Presentation on theme: "Eating differently FCRN workshop on changing what we eat Tara Garnett Food Climate Research Network www.fcrn.org.uk Oxford Martin Programme on the Future."— Presentation transcript:
Eating differently FCRN workshop on changing what we eat Tara Garnett Food Climate Research Network Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food April 2014
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 Food & the big picture: a convergence of concerns Zoonotic diseases Energy use Population growth: 9-10 bn people by 2050 Livestock feed: 40% global grains Chronic diseases: CHD, strokes, diabetes, cancers Post harvest employment – processing → vending UK food industry 7.3% GVA) Feminisation of agriculture Models of development Power, control, equality Food system 20-30% GHG emissions
Livestock & meat The convergence converges….
Emit 14.5% global GHG emissions Main driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss & land degradation Consume 40% grains produced Occupy 70% agricultural land (1/3 arable land) Use 15% irrigation water Major source water pollution Livestock & meat Over 0.75bn poor livestock keepers Meat, dairy & nutrition: protein & micronutrients – but saturated fats and energy Ethics: Animal rights, animal welfare 70% diseases zoonotic in origin Meat – culture, tradition, enjoyment Can recycle residues & utilise ‘leftover’ land
Present & possible future influences on food system Today 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 Tomorrow Economic development Population growth Population ageing Urbanisation Changing cultural attitudes & expectations Weather & environmental variability Resource limitations & competition Cost of inputs Food prices China, India
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
Plant centred eating Artificial meat ‘Grassfed & freerange’ Intensive chicken Narratives around meat – what do we want? More technological More behavioural Meat-excluding Meat-including
Advice on “sustainable” diets is not new 1971
But has proliferated rapidly….
Some more specific recommendations
Evolving policy.. embryonic initiatives, not always successful Netherlands Sweden Nordics UK
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.
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
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
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 Health & environment: an arranged marriage, not a love match
Making change happen
Food Entertainment Neurosis Habit Pleasure Need Social glue Satisfaction Comfort Status Love Power Bribery Time-pass Nurture Religious significance Ritual Guilt An amateur’s personal view on food and its meanings
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
Better for what? 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 (Loosely) adapted from Prime cuts, FEC/WWF-UK, 2013
Thinking about behaviour change / practice / consumption
Things that get said Changed consumption Bans Standards Consumption taxes Production taxes Rationing Planning policies Procurement policies Mandatory reporting Education Labelling Viral marketing Choice architecture Subsidies Food industry AW, envt, health NGOs Think tanks Academics : nutrition, environment, ag economics, international development
Ways of approaching the issue Influenced by: Ideologies & values Disciplinary training Sectoral lens
Categorisation lensExample 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
Intervention type ExampleActors*Target groupContextValue frameTiming 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/disincentive s; 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 GovernmentFood producers, retailers and Individuals May be introduced at local government or national level perceived legitimacy important
ReplaceGreater provision of vegetarian meals, promotion of fruit and vegetables, meat substitutes (e.g. veggie burgers) ReduceAdjusting portion sizes of carcass meat or in ready meals ReformulateIncreasing the veg: meat ratio in composite meals RebrandPromoting or refreshing products that are already vegetarian RespectMeat as a ‘Sunday-special’ or celebration food; promoting ‘nose to tail’ eating; “meat as flavouring/garnish.” RepriceMaking vegetarian alternatives more attractive to shoppers A hypothetical example in a SM context
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
Intervention effectChange in practiceOutcome Doughnut effectPeople eat less meat but more refined, processed carbohydrates Lower GHGs but poor nutritionally and other environmental downsides Blueberry effectPeople eat less meat but more high impact fruits & vegetables Possibly good for health but potentially higher GHGs Sausages effectHigher 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 effectGHG 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 effectPeople 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 effectPeople 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 effectPeople 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 effectPeople 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.
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?