Upload
maegan
View
39
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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 of Food 22-23 April 2014. Ag l ivelihoods 1.3bn. Climate – agriculture @15-20% world GHG . Rural economies. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Eating differentlyFCRN workshop on changing what we eat
Tara Garnett Food Climate Research Network
www.fcrn.org.uk Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food
22-23 April 2014
Food production & consumption
Environment
Ethics & societyHealth
Economy & society
Climate – agriculture @15-20% 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 systemToday
• 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
Evolving thinking on sustainable diets / sustainable &
healthy diets
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 new1971
But has proliferated rapidly….
Some more specific recommendations
Evolving policy.. embryonic initiatives, not always successful
Netherlands
Sweden
Nordics
UK
Industry advocacy
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:10.3945/ajcn.113.066746. Westhoek et al (2014). Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake, Global Environmental ChangeVan Kernebeek et al (2014). The effect of nutritional quality on comparing environmental impacts of human diets, Journal of Cleaner Production xxx 1e-12Pairotti 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 1e10Vanham et al (2013). Potential water saving through changes in European diets Environment International 6145–56Briggs et al 2013. 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: 569–83Smith 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: 10.1111/gcb.12160Aston 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): e001072 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001072Stehfest 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
foodAnd so, with these (enormous) provisos, can we define
Good-enough / interim /partialPrinciples 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
EntertainmentNeurosis
Habit
PleasureNeed
Social glueSatisfaction
Comfort
Status Love
PowerBribery
Time-pass
Nurture
Religious significance
RitualGuilt
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): 629-643. DOI: 10.1086/664970; 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, 363-375. doi: 10.1037/a0030379
• 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
BansStandards
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 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
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
perceived legitimacy important
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
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 effect Change in practice OutcomeDoughnut effect People eat less meat but more refined, processed
carbohydratesLower 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.
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?
Thank you
www.fcrn.org.uk