbet, 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Post-Print hal-02364321, HAL.
    16. M. Springmann & F. Freund, 2022. "Options for reforming agricultural subsidies from health, climate, and economic perspectives," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-7, December.
    17. Boulanger, Pierre & Philippidis, George, 2015. "The EU budget battle: Assessing the trade and welfare impacts of CAP budgetary reform," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 119-130.
    18. Christoph Schmitz & Hans van Meijl & Page Kyle & Gerald C. Nelson & Shinichiro Fujimori & Angelo Gurgel & Petr Havlik & Edwina Heyhoe & Daniel Mason d'Croz & Alexander Popp & Ron Sands & Andrzej Tabea, 2014. "Land-use change trajectories up to 2050: insights from a global agro-economic model comparison," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(1), pages 69-84, January.
    19. Angel Aguiar & Maksym Chepeliev & Erwin L. Corong & Robert McDougall & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 2019. "The GTAP Data Base: Version 10," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Philippidis, George & M'Barek, Robert & Urban-Boysen, Kirsten & Van Zeist, Willem-Jan, 2023. "Exploring economy-wide sustainable conditions for EU bio-chemical activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    2. Maros Ivanic & Jayson Beckman & Noe Nava, 2023. "Estimation of the Value-Added/Intermediate Input Substitution Elasticities Consistent with the GTAP Data," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 8(2), pages 134-158, December.
    3. Mun Ho & Wolfgang Britz & Ruth Delzeit & Florian Leblanc & Roberto Roson & Franziska Schuenemann & Matthias Weitzel, 2020. "Modelling Consumption and Constructing Long-Term Baselines in Final Demand," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 63-108, June.
    4. García Merchán, Gabriela, 2023. "Agricultural Subsidies in the Economy of Ecuador – An Assessment of Impact Through CGE Modelling," Papers 1413, World Trade Institute.
    5. Tabeau, Andrzej & van Meijl, Hans & Overmars, Koen P. & Stehfest, Elke, 2017. "REDD policy impacts on the agri-food sector and food security," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 73-87.
    6. Xin Zhao & Dominique Y van der Mensbrugghe & Roman M. Keeney & Wallace E. Tyner, 2021. "Improving the Way Land Use Change is Handled in Economic Models," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Peter Dixon & Joseph Francois & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe (ed.), POLICY ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY A Festschrift Celebrating Thomas Hertel, chapter 15, pages 467-515, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Emanuele Ferrari & Christian Elleby & Beyhan DE JONG & Robert M'barek & Ignacio PEREZ DOMINGUEZ, 2024. "Cumulative economic impact of upcoming trade agreements on EU agriculture," JRC Research Reports JRC135540, Joint Research Centre.
    8. Beckman, Jayson & Hertel, Thomas & Tyner, Wallace, 2011. "Validating energy-oriented CGE models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 799-806, September.
    9. Andreas Gabriel & Klaus Menrad, 2015. "Cost of Coexistence of GM and Non‐GM Products in the Food Supply Chains of Rapeseed Oil and Maize Starch in Germany," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(4), pages 472-490, October.
    10. Arita, Shawn & Mitchell, Lorraine & Beckman, Jayson, 2015. "Estimating the Effects of Selected Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade on U.S.-EU Agricultural Trade," Economic Research Report 212887, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    11. Emanuele Ferrari & Thomas Chatzopoulos & Ignacio Perez Dominguez & Pierre Boulanger & Kirsten Boysen-Urban & Mihaly Himics & Robert M’barek, 2021. "Cumulative economic impact of trade agreements on EU agriculture: 2021 update," JRC Research Reports JRC123037, Joint Research Centre.
    12. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Economics of spatial coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops: Oilseed rape in Central France," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43650, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Britz, Wolfgang & Li, Jingwen & Shang, Linmei, 2021. "Combining large-scale sensitivity analysis in Computable General Equilibrium models with Machine Learning: An Example Application to policy supporting the bio-economy," Conference papers 333285, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    14. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    15. Amanda M. Countryman & Amy D. Hagerman, 2017. "Retrospective Economic Analysis of Foot and Mouth Disease Eradication in the Latin American Beef Sector," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(2), pages 257-273, April.
    16. Coléno, F.C. & Angevin, F. & Lécroart, B., 2009. "A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 49-56, June.
    17. Goldsmith, Peter D. & Bender, Karen, 2003. "Ten Conversations about Identity Preservation: Implications for Cooperatives," 2003 Annual Meeting, October 29 31803, NCERA-194 Research on Cooperatives.
    18. Roson, Roberto, 2022. "Education, Labor Force Composition, and Growth A General Equilibrium Analysis," Conference papers 333421, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. Gohin, Alexandre & Zheng, Yu, 2015. "Assessing the Market Impacts of the Common Agricultural Policy: Does Farmers’ Risk Attitude Matter?," 2015: Trade and Societal Well-Being, December 13-15, 2015, Clearwater Beach, Florida 229235, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    20. Syud Amer Ahmed & Noah S. Diffenbaugh & Thomas W. Hertel & William J. Martin, 2012. "Agriculture and Trade Opportunities for Tanzania: Past Volatility and Future Climate Change," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 429-447, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:228:y:2025:i:c:s0921800924003525. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.