It is easy to proselytize with a full stomach

Why it is arrogant to dictate from Europe what the rest of the world should eat

Food is a passionate topic of debate in Europe. Few topics ignite as much moral fervor as nutrition: Organic or conventional? Meat or vegan? Regional or global? Sugar-free, palm oil-free, cruelty-free—and as climate-neutral as possible.

These debates are important—but often also highly arrogant. Because they stem from an abundance that most of the world is unaware of. While we argue about whether avocados are ecologically sound, a large part of humanity is wrestling with the question of whether there is anything to eat at all today .

If you have no choice, you cannot choose “right”

Approximately 735 million people worldwide live in extreme poverty. Yet, many more have no real choice about what they eat because they lack access to a diverse diet. According to the 2023 UN World Food Report, around 2.4 billion people suffer from moderate or severe food insecurity . This means that almost a third of the world's population lacks regular access to safe, nutritious, and diverse food .

For these people, nutrition is not a lifestyle, not an ethical choice – but a daily struggle for calories, nutrients, and survival. Anyone who talks about what constitutes "real" or "good" food in this context overlooks the fact that freedom of choice is a privilege – and often a European one.

When nutritional ideals become life-threatening

A particularly sensitive example: animal products. In many countries in the global South, they are vital for survival – especially for children. Eggs, milk, and meat provide essential nutrients such as vitamin B12, iron, and high-quality protein, which are often difficult or unaffordable in a purely plant-based diet. Studies show that regular consumption of small amounts of animal products can reduce child mortality and prevent developmental deficits in underserved regions.

A globally transmitted nutritional ideology—such as veganism—can be not only pointless in such contexts, but dangerous. What is considered an ethical decision in Zurich and Berlin can pose a health risk in Bangladesh.

The colonial aftertaste of Western nutritional morality

Whether it's abstinence from meat, carbon offsetting, or superfoods: attempts to promote "correct" eating habits globally often have a colonial flavor. The idea that one can dictate how other cultures should eat overlooks their historical, ecological, and economic conditions – and reproduces power relations under moral pretexts.

Nutrition is always cultural. In many societies, certain foods are deeply woven into traditions and identities. When European voices dismiss these practices as "backward," "unsustainable," or "unethical," they not only miss the mark—they also undermine self-determination and respect.

What we really need: humility instead of dogma

Of course, we in Europe must take responsibility – for our consumption, our emissions, and our food system. But this cannot be achieved through moralizing or global regulations. Rather, it can be achieved through humility, reflection, and genuine solidarity.

Anyone who wants to help should listen. Anyone who wants to make a change should start at their own doorstep – without telling others what to eat. And anyone talking about nutrition should never forget: it's a privilege to be able to choose at all.

A personal word at the end

I myself was born in Switzerland. I grew up in a country where food doesn't depend on chance, but on choice—a luxury many people will never experience. This fact fills me with humble gratitude every day. I don't take it for granted . And that's precisely why I believe we should be very careful when we try to tell others—from the safety of our full refrigerators—what they should eat.