Next Article in Journal
Are Citric Acid-Iron II Complexes True Chelates or Just Physical Mixtures and How to Prove This?
Next Article in Special Issue
Cold-Pressed Oilseed Cakes as Alternative and Sustainable Feed Ingredients: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Mechanistic Insights of Polyphenolic Compounds from Rosemary Bound to Their Protein Targets Obtained by Molecular Dynamics Simulations and Free-Energy Calculations
Previous Article in Special Issue
Aquaphotomics Monitoring of Lettuce Freshness during Cold Storage
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Systematic Review

‘Nutritional Footprint’ in the Food, Meals and HoReCa Sectors: A Review

Inmaculada Zarzo
Carla Soler
Maria-Angeles Fernandez-Zamudio
Tatiana Pina
Héctor Barco
6 and
Jose M. Soriano
Food & Health Lab, Institute of Materials Science, University of Valencia, 46980 Paterna, Valencia, Spain
University Clinic of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Physiotherapy, Lluís Alcanyís Foundation-University of Valencia, 46020 Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Joint Research Unit on Endocrinology, Nutrition and Clinical Dietetics, Health Research Institute La Fe-University of Valencia, 46026 Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Centro Para el Desarrollo de la Agricultura Sostenible, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Agrarias, 46113 Moncada, Valencia, Spain
Department of Experimental and Social Sciences Education, University of Valencia, 46022 Valencia, Valencia, Spain
Enraíza Derechos, 20012 San Sebastian, Gipuzkoa, Spain
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(2), 409;
Submission received: 5 December 2022 / Revised: 5 January 2023 / Accepted: 12 January 2023 / Published: 15 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Foods: 10th Anniversary)


Nowadays, the food industry is integrating environmental, social, and health parameters to increase its sustainable impact. To do this, they are using new tools to calculate the potential efficiency of nutritional products with lower levels of environmental impact. One of these tools is called the ‘nutritional footprint’, created by Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy GmbH. This study aims to review this concept and clarify its historical development, its use in several sectors of the food industry, and its transformation from a manual to an online tool. Results reflected that it is a suitable indicator that integrates nutritional, environmental, and social-economic dimensions to help the decision-making process in the procurement of more sustainable products and, although it is limited to Germany due to the use of the national standard nutritional intakes of Germany, its importance lies in the fact that is a promising instrument to promote environmental sustainability in the context of food, meals, and the hotel, restaurant and catering (HoReCa) sectors.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their 169 targets, through their holistic and universal approach, are adapted to different contexts by connecting scientists with companies, governments and society, and, from an inter- and transdisciplinary approach, are applied in several industries, including agri-food [1] and the hotel, restaurant, and catering (HoReCa) [2] sectors. In recent years, the search for meals or dishes, according to current nutritional recommendations and environmental [3] aspects, has increased either individually or jointly with these or other indicators, such as cultural [4], social [5], political [6], and/or economic indicators [7]. In fact, the FAO [8] justified that the sustainability of diets should focus on the nutritional, environmental, economic and socio-cultural dimensions. Grigoriadis et al. [9] indicated that these diets can efficiently contribute to achieving nutrient-adequate dietary patterns and, at the same time, fewer contaminants. In fact, these previous authors justified the necessity of working towards a combined measure for describing the environmental impact and nutritive value of foods grouped in four approaches: programming optimization, statistical analysis, graphical representation, and indices. To help in the evaluation of the ‘sustainable assessment’ of foods [10], several instruments and methods have been developed considering: (i) health, such as ‘conscious enjoyment’, ‘healthy meal index’ and the WHO/European pledge instruments of ZFV companies [11], the Technical University of Denmark [12] and WHO Europe [13], respectively; (ii) the environment, including the ‘Eaternity app’ and BEELONG by Eaternity [14] and Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne [15], respectively; and (iii) both previous indicators, such as the ‘Menu Sustainability Index’ (MSI), SusDISH and the ‘nutritional footprint’ by Zurich University of Applied Sciences, together with ZFV [16], Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg [17] and Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy GmbH [18], respectively. For combined health–environmental tools, MSI was used, which rates meals on the basis of nutritional balance and environmental friendliness separately, but does not take beverages into account [16]. SusDISH was developed as a software-based concept, including 16 health indicators and 15 ecological indicators (where a life-cycle-based concept of ecological shortage is used) [17]. The ‘nutritional footprint’ combines the two dimensions of environment and health into a single index [18]. According to this latter concept, the Wuppertal Institute developed the project and application called ‘development, testing, and distribution of concepts for sustainable production and consumption in the field of out-of-home catering (NAHGAST)’ [19]. Abbade [20] indicated that improvement is still needed, and there is also confusion with the term, which can be either ‘nutritional footprint’ [21] or ‘nutrition footprint’ [22]. The aim of this work is to review the concept of a ‘nutritional footprint’ and the NAHGAST project in food, meals, and the HoReCa sectors, to observe the evolution in literature since its inception and to study the applicability in these sectors.

2. Review Method

The key question to be answered in this manuscript is the usefulness of the concept of the ‘nutritional footprint’ and NAHGAST for the food, catering, and HoReCa sectors as sustainable, manual, and automated food tools, respectively, that help to link health, the economy, and society and nutritional aspects in a unique index. This review was carried out with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [23] (Figure 1) using the three databases Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. The Boolean strings chosen were (‘nutritional footprint’) AND (restaurant OR ‘food industry’ OR catering OR meal OR menu OR food OR lunch OR dish OR recipe OR HoReCa). EndNote software, version X7.0 (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA) was used to find duplicate articles by screening titles and abstracts.
The searches included works published in all languages and restricted to the last 20 years (from 1 November 2002) and were carried out with a comprehensive search of three types of literature (‘white’, ‘grey’, and ‘black’), applying the use of four different search tools, such as (i) grey literature databases; (ii) personalization of Google search engines; (iii) specific websites; and (iv) advice with specialists contacted.
Letters, editorials, comments, unpublished data, other types of non-peer-reviewed publications and articles without full texts or not related to the ‘nutritional footprint’ indicator applied to sustainability were excluded.
Two teams of matched reviewers (I.Z., M.A.F.Z., T.P., J.M.S.) experienced in systematic reviews independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for eligibility, assessed generalizability and collected data from each article. The third team of paired reviewers (C.S., H.B.) helped to resolve any disagreements. Two teams evaluated the risk of bias using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool ( (accessed on 1 January 2023)), which graded each study based on several components, such as the appropriateness of the study design for the research question, the risk of selection bias, exposure and outcome assessment. Furthermore, the presence of discrepancies was solved by the third team reviewer. From eligible studies, collected data were extracted and grouped with the following variables: sample, health, and environmental indicators, year of publication, country, value, or range of ‘nutritional footprint’ and author. Results were grouped into two sections: ‘nutritional footprint’ and NAHGAST. Finally, 94 articles had to be excluded from this manuscript for not meeting the inclusion-exclusion criteria, which was 17 references obtained, to work in this systematic review. Furthermore, almost all selected articles (16 of 17 studies) were evaluated as having a ‘moderate’ risk of bias.

3. ‘Nutritional Footprint’

As a curiosity, ‘nutritional footprint’ was first used by an American manufacturer and retailer of outdoor footwear, Timberland LLC, being used on its shoeboxes to provide information about its environmental and community impacts [24], but this had nothing to do with the nutritional topic. The first reference applied in health literature was by Sanhuenza and Valenzuela [25] to create a personalized diet according to the genetics and/or phenotype of individuals. On the other hand, the concept of ‘maternal nutritional footprint’ has been directed, to avoid confusion, toward the concept of Developmental Origins of Health and Diseases (DOHaD) [26], which explains how the maternal environment affects fetal development due to hormonal imbalance, oxidative stress and epigenetic modifications. Neither of the latter articles consider the nexus of nutrition with the environment or other aspects, such as the social and economic dimensions. On the other hand, 16 references were closely linked to nutritional and environmental aspects in the food industry, all of them being from menus, dishes, or foods served in the HoReCa sector. The first reference to a ‘nutritional footprint’ in the food industry was not made until 2013 and was developed by The Wuppertal Institute [27]. This research group justified that the indicators used for the development of this concept were based on Liedtke’s study [28], which included two combined types of indicators to study the effect of diets on health (energy value and nutrient density) and the environmental impact and resource intensity of diets (abiotic and biotic compounds, erosion and land displacement, water and energy consumption, use and land yield, biodiversity, and CO2 equivalents). Table 1 shows the characteristics and main findings of some selected articles in the present review with a range of values of the ‘nutritional footprint’ reflected only in 8 out of 17 articles selected for this review. Lukas et al. [27] indicated that the established reference values correspond to the sum of both indicators ranging from 2 (environmental impact = 1 + health impact = 1) to 6 (environmental impact = 3 + health impact = 3) reflecting a ‘good’ or ‘worse’ product with little or high impact, respectively, on health and the environment. This study evaluated two foods, lettuce and beef, the latter having the highest value (4.9 versus 2.3). In the same year, these authors [29] carried out a scientific revision to decrease the number of indicators based on international and German agencies [30,31,32] for health indicators (calorie (kcal), salt (g), dietary fiber (g) and saturates (g) contents) and several studies [33,34] on environmental indicators (material (g), carbon (g), and water (L) footprints and land use (m2)), illustrating the whole value chain and its direct and further indirect effects. Reference values ranged from 1 to 3 for a minor and major ‘nutritional footprint’, respectively, using this formula:
‘Nutritional footprint’ = (environmental indicators + health indicators)/2
Lukas et al. [29] calculated the ‘nutritional footprint’ using both of these indicators in a classic restaurant dish (burger with a large portion of French fries (160 g) with mayonnaise (20 g) and a 500 mL soft drink) versus a fitness dish (‘Italian chicken mozzarella’ wrap with classic snack salad with balsamic classic dressing, a portion of organic apples (80 g) and 500 mL water), obtaining ‘nutritional footprint’ values of 2.34 and 1.58, respectively. Lukas et al. [35,36] used their parameter on five menus: (i) burger (burger with double beef patty, with chips and cola); (ii) chili without meat (vegan chili without meat with white bread and apple juice with mineral water); (iii) lasagna (vegetarian lasagna with a salad side dish and apple juice with mineral water); (iv) meat roll (meat roll with red cabbage side dish, potatoes and water); and (v) wrap (wrap with chicken, with a salad side dish, apple and water), resulting in values of 2.625, 1.125, 1.25, 2.625, and 1.375, respectively. Three and two of them had a low- and high-quality ranking, according to a value of less than 1.65 (low negative effect on the environment or health), between 1.65 and 2.3 (intermediate effect), and above 2.3 (strong effect). Lukas et al. [37] restored three levels of the ‘nutritional footprint’ with a new classification as ‘low’, ‘medium’, and ‘high’ effects, ranging from 1 to 1.6, 1.6 to 2.2, and >2.2, respectively, which was applied to eight German lunch menus: (i) spaghetti Bolognese salad; (ii) sausage with curry and chips with mayonnaise; (iii) roll with beef in red wine sauce, vegetables, and potatoes; (iv) large mixed salad with baguette; (v) breaded fish fillet accompanied by a remoulade sauce, broccoli and potatoes; (vi) vegetable lasagna; (vii) chili without meat and with bread; and (viii) potato pancake with applesauce, with values of 2.25, 2.25, 2.5, 1.125, 1.75, 1.25, 1.125, and 1.5, respectively. Müller et al. [10] indicated that MSI showed the efficacy of the separate use of environment and health indicators, due to the fact that the consumers selected dishes based on personal preference, catering staff, and convenience. In our viewpoint, we do not agree with this idea due to the fact that, in the last five years, users, consumers, and policymakers have raised awareness of the environment-health binomial throughout the world.
On the other hand, the ‘nutritional footprint’ [21] should not be confused with ‘nutrition footprint’. This latter term has been used by Grönman et al. [41] as an indicator during the whole life cycle of a product, being annexed with nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) intake and nutrient-use efficiency, and extrapolated in the Finnish beef production and consumption chain by Joensuu et al. [22].

4. ‘Development, Testing and the Distribution of Concepts for Sustainable Production and Consumption in the Field of Out-of-Home Catering (NAHGAST)’

The studies reflected in the previous section are part of the NAHGAST project [42] and were applied to the beef roll menu, obtaining a ‘nutritional footprint’ value of 2.5. Bienge et al. [43] carried out the relationship of NAHGAST indicators with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The manual use of this tool derived from the free online creation ( (accessed on 1 January 2023)) with financing from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and known as the NAHGAST I project, launched in March 2018. This online software included around 1500 meals. Furthermore, the use of NAHGAST I is preferable in places where only three main dishes were served, to compare information among intervention weeks and cafeterias [44]. On the other hand, the aim of the interventions in NAHGAST I was to make guests of out-of-home catering aware of the most sustainable daily dishes with small ‘nudges’, so that they choose them more often. System 1 nudges that are more subconscious (change in the serving position, change in the menu position, descriptive names) were used here, as well as system 2 nudges that stimulate thought processes and thus have a more cognitive effect (labels and information) [45]. As a result of this tool, around 74,000 dishes from the harmonized menus were analyzed, indicating that the nudge of the change in the serving position showed a significantly positive effect (+22.5% increase in sales compared to the baseline measurement). The change in the menu position (+3.5%) reflected a positive effect on the sales figures, but not significantly. All other nudges (descriptive names, labels and information) had almost no influence on the sales behavior of the guests or even had a negative effect [46]. In addition, there were strong sales deviations between the individual partners and between the most sustainable dishes of the day. These studies reflected that not only the choice of sustainable food but also the consumption of the chosen food is relevant for the sustainability of a selection decision. For this reason, the application of this procedure should pay special attention to the topic of food waste when used in living laboratories to carry out interventions to reduce leftover plates/food waste [47].
In 2020, NAHGAST II, helped by 20 practical partners, was presented to society, allowing connectivity in several digital systems, such as recipe, accounting and resource management [39]. This second version demonstrated that the first version of NAHGAST could be classified as comprehensive and most representative. In fact, its use in the out-of-home consumption sector, other food companies or even for customers in out-of-home and private households, demonstrated efficiency to verify the reduction in the environmental parameters, i.e., changing beef to soy in dishes reduced the carbon and material footprint by around 34% and 35%, respectively. NAHGAST I demonstrated that individual nudges were able to have a positive effect, while others did not show the desired effects and the follow-up project NAHGAST II, therefore, took up this topic again [48]. On the other hand, two modules, NAHGAST Meal-Basic and NAHGAST Meal-Pro, are included in the NAHGAST assessment procedure and consist of 12 (6 ecological (percentages of sustainably caught fish and percentages of animal, seasonal, regional, organic products and GMO-free products), 1 social (percentages of fair-trade products), 3 health (percentages of fruits and vegetables, energy and fiber) and 2 economic (popularity and cost-coverage) parameters) indicators and 14 (4 ecological (material and carbon footprint, water demand and area required), 2 social (fair trade and animal welfare), 6 health (energy, fiber, fat, carbohydrates, sugar, salt) and 2 economic (popularity and cost-coverage) parameters) indicators, respectively [19]. The score scale was grouped as ‘not recommendable’, ‘restrictively recommendable’ and ‘recommendable’ for values situated from 1 to 1.4, from 1.5 to 2.4 and from 2.5 to 3, respectively, and visual information was used for them in red, yellow, and green, respectively. Engelmann et al. [49] indicated that the Meal-Basic version is useful and easy to control by kitchen workers. The NAHGAST project received The KlimaExpo.NRW award, recognizing the NAHGAST research project for its exemplary commitment to climate protection. As a summary of both versions, Figure 2 shows the difference between NAHGAST Meal-Basic and NAHGAST Meal-Pro.
Speck et al. [50,51] indicated that several parameters, such as popularity and cost recovery, both without quantified target value, for the economic parameter, were studied but they were not incorporated into the final implementation of this online tool. In this research, they examined the nutritional and environmental approach to food in three different settings: (i) review of recipes, in public catering companies, without the help of experts; (ii) review of recipes aligned with energy-nutritional recommendations [52,53] with products of animal origin (<30%) in the menu composition; and (iii) recipe revision aligned with established guidelines for the carbon (<800 g) and material (<2670 g) footprints of this studied meal. Their results demonstrated significantly that a recipe revision without scientific support and/or the implementation of recommended intakes affected the values in the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the use of natural resources applied to business catering, but the value doubled if the target values of environmental indicators and their implementation were more rigorously focused. Furthermore, not all scenarios implied a deterioration of the considered nutritional parameters, and optimization using the public catering companies themselves could save, yearly, in business catering, around 1.3 and 0.3 million tons of resources and greenhouse gas emissions, respectively. The same authors [39] carried out another study where nutritional values, including energy (<670 kcal/<830 kcal), fat (<24 g/<30 g), carbohydrates (<90 g/<95 g), sugar (<17 g/<19 g) and fibers (>8 g/>6 g), environmental values, including material (<2670 g/<4000 g) and carbon (<800 g/<1200 g) footprints, water (<640 L/<975 L) and land use (<1.25 m2/<1.875 m2), and social values, including partially fairtrade ingredients (>90%/>85%) and partially animal-based food that fosters animal welfare (>60%/>55%) indicators, were used to calculate the nutritional footprint of 1509 meals. Their results reflected that the values of those three diets were high for the vegan diet (4.71), followed by vegetarian meals (4.53) and, finally, by a mixed diet (3.86). Recently, Wuppertal Institute has been developing the BiTe (Biodiversität über den Tellerrand) project, whereby they want to integrate into the database of the existing NAHGAST calculator the biodiversity index for measuring (agro)biodiversity to make the influence of a lunchtime meal on (agro)biodiversity measurable using a co-creation process with various companies from the field of out-of-home gastronomy [54].
The COVID-19 pandemic established a new strategic framework in food, meals and HoReCa sectors, which is the 6S concept (food safety for food security, scientific, sovereignty, solidarity-based, and sustainable) [55,56,57], as the new paradigm that should be implemented in these sectors. The ‘nutritional footprint’ and NAHGAST were the prelude to a new focus that redirected to a new green circular economy based in the Society 5.0 era [58], in which individuals take the initiative in health management, helped by digital innovation with artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things and other digital technologies and big data. NAHGAST was developed in this direction and was ahead of its time, but the way to achieve this new era is to harmonize the 6S concept and contribute to SDGs. Let us not forget that, today, health and sustainability are an inseparable combination for quality of life and the planet. Gupta et al. [59] carried out a systematic review of reviews and evidenced that the implementation of interventions to help food retail environments promote health requires targeting an individual–intrapersonal–environmental trinomial and your idea, as a starting point in food retail, to help build research and practice partnerships that support business and health, and can be applied in the food, meals, and HoReCa sectors. However, the efficacy of this latter point should be helped by environmental literacy and food education simultaneously, as is demonstrated in China [60], Europe [61], Australia [62], and the USA [63], among others.

5. Conclusions and Future Directions

In our viewpoint, the main conclusion reflected that the studied footprint has evolved over time and could help to work with a tool that considers the nexus of nutrition with the environment or other aspects, such as the social and economic dimensions, but it is limited to the national standard dietary intake of Germany [30], meaning that any benchmarking with other countries is flawed. Additionally, the term ‘nutritional footprint’ is not a registered name, which could mislead researchers and consumers. In fact, Arrieta and González [64], in 2019, also defined a ‘nutritional footprint’ indicator, which helped derive energy use and greenhouse gas emissions represented per unit of nutritional content rather than per unit of weight, but was related to protein. They did not relate with the term of Lukas et al. [27,29], but included the total footprint (from cradle to table) focusing on the preparation of the 18 samples from meat, cereal, and legume groups, demonstrating that the highest efficiency for energy (30.1 g of protein per MJ) and greenhouse gas emissions (458 g protein per kg CO2-eq. emitted) was obtained with soybeans. Irrespective of this, ‘nutritional footprint’ could be considered an important factor reflected by the FAO [65], which emphasized the term ‘nexus’ in nutritional, environmental, economic, and socio-cultural indicators, reflecting that action in one of the dimensions has implications on the others, enhancing synergies and trade-offs to help possible answers focused on environmental sustainability. New searches are underway to increase other tools, such as the integrated Water–Energy–Food–Climate Nexus Index (WEFCNI) developed in the anchovy canning industry in northern Spain by Laso et al. [66]. This tool was applied, four years later, in the European Atlantic Area NEPTUNUS project, which focused on the sustainability of the seafood sector, with the aim of achieving a circular economy through the use of eco-innovation and eco-labelling of products [67]. In our viewpoint, the future footprint index should attach equal importance to health (nutritional), environmental, economic, and socio-cultural parameters to harmonize those indicators with global values, including international reference intakes. In the end, the ultimate goal of this future tool, non-existent at present, is that consumers enjoy eating and the work of catering staff is affordable and cost-effective to run, in addition to safeguarding the planet.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.Z. and J.M.S.; methodology, formal analysis, investigation and data curation, I.Z., J.M.S., M.-A.F.-Z., T.P. and H.B.; writing—original draft preparation, I.Z., C.S. and J.M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.-A.F.-Z., T.P. and H.B.; funding acquisition, M.-A.F.-Z. and J.M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was partially funded by the World Sustainable Urban Food Centre of València (Centro Mundial para la Alimentación urbana Sostenible; CEMAS) (number CUNAFF-42022), and by project-IVIA number 52203 (BonProfit Plan). The Plan against food waste in the Comunitat Valenciana is financed by the General CAP Agency (Conselleria de Agricultura, Desarrollo Rural, Emergencia Climática y Transición Ecológica, of the Generalitat Valenciana), and it is co-financed by the ERDF Funds.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


The authors gratefully acknowledge the brainstorming group joined by Vicente Domingo, from CEMAS, Sylvia Andrés, Trinidad Aguilar and Herminia Canet, from the Valencia Conference Centre, and the Gourmet Catering & Espacios staff, especially Corinna, José Manuel and Raúl.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Esposito, B.; Sessa, M.R.; Sica, D.; Malandrino, O. Towards circular economy in the agri-food sector. A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Buczacki, A.; Gładysz, B.; Palmer, E. HoReCa food waste and sustainable development goals—A systemic view. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rosi, A.; Biasini, B.; Monica, E.; Rapetti, V.; Deon, V.; Scazzina, F. Nutritional composition and environmental impact of meals selected in workplace canteens before and after an intervention promoting the adherence to the Mediterranean diet. Nutrients 2022, 14, 4456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lăcătușu, C.M.; Grigorescu, E.D.; Floria, M.; Onofriescu, A.; Mihai, B.M. The Mediterranean diet: From an environment-driven food culture to an emerging medical prescription. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Maynard, D.D.C.; Vidigal, M.D.; Farage, P.; Zandonadi, R.P.; Nakano, E.Y.; Botelho, R.B.A. Environmental, social and economic sustainability indicators applied to food services: A systematic review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Henchion, M.; Hayes, M.; Mullen, A.M.; Fenelon, M.; Tiwari, B. Future protein supply and demand: Strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods 2017, 6, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Dudziak, A.; Stoma, M.; Derkacz, A.J. Circular economy in the context of food losses and waste. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. FAO. Dietary Guidelines and Sustainability. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  9. Grigoriadis, V.; Nugent, A.; Brereton, P. Working towards a combined measure for describing environmental impact and nutritive value of foods: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 112, 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Müller, C.; Stucki, M.; Zehnder, P.; Ebker, J.; Wohlleben, M.; Baumer, B. The “Menu Sustainability Index”. Assessment of the environmental and health impact of foods offered in commercial catering. Ernahr. Umsch. 2016, 63, 198–205. [Google Scholar]
  11. ZFV. Bewusst Geniessen! Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  12. Lassen, A.D.; Biltoft-Jensen, A.; Hansen, G.L.; Hels, O.; Tetens, I. Development and validation of a new simple Healthy Meal Index for canteen meals. Public Health Nutr. 2009, 13, 1559–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. WHO Europa. WHO Regional Office for Europe Nutrient Profile Model. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  14. Eaternity. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  15. Ecole Hôtelière de Lausanne. Beelong, the Eco-Score for All Your Food Products. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  16. Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften (ZHAW). Menu Sustainability Index (MSI). Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  17. Meier, T.; Gärtner, C.; Christen, O. Bilanzierungsmethode susDISH: Nachhaltigkeit in der Gastronomie-Gesundheits-und Umweltaspekte in der Rezepturplanung gleichermaßen berücksichtigen; DLG-Lebensmittel: Halle-Wittenberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lukas, M.; Rohn, H.; Lettenmeier, M.; Liedtke, C.; Wirges, M.; Wiesen, K.; Wiesen, K.; SchweiBinger, J.; von Lenthe, C. Assessing indicators and limits for a sustainable everyday nutrition. Proceedings in food system dynamics. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2016, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Engelmann, T.; Speck, M.; Rohn, H.; Bienge, K.; Langen, N.; Howell, E.; Göbel, C.; Friedrich, S.; Teitscheid, P.; Bowry, J.; et al. Sustainability assessment of out-of-home meals: Potentials and challenges of applying the indicator sets NAHGAST meal-basic and NAHGAST meal-pro. Sustainability 2018, 10, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Abbade, E.B. Estimating the nutritional loss and the feeding potential derived from food losses worldwide. World Dev. 2020, 134, 105038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wuppertal Institut. Mahlzeiten mit Fußabdruck. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  22. Joensuu, K.; Pulkkinen, H.; Kurppa, S.; Ypyä, J.; Virtanen, Y. Applying the nutrient footprint method to the beef production and consumption chain. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019, 24, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Makower, J. Timberland Reveals Its ‘Nutritional’ Footprint. 2006. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  25. Sanhueza, J.; Valenzuela, A. Nutrigenomics: Revealing molecular aspects of a personalized nutrition. Rev. Chil. Nutr. 2012, 39, 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Gluckman, P.D.; Hanson, M.A. Living with the past: Evolution, development, and patterns of disease. Science 2004, 305, 1733–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Lukas, M.; Palzkill, A.; Rohn, H.; Liedtke, C. The nutritional footprint: An innovative management approach for the food sector. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 170, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
  28. Liedtke, C.; Baedeker, C.; Kolberg, S.; Lettenmeier, M. Resource intensity in global food chains: The Hot Spot Analysis. Br. Food J. 2010, 112, 1138–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Lukas, M.; Liedtke, C.; Rohn, H. The Nutritional Footprint—Assessing environmental and health impacts of foodstuffs. In World Resources Forum; World Resources Forum: Davos, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  30. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung e. V. (DGE). DGE-Qualitätsstandards—Kriterien für eine Gesundheitsfördernde und Nachhaltige Verpflegung in Gemeinschaftseinrichtungen. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  31. WHO. Sodium Intake for Adults and Children. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  32. Bringezu, S.; Schütz, H.; Arnolda, K.; Merten, F.; Kabasci, S.; Borelbach, P.; Michels, C.; Reinhardt, G.A.; Rettenmaier, N. Global implications of biomass and biofuel use in Germany—Recent trends and future scenarios for domestic and foreign agricultural land use and resulting GHG emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, S57–S68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Giljum, S.; Burger, E.; Hinterberger, F.; Lutter, S.; Bruckner, M. A comprehensive set of resource use indicators from the micro to the macro level. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 55, 300–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Farm Animals and Animal Products. Volume 1: Main Report. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  35. Lukas, M.; Scheiper, M.L.; Ansorge, J.; Rohn, H.; Liedtke, C.; Teitscheid, P. The nutritional footprint—An assessment tool for health and environmental effects of nutrition. Ernahr. Umsch. 2014, 61, 164–170. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lukas, M.; Scheiper, M.L.; Ansorge, J.; Rohn, H.; Liedtke, C.; Teitscheid, P. Der Nutritional Footprint: Ein Instrument zur Bewertung von Gesundheits-und Umweltwirkungen der Ernährung. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  37. Lukas, M.; Rohn, H.; Teitscheid, P.; Langen, N. Assessing Sustainable Limits for Meals–First Results from the Project NAH_Gast: Developing, Testing and Dissemination of Concepts for Sustainable Production and Consumption in the Food Service Sector. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  38. Lukas, M.; Rohn, H.; Lettenmeier, M.; Liedtke, C.; Wiesen, K. The nutritional footprint—Integrated methodology using environmental and health indicators to indicate potential for absolute reduction of natural resource use in the field of food and nutrition. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 132, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Speck, M.; Bienge, K.; Wagner, L.; Engelmann, T.; Schuster, S.; Teitscheid, P.; Langen, N. Creating sustainable meals supported by the NAHGAST online tool—Approach and effects on GHG emissions and use of natural resources. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Lettenmeier, M.; Liedtke, C.; Rohn, H. Eight tons of material footprint—Suggestion for a resource cap for household consumption in Finland. Resources 2014, 3, 488–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Grönman, K.; Ypyä, J.; Virtanen, Y.; Kurppa, S.; Soukka, R.; Seuri, P.; Finér, A.; Linnanen, L. Nutrient footprint as a tool to evaluate the nutrient balance of a food chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2429–2440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Speck, M.; Rohn, H.; Engelmann, T.; Schweißinger, J.; Neundorf, D.; Teitscheid, P.; Langen, N.; Bienge, K. Entwicklung von integrierten Methoden zur Messung und Bewertung von Speisenangeboten in den Dimensionen Ökologie, Soziales, Ökonomie und Gesundheit—Working Paper 2; NAHGAST Project: Wuppertal, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bienge, K.; Engelmann, T.; Speck, M.; Monetti, S.; Langen, N.; Göbel, C.; Friedrich, S.; Holger, R.; Teitscheid, P. Sustainability assessment of meals in the out-of-home catering sector: Links between the NAHGAST indicator sets and the SDGs. In Proceedings of the SustEcon Conference—The Contribution of a Sustainable Economy to Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany, 25–26 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ohlhausen, P.; Langen, N.; Friedrich, S.; Speck, M.; Bienge, K.; Engelmann, T.; Rohn, H.; Teitscheid, P. Auf der Suche nach dem wirksamsten Nudge zur Absatzsteigerung nachhaltiger Speisen in der Außer-HausGastronomie. Vierteljahrsh. Zur Wirtsch. 2018, 87, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Ohlhausen, P.; Langen, N. When a combination of nudges decreases sustainable food choices out-of-home—The example of food decoys and descriptive name labels. Foods 2020, 9, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Langen, N.; Ohlhausen, P.; Steinmeier, F.; Friedrich, S.; Engelmann, T.; Speck, M.; Damerau, K.; Bienge, K.; Rohn, H.; Teitscheid, P. Nudges for more sustainable food choices in the out-of-home catering sector applied in real-world labs. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lorenz, B.A.; Langen, N.; Göbel, C.; Engelmann, T.; Bienge, K.; Bacon, M.; Teitscheid, P. What makes people leave LESS food? Testing effects of smaller portions and information in a behavioral model. Appetite 2019, 139, 127–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Engelmann, T.; Speck, M.; Rohn, H.; Bienge, K.; Langen, N.; Howell, E.; Göbel, C.; Friedrich, S.; Teitscheid, P.; Liedtke, C. Sustainability assessment of out of-of-home meals: Potentials and obstacles applying indicator sets NAHGAST Meal-Basis and NAHGAST Meal-Pro. Proceedings in System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks 2017. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2017, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Engelmann, T.; Rohn, H. Bewertung von Ausgewählten Verpflegungsangeboten—Working Paper 4; NAHGAST Project: Friedberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  50. Speck, M.; Wagner, L.; Buchborn, F.; Steinmeier, F.; Friedrich, S.; Langen, N. How public catering accelerates sustainability: A German case study. Sustain. Sci. 2022, 17, 2287–2299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Speck, M.; Bienge, K.; El Mourabit, X.; Schuster, S.; Engelmann, T.; Langen, N.; Teitscheid, P. Healthy, environmentally friendly and socially responsible: How an online tool helps to cook more sustainably. Ernahr. Umsch. 2020, 67, 125–131. [Google Scholar]
  52. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung. Vollwertige Ernährung nach den Empfehlungen der DGE ist auch Ökologisch Nachhaltig. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  53. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Wuppetal Institute. BiTe. Biodiversität über den Tellerrand: Vorhaben zur Steigerung der Biodiversität in Angebot und Nachfrage der Außer-Haus-Gastronomie. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  55. King, T.; Cole, M.; Farber, J.M.; Eisenbrand, G.; Zabaras, D.; Fox, E.M.; Hill, J.P. Food safety for food security: Relationship between global megatrends and developments in food safety. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 68, 160–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. San Onofre, N.; Soler, C.; Merino-Torres, J.F.; Soriano, J.M. “Five Keys to Safer Food” and COVID-19. Nutrients 2021, 13, 4491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Madanaguli, A.; Dhir, A.; Kaur, P.; Srivastava, S.; Singh, G. Environmental sustainability in restaurants. A systematic review and future research agenda on restaurant adoption of green practices. Scand. J. Hosp. Tour. 2022, 22, 303–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nomura, S.; Miyata, H. Digitization of the approach to food and nutrition respecting individual health values. Nutr. Rev. 2020, 78 (Suppl. S3), 46–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gupta, A.; Alston, L.; Needham, C.; Robinson, E.; Marshall, J.; Boelsen-Robinson, T.; Blake, M.R.; Huggins, C.E.; Peeters, A. Factors influencing implementation, sustainability and scalability of healthy food retail interventions: A systematic review of reviews. Nutrients 2022, 14, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Li, F.; Zhang, K.; Yang, P.; Jiao, J.; Yin, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yin, C. Information exposure incentivizes consumers to pay a premium for emerging pro-environmental food: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. de Boer, J.; Aiking, H. Do EU consumers think about meat reduction when considering to eat a healthy, sustainable diet and to have a role in food system change? Appetite 2022, 170, 105880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Barbour, L.; Bicknell, E.; Brimblecombe, J.; Carino, S.; Fairweather, M.; Lawrence, M.; Slattery, J.; Woods, J.; World, E. Dietitians Australia position statement on healthy and sustainable diets. Nutr. Diet. 2022, 79, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Grummon, A.H.; Goodman, D.; Jaacks, L.M.; Taillie, L.S.; Chauvenet, C.A.; Salvia, M.G.; Rimm, E.B. Awareness of and reactions to health and environmental harms of red meat among parents in the United States. Public Health Nutr. 2022, 25, 893–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Arrieta, E.M.; González, A.D. Energy and carbon footprints of food: Investigating the effect of cooking. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 19, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. FAO. Walking the Talk: Assessing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus. Available online: (accessed on 28 December 2022).
  66. Laso, J.; Margallo, M.; García-Herrero, I.; Fullana, P.; Bala, A.; Gazulla, C.; Polettini, A.; Kahhat, R.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Irabien, A.; et al. Combined application of Life Cycle Assessment and linear programming to evaluate food waste-to-food strategies: Seeking for answers in the nexus approach. Waste Manag. 2018, 80, 186–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Laso, J.; Ruiz-Salmón, I.; Margallo, M.; Villanueva-Rey, P.; Poceiro, L.; Quinteiro, P.; Dias, A.C.; Almeida, C.; Marques, A.; Entrena-Barbero, E.; et al. Achieving Sustainability of the Seafood Sector in the European Atlantic Area by Addressing Eco-Social Challenges: The NEPTUNUS Project. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flow diagram, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [23], used in this study. * Exclusion criteria are reflected in the ‘review method’ section.
Figure 1. Flow diagram, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [23], used in this study. * Exclusion criteria are reflected in the ‘review method’ section.
Foods 12 00409 g001
Figure 2. Differences between NAHGAST Meal-Basic (A) and NAHGAST Meal-Pro (B).
Figure 2. Differences between NAHGAST Meal-Basic (A) and NAHGAST Meal-Pro (B).
Foods 12 00409 g002
Table 1. Some values/ranges of the nutritional footprint of different foods, menus, and meals.
Table 1. Some values/ranges of the nutritional footprint of different foods, menus, and meals.
SampleHealth IndicatorsEnvironmental IndicatorsYearCountryValue/range of Nutritional FootprintRef.
Lettuce and beefNutrient density and calorie contentAbiotic and biotic material, erosion and earth movement, water consumption, energy consumption, land use and yield, biodiversity and CO2-equivalents2013Germany2.3 and 4.9[27]
Two menusCalorie intake (kcal), sodium (g), dietary fiber (g) and saturates (g)Material a (g) and carbon (g) footprints, water use (L) and land use (m2)2013Germany1.58 and 2.34[29]
Five menusCalorie intake (kcal), sodium (g), dietary fiber (g) and saturates (g)Material a (g) and carbon (g) footprints, water use (L) and land use (m2)2014Germany1.125–2.625[35,36]
Beef roll menuCalorie intake (kcal), sodium (g), dietary fiber (g) and saturates (g)Material a (g) and carbon (g) footprints, water use (L) and land use (m2)2015Germany2.5[37]
Eight German lunch mealsCalorie intake (kcal), sodium (g), dietary fiber (g) and saturates (g)Material a (g) and carbon (g) footprints, water use (L) and land use (m2)2016Germany1.125–2.5[38]
Beef goulash bEnergy content (kcal), amount of fruit and vegetables (g), dietary fibers content (g) and time keeping meal warm (h)Ecological (share of animal, seasonal, regional, organic, and sustainably caught fish products, avoidable food waste and use of GMO-free products), social (share of fair-trade products), economic (popularity and cost-coverage ratio) indicators2018Germany1.6[19]
Beef goulash cEnergy content (kcal), fat amount (g), amount of carbohydrates (g) thereof sugars, dietary fibers content (g) and salt amount (g)Ecological (material and carbon footprints, water consumption, land requirement, cumulative energy demand and influence of biodiversity), social (share of fair-trade products and share of animal products from appropriate animal husbandry), economic (cost-coverage ratio) indicators2018Germany1.8[19]
1509 mealsEnergy content (kcal), fat (g), carbohydrates (g), sugar (g) and fibers (g)Environment (material and carbon footprints, water use and land use) and social (share of fair-trade ingredients and of animal-based food that fosters animal welfare)2020Germany3.86–4.71[39]
a The material footprint is the sum of all necessary resources needed during the complete life cycle of a product [40]; b using NAHGAST Meal-Basic; c using NAHGAST Meal-Pro.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zarzo, I.; Soler, C.; Fernandez-Zamudio, M.-A.; Pina, T.; Barco, H.; Soriano, J.M. ‘Nutritional Footprint’ in the Food, Meals and HoReCa Sectors: A Review. Foods 2023, 12, 409.

AMA Style

Zarzo I, Soler C, Fernandez-Zamudio M-A, Pina T, Barco H, Soriano JM. ‘Nutritional Footprint’ in the Food, Meals and HoReCa Sectors: A Review. Foods. 2023; 12(2):409.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zarzo, Inmaculada, Carla Soler, Maria-Angeles Fernandez-Zamudio, Tatiana Pina, Héctor Barco, and Jose M. Soriano. 2023. "‘Nutritional Footprint’ in the Food, Meals and HoReCa Sectors: A Review" Foods 12, no. 2: 409.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop