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