1

Food and sustainability:

10 thoughts

Tim Lang

Centre for Food Policy, City University London

t.lang@city.ac.uk

&

Sustainable Development Commission‘What’s hot or not: the post Copenhagen menu’, Food & Drinks

Innovation Network, Staverton Park, January 27 2010

2

1. Macro food policy is ‘hot’ again • Copenhagen ‘failure’ not surprising• Climate change not key but part of a web• Food price spike 2006-08 neo-

Malthusianism– Too crude: implies need to produce more food– Desperate hope for new technical fix: GM + biotech

• Actually, there is enough …for now …but it’s– badly distributed / unequal / wasted

• Crunch issue is where to focus: production or consumption? Or both? Change diet or farming? What to grow & how? What to eat?

3

2. The progress is faltering

44

The C20th policy formula is under threat

(the Productionist paradigm)

Science + capital + distribution output cheaper food

health = progress

5

World food production, per capita 1960-2007

Source: FAO figs / Defra Food Pocketbook 2009 p35

6

Proportion of undernourished people, global, 1990-2007

Source: FAO SOFI 2008 p7

7

UK food production, 1988-2008

Source: FAO figs / Defra Food Pocketbook 2009 p37

8

3. Part of the problem is institutional failure

• Global:– UN (FAO/WHO/UNEP etc) vs Bretton Woods + WTO

• EU:– Silence / reticence by EC– CAP = the elephant in the room

• UK:– Marginalised in EU– No clear policy framework: ‘leave it to Tesco’ vs

rhetoric about plastic bags

9

Copenhagen exposed fragmentation

• State Companies Consumers• Weakness of EU structures

– CAP vs biofuels vs energy vs transport

• Legacy of Washington Consensus– Consumerism but consumers aren’t changing

fast enough– Huge cultural threats:

• meat = progress• More + cheaper = better

10

4. But there are signs of policy change

• E.g. UK food policy growth– BSE / FMD Curry Commission 2002– PMSU Food Matters Food 2030

• Devolved Administrations take the lead

• Stirring among EU MSs– NL, Sweden, UK

11

Sweden takes the lead?

• Offers evidence-based eco-nutrition guidelines (May 2009)

• Now submitted to the European Commission

• Joint work by National Food Administration & Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

• Other input (e.g. Swedish Board of Fisheries)

• Framed around eco-conscious consumers, rather than population

• Focus on key food groups• BUT PREMISSED ON:

- thoughtful consumers- voluntarism

12

• Policy Document on Sustainable Food: towards sustainable production and consumption of food http://www.minlnv.nl/portal/page?_pageid=116,1640321&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_file_id=39545

• Objectives– Stimulating sustainable innovations in the Dutch agrifood

complex– Enable and entice Dutch consumers to buy sustainable

(and healthy) food– Influencing the international agenda

• Approach: – voluntarism, information, innovation (GMOs),

productivity, etc

NL Ministry of Agriculture, Nature & Food Quality June 2008

1313

UK stirs into action? Two UK Cabinet Office 2008 reports

14

5. C21st food must face the New (& Old) Fundamentals

• Climate change

• Fuel / oil / energy

• Water

• Land use

• Biodiversity

• Labour

• Population (9bn 2050)• Urbanisation• Affluence (BRICs +)• Inequality • Nutrition transition• Healthcare costs• Waste

15

6. Knowing this, Industry is creeping into choice-editing

• This carries risks:– Not just reputational / brand risks but

ideological risks– Not nanny states but nanny corporations– Implies omniscience

• …but it is necessary– Packs aren’t big enough to put what’s needed

on the label

16

Less choice, more choice-editing?

Source: Lang, Barling & Caraher (2009) Food Policy, OUP

17

7. Notion of sustainable diets is going to be key battleground

• current corporate focus is ‘bottom-up’ ie on sustainable supply chains

• This is still productionist

• More attention now needed on sustainable diets

• = consumer / behaviour change

• = a more cultural focus

18

Fish: eat more, less, differently or none?

• YES (nutritionists) – long chain omega 3s / 2 portions a week (one

oily)– FSA, Eurodiet, WHO etc

• NONE or LESS (environmentalists) – Stocks running out– strong evidence: FAO (SOFIA), RCEP 2004,

Pew 2003

• DIFFERENTLY (eco-business)– Marine Stewardship Council, Organics, China

19

8. The nettle to grasp is the more complex world of ‘omni-

standards’ or ‘poly-values’• Multiple goals need to be built into supply

chains

• Focus on cost, convenience and safety will jostle with other values

20

‘Omni-Standards’ or ‘poly-values’, not trade-offs

Quality:• Taste• Seasonality• Localness (?) • Fresh (?)• Identity / authenticity

Social values:• Pleasure• Animal welfare• Working conditions• Equality• Cost internalisation• Trust

Environmental:• Climate change• Water• Land use• Biodiversity• Waste reduction

Health:• Safety• Nutrition• Access / affordability• Information & education

21

New ‘narrative’ emerging: eg. H2O per calorie (health)

source: Joanne Zygmunt / Waterwise 2007

22

9. The terrain of sustainable diets is emerging: SDC’s

work

23MSc Food Policy FPHE week 1 23

UK’s Sustainable Development Commission project 2009

• A scoping project – ie opening not final words• Taking issue across gov’t: DH, FSA, Defra, EA etc• Contracted to Oxford University BHF HPG• 3 processes:

– Literature review– Stakeholder consultation – Review existing positions & interventions

• Developed a hierarchy of priorities• Report done, consulted + Govt and sent to Defra

24MSc Food Policy FPHE week 1 24

Key findings• no def’n of ‘sustainable diet’ yet agreed but

stakeholders see need for one• Identified 10 key guidelines for sustainable diets• Reviewed 44 published academic research studies

and reports• Found more positive synergies (win-wins) than

tensions (win-lose) eg– Lowering consumption of low nutritional value foods

(fatty/sugary foods & drinks) has mainly +ve impacts on health, environment and reducing social inequalities.

• Found gaps in the evidence, most notably with respect to economic impacts of dietary changes.

• Produced a 3-level hierarchy of behavioural impact

25MSc Food Policy FPHE week 1 25

Identified existing UK framework guidelines

• Consume less food and drink

• Accept different notions of quality

• Accept variability of supply

• Shop on foot or over the internet

• Cook and store foods in energy conserving ways

• Prepare food for more than one person and for several days

• Reduce food waste• Reduce consumption

of meat and dairy products

• Reduce consumption of food and drinks with low nutritional value

• Reduce consumption of bottled water

26MSc Food Policy FPHE week 1 26

Changes where health, environmental, economic and social impacts are likely

to complement each other:

• Reduce consumption of meat & dairy products

• Reduce food & drink of low nutritional value (fatty, sugary foods + tea, coffee & alcohol)

• Reduce food waste.

27MSc Food Policy FPHE week 1 27

Changes likely to have a significant positive sustainability impact, but

where gains in one area might have a more negative impact elsewhere:

• Increase fruit & veg consumption, particularly seasonal and field grown

• Consume only fish from sustainable stocks

• Eat more foods produced with respect for wildlife & environment e.g. organic food

28MSc Food Policy FPHE week 1 28

Changes making smaller contribution to dietary sustainability, with largely complementary effects across issues

• Reduce energy input by shopping on foot or over the internet

• Cook & store food in energy conserving ways

• Drinking tap water instead of bottled water

29MSc Food Policy FPHE week 1 29

Reviewed practical initiatives

• Found 40 on sustainable food supply– Govt local food growing projects

• Assessed 12 for the breadth of sustainability • Only 3 initiatives had good sustainability scope• Few had adequately evaluated possible impacts• Some +ve moves towards consistency

– eg Healthier Food Mark for public sector caterers

30MSc Food Policy FPHE week 1 30

Recommendations include:

• DA(F) to oversee cross-Govt guidelines– Step 1: FSA Eatwell Plate become Sust Diet – Step 2: develop full sustainability guidance

• Defra, FSA, DAs – seek EU position– develop evidence on behaviour change

• Food Research Partnership explore ‘hotspots’ eg meat & dairy, fish, soy, palm

• Explore implications for consumer behaviour and supply chains

31

10. All this means costings will alter….

• Centrality of drive for cheaper food

• Selling more stuff/food delivers efficiencies

• Land use: not ‘food vs. biofuels’ but how to get multiple value from single land use

• What is farmed / grown How / what to eat

• Food policy and policy frameworks

• Culture and behaviour

• ALL THIS ….VERY FAST

32

Thanks!

t.lang@city.ac.uk