1. Eating differently FCRN workshop on changing what we eat
Tara Garnett
Food Climate Research Network
Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food
22-23 April 2014

2. Food & the big picture: a convergence of concerns
Food production & consumption
Environment
Ethics & society
Health
Economy & society
Climate – world GHG
Biodiversity loss
Water extraction 70% irrigation-related
Soil, water & air pollution; salinity
Overnutrition (fat & energy dense) 1.4 bn
Undernutrition (850 mill) & micronutrient deficiencies (2 bn)
Food safety
Rural economies
Ag livelihoods 1.3bn
Culture & tradition
Animal health & welfare
Public acceptability & trust
Land use change & deforestation: agriculture 35% ice free surface
Feminisation of agriculture
Energy use
Food system 20-30% GHG emissions
Post harvest employment – processing → vending UK food industry 7.3% GVA)
Population growth:
9-10 bn people by 2050
Livestock feed: 40% global grains
Zoonotic diseases
Power, control, equality
Models of development
Chronic diseases: CHD, strokes, diabetes, cancers

3. The convergence converges….
Livestock & meat
The convergence converges….

4. Livestock & meat Occupy 70% agricultural land (1/3 arable land)
Emit 14.5% global GHG emissions
Consume 40% grains produced
Main driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss & land degradation
Over 0.75bn poor livestock keepers
Can recycle residues & utilise ‘leftover’ land
70% diseases zoonotic in origin
Major source water pollution
Meat, dairy & nutrition: protein & micronutrients – but saturated fats and energy
Meat – culture, tradition, enjoyment
Use 15% irrigation water
Ethics: Animal rights, animal welfare

5. Present & possible future influences on food system
Today
Tomorrow
All of today’s, but more acute
Plus…??
Regulations: national & international - influencing carbon, land, inputs, consumption
Resource pricing land, water, fuel etc (incl PES and carbon pricing).
Resilience issues: environmental and climatic change, extremes and variability, absolute scarcity
Reputational issues: driven by NGOs, media, policy
Randoms: extreme weather, technological breakthroughs, cultural tipping points, wars
Economic development
Population growth
Population ageing
Urbanisation
Changing cultural attitudes & expectations
Weather & environmental variability
Resource limitations & competition
Cost of inputs
Food prices
China, India

6. Evolving thinking on sustainable diets / sustainable & healthy diets

7. Within the context of broader narratives about the future of food
What future do we want?
“The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed”
William Gibson

8. ‘Grassfed & freerange’ Intensive chicken
Narratives around meat – what do we want?
Social, economic, commercial, political, biophysical influences
Meat-excluding
Plant centred eating
Artificial meat
‘Grassfed & freerange’
Intensive chicken
More behavioural
More technological
Meat-including

9. Advice on “sustainable” diets is not new
1971

10. But has proliferated rapidly….

11. Some more specific recommendations

12. Evolving policy.. embryonic initiatives, not always successful
Netherlands
Nordics
Sweden UK

13. Industry advocacy

14. Huge research interest
Biesbroek S et al. 2014, Reducing our environmental footprint and improving our health: greenhouse gas emission and land use of usual diet and mortality in EPIC-NL: a prospective cohort study. Environmental Health, 13:27 Saxe H (2014). The New Nordic Diet is an effective tool in environmental protection: it reduces the associated socioeconomic cost of diet, Am J Clin Nutr doi: /ajcn Westhoek et al (2014). Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake, Global Environmental Change Van Kernebeek et al (2014). The effect of nutritional quality on comparing environmental impacts of human diets, Journal of Cleaner Production xxx 1e-12 Pairotti et al( 2014) Energy consumption and GHG emission of the Mediterranean diet: a systemic assessment using a hybrid LCA-IO method. Journal of Cleaner Production xxx 1e10 Vanham et al (2013). Potential water saving through changes in European diets Environment International 6145–56 Briggs et al Assessing the impact on chronic disease of incorporating the societal cost of greenhouse gases into the price of food: an econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study, BMJ Open. Vieux et al (2013). High nutritional quality is not associated with low greenhouse gas emissions in self-selected diets of French adults, Am J Clin Nutr; 97: 569–83 Smith et al (2013), How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals?. Global Change Biology, 19: 2285–2302. doi: /gcb Aston et al (2012). Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study. BMJ Open; 2 (5): e DOI: /bmjopen Stehfest et al (2009) Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change, 95, 1–2. Friel et al (2009), Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gasemissions: food and agriculture The Lancet, 374: 2016–25.

15. And so, with these (enormous) provisos, can we define
Studies generally:
Define sustainability in environmental terms (often just GHGs)
Are rich-world focused
Ignore wider socio-economic context
Don’t consider other determinants of nutritional status
Don’t consider non-nutritional health implications of food
And so, with these (enormous) provisos, can we define

16. Good-enough / interim /partial Principles of environmentally sustainable and nutritious diets?
Diversity – a wide variety of foods eaten
In energy balance
Based around: tubers and whole grains (but not rice); legumes; fruits and vegetables - field grown and robust
Meat eaten sparingly if at all - all animal parts consumed
Dairy products or fortified plant-substitutes eaten in moderation & other calcium-containing foods consumed
Unsalted seeds and nuts included
Some fish and aquatic products sourced from certified fisheries, although less frequently than Eatwell advises
Limited consumption of sugary and fatty sweets, chocolates, snacks and beverages
Tap water in preference to other beverages

17. Health & environment: an arranged marriage, not a love match
Sustainable but unhealthy
Mainly grains (except rice), tubers and legumes
low in nutrient rich foods including fruits, vegetables and animal products
Low waste and energy but high risk storage and cooking practices
Healthy and sustainable
Low in animal products
Low in processed sugary foods
High in robust, field grown, seasonal vegetables & fruits
Rich in legumes and moderate in nuts
Occasionally fish from certified stocks
Food purchased is not wasted and cooked efficiently
Unsustainable and unhealthy
High in animal products
Low in vegetables and fruits
Low in grains and tubers
High in energy and fat dense, nutrient poor processed foods
High levels of food waste and inefficient cooking methods
Healthy but unsustainable
Moderate levels of lean meats
High levels of resource intensive vegetables and fruits (eg. air freighted produce and 'ratatouille' vegetables and salads produced out of season
Fish consumed from unsustainable stocks
High dependence on chilled produce
Inefficient cooking methods and high levels of waste

18. Making change happen

19. An amateur’s personal view on food and its meanings
Nurture
Entertainment
Neurosis
Pleasure
Guilt
Need
Ritual
Food
Habit
Satisfaction
Social glue
Love
Nurture and neurosis
Love and power
Time pass and religious significance
Habit and entertainment
Status
Power
Bribery
Comfort
Religious significance
Time-pass

20. The meat issue. Why is it difficult?
Not an ‘on-off’ issue
Culturally embedded
Taste
Masculinity Rozin et al (2012). “Is Meat Male? A Quantitative Multimethod Framework to Establish Metaphoric Relationships.” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (3): DOI: /664970; Rothberger H (2013). Real men don’t eat (vegetable) quiche: Masculinity and the justification of meat consumption. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, Vol 14(4), Oct 2013, doi: /a
Politicised & contested eg. animal rights & welfare
Different kinds of meat
Different ways of producing it
Multiple environmental & nutritional issues
The ‘less and better’ concept…BUT

21. Better for what? (Loosely) adapted from Prime cuts, FEC/WWF-UK, 2013
Nutrition? Low fat, grassfed
GHG emissions? Intensive battery chickens
Resource efficiency? Extensive ruminants
2-for-1?
Dairy cattle - beef as byproduct
Animal welfare? (Probably) go for freerange
Employment? Need to look along whole supply chain
Landscape & aesthetics?
Go for grazing
Waste minimisation? Sausages, pasties & nuggets
Taste?
Whose taste?
Affordability? Cheap intensive meat

22. Thinking about behaviour change / practice / consumption

23. Things that get said AW, envt, health NGOs Food industry Think tanks
Academics : nutrition, environment, ag economics, international development
Changed consumption
Bans
Standards
Consumption taxes
Production taxes
Rationing
Planning policies
Procurement policies
Mandatory reporting
Education
Labelling
Viral marketing
Choice architecture
Subsidies
AW, envt, health NGOs
Food industry
Think tanks

24. Ways of approaching the issue
Influenced by:
Ideologies & values
Disciplinary training
Sectoral lens

25. Actor (ie. change agent)
Categorisation lens
Example
Actor (ie. change agent)
eg. Farmers, food industry, media, public institutions, social network/group (eg. transition towns group, weight-watcher group) national, international and local level policy makers)
Target group (ie. group whose behaviour is to be changed)
eg. Food producers, food manufacturers and retailers, and eaters (defined variously as individuals, families, consumers, citizens)
Value frame
eg. Health, environment, animal welfare, coolness, parental instincts; or more generally: intrinsic values versus extrinsic motivations, altruism versus self interest; citizen vs consumer; individual fulfilment versus societal goals
Space & place
eg. Place of production - farm, factory; place of retail - shops; place of consumption - canteens, restaurants, home; place of confinement -schools, offices, hospitals, prisons; journey to work; location of food provision
Timing - life course
eg. Life stage - starting school, pregnancy, marriage, retirement
Timing - eating occasion
eg. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks, celebration meals, on the go eating
Intervention theory
eg. 4Ps of marketing theory, Defra’s 4 Es framework, Michie and West behaviour change wheel, Nuffield Ladder, Nudge
Transparency to end consumer
eg. Product reformulation (where the consumer may not even realise they are consuming differently) through to rationing
Coerciveness
eg. Education, pricing changes, regulation

26. Intervention type
Example
Actors*
Target group
Context
Value frame
Timing
Education, information & awareness raising and social marketing
Product labelling, media, viral marketing, teaching; meat free Mondays
Food industry NGOs, media, teachers; dieticians Transition Towns
Producers; food industry journalists
SMs, workplaces, restaurants etc community & health centres,
intrinsic and extrinsic
life stages, eating occasions
Changing the choice architecture
Gondola aisle offers & store layout, canteen layouts, opt-ins; vegetarian meal deals
Food industry
Individuals; catering buyers?
Shops, conferences, restaurants etc.
times when people are at their most unreflective
Enabling & supporting
Support groups Transition Towns increasing range of vegetarian foods in catering outlets; meat free Mondays
Employers, voluntary organisations, public institutions
Individuals; catering sector
work places, schools, community centres, health centres etc.
Will depend upon approach taken
life stages; pressure points
Fiscal measures (producer & consumer focused) including pricing
production & consumption incentives/disincentives; personal carbon budgeting. Carbon trading
Government; food industry
Food producers (farmers); individuals
Will influence costs of production and price of food in stores, restaurants etc.
perceived legitimacy important
Regulation & legislation (producer & consumer focused)
Public procurement specs; rationing; bans; emission caps; planning restrictions mandatory targets
Government
Food producers, retailers and Individuals
May be introduced at local government or national level

27. A hypothetical example in a SM context
Replace
Greater provision of vegetarian meals, promotion of fruit and vegetables, meat substitutes (e.g. veggie burgers)
Reduce
Adjusting portion sizes of carcass meat or in ready meals
Reformulate
Increasing the veg: meat ratio in composite meals
Rebrand
Promoting or refreshing products that are already vegetarian
Respect
Meat as a ‘Sunday-special’ or celebration food; promoting ‘nose to tail’ eating; “meat as flavouring/garnish.”
Reprice
Making vegetarian alternatives more attractive to shoppers

28. Thinking about interventions also need to bear in mind
Cross-transferability from other areas (eg. how far are successful interventions wrt drugs or driving applicable to food?)
Risk of perverse side effects

29. Intervention effect
Change in practice
Outcome
Doughnut effect
People eat less meat but more refined, processed carbohydrates
Lower GHGs but poor nutritionally and other environmental downsides
Blueberry effect
People eat less meat but more high impact fruits & vegetables
Possibly good for health but potentially higher GHGs
Sausages effect
Higher meat prices cause people to cut down on their meat spending but maintain quantity by eating less healthy meats such as sausages or fatty mince.
The impacts on GHGs are unclear; there will be benefits for resource efficiency; impact on health poor
Red to white effect
GHG oriented policies cause people to shift from red meat to white
Reduced GHGs, impacts on health and other environment mixed; potentially negative for AW
Meat-shoring effect
Higher meat prices lead to increased spending on meat (maintaining consumption) but reduced intakes of fruit and vegetables
Negative outcomes for health and for the environment.
Welfare effect
People maintain their levels of meat consumption but buy lower welfare meat instead.
The impacts on the environment will be mixed, impacts on health may be neutral or negative, impacts on welfare across many (not all) welfare indicators poor
Halo effect
People shift to a more sustainable diet but feel justified in buying that new iPad or flying off on holiday.
Impacts on health positive, impacts on environment depend on the substitute consumption practice
Leaky system effect
People in the UK consume a more sustainable diet but farmers increase exports; or UK reduce production but meat imports increase
No net benefit - impact swapping
Employment effect
People eat a more sustainable diet; livestock farmers go out of business and either remain unemployed or are employed in other sectors
Net health & environment impacts depend on a. health impacts of employment changes b. environmental impacts of substitute activity.

30. Workshop aims What do we know? What don’t we know?
Where do we know enough to justify action now?
Where is more understanding is needed?
What sort of research would help improve the evidence base needed for effective policy making?
Can we put all that in writing by the end of tomorrow?

31. Thank you