Eating differently - FCRN workshop on changing what we eat

Report
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
Food & the big picture: a convergence of concerns
Ag livelihoods 1.3bn
Feminisation of
agriculture
Land use change &
deforestation: agriculture
35% ice free surface
Economy & society
Post harvest employment –
processing → vending UK food
industry 7.3% GVA)
Population growth:
9-10 bn people by 2050
Livestock feed: 40% global grains
Undernutrition (850 mill) &
micronutrient deficiencies (2 bn)
Climate – agriculture @15-20% world GHG
Rural
economies
Energy use Biodiversity loss
Food system 20-30% GHG
emissions
Soil, water & air
pollution; salinity
Water
extraction
70%
irrigationrelated
Animal health &
welfare
Food
production &
consumption
Zoonotic diseases
Health
Environment
Power,
control,
equality
Ethics & society
Food safety
Overnutrition (fat & energy Chronic diseases:
dense) 1.4 bn
CHD, strokes,
diabetes, cancers
Culture & tradition
Models of
development
Public acceptability
& trust
Livestock & meat
The convergence converges….
Livestock & meat
Emit 14.5%
global GHG
emissions
Consume 40%
grains produced
Over 0.75bn
poor livestock
keepers
70% diseases
zoonotic in
origin
Meat, dairy &
nutrition: protein &
micronutrients – but
saturated fats and
energy
Occupy 70%
agricultural land
(1/3 arable land)
Main driver of
deforestation,
biodiversity loss
& land
degradation
Can recycle
residues &
utilise ‘leftover’
land
Major source
water pollution
Meat – culture,
Use 15%
tradition,
enjoyment
Ethics: Animal rights, irrigation water
animal welfare
Present & possible future influences on food system
Today
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Economic development
Population growth
Population ageing
Urbanisation
Changing cultural attitudes
& expectations
Weather & environmental
variability
Resource limitations &
competition
Cost of inputs
Food prices
China, India
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
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
Narratives around meat – what do we want?
Meat-excluding
More
behavioural
Plant
centred
eating
Artificial
meat
‘Grassfed
&
freerange’
Intensive
chicken
More
technological
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
Nordics
Sweden
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 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 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: 569–83
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: 10.1111/gcb.12160
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): e001072 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001072
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
Health & environment: an arranged marriage, not a love match
Sustainable but unhealthy
Healthy and sustainable
• 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
• 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
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
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
Making change happen
An amateur’s personal view on food and its
meanings
Nurture
Guilt
Entertainment
Neurosis
Pleasure
Need
Ritual
Food
Habit
Social glue
Satisfaction
Love
Status
Power
Comfort
Bribery
Religious significance
Time-pass
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
(Loosely) adapted
from Prime cuts,
FEC/WWF-UK, 2013
Affordability?
Cheap
intensive meat
Nutrition?
Low fat,
grassfed
Taste?
Whose taste?
Waste
minimisation?
Sausages,
pasties &
nuggets
Better
for
what?
Resource
efficiency?
Extensive
ruminants
2-for-1?
Dairy cattle beef as
byproduct
Landscape &
aesthetics?
Go for grazing
GHG
emissions?
Intensive
battery
chickens
Employment?
Need to look
along whole
supply chain
Animal
welfare?
(Probably) go
for freerange
Thinking about behaviour change
/ practice / consumption
Things that get said
Academics : nutrition,
environment, ag
Subsidies
economics,
international
Choice
architecture
development
Viral
marketing
Standards
Consumption
taxes
Changed
consumption
Labelling
Food
industry
AW, envt,
health NGOs
Bans
Production
taxes
Rationing
Planning
policies
Education
Mandatory Procurement
reporting
policies
Think
tanks
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)
Value frame
eg. Food producers, food manufacturers and retailers, and eaters (defined
variously as individuals, families, consumers, citizens)
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
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
Intervention
type
Education,
information &
awareness
raising and social
marketing
Example
Actors*
Product labelling,
media, viral marketing,
teaching; meat free
Mondays
Food industry
Producers;
NGOs, media,
food industry
teachers;
journalists
dieticians
Transition Towns
Changing the
choice
architecture
Gondola aisle offers & Food industry
store layout, canteen
layouts, opt-ins;
vegetarian meal deals
Individuals;
catering
buyers?
Shops,
conferences,
restaurants etc.
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.
Fiscal measures
(producer &
consumer
focused)
including pricing
production &
Government;
consumption
food industry
incentives/disincentive
s; personal carbon
budgeting. Carbon
trading
Food
producers
(farmers);
individuals
Will influence perceived
costs of
legitimacy
production and important
price of food in
stores,
restaurants etc.
Regulation &
legislation
(producer &
Public procurement
Government
specs; rationing; bans;
emission caps; planning
Food
producers,
retailers and
May be
introduced at
local
Target group
Context
Value frame Timing
SMs,
intrinsic and life stages,
workplaces,
extrinsic
eating
restaurants etc
occasions
community &
health centres,
times when
people are at
their most
unreflective
Will depend
upon
approach
taken
perceived
legitimacy
important
life stages;
pressure
points
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
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
People eat less meat but more refined, processed
Doughnut effect
carbohydrates
Blueberry effect
Sausages effect
People eat less meat but more high impact fruits &
vegetables
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.
Outcome
Lower GHGs but poor nutritionally and other
environmental downsides
Possibly good for health but potentially higher
GHGs
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 The impacts on the environment will be mixed,
impacts on health may be neutral or negative,
buy lower welfare meat instead.
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 No net benefit - impact swapping
farmers increase exports; or UK reduce production
but meat imports increase
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

similar documents