Eating differently - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Eating differentlyFCRN workshop on changing what we eat

Tara Garnett Food Climate Research Networkwww.fcrn.org.uk Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food22-23 April 2014Slide2

Food production &

consumption

Environment

Ethics & society

Health

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

l

ivelihoods

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 emissionsSlide3

Livestock & meatThe convergence converges….Slide4

Emit

14.5% global GHG emissionsMain driver of deforestation, biodiversity loss & land degradationConsume 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, enjoymentCan

recycle residues & utilise ‘leftover’ landSlide5

Present & possible future influences on food systemToday

All 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, wars

Tomorrow

Economic

development

Population

growth

Population

ageing

UrbanisationChanging cultural attitudes & expectationsWeather & environmental variabilityResource limitations

& competitionCost of inputsFood pricesChina, IndiaSlide6

Evolving thinking on sustainable diets / sustainable & healthy dietsSlide7

Within the context of broader narratives about the future of foodWhat

future do we want?“The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed” William GibsonSlide8

Social, economic, commercial, political, biophysical influences

Narratives around meat – what do we want?More technological

More behavioural

Meat-excluding

Meat-includingSlide9

Advice on “sustainable” diets is not new

1971Slide10

But has proliferated rapidly….Slide11

Some more specific recommendationsSlide12

Evolving policy.. embryonic initiatives, not always successful

NetherlandsSweden

Nordics

UKSlide13

Industry advocacy Slide14

Huge research interestBiesbroek 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-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: 569–83Smith 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.Slide15

Studies generally:Define sustainability in environmental

terms (often just GHGs)Are rich-world focusedIgnore wider socio-economic contextDon’t consider other determinants of nutritional status Don’t consider non-nutritional health implications of foodAnd so, with these (enormous) provisos, can we defineSlide16

Good-enough / interim /partialPrinciples of environmentally sustainable and nutritious diets?

Diversity – a wide variety of foods eatenIn 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 consumedDairy 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 beveragesSlide17

Health & environment: an arranged marriage, not a love matchSlide18

Making change happenSlide19

Food

Entertainment

Neurosis

Habit

Pleasure

Need

Social

glue

Satisfaction

Comfort

Status

Love

Power

Bribery

Time-pass

Nurture

Religious

significance

RitualGuiltAn amateur’s personal view on food and its meaningsSlide20

The meat issue. Why is it difficult?Not an ‘on-off’ issueCulturally embeddedTaste 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/a0030379Politicised & contested eg. animal rights & welfareDifferent kinds of meat Different ways of producing it

Multiple environmental & nutritional issuesThe ‘less and better’ concept…BUTSlide21

(Loosely) adapted from

Prime cuts, FEC/WWF-UK, 2013Slide22

Thinking about behaviour change / practice / consumptionSlide23

Things that get said

Food industryAW, envt, health NGOsThink tanks

Academics : nutrition, environment, ag economics, international developmentSlide24

Ways of approaching the issueInfluenced by: Ideologies & valuesDisciplinary trainingSectoral lensSlide25

Categorisation lens

ExampleActor (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 rationingCoerciveness

eg. Education, pricing changes, regulation Slide26

Intervention type

ExampleActors*Target groupContextValue 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 architectureGondola aisle offers & store layout, canteen layouts, opt-ins; vegetarian meal dealsFood industry  

Individuals; catering buyers?Shops, conferences, restaurants etc.times when people are at their most unreflective

Enabling & supportingSupport groups Transition Towns increasing range of vegetarian foods in catering outlets; meat free Mondays  Employers, voluntary organisations, public institutionsIndividuals; 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 pricingproduction & consumption

incentives/disincentives; personal carbon budgeting. Carbon trading Government; food industry

Food producers (farmers); individualsWill 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 GovernmentFood producers, retailers and IndividualsMay be introduced at local government or national level

perceived legitimacy important Slide27

Replace

Greater provision of vegetarian meals, promotion of fruit and vegetables, meat substitutes (e.g. veggie burgers)ReduceAdjusting portion sizes of carcass meat or in ready mealsReformulate

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 contextSlide28

Thinking about interventions also need to bear in mindCross-transferability from other areas (eg. how far are successful interventions

wrt drugs or driving applicable to food?)Risk of perverse side effectsSlide29

Intervention effect

Change in practiceOutcomeDoughnut effectPeople 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 vegetablesNegative 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 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 increase

No net benefit - impact swapping

Employment effectPeople 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.Slide30

Workshop aimsWhat 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?Slide31

Thank youwww.fcrn.org.uk