4Livestock & meat Occupy 70% agricultural land (1/3 arable land) Emit 14.5% global GHG emissionsConsume 40% grains producedMain driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss & land degradationOver 0.75bn poor livestock keepersCan recycle residues & utilise ‘leftover’ land70% diseases zoonotic in originMajor source water pollutionMeat, dairy & nutrition: protein & micronutrients – but saturated fats and energyMeat – culture, tradition, enjoymentUse 15% irrigation waterEthics: Animal rights, animal welfare
5Present & possible future influences on food system TodayTomorrowAll of today’s, but more acutePlus…??Regulations: national & international - influencing carbon, land, inputs, consumptionResource pricing land, water, fuel etc (incl PES and carbon pricing).Resilience issues: environmental and climatic change, extremes and variability, absolute scarcityReputational issues: driven by NGOs, media, policyRandoms: extreme weather, technological breakthroughs, cultural tipping points, warsEconomic developmentPopulation growthPopulation ageingUrbanisationChanging cultural attitudes & expectationsWeather & environmental variabilityResource limitations & competitionCost of inputsFood pricesChina, India
6Evolving thinking on sustainable diets / sustainable & healthy diets
7Within 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 influencesMeat-excludingPlant centred eatingArtificial meat‘Grassfed & freerange’Intensive chickenMore behaviouralMore technologicalMeat-including
14Huge 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.
15And so, with these (enormous) provisos, can we define Studies generally:Define sustainability in environmental terms (often just GHGs)Are rich-world focusedIgnore wider socio-economic contextDon’t consider other determinants of nutritional statusDon’t consider non-nutritional health implications of foodAnd so, with these (enormous) provisos, can we define
16Good-enough / interim /partial Principles of environmentally sustainable and nutritious diets? Diversity – a wide variety of foods eatenIn energy balanceBased around: tubers and whole grains (but not rice); legumes; fruits and vegetables - field grown and robustMeat eaten sparingly if at all - all animal parts consumedDairy products or fortified plant-substitutes eaten in moderation & other calcium-containing foods consumedUnsalted seeds and nuts includedSome fish and aquatic products sourced from certified fisheries, although less frequently than Eatwell advisesLimited consumption of sugary and fatty sweets, chocolates, snacks and beveragesTap water in preference to other beverages
17Health & environment: an arranged marriage, not a love match Sustainable but unhealthyMainly grains (except rice), tubers and legumeslow in nutrient rich foods including fruits, vegetables and animal productsLow waste and energy but high risk storage and cooking practicesHealthy and sustainableLow in animal productsLow in processed sugary foodsHigh in robust, field grown, seasonal vegetables & fruitsRich in legumes and moderate in nutsOccasionally fish from certified stocksFood purchased is not wasted and cooked efficientlyUnsustainable and unhealthyHigh in animal productsLow in vegetables and fruitsLow in grains and tubersHigh in energy and fat dense, nutrient poor processed foodsHigh levels of food waste and inefficient cooking methodsHealthy but unsustainableModerate levels of lean meatsHigh levels of resource intensive vegetables and fruits (eg. air freighted produce and 'ratatouille' vegetables and salads produced out of seasonFish consumed from unsustainable stocksHigh dependence on chilled produceInefficient cooking methods and high levels of waste
19An amateur’s personal view on food and its meanings NurtureEntertainmentNeurosisPleasureGuiltNeedRitualFoodHabitSatisfactionSocial glueLoveNurture and neurosisLove and powerTime pass and religious significanceHabit and entertainmentStatusPowerBriberyComfortReligious significanceTime-pass
20The meat issue. Why is it difficult? Not an ‘on-off’ issueCulturally embeddedTasteMasculinity 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: /aPoliticised & contested eg. animal rights & welfareDifferent kinds of meatDifferent ways of producing itMultiple environmental & nutritional issuesThe ‘less and better’ concept…BUT
21Better for what? (Loosely) adapted from Prime cuts, FEC/WWF-UK, 2013 Nutrition? Low fat, grassfedGHG emissions? Intensive battery chickensResource efficiency? Extensive ruminants2-for-1?Dairy cattle - beef as byproductAnimal welfare? (Probably) go for freerangeEmployment? Need to look along whole supply chainLandscape & aesthetics?Go for grazingWaste minimisation? Sausages, pasties & nuggetsTaste?Whose taste?Affordability? Cheap intensive meat
22Thinking about behaviour change / practice / consumption
23Things that get said AW, envt, health NGOs Food industry Think tanks Academics : nutrition, environment, ag economics, international developmentChanged consumptionBansStandardsConsumption taxesProduction taxesRationingPlanning policiesProcurement policiesMandatory reportingEducationLabellingViral marketingChoice architectureSubsidiesAW, envt, health NGOsFood industryThink tanks
24Ways of approaching the issue Influenced by:Ideologies & valuesDisciplinary trainingSectoral lens
25Actor (ie. change agent) Categorisation lensExampleActor (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 frameeg. 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 goalsSpace & placeeg. 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 provisionTiming - life courseeg. Life stage - starting school, pregnancy, marriage, retirementTiming - eating occasioneg. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks, celebration meals, on the go eatingIntervention theoryeg. 4Ps of marketing theory, Defra’s 4 Es framework, Michie and West behaviour change wheel, Nuffield Ladder, NudgeTransparency to end consumereg. Product reformulation (where the consumer may not even realise they are consuming differently) through to rationingCoercivenesseg. Education, pricing changes, regulation
26Intervention typeExampleActors*Target groupContextValue frameTimingEducation, information & awareness raising and social marketingProduct labelling, media, viral marketing, teaching; meat free MondaysFood industry NGOs, media, teachers; dieticians Transition TownsProducers; food industry journalistsSMs, workplaces, restaurants etc community & health centres,intrinsic and extrinsiclife stages, eating occasionsChanging the choice architectureGondola aisle offers & store layout, canteen layouts, opt-ins; vegetarian meal dealsFood industryIndividuals; catering buyers?Shops, conferences, restaurants etc.times when people are at their most unreflectiveEnabling & supportingSupport groups Transition Towns increasing range of vegetarian foods in catering outlets; meat free MondaysEmployers, voluntary organisations, public institutionsIndividuals; catering sectorwork places, schools, community centres, health centres etc.Will depend upon approach takenlife stages; pressure pointsFiscal measures (producer & consumer focused) including pricingproduction & consumption incentives/disincentives; personal carbon budgeting. Carbon tradingGovernment; food industryFood producers (farmers); individualsWill influence costs of production and price of food in stores, restaurants etc.perceived legitimacy importantRegulation & legislation (producer & consumer focused)Public procurement specs; rationing; bans; emission caps; planning restrictions mandatory targetsGovernmentFood producers, retailers and IndividualsMay be introduced at local government or national level
27A hypothetical example in a SM context 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 mealsReformulateIncreasing the veg: meat ratio in composite mealsRebrandPromoting or refreshing products that are already vegetarianRespectMeat as a ‘Sunday-special’ or celebration food; promoting ‘nose to tail’ eating; “meat as flavouring/garnish.”RepriceMaking vegetarian alternatives more attractive to shoppers
28Thinking 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
29Intervention effectChange in practiceOutcomeDoughnut effectPeople eat less meat but more refined, processed carbohydratesLower GHGs but poor nutritionally and other environmental downsidesBlueberry effectPeople eat less meat but more high impact fruits & vegetablesPossibly good for health but potentially higher GHGsSausages 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 poorRed to white effectGHG oriented policies cause people to shift from red meat to whiteReduced GHGs, impacts on health and other environment mixed; potentially negative for AWMeat-shoring effectHigher meat prices lead to increased spending on meat (maintaining consumption) but reduced intakes of fruit and vegetablesNegative 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 poorHalo 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 practiceLeaky system effectPeople in the UK consume a more sustainable diet but farmers increase exports; or UK reduce production but meat imports increaseNo net benefit - impact swappingEmployment effectPeople eat a more sustainable diet; livestock farmers go out of business and either remain unemployed or are employed in other sectorsNet health & environment impacts depend on a. health impacts of employment changes b. environmental impacts of substitute activity.
30Workshop 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?