The Need for Sustainable Global Food Policy

INTRODUCTION

Today, the global food system has become a naturally complex web of consumers, producers, and policymakers, each with different set of ideas and priorities for the future of the industry. Nevertheless, despite diverging opinions, experts in the field all gravitate towards one conclusion: the current system is unsustainable. There are a plethora of issues present at the surface: the inability of the system to feed all people, a problem that will only grow with an increase in global population; unhealthy eating habits; inequitable distribution of nutrition and quality food; the negative impacts on the environment and climate change. Each of these systematic failures threaten a different range of agencies, but this paper will specifically focus on the matter of conservation and the attempt to reduce the massive ecological footprint of the food industry. The EAT-Lancet Commission summarizes the dire circumstances. "Agriculture occupies 40% of global land, and food production is responsible for up to 30% of global greenhouse-gas emissions and 70% of freshwater use. Conversion of natural ecosystems to croplands and pastures is the largest factor causing species to be threatened with extinction" (Willett et al., 2019, p. 3). This paper seeks to consider the validity of various theories, such as libertarian paternalism and or a reformist approach, to address climate change and provide a series of recommendations as to the future direction of the food industry.

Dietary Shifts

It is projected there will be just under 10 billion people in the world by 2050 (Willett et al., 2019, p. 2), which poses the question: how does an already insufficient food system grow to feed an additional three billion persons? Past agricultural growth has largely been met with technological improvements and increased crop yields, but in recent years this trend has slowed (Karlsson & Röös, 2019, p. 63). There exists an unprecedented risk of further expansion of agriculture in response to growing demand, yet farmland development is one of the greatest causes of biodiversity loss. Thus, in recognition of the potentially devastating effects on the environment, the question may be reframed as: how does the world more efficiently use pre-existing farmland? Livestock alone are estimated to account for 14.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions, while approximately half of the world’s agricultural area is used for feed production (Karlsson & Röös, 2019, p. 63). Due to metabolic losses in the ultimate conversion of energy from feed to livestock to consumable meat, global food availability would significantly rise if livestock rearing and meat production were to fall (Karlsson & Röös, 2019, p. 64). However, there are strong cultural associations with the consumption of animals, and this change would likely be difficult to implement on an environmental basis.

Studies have attempted to design a path to global meat reduction in diets, but to varying degrees of success and accuracy. Take for example the EAT-Lancet Commission, which consisted of contributions from thirty-seven individuals in various fields of human health, agriculture, political sciences, and environmental sustainability. The Commission set forth excellent goals regarding healthy diets and sustainable food production and attempted to conceive a universal standard diet almost entirely lacking in animal products (Willett et al., 2019). However, the article was subject to significant criticism, accused of overpromising on the health benefits of the diet (Knuppel, Papier, Key, & Travis, 2019) and not addressing issues of maternal and child malnutrition (Zagmutt, Pouzou, & Costard, 2019). A revolutionary approach towards dietary shifts remains doubtful, but small steps likely will, and must, be taken to further modernize and adapt the common diet.

Social Equity

The third primary criticism of the EAT-Lancet diet is the solution favored high-income countries and did not consider dietary affordability (Hirvonen, Bai, Headey, & Masters, 2020; Zagmutt et al., 2019). Adam Drewnowski (2020) found the cost of the diet ranged from “3% to as much as 73% of national income in some of the low-income and middle-income countries” (p. 7). He further mentions previous studies have indeed shown a direct link between dietary nutrient density and diet cost. The significant consumption gap between poorer and wealthier consumers adds a further complication to the creation of a global standard diet. If the purpose of such an exercise is to reduce the ecological footprint per calorie consumed, an equitable distribution of this burden of consumption reduction must be considered. Furthermore, the net impact of climate change on food availability will affect all aspects of the food chain, but particularly the production of food given its sensitivity to climate. Vermeulen, Campbell, and Ingram (2012) report “both models and empirical data suggest that there will be significant differences in impacts on food systems among different regions and between poorer and wealthier populations” (p. 215). This establishes a cruel paradox for low-income farmers: their livelihood is threatened by the climate side effects caused by their own industry and it is expected to have the gravest effects on the least fortunate.

The Swedish Example

Further complicating a global approach towards conservation in the food industry is the difference in effective policy by region. For example, a case study found the dietary choices of Swedish consumers have relatively little impact on the level of emissions in the country (Wallén, Brandt, & Wennersten, 2004, p. 529). Much of the lack of energy flexibility here can be attributed to the already stellar Swedish environmental policy; a large proportion of electricity is derived from renewable sources. Thus, the potential for emission reduction lies in a redesigned Swedish agriculture policy that specifically focuses on energy-efficiency in food production rather than emission-reduction. This is in stark contrast to many other developed economies, where consumer tendencies, particularly towards animal products, contribute significantly to supporting carbon dioxide intensive production processes. Nevertheless, Wallén et al. rightfully conclude the lack of general strategy towards climate change in the food production has left all facets of the global agricultural sector in dire need of improvement. The fundamental research question is: what aspects have the greatest possibility for positive change? The answers differ by region.

METHOD

This study is grounded in the analysis of journal articles and classroom discussions at the Stockholm School of Economics. Three articles were pre-assigned as readings, and the other twelve found online using the University of Pennsylvania Franklin database for research. Search requests frequently included terms such as “sustainability,” “greenhouse gas emissions,” “food,” “meat industry,” and “Swedish policy.” The results were typically filtered to be recent, written no later than 2010, and peer reviewed.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES

In 2003, economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein conceived the term "libertarian paternalism" and proposed it is both possible for a public or private institution to compel individuals to act in a certain manner, while remaining respectful of their freedom of choice (p. 127). The policy serves a bridge between laissez-faire economics and imperative regulation through the distribution of paternalistic "nudges" meant to guide, but not force, the consumer. Consider, for example, an opt-out system of enrollment, in which the user has full autonomy to un-enroll, yet this requires a second thought and additional effort. These simple deterrents effectively shepherd the common consumer, who sees little marginal difference between the two options, towards the preferred choice of the institution.

Sociologist Alan Warde notes the preferred response of many political elites to the climate crisis follows a similar format: rely on technological innovation and gradual consumer behavioral change, which relieves government of responsibility or initiative (2017, p. 182). The very nature of democracy, particularly during an increasing polarized political time, discourages policymakers from attempting to pass laws imposing sweeping change for fear of retaliation in future elections. Furthermore, many national populations are vehemently opposed to infringement of the freedom of choice, which challenges the possibility of food restrictions based on environmental concerns. Governments are left to small "nudges" to attempt to steer consumer decision making. Yet, the efficacy of such practice is questionable. Warde states, “it seems that solutions to the problems of sustainable consumption will evade us for as long as analysis is focused solely on consumption and consumers,” (2017, p. 204). Thus, the potential for substantial emission reductions lies not in exclusively attempting to guide individual choices, but perhaps in influencing the decisions of corporations and relying on policies to trickle down to the consumer level.

In their review of sustainable consumption research, Geels, McMeekin, Mylan, and Southerton (2015) consider such an approach, directing policy focus to both firms and consumers. Analysis thus far in the field has primarily yielded two generic positions: that of reformist and revolutionary. The reformist angle places emphasis on agency and choice, attempting to increase the efficiency of supply chains and the means of production, while encouraging consumers to make "green choices" through a blend of market incentives and libertarian paternalism. Priority is given to cost-effective solutions and a general faith in progress through technology and natural market trends. State recommendations would include support of eco-efficient production, environmental regulations such as emission standards, and measures to improve consumer knowledge and corporate transparency. While effective implementation of such a position can be seen globally, for example consider the rise in demand for LED light bulbs and electric cars, the reformist approach lacks urgency and is limited in its potential for necessary, drastic change. Alternatively, the radical revolutionaryconcept seeks to solve these issues by overhauling “deep structures” and abolishing capitalism and consumerism. The approach sets forth a plea for frugal purchasing and the support of local communities and food systems. The underlying theoretical inspiration comes from the neo-Marxist “treadmill of production theory,” which claims, “capitalism has an inherent tendency towards growth and expansion which (inevitably leads to environmental degradation)” (Geels et al., 2015, p. 5). Yet, this position involves extensive political complications and, similar to criticism of the EAT-Lancet diet, necessitates an affluent manner of purchasing.

Therefore, Geels et al. propose a third position, reconfiguration, which concentrates on transitioning socio-technical systems and daily life practices towards a more sustainable equivalent. Future constructions for transportation, electricity, heat, or food production should incorporate efficiency into their designs. This method of transition ensures the reconfiguration approach offers more sustainability potential than the reformist position but does not necessitate the abandonment of all familiar systems as with the revolutionary position. Several examples can be seen in the mobility domain, such as the production of cars with alternative power sources and a modal shift towards public transportation and cycling. It is important to note this approach follows the doubts shared by Warde of relying too heavily on individual consumer choices, and rather sees potential for innovation and change in firms, industries, and overarching societal mindsets.

CASE STUDIES

Sweden

In 2017, thirteen years after Wallén et al. concluded Swedish agricultural policy must be designed to address rising greenhouse gas emissions, a long-term food strategy was adopted in Sweden. The program focused on increasing resource and production efficiency, while attempting to adapt to changing climate of longer growing seasons and frequent extreme weather. Tälle et al. (2019) quickly reviewed and synthesized literature related to food production in Sweden and identified potential sustainability interventions and their effects across multiple different stakeholders. Perhaps the most important finding was simply nearly every sustainability measure possesses trade-offs. Consider organic farming: while there are neutral effects on climate change and the environment, animal welfare increases mirror production yield decreases (Tälle et al., 2019, p.10). Cattle grazing provides another case example, where greenhouse gas emissions are sacrificed for increased biodiversity in the environment.

The consumption of animal products is particularly troublesome in the Nordic region (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden), where it is approximately double the global average, and represents a potential area for energy and land-use optimization. A study by Karlsson and Röös (2019) considered how different utilizations of leftover streams – resources humans cannot or will not eat (e.g. grass biomass or food waste from processing) – affect livestock production, land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and nutrient flows in food systems. Two scenarios were compared: the sufficiency scenario (SY), where the livestock population was limited to the minimum number needed to graze all semi-natural grasslands in the Nordic region, and the efficiency scenario (EY), in which livestock population was allowed to naturally increase to match the full availability of leftover streams. Karlsson and Röös found utilization of all leftovers (EY) "led to increased total food output, and thus reduced land per diet produced" (p. 71). However, the increase in livestock production was not without consequences. The SY scenario had both "a lower climate and acidification impact per diet produced and also a better soil nutrient balance compared with the EY scenario, and per hectare the SY scenario performed better in all environmental impact categories" (p. 71). These examples of trade-offs are generalizable to other regions and contexts and are an important reason why environmental policy in the food sector has been so difficult to implement. Therefore, with so many policies and theoretical approaches possessing serious challenges in societal feasibility or public support, it is critical to focus on those policies which have few to none negative effects, thereby decreasing the potential for political opposition.

Food Waste

Food waste marks an excellent example of an environmental topic widely accepted as a major issue. Roughly "a third or more of global food production is lost or wasted" (Dorward, 2012, p. 463), indicating reducing food waste can have a substantial impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Stuart (2009) estimates cutting European food waste in half could lead to a reduction of 5% in total European greenhouse gas emissions and Chapagain and James (2011) estimate that avoidable household food waste in the U.K. is responsible for 3% of total emissions in the U.K (as cited in Dorward, 2012, p. 463). Food waste can be divided into two sectors, each of which present different issues and potential solutions: pre-consumer waste (e.g. manufacturing, processing, distribution and retailing of food) and post-consumer waste (e.g. households, post-purchase). Note each of these divisions have both embedded emissions, generated during the production of the wasted food, and emissions associated with waste disposal. Dorward's notes regarding food waste have been summarized in Table 1 below.

DISCUSSION

It is clear greenhouse gas emissions from food production and food waste differ by global region. In high-income countries, the postproduction stages of the food chain collectively emit a quantity of greenhouse gases equivalent to the production stages, however in middle to low-income countries, and hence globally, agriculture is by far the dominant source of emissions (Vermeulen et al., 2012, p. 215). There are two important conclusions to understand from this relationship. First, postproduction emissions appear to be the principal factor in emissions related to the food industry once production infrastructure, such as transportation or storage, reaches a standard threshold of quality (as seen in high-income countries). Second, given this relationship and without proper policy intervention, it would be foolish not to expect food industry emissions to significantly rise as more economies around the world develop. Hall et al. (2009) estimates in the United States, the increasing availability of cheap food has led to an increase by almost 50% in per capita food wastage; Gustavsson et al. (2011) further corroborates this research, showing food waste, particularly consumer waste, "increases with higher levels of economic development" (as cited in Dorward, 2012, p. 465). Therefore, it is crucial to specifically target global policy towards the production stages of low-income countries, and the postproduction stages of high-income countries. Following will be a brief list of effective policy measures this author believes should be implemented in the near future. Consideration has been given to both the potential for impact and the feasibility of such a policy.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Sustainable Labeling

Inform consumers of specific characteristics of products and enable them to differentiate the environmental performance of production systems. This would both promote sustainable market decisions in high-income consumers, while having an indirect effect of promoting efficient production systems of low-income countries. A case study of an orange juice supply chain found carbon labeling can effectively complement organic labeling to improve key emission hotspots outside the scope of organic labeling. Furthermore, product differentiation enables the producer to charge a premium price, offsetting the additional cost incurred when producing products under an environmentally conscious supply chain design. (Miranda-Ackermann & Azzaro-Pantel, 2017, p. 823).

Improve Sell-By Dates

Simplifying the use of “consume by,” “best before,” and “display until” dates on packaging would have next to no cost, yet both consumer and producer confusion over the use of different terms is a major reason behind food wastage. Scientific revision or implementation of national food safety standards (even supranational) would significantly decrease waste, while also resulting in economic savings for manufacturers and retailers.

Proper Disposal of Food Waste

There are several potential implementation mechanisms to achieve this goal, ranging from landfill taxes to encouraging efficiency in use as animal or biofuel feedstocks. However, it is important these policies are far reaching, and address both the household, with the elevation of composting to the same level as trash or recycling, and the retailer, where mass disposal of food waste can be directed in leftover streams for re-use, as observed in Sweden.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this essay was to identify potential changes, likely to be embraced by the food industry, that would be about positive change regarding the ecological footprint associated with food production and consumption. Agricultural priorities must be re-oriented from producing high quantities of food to more efficiently producing high quality food. It was concluded a hybrid theoretical approach to policy change, one that addressed the socio-technical systems while also considering daily life practices, would bring about the most positive change. Policy changes proposed attempt to encourage sustainable choices from consumers, proper disposal of food waste, and institute a trickle-down effect rewarding environmentally conscious choices in developing countries. It is anticipated behavioral change regarding food waste will be far easier to encourage than a dietary change. However, it remains to be seen whether a dietary shift becomes necessary, as the global food system faces increased demand pressures.

REFERENCES

Dorward, L. J. (2012). Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? A comment. Food Policy, 37(4), 463-466.

Drewnowski, A. (2020). Analysing the affordability of the EAT-Lancet diet. Lancet Global Health, 8(1), 6-7.

Geels, F. W., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., & Southerton, D. (2015). A critical appraisal of sustainable consumption and production research: The reformist, revolutionary and reconfiguration positions. Global Environmental Change, 34, 1-12.

Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D., & Masters, W. A. (2020). Affordability of the EAT-Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Global Health, 8(1), 59-66.

Karlsson, J. O., & Röös, E. (2019). Resource-efficient use of land and animals – Environmental impacts of food systems based on organic cropping and avoided food-feed competition. Land Use Policy, 85, 63-72.

Knuppel, A., Papier, K., Key, T. J., & Travis, R. C. (2019). EAT-Lancet score and major health outcomes: the EPIC-Oxford study. The Lancet, 394(10194), 213-214.

Miranda-Ackermann, M. A., & Azzaro-Pantel, C. (2017). Extending the scope of eco-labelling in the food industry to drive change beyond sustainable agriculture practices. Journal of Environmental Management, 204, 814-824.

Tälle, M., Wiréhn, L., Ellström, D., Hjerpe, M., Huge-Brodin, M., Jensen, P., … Metson, G. (2019). Synergies and Trade-Offs for Sustainable Food Production in Sweden: An Integrated Approach. Sustainability, 11(3), 601-623.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian Paternalism. The American Economic Review, 92(2), 175-179.

Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., & Ingram, J. S. I. (2012). Climate Change and Food Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 195-222.

Wallén, A., Brandt, N., & Wennersten, R. (2004). Does the Swedish consumer's choice of food influence greenhouse gas emissions? Environmental Science and Policy, 7(6), 525-535.

Warde, A. (2017). Sustainable consumption: Practices, habits and politics. Consumption: A Sociological Analysis (pp. 181-204). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.

Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., … Murray, C. L. H. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447-492.

Zagmutt, F. J., Pouzou, J. G., & Costard, S. (2019). The EAT-Lancet Commission: a flawed approach? The Lancet, 394(10204), 1140-1141.