Meat Without the Animal?

Here is a TED talk to introduce my next topic: cultured meat. After speaking of GM crops as one of the  possible methods for future food production, I want to take have a look at another fairly controversial but promising vision for the future. Livestock production is one of the biggest contributors to the world's greenhouse emissions with estimates of as much as 18% (FAO, 2006) of all global greenhouse gas emissions (read more about the effects of meat production in my previous post). In vitro meat offers an environmentally sound, land effective way of producing meat (although hugely expensive at the moment). In addition, cultured meat would eliminate waste and crops that currently go to feed the livestock could be used for human consumption.

I will return to this issue in my next post but for now, have a look at this inspiring TED talk on how to produce meat and leather without the animal. Andras Forgacs (a Hungarian working in the United States) is an entrepreneur in tissue engineering and co-founder and CEO of Modern Meadow. His talk focuses mainly on producing leather but the same benefits come with producing meat. It is also argued that in order for people to be willing to eat cultured meat, tissue engineering and biotechnology will have to guarantee its safety, while wearing a wallet made out of cultured leather will be easier to do. Something truly innovative and worth thinking about!

Till next time,
Laura

Love Food Hate Waste This Christmas

Christmas is the time for family, home and delicious food. But whether we like it or not, Christmas also tends to be the most wasteful time of the year. The numbers are worrying! According to the Guardian's Environmental blog:

'We throw out the equivalent of 2 million turkeys, 5m Christmas puddings and a truly shocking 74m mince pies, according to the Love Food Hate Waste campaign run by the government's waste reduction advisory body, Wrap. To put it into context, that means we are binning nearly twice as many mince pies as retail giant Marks & Spencer sells every year (40m).'

Source and recipe for these cute Christmas pudding truffles made out of leftovers: http://england.lovefoodhatewaste.com

The campaign Love Food Hate Waste (read more about them from my previous post) wants to help us make the most of our Christmas meals and save money. Have a look at their pointers here: http://england.lovefoodhatewaste.com. They have instructions from Christmas Day to New Years Eve to make sure all our leftovers have a delicious recipe to go into. 

But most importantly, Merry Christmas to you all!

Till next time,

Laura

Genetically Modified Crops: Friend or Foe?

In my previous posts, I have mostly been talking about the environmentally destructive problems today's agricultural sector faces. It is now time to look at the future and what can be done to ease the burden the planet bears due to our eating habits and food production. This time I want to take on a widely controversial topic of genetically modified (GM) crops and their potential risks and benefits to our planet's health. I understand that biotechnology is a vast area of study and this blog cannot by any means cover all its ups and downs from ethical to socio-economic aspects. It is an interdisciplinary and complex issue and discussions about the future of GM crops have still not come to a conclusion. I will however try to understand whether GM crops can be a viable option for future food production in terms of its environmental impacts.

As time moves on, the world population is estimated to hit 9 billion in 2050 and we are desperate for ways to produce food in a more sustainable way ensuring higher yields and better nutrition to feed the world's population. GM crops have been considered as one of our promising options to reach our goals. If talking about genetic engineering and biotechnology, GM crops are considered as organisms whose characteristics have been deliberately modified 'by the manipulation of genetic material, especially DNA, and transformation of certain genes to create new variations of life' (Uzogara, 2000: p 180). There has been a longstanding debate between the advocators and the critics of GM crops. The proponents of GM argue that the benefits to humanity are limitless and that genetic engineering can be the answer to many of today's agricultural, health and ecological problems. They say the fear of GM crops is irrational and based on trade protectionism rather than realistic environmental and health concerns (Uzogara, 2000).

(Source:http://ecologyescapades.com)

One of the environmental concerns that GM brings along is the unintentional gene transfer to wild plants. Once genetically engineered crops are cultivated in the nature, they become harder to control and could easily cross-pollinate with wild species. This could lead to the creation of 'super-weeds': as GM crops incorporate a resistance to herbicide and insects, these characteristics could pass on to weeds that may become hard to eradicate. GM crops can therefore introduce invasive plants with potential to lower crop yields and the possibility of disrupted natural ecosystems (Uzogara, 2000).

A graph showing the global growth of biotech crops

(Source: James, 2011)

The graph above from a report on global status on commercialised GM crops shows the growth of biotech crops from 1996 to 2011 (James, 2011). Although biotech crops are becoming more common and are introduced all over the world, some critics still have their doubts. Some argue that due to the novelty of GM crops we also do not know how the new genes affect genetic diversity, nutritional values and health of humans (allergenicity) (Dale et al, 2002). Since 1996, GM crops have seen a dramatic rise in the United States, alongside with the increased health problems. But GM crops do not only affect humans (and animals) who consume them, they can impact the wider ecosystem as well. The new DNA sequence can enter the ecosystem by several means. For example, plant DNA becomes present in the soil as a result of decaying plant remains resulting in novel DNA make up in the soil (Dale et al, 2002). These small genetic alterations can lead to large-scale ecological changes. The impact of these novel DNA is largely dependent on whether it survives long enough to be transferred to other organisms (Dale et al, 2002).

Now let's look beyond the fears. If you look back a few posts, I addressed the issue of using agro-chemicals and pesticides in food production, linking them to their environmental risks. If you missed this post, here is a refresher. In addition to the potential of extended shelf-life and improved nutritional quality of GM crops, reduction in pesticide use is considered to be a benefit of genetic engineering (Phipps and Park, 2002). GM crops could be engineered to be weed and pest tolerant, leaving little room for pesticide use, leading to reductions in carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere. GM also increases the efficiency of nitrogen extraction from the soil by plants, leading to the decrease in need for fertiliser use. This eliminates the danger of wasted fertilisers leaking into waterways or evaporating to the atmosphere (Uzogara, 2000).

In addition, GM crops could introduce increased crop yields through reduced crop loss due to high-tolerance crops (to weeds, temperature, salinity and so on). GM crops would ensure an increased global food supply without losing further land to deforestation or peat destruction. 'Agricultural biotechnology will be particularly useful in land conservation in developing countries where valuable temperate and tropical forest lands are being converted to farmlands at an alarming rate' (Uzogara, 2000: p 197). To further consider the extended shelf-life of food products thanks to genetic engineering, food waste by supermarkets and individuals can shrink thanks to GM as well (you can read about impacts of food waste in my previous post here).

(Source: http://www.cooksbookblog.com)

Do you believe that introduction of GM crops will help the environment and the benefits overweigh the threats? Phipps and Park estimate that if 50% of maize, oil seed rape, sugar beet and cotton was grown as genetically modified crop, we would see a decrease of 7.5 million hectares sprayed, saving us 20.5 million litres of diesel and resulting in a reduction of approximately 73 000 tonnes of released carbon dioxide. Is that enough to overlook the risks of, as some like to call it, 'Frankenfood'? The polarisation of public debate around GM has led to huge losses in public goods, Potrykus (2013) argues in his paper published in Trends in Biotechnology. He points out that as a result of unjustified regulation, 'GMO product development is so expensive and time-consuming that it is beyond the capacity of public institutions and for public good'. Looking at the past 25 years of biotechnology research, Portykus finds no novel risk associated with transgenic plants. And if research is not enough, we have almost 17 years of practical experience incorporating 150 million hectares with no single documented case of harm related to GM crops. He takes the case of Golden Rice, genetically modified to be vitamin A rich compared to traditional rice. The invention could cure health problems related to vitamin deficiency in many countries with populations dependent on rice. However, due to tight regulation, the deployment of Golden Rice has taken 12 years, requiring up to USD 30 million, and is still largely debated and criticised.

The unknown threats to human health, biodiversity and ecosystems seem to raise still raise concerns about wide commercialisation of GM crops. Although research to date has not found any human health risk connected to GM crops, the public attitude remains negative and protected by rigorous regulation. In the longer run however, I believe that biotech regulation will start to ease and the GM crops will become a standard part of our food production (like we see it happening all over the world with the United States taking the lead (James, 2011)). If the modern food system continues in its current path (as the point of this whole blog), dramatic environmental consequences will follow.

Till next time,
Laura

Next Up: GM Crops

The next topic for my blog is GM crops and their viability for future food supply. In recent years, much of the world has been opposing GM crops from becoming commercially used. Here is a BBC Radio 5 conversation I found that mirrors the current mainstream attitude towards GM crops: Helen Wallace suggests there are better ways to improve nutrient efficiency in the future and opposes the 'golden rice'.

Before starting the discussion, I thought it would be interesting to think about the current mindset that the agriculture and policy sector has for GM crops. In the case of 'golden rice': after genetic modification, this rice contains more vitamin A than any other conventional rice, which can eradicate nutrient deficiency in many Asian and African regions. But why are so many people against it? What is your take on this?

(Source: http://www.npr.org)

I leave you with this thought and I will return next time to discuss whether GM crops can be a viable option for future food production in terms of its environmental impacts. The focus will be on its environmental costs and benefits as it is a highly controversial, multidisciplinary and complex topic and analysing all its aspects lies outside the scope of this blog. I will however try to figure out whether GM crops can be a beneficial and a sustainable farming method or are they as bad and dangerous as many (Greenpeace) want us to believe.

Till next time,
Laura

News on Nutella

Don't we all love Nutella? I am sure this speaks to all the Nutella lovers out there (starting with myself), but today I found an interesting piece that reveals all the countries that contribute to a single jar of Nutella. I have talked about food trade and how much energy is lost (and emissions released) with transporting our food all over the globe. But have a look at this: 

'Even though Ferrero International, which makes the stuff, is headquartered in Italy, it has factories in Europe, Russia, North America and South America. And while certain inputs are supplied locally—like, say, the plastic for the bottles or milk—many others are shipped from all over the world. The hazelnuts are from Turkey; the palm oil is from Malaysia; the cocoa is from Nigeria; the sugar is from either Brazil or Europe; and the vanilla flavoring is from France.'

(Source: http://www.howmanyarethere.net)

Seems like Nutella has the world covered and is a good example of popular foor products consumed today. Nutella has become a truly global product but let us look at the other side: can you imagine the emission toll behind one jar of Nutella? Not to mention 20% of it is palm oil from Malaysia. Ferrero International is now proudly part of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and is committed to 100% sustainable palm oil. Ferrero is actually one of the few companies that Greenpeace sees as going beyond RSPO and achieving its goals. But as Greenpeace says, RSPO is falling short in protecting rain forests and promoting truly sustainable palm oil. In fact, RSPO specifically protects primary forests, which can have different definitions in different contexts (the age or thickness of the forest). Neither is RSPO successful in effectively preventing peat destruction and carbon release in the process of introducing new plantations. Greenpeace is encouraging companies to go beyond RSPO in order to ensure sustainable palm oil supply. 

Here is the Nutella map of the world:

(Source: http://qz.com)

Just something I thought was worth sharing here and show the background of one popular food products in the world. Hope you will think about it next time you pick up a Nutella jar or make your Sunday night Nutella sandwich! 

Till next time,

Laura

Further on Palm Oil

In my last post I introduced the discussion around palm oil production and its negative impacts to the environment. Today I want to continue on the topic of palm oil and look further into how it is impacting our planet. Palm oil production has emerged as a controversial topic and there is literature for both for and against palm oil production. But despite my best efforts, I am seeing the extensive negative impacts of palm oil plantations more clearly than the positive ones. If you are interested, here is an article showing palm oil from a positive light by Lam et al 2009 (arguing that  palm oil is indeed the most economical and sustainable source of food and biofuel in the world market).

Let us go back to how palm oil plantations introduce land clearance and deforestation. Last week I mentioned the impacts of deforestation but this time I will look at peatland destruction. Globally, peatlands take up about 3% of the planet's land area but store up to 528 000 megatons of carbon. This makes up one third of total global soil carbon and is equivalent of 70 times the annual carbon release from fossil fuel burning (Hooijer et al. 2006).  Peatlands act as important carbon sinks and maintain the health of the global carbon cycle. In the past, peatlands were seen as unattractive for agriculture but in recent years, when deeply drained, peatlands have become suitable for palm oil production. Hoojier et al show evidence that Southeast Asia, the area of most intensive palm oil production, makes up 6% of total peatlands in the world. In Indonesia, 25% of its palm oil plantations are on peatlands, which means enormous amounts of carbon dioxide release occurring when these areas are dried and organic material is decomposed with contact to air (Tan et al. 2007). Looking at the paper by Tan et al. it becomes evident that even though some negative impacts like land loss and deforestation are overemphasised (some land for plantations comes from land previously occupied by cocoa or sugar), palm oil production has vast environmental and climatic impacts.

Peat and oil palm

(Source: http://understory.ran.org)

So far this blog has largely focused on the climatic impacts of emissions released by the food sector. Here I feel like it is time for a slight diversion from the main topic. Namely palm oil production has had extreme impacts on biodiversity and I feel like this deserves a mention. Fitzherbert et al. (2008) argue that palm oil plantations support fewer species than the forests that have been taken down in result and habitat much fewer other tree crops essential for providing habitat for local biodiversity. The result is decreased species richness as oil palm consistently hold fewer than half as many vertebrate species as primary forests. Due to changes towards lower plant species diversity and reductions in habitat structural complexity, fewer animal species are living in plantations. This leads to destruction of local ecosystems and possible excitation of species. If you are interested in biodiversity loss and habitat fragmentation (not only caused by palm oil), here is a good blog post for you to look at: at-the-edge-of-extinction.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/habitat-fragmentation (I encourage you to look beyond than just this post to understand biodiversity loss further).

A specific example of biodiversity loss is the case of orangutans in East Asia. Sumatran orangutans and Borean orangutans are under threat, they depend on natural forests for habitat and food. Natural habitat is being degraded due to plantation expansion and orangutan death rate has skyrocketed while birth rates are shrinking (Tan et al. 2007). Even after the clearing of the forests and introduction of plantations, confused animals tend to wander in their former habitats and end up being killed to protect the crops or for meat.

Sumatran orangutan rescued as the palm oil plantations close in

(Source: http://www.orangutan.com)

Palm oil itself is not necessarily climate damaging but the way it is produced, as presented earlier, can have vast environmental impacts. In efforts to move towards more ecological palm oil production, the roundtable on sustainable palm oil (RSPO) was established in 2004. RSPO operates around eight principles that promote sustainable palm oil production: transparency of management, compliance to local and international laws and regulations, responsibility in conservation of natural resources and many others. Boycotting all palm oil products just seems unrealistic and unreasonable, we just need a environmentally sound production process involving all stakeholders.

So what do you think? Do you see a future in sustainable palm oil production with no biodiversity loss, peatland destruction and deforestation? Do you believe that RSPO can actually achieve sustainable palm oil production or is it all just greenwashing? I leave you with a Greenpeace advert from a few years back raising awareness about KitKat using ecologically unsound palm oil in their products. It is a fairly disturbing and controversial way to raise awareness but it seemed to work, this video went viral in a few days after being posted in 2010. If you haven't already seen it yet, I warn you, it is not very pleasant.

Till next time,
Laura

Processed Food and the Curse of Palm Oil

If you think about it, most of our food today goes through some kind of processing at a particular moment in the production chain. Even fruits and vegetables are now delivered after serious processing- canned, frozen or made into a syrup. Even when fruits come in their 'original' form, a secret of processing may lie within. But so what? Doesn't this just enrich our choice at our local supermarket? In reality, many of the processed foods are actually dangerous for the health of us and out planet.

Food processing comes in different forms: altering the color, taste, smell, texture, nutrition, shelf-life or stability of food products. But most importantly, all processing alters the nutritional values of our food, often towards the negative. Reading for this post I stumbled across some very technical explanations of chemical reactions caused by for example peptides and amino acids in meat flavor additives (chapter 3 in Shahidi et al. 2004) and trans fatty acid components in processed meat and cheese (Willard et al. 1954). But don't worry, these technicalities are beyond the scope of this blog and my ability to comprehensively write about chemistry. It should be however noted, that trans fats are largely responsible for contributing towards coronary heart disease and with evidence to other cardiovascular problems (Katan et al. 1995). Adding trans fats to our meat (especially fast food) through added hydrogen increases the 'efficiency of the product' by prolonging shelf-life. In addition, pumping meats with trans fats enables us to get 'more' (quantity not quality) out of our food products. Each step of the way on the processing cycle heats our climate: processed foods require more energy than whole foods. From chemical fertilisers and synthetic additives to freezing and canning, these foods carry a higher energy need than whole foods.

(Source: http://foodindustrymakeachange.wordpress.com/)

But let us look at a more topical example that is more connected to environmental health: palm oil. Palm oil is found in products ranging from food to cosmetics and comes with vast social and environmental costs. Primarily used for production of biofuels, products like KitKat, PotNoodle, Clover butter and Kellogg's Crunchy Nut all recuire palm oil for production. The reality is that most of today's palm oil is produced in an unsustainable and often illegal way. Negative impacts of palm oil can come in many forms: biodiversity and ecosystem loss, increased greenhouse gases though deforestation and others

(Source: http://buypalmoilfree.com)

Let us first look at the way palm oil production impacts the greenhouse gas balance of the planet. Palm oil plantations emerging all over Southeast Asia come in exchange of tropical rain forests that traditionally have acted as carbon storage sinks (Wakker et al. 2004). Wakker et al. estimate that palm oil is 'set to become the world's most produced, traded, and consumed edible oil, considerable expansion of the oil palm area is expected in the next 20 years'. They show the expansion of palm oil plantations in Indonesia below:

Total area of palm oil plantations established in Indonesia

(Source: Wakker et al. 2004)

Palm oil plantations contribute towards deforestation and therefore carbon release both directly and indirectly. If plantations are introduced on forest areas, burning is often used to clear the land. This leads to spreading of forest fires that extend beyond the planned areas and contribute further to deforestation. Forest fires are not common in areas with tropical rainforest but in 1997-98, much of rural Indonesia was suffering under forest fires that affected a total of 6% of the country's landmass. With the fires, thick smog emerged, covering Indonesia and neighboring Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei (Wakker et al. 2004). Looking at how palm oil industry is predicted to expand, the impacts to the environment are not promising. There is however an increasing movement to promote sustainable palm oil production with sound ethical and ecological standards (Greenpeace and others), but vast deforestation is still going on. 

As palm oil is such an important ecological issue at the moment, I will return to it in my next post.

Till next time,

Laura

Eat Low Carbon

After having discussed how our diets need to become more environmentally sound (local, less meat intensive, free of food waste), I found this fun and interactive website that helps you with the transition. It is called the Low Carbon Diet, launched in 2007 by Bon Appétit Management Company, which is committed to decreasing emissions and raising public awareness on dietary choices. They have calculated specific food scores for many of the food products found in our kitchen. Food scores reveal the carbon dioxide equivalent emitted during the whole life cycle of the product- from fertilisers and processing to packaging and transport. 

For example, a typical cheeseburger has a food score of 2826 CO₂ points while a turkey burger is only 697 points. There are vegetarian choices that are even less, but simply switching from beef to turkey is more than 4 times better for the environment. In addition, they offer food tips that I have discussed in this blog already concerning food waste, meat consumption and food trade. An addition to the discussion is the impact of processed food, which will be the topic of my next post.

(Source: http://www.eatlowcarbon.org/)

Go and check out the website here: http://www.eatlowcarbon.org/! I encourage you to take their quiz on picking out the more carbon friendly foods, it can surprise you. I hope you enjoy it!

Till next time,
Laura

The Messy Dating Game

Following my previous posts on food waste and some discussion in the comments, I got to thinking: where do all those best-before labels come from and what is the regulation behind them? Is the best-before date really marking the safety of food? As one of the key factors behind domestic food waste, these  ideas are worth discussing.

'Here's a superbly-kept secret: All those dates on food products - sell by, use by, best before - almost none of those dates indicate the safety of food, and generally speaking, they're not regulated in the way many people believe. The current system of expiration dates misleads consumers to believe they must discard food in order to protect their own safety. In fact, the dates are only suggestions by the manufacturer for when the food is at its peak quality, not when it is unsafe to eat.' (NRDC, 2013)

(Source: http://www.nrdc.org/food)

We are used to seeing date labels on our food products and we have shaped our consumption habits around them. But we do not ask the important questions behind them and assume they represent the cut off date when they should no longer be in our refrigerators. In September 2013, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Harvard University published a report which looks at the role of food labels in consumer behavior in the United States. 

The report explains that the historical point of food labels was to indicate the food peak freshness and not its safety. The downside of this system is the failure of binding standards and no federal law to back it. Due to this, consumers have no way of knowing what these dates actually mean. Once the food has passed the best-before date, handling it will become legally complex and that is why most of the food is just thrown away (even though it is not unsafe). 

(Source: http://foodwastemovie.files.wordpress.com)

In order to put more meaning behind these labels, freshness and safety need to be separated from each other (like originally planned). The regulation behind labels must be transparent and available to consumers. The usual confusion comes from the use of best-before, sell-by or use-by labels on foods with no explanations.And lastly, the importance of storage temperature (rather than storage time) should be highlighted. The freshness and safety of food products is largely related to specific storage conditions, something that food labels cannot predict. 

Little changes in our consumer behavior can make a difference: if one third of the food in the world is wasted, every little helps. Here is a little guide on how to make the most out of your fridge by NRDC (click to enlarge):

(Source: http://www.nrdc.org/food)

Do you follow best-before dates and have they affected your consumer behavior? I have never fully trusted these labels and now I see why. 

Till next time,
Laura

Further on Food Waste

Following my last post on food waste, here is a piece I found by Todd Reubold:
'What if someone came to your house and threw every third meal – breakfast, lunch or dinner – in the trash before you had a chance to take a bite? You’d probably be pretty upset. Yet every day around the world that’s essentially what we’re doing. We’re throwing away nearly one-third of the food produced globally for human consumption.'

(Source: http://ensia.com/infographics/the-rotten-world-of-food-waste/)

Reubold graphically represents how much of our food is being wasted by product and by geographical location, showing some dramatic differences in food waste in between sub-Saharan Africa, Europe and North America. Per capita food waste in Europe and North-America is more than 12 times bigger than in sub-Saharan Africa!

(Source: http://ensia.com/infographics/the-rotten-world-of-food-waste/)

 In terms of solutions, the author suggest an improved management of production in developing countries and better communication between stakeholders in developed countries. In addition, raising awareness about the environmental and economic impacts of food waste is essential.Go have a look at the full infographic here: http://ensia.com/infographics/the-rotten-world-of-food-waste/ (and click on the pictures to see them more clearly!). Quite worrying right?

I leave you with truly inspiring and surprising TED video by Paul Sellew, 'the king of compost', emphasising on the problems that food waste brings to our world today (truly worth watching!). Composting can be a real engine for renewable energy and organic fertiliser in today's world, while being economically beneficial. It just needs cooperation of all stakeholders!

Till next time,
Laura

The Wasteful Epidemic

Think about the last time you went shopping for food. Did you end up consuming all of what you bought? If yes, then congratulations! Most of us however end up throwing away large amounts of what we buy. In fact, about one third of the food that is produced in the world for human consumption is wasted through various steps of the supply chain (Gustavsson et al, 2011). I have already argued in my previous posts that global food production is extensively fossil fuel intensive and a burden for the environment. If we take into account all the damage food production does to our planet, it is alarming to think that one third of that is for nothing! 

So where does all this waste go? One third of the world food production- that is about 1.3 billion tonnes! Every year, developed countries throw away almost as much food (222 million tonnes) that is equivalent to total food production in the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes) (UNEP, 2009). All this wasted food ends up most commonly in landfills, which are one of the largest sources of methane, a dangerous greenhouse gas. Combining the environmental damage occurred during the production of food waste with the emissions released during the disposal of it, we have ourselves a dangerous and destructive cycle of food waste.

(Source: http://www.consumercheckpoint.co.uk)

On a more scientific note, Grizetti et al (2013) just recently published a study that looks at how food waste contributes to nitrogen pollution. The authors took to account the nitrogen pollution that is released into air, water and soil and found out that 'food waste represents about 12% of the total nitrogen loss to the environment due to food production, with meat being responsible for about 50% of the emissions' (Grizetti et al, 2013). They also point out that 35% of the nitrogen emissions are pumped into the atmosphere and 65% into the planet's water systems. The threat to water systems due to nitrogen comes in the form of water eutrophication (caused mainly by nitrate)- the over-enrichment of water systems by nutrients. This can undermine water quality, reduce oxygen supply in the water system and cause biodiversity loss. In the EU, food and drink consumption is responsible for more than 50% of eutrophication. In fact red meat has the highest destructive eutrophication potential.

How water eutrophication looks like (water 'blooming') 

(Source: http://www.wri.org)

As the authors mainly focus on measuring the nitrogen pollution that results from food waste, they do offer a few suggestions for future action. It is suggested that in order to cut down on global food waste, better management within the food supply chain is essential. Steps of the supply chain like distribution, retailing and processing see large amounts of food being wasted before it even reaches the shelves of the supermarkets. This could be decreased by operating a short supply chain (locally produced) as transporting food adds on to the food waste figures. For example, a Dutch french fries producer admitted the need to throw away many of its potatoes even before production due to damages occurred during loading and transportation (Gustavsson et al, 2011). The other obvious way of reducing food waste is by changing people's habits. A recent attempt to change consumer behavior is the Love Food Hate Waste campaign that was launched in 2007, now operating all over the UK. It is a campaign to raise public awareness towards domestic food waste and to help people make most of their food. They give tips for appropriate storage, portion planning and recipes. Thanks to the campaign, food waste is now a topical issue in the media and considered as a real problem (Tesco's food waste in the news).

(Source: http://www.recycleforgreatermanchester.com)

In order to cut down on food waste, effort from consumers and suppliers is essential. Changing people's habits developed by consumerism can be a difficult task but as seen with Love Food Hate Waste, more attention is going towards the issue. But can you already see the links between other problems with the food sector: food waste, meat consumption and food trade? This is a topic that I will return to in future posts. For now, I leave you with a TED talk by Tristram Stuart who presents shocking data about the global food waste scandal and calls for a more responsible use of the planet's resources. Hope you enjoy it!

Till next time,

Laura

Shifting the Global Food Narrative

Today I stumbled upon an excellent piece published yesterday by Jonathan Foley about the future of food demand. In the next 40 years, food production needs to double to feed the growing population. However, global population is predicted to rise by 2 billion (about 28% increase from today). So how come do we need twice as much food? Foley suggests, with the help of a few others, that the nature of our diets is the main factor behind the increased demand, not the population growth itself. As more people in China and India are growing richer, their diets are becoming more meat and dairy intensive. Changing diets of the already wealthy North Americans and Europeans will go a long way in easing the pressure on global food systems. In addition, we need to make better use of the crops that we already grow, looking at both the supply and demand side. He also stresses the importance of improved soil nutrition and water availability in order to increase global crop yields. Instead of being obsessed with the 'Grow, Baby, Grow' mentality, we should be looking at another direction where we make more out of what we already have.

(Illustration by Glen Lowry at http://ensia.com/voices/changing-the-global-food-narrative/)

Foley writes: 'The new narrative might sound something like this: The world faces tremendous challenges to feeding a growing, richer world population — especially to doing so sustainably, without degrading our planet’s resources and the environment. To address these challenges, we will need to deliver more food to the world through a balanced mix of growing more food (while reducing the environmental impact of agricultural practices) and using the food we already have more effectively. Key strategies include reducing food waste, rethinking our diets and biofuel choices, curbing population growth, and growing more food at the base of the agricultural pyramid with low-tech agronomic innovations. Only through a balanced approach of supply-side and demand-side solutions can we address this difficult challenge.'

It is an excellent read and certainly an eye-opening view on the problem we are facing the global food system. You can read the article here:

http://ensia.com/voices/changing-the-global-food-narrative/

Till next time, 
Laura

Food trade- Can't We Just Swap Recipes?

Next time you visit your local Sainsbury's or Tesco, have a look at where all your everyday food comes from. You're right, large proportion of what we eat travels a long way before landing on our plate. Humans have traded food for thousands of years but in the last century, food trade is growing faster than ever expected. And all this to let us enjoy a wider consumer choice? Buying Danish cookies from supermarkets of the United States and enjoying American cookies in Denmark while these two meet somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic during their travel to consumers. Can't we just save the planet these transportation costs and simply trade recipes?

Between 1968 and 1998, world food production increased by 84% while world food trade increased a staggering 184% (NRDC, 2007). Food moves all over the world, some of it with good reason due to unavailable crop land but most of it just to tickle the consumer taste buds. Moreover, most of us don't even taste the difference! In my first post I mentioned that in 2008 (USDA, 2008), the United States exported 1.9 billion pounds of meat and veal and imported 2.5 billion pounds of the same. What do you think, did anyone taste the difference? We could just cut back in global meat swap without us even noticing! Besides the obvious waste of fossil fuels and increased damaging greenhouse emissions, global meat trade has another dirty side: all of this meat needs refrigerating. Can you imagine the amount of energy wasted on refrigerating the Kobe meat from Japan while it travels to the London upscale restaurants? 

The term 'food miles', coined in the UK in 1990s, is based on a fairly simplistic notion: the further your food has travelled in order to get to your plate, the more harmful environmental impacts it must bring. But do consumers really care? An interesting study by Kemp et al (2010) reveals that only 3.6% supermarket customers in the UK make conscious choices considering the origin of the product. The authors explain that food products are generally very low involvement purchases and very little consideration besides price and taste goes into the decision-making process. While other consumer durables from complex categories require careful attention, supermarkets have made it really easy for us to shop 'quickly' without really thinking what we buy. Stepping into the supermarket, we take our first taste with our eyes and rarely check the label for the origin.

A good example to illustrate the ridiculous extents to which today's food trade is willing to go to: Fiji Water. Have you not heard about it? This is natural Artesian water that is bottled in the Island of Fiji and then shipped across the Pacific to the United States and Europe. It is often more expensive than gasoline and bears enormous fossil fuel costs through transportation. The people behind Fiji often try to greenwash the water production as beneficial for the local environment and as an alternative to cutting down rain forests. I will leave you with a video in the end which tries to do exactly that and you can decide for yourself.

Fiji water has been welcomed with open hands in the United States with political figures like Obama and McCain openly promoting this 'coolest' water in the world. The popularity of Fiji water tells a sad story about our society's weakness to marketing. The bottom line is, this bottled water brings huge transportation costs and increases in emissions warming our planet. But somehow people are still happily drinking it. I leave you with a little 'greenwashing' Fiji video by Climate One, are you convinced?

Here are some more news and articles on Fiji Water. Despite their efforts to stay keep a low profile, Fiji Water has been a very controversial topic. Here you can also read about the conflict of tax rises in Fiji and find out more details about Fiji Water:

Some answers about Fiji Water

Fiji Water: So cool, so fresh, so bad for the environment?

Fiji Water: Where bottled water, money and ethics conflict

Have a nice reading week!

Till next time,

Laura

Flexitarianism

Having talked about the environmental dangers of meat consumption in my last post, I want to share with you some ideas that I support proposed by Raphaely and Marinova (2013) on meat consumption as a decarbonising strategy. Flexitarianism can be defined as reducing meat consumption from current averages to the recommended healthy levels (without having to give it up completely!). This approach offers an opportunity to effectively reduce environmental impacts as estimates show that a 25% decrease in meat consumption would lead to a 12.5% cut in greenhouse emissions. Not to mention the health benefits that would follow! Everyone knows the most popular decarbonising strategies out there today- renewable energy and sustainable transport, but how much does the public really know about the harm done by meat consumption?

Meat America by Dominic Episcopo

(Source: http://www.thecoolist.com)

In 2007, 275 million tonnes of meat came out of global meat production, a fourfold increase with only 50 years. Although meat consumption is a wasteful conversion of protein and therefore also a wasteful use of agricultural land, it has become an inherent part of the 'wealthy' diet and old habits are hard break. Raphaely and Marinova believe that promoting reducing meat consuption deserves the same public engagement and investment as renewable energy receives at the moment, if not larger. They propose that meat consumption should no longer be a free choice due to its environmental and social dangers. Other 'similar' products like alcohol, petrol and cigarettes already incorporate higher taxes in order to offset their negative externalities, why should we treat meat any different?

It also makes financial sense! Estimates show that in order to fight climate change by stabilising atmospheric gases will cost the global community about 40$ trillion by 2050. But if we could promote flexitarianism and get the public to shift their diets partly away from meat consumption by 2030, we could cut the cost down to 8$ trillion (Raphaely and Marinova, 2013). I agree with the suggestion on meat taxes and I do not see how it should be any different from other unhealthy (for both the environment and people). An interesting thought on a highly controversial topic.

Till next time,

Laura

Meat Crisis- Look Out For CAFOs!

Meat consumption has become to characterise our everyday diet and as more countries become wealthier, the hunger for meat is only expected to rise. In the past decades we have seen a move from small-scale ranches to multinational companies, sometimes called CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations). Livestock production is one of the biggest contributors to the world's greenhouse emissions with estimates of as much as 18% (FAO, 2006) of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Here I will make an attempt to explain the dirty secrets behind livestock production and suggest a few solutions to the problem in the heart of food production. Small scale solutions for this problem may hit very close to home but others may need a critical rethinking of the livestock industry. Keep reading and in the end I promise you a unexpected TED video, which may solve the world's problems all together (wait and see for yourself)!

Traditionally, and still in some parts of the world today, livestock have been integrated into diverse farms where they play an important part in the sustainable farm system (providing manure as fertiliser, grazing and muscle for farm work). Today however, these small sustainable farms have been replaced by multinational animal 'factories' (yes, they have lost all resemblance to farms), diverting us dangerously away from sustainable relationship between livestock humans and the planet. If we look at behind the scenes of livestock production, we see that this process damages the planet practically every step of the way. Let me explain you why.

Firstly, livestock takes up as much as 70% of agricultural land in the world and nearly all meat production occurs in CAFOs all over the world (Steinfeld et al, 2006) EPA defines CAFOs as facilities that confine animals for at least 45 days a year and do not raise their own feed. Globally, industrial livestock production is growing 6 times as fast as pasture-based (traditional) animal production. CAFOs bear a dramatic climate cost with them: fossil fuel energy dependency for heating, cooling, lighting, ventilating and dealing with waste. And these factories are not small scale organisations, far from it. One of the world's biggest meat packers Tyson Foods slaughters and packs 42.5 million chickens, around 170 000 cattle and 347 000 pigs per week(!).

Growth of population and meat supply

Source: UNEP, 2012

Another problem with today's industrial livestock production: feed. In CAFOs, livestock is taken off pasture and traditional feeds and put on diets of corn and soybean. Traditionally, animals would feed themselves on landscape types that are otherwise unusable for human consumption. In this process, animals would usually use up the energy stored in plants to fertilise the soil, creating a closed cycle where animals and nature co-exist (Garnett, 2009). Conventional livestock farming takes animals off pasture leading to a conflict of land and livestock production. In fact, in the United States, 80% of soy and two thirds of corn production goes to feeding animals and 36%  (Cassidy et al. 2013) of all calories produced on cropland will never end up on our table. People are only indirectly and insufficiently fed. This poses a huge inefficiency on industrial livestock production. The amount of calories consumed by livestock, only a fraction of that is returned to us humans as edible meat (Janzen, 2011). To my surprise I found out that CAFO cattle consumes as much as 16 pounds of grain and soy in order to deliver one pound of of beef back to us. Not a very efficient food system is it? To consider the irrigation and machinery required for growing feed for livestock, not to mention the land that is used inefficiently and experiencing deforestation, livestock production is a fossil-fuel intensive and harmful phenomenon for the planet.

The way CAFOs deal with waste is everything but sustainable. Traditionally, animal manure was not 'waste', it was a fertiliser for the farm cycle. Animal manure is often stored in manure holding tanks (they just don't know what else to do with it), where the microorganisms break down the organic matter without oxygen and get turned into methane, carbon dioxide and other gases. Neither of those gases are soluble in water and enter the atmosphere, warming our planet. In addition, manure runoff is an enormous problem for surrounding waterways, where it infiltrates through the soil and gets into freshwater storage (Reimer, 2006). Not to mention the soaring methane levels from livestock digestive systems since the emergence of CAFOs. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas in terms of trapping heat than carbon dioxide and it is estimated that globally, emissions from enteric fermentation make up a total of 27% of total methane (C2ES, 2009). But what does that mean in carbon dioxide terms? Let me present you with a (not-so)fun fact: a year's worth of methane emissions from an ordinary 200-cow dairy herd has the same carbon dioxide equivalence as you would attain by driving a Toyota Prius from New York to San Francisco and back 45 times (Thrope, 2009)!

But what about the future then? How can we feed the growing population and can we do it in a more sustainable way? Changes do not have to be dramatic to be effective. For example, switching from grain-fed beef to pork or chicken, there would be additional meat calories to feed another 357 million people while reducing diet related greenhouse gases by 40%. This is by simply eating less beef. Some more dramatic measures give us even more (maybe overly) optimistic results. If we direct all the calories currently consumed by the livestock and biofuels, there would be enough calories to feed an additional 4 billion people (Cassidy, 2013 for Ensia)! This however means a radical change in people's diets. But even small changes will go a long way. 

As promised, I end with a bit of a crazy TED talk by Marcel Dicke who 'wants us to reconsider our relationship with insects, promoting bugs as a tasty - and ecologically sound - alternative to meat in an increasingly hungry world'. Are you willing to switch from beef to grasshoppers? Never know until you try it!

Here is a little evidence that parts of the world already consider insects as a tasty treat. This photo is taken this summer in Vietnam, where streets and markets were full of different crispy 'delicacy'. Who knows, maybe that's where we are headed?

Market in KonTum, Vietnam, summer 2013.

Til next time,
Laura