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