A recent study published in the journal Nature Food found that big meat-eaters in the United Kingdom (UK) reducing their meat consumption would be the equivalent of taking 8 million cars off the road.
Prof Scarborough, who is part of the Livestock Environment And People (LEAP) project surveyed 55,000 people who were divided into big meat-eaters, who ate more than 100g of meat a day, which equates to a big burger, low meat-eaters, whose daily intake was 50g or less, approximately a couple of chipolata sausages, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans.
While it is well-established that producing meat has a bigger environmental footprint than plant-based food, it has never been calculated in such detail before. “What makes this assessment different is that it takes real people’s diets and is based on the various production methods we have at the moment,” said Professor Susan Jebb, head of the Food Standards Agency and a world leading nutrition scientist at Oxford University, who was not involved in the research.
“The researchers have assessed at a much more granular level than has been done before the environmental footprint of what they are eating.” Their research shows that a big meat-eater’s diet produces an average of 10.24 kg of planet-warming greenhouse gases each day. A low meat-eater produces almost half that at 5.37 kg per day. And for vegan diets – it’s halved again to 2.47 kg a day.
Based on these data, authors concluded that: “[T]here is a strong relationship between the amount of animal-based foods in a diet and its environmental impact, including GHG emissions, land use, water use, eutrophication and biodiversity. Dietary shifts away from animal-based foods can make a substantial contribution to reduction of the UK environmental footprint.”
The authors of the UK study further noted that, “Uncertainty due to region of origin and methods of food production do not obscure these differences between diet groups and should not be a barrier to policy action aimed at reducing animal-based food consumption.”
Elsewhere it has been argued that reductions in emissions from livestock on the supply side through use of seaweed feeds might not reduce the sector’s overall carbon footprint if meat-eating continues to increase.” (Nature, Editorial, August 24, 2023).
A new US-based study published in journal Nutrients found that: “Disproportionate beef diets were consumed by 12% of individuals [based on NHANES data], but accounted for half of all beef consumed. Males were more likely than females (p < 0.001) to consume these diets… Older adults, college graduates, and those who looked up the MyPlate educational campaign online were less likely (p < 0.01) to consume a disproportionate beef diet. While almost one-third of reported consumption came from cuts of beef (e.g., steak or brisket), six of the top ten beef sources were mixed dishes: burgers, meat mixed dishes, burritos and tacos, frankfurters, soups, and pasta. Efforts to address climate change through diet modification could benefit from targeting campaigns to the highest consumers of beef, as their consumption accounts for half of all beef consumed” (Willits-Smith et al., 2023).
To add more plant-based meals in your diet, here are some simple, nutritious and meatless recipes from Stephanie Sacks, a culinary nutritionist:
Simple, nutritious, and delicious meatless recipes
Note: I have made this recipe omitting the ghee (first ingredient) and it was still excellent!
References
Scarborough, P., Clark, M., Cobiac, L. et al. Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts. Nature Food 2023, 4, 565–574. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w.
Buy one, get one free does not work for the planet. Tackle ever-growing consumption to safeguard sustainability gains. (editorial). Nature. 2023, 620. August 24, 2023. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02596-4
Willits-Smith, A, Odinga, H, O’Malley, K, Rose, D. Demographic and socioeconomic correlates of disproportionate beef consumption among US adults in an age of global warming. Nutrients 2023, 15, 3795. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15173795
A new review paper published in the journal Innovations in Environmental Sustainability outlines how agroecology can be used to tackle climatic, food, and ecosystem crises. “Agroecology has been proposed as a transformative approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation that reduces climate risk while supporting long-term productivity and resilience of food systems by applying ecological and humanistic principles.” It is a holistic systems approach to producing food, which incorporates social, economic, and political dimensions.
“Agroecological practices include landscape and farm diversification, intercropping, crop and pasture rotation, adding organic amendments, cover crops, and minimizing or avoiding synthetic inputs. Social dimensions of agroecology include co-creation of knowledge with farmers, participatory processes, nonwage labor relations, collective property, and management of resources, and addressing social inequities.”
Agroecology, is aligned with organic agriculture, ecological intensification, and diversified farming approaches, in emphasizing ecological processes to food production to support biodiversity, ecosystems, human health, and well-being for long-term resilience of food systems. And while organic agriculture includes many agroecological practices, agroecology includes more transformative approaches to the broader food system, including attention to political, sociocultural dimensions, markets and dietary change. See Figure 1. (Bezner Kerr et al., 2023)
Figure 1: Agroecolocial transformations in food systems as a holistic approach
Examples that show the synergistic results of agroecology in terms of climate adaptation and mitigation include agroforestry, organic matter management, integration of livestock and crops, and mangrove silvo-aquaculture systems. Agroforestry provides economic and environmental benefits such as diverse products and foods (e.g. wood and fruit), ecosystem services, livelihoods, household well- being, shelter for livestock and crops, and opportunities to mitigate climate change by sequestering carbon. Furthermore, global meta-analyses demonstrate that agroforestry typically stores more soil carbon than conventional agriculture, and reduces the spread of fire. (Bezner Kerr et al., 2023)
CorpoCampo: A forest-friendly açaí model that offers local communities and farmers sustainable livelihoods in Colombia.
The family-owned food company CorpoCampo (Amapuri) in Colombia specializes in the production and distribution of açaí berries* and palm hearts, with products derived from palm trees using agroforestry practices in the Colombian Amazon. The Colombian Amazon region has long been affected by Colombia’s internal conflict, leading to widespread poverty, violence, and illegal coca crop production. The goal of company founder Edgar Montenegro is to improve peoples’ lives by providing a legal and reliable source of income. He therefore only employs vulnerable Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities in areas affected by violence and poverty.
Açaí is a native species of the Amazon region. Corpocampo plants organic crops deriving from palm trees not as mono cropped systems but in agroforestry systems with Amazonian products. By establishing agroforestry systems with native species, Corpocampo contributes to the reforestation of the Amazon forest. Açaí and palm hearts, Corpocampo’s two staple products, only grow in the Amazon and Pacific regions.
After winning the 2018 Oslo Business for Peace Award (CorpoCampo CEO Edgar Montenegro) and joining the UN Development Programme’s Business Call to Action, CorpoCampo created a non-governmental sub-unit, sponsored by international donors: CorpoCampo NGO. In 2019, Corpocampo (NGO) was founded by local farmers that developed a successful business model around palm heart and açaí production. Corpocampo covers 72% of the domestic açaí market and 73% of Colombia’s açaí exports – reaching more than four countries.
Learn more about CorpoCampo CEO Edgar Montenegro at:
One of the main socio-environmental problems facing these areas is the loss of forest cover resulting from lack of sustainable alternatives. The main factors that promote deforestation are extensive cattle ranching (including illicit cattle ranching), illegal coca plantations, and illegal timber exploitation.
Through the implementation of rural development programs, CorpoCampo seeks to generate important social, environmental, and economic impacts. By promoting sustainable practices and endemic products, Corpocampo seeks to offer alternatives to improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of the Amazon and empower them to protect the environment.
Through the value chain of açaí and other Amazonian fruits, the protection of forests and the recovery of soils are promoted, through the establishment of agroforestry crops. Thus, CorpoCampo contributes to the conservation and construction of territorial peace. Here are examples of Corpo Campo’s current projects:
More than 2,000 hectares under Forest Management Plans, to guarantee a sustainable use of the açaí.
Establishment of agroforestry agricultural systems with 800 small farmers
CorpoCampo implements agroecological training that can help farmers manage the crop with techniques that are friendly to the environment and their budgets. Thirty-four percent of their current acai producers are women. Their long-term goal is to achieve a 60% participation rate by women. Currently, 4 indigenous communities are participating their programs.
By establishing sustainable agroforestry models, based on native fruit trees, Corpo Campo restores degraded soils in deforested areas. In this way, CorpoCampo offers local communities an economic alternative to improve their income, while helping to mitigate erosion processes and capture more C02.
Açaí berries*
Açaí is a type of fruit whose scientific name is Euterpe Oleracea. Açaí berries stand out for their antioxidant content. They contain pigments called anthocyanins that act as antioxidants.
For more information on the benefits of anthocyanins, see the review article titled, “The Therapeutic Potential of Anthocyanins: Current Approaches Based on Their Molecular Mechanism of Action (Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2020)
Bezner Kerr, R, Postigo, JC, Smith, P, et al. Agroecology as a transformative approach to tackle climatic, food, and ecosystemic crises. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2023; 62:101275.
“A study published in the journal PLOS Global Public Health by researchers from Europe and India used data from 42 countries to estimate global antimicrobial use at 99,502 metric tons (109,682 tons) in 2020. Nearly 60% of that occurred in just five countries: China, Brazil, India, the United States and Australia. Factoring in trends in food animal production and antimicrobial use, the researchers projected that antimicrobial use could rise to 107,472 metric tons (118,468 tons) by 2030 — an 8% increase.”
“Penicillin and other antimicrobial agents have long been used to beat back infections in livestock. But in recent decades farmers have increasingly been using such drugs to bump up healthy animals’ ability to grow bigger and produce milk by preventing infections and altering digestive tract bacteria in a way that makes more nutrients available to the animal. As a result, the use of antimicrobials has skyrocketed — and with it, the risk of microbes’ evolving resistance to them.”
“Demand for animal protein has been rising globally over the past decade. [1]. Meeting this growing demand has been facilitated by the expansion of intensive animal production systems where antimicrobials are used routinely to maintain health and productivity [2]. In 2017, antimicrobial use (AMU) in animals represented 73% of all antimicrobials used worldwide [3], and its use contributes to the rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) [4]. In animals, AMR can result in treatment failure [5], and thus represents a threat to the long-term sustainability of the animal industry. In humans, drug-resistant infections resulting from veterinary antimicrobial use remains challenging to quantify [6, 7] but may, for certain drug-pathogens combinations, pose a serious threat to human health [8, 9].”
“Monitoring global AMU is essential for tracking progress in addressing the causes of AMR. However, current initiatives are heterogenous across regions. In Europe, the harmonized Surveillance of Veterinary Consumption (ESVAC) report has been in place since 2005, and currently reports data from 31 countries in the European Union (EU) [10]. Outside of the EU, only 9 countries routinely publish national reports on AMU.
Since 2016, the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH, formerly the Office International des Epizooties) annually gathers data, on a voluntary basis, from up to 157 countries on their use of antimicrobial agents in animals [11]. However, prior to public release, the country-level data collected as part of these annual surveys is aggregated in five regions (Europe, Africa, Americas, Middle East, and Asia/Far East/Oceania).
Furthermore, the list of countries that contribute data on AMU within each region is not publicly available. As such, this unidentifiability of countries which report to WOAH, and the regional aggregation of national AMU reports, precludes establishing a truly global AMU monitoring system. Firstly, it prevents evaluating the effect of national policies and stewardship efforts on AMU levels. Secondly, the acknowledgment of countries that have successfully reduced AMU might be diluted at regional level if neighboring countries compensate with an increase in AMU. Thirdly, it prevents further epidemiological analyses, such as evaluating a country’s antibiotic footprint using national trade data, which would also benefit from AMU at a national level.
In the absence of national-level data, previous studies have utilised modelling approaches to extrapolate for non-reporting countries using usage data reported by countries for 2010, 2015 and 2017 [2, 3, 12]. However, AMU regulation and policy is a dynamic landscape. In 2021, for the first time, the population-weighted mean antimicrobial use (AMU) in food-producing animals was lower than in humans in the EU/EEA [13]. This reduction of AMU in food-producing animals could be explained by policies and stewardship efforts [14, 15].
For example, in Nordic countries antimicrobials can only be obtained by veterinarian’s prescription, who should follow guidelines on antimicrobial treatments of animals (when to treat, dosage, administration route etc.), and who are not allowed to make a profit from their sales [16], decentivising (over)use of antimicrobials. However, policies governing AMU in animal production in other continents still vary widely between countries [17]. Brazil—the largest meat exporter in the world—still largely lacks a legal framework on the use of antimicrobials [18]. In contrast, other major meat producers such as China have recently implemented strategies for reducing AMU and in 2017 banned colistin as a feed additive [19]. Therefore, global estimates of antimicrobial use in animals need to be regularly revised, and new trends must be interpreted in light of this ever-changing regulatory landscape.”
In this study, “Data on usage of antimicrobials in food animals were collected from 42 countries. Multivariate regression models were used in combination with projections of animal counts for cattle, sheep, chicken, and pigs from the Food and Agriculture Organization to estimate global antimicrobial usage of veterinary antimicrobials in 2020 and 2030. Maps of animal densities were used to identify geographic hotspots of antimicrobial use. In each country, estimates of antimicrobial use (tonnes) were calibrated to match continental-level reports of antimicrobial use intensity (milligrams per kilogram of animal) from the World Organization for Animal Health, as well as country-level reports of antimicrobial use from countries that made this information publicly available.
“Globally, antimicrobial usage was estimated at 99,502 tonnes (95% CI 68,535–198,052) in 2020 and is projected, based on current trends, to increase by 8.0% to 107,472 tonnes (95% CI: 75,927–202,661) by 2030. Hotspots of antimicrobial use were overwhelmingly in Asia (67%), while <1% were in Africa. Findings indicate higher global antimicrobial usage in 2030 compared to prior projections that used data from 2017; this is likely associated with an upward revision of antimicrobial use in Asia/Oceania (~6,000 tonnes) and the Americas (~4,000 tonnes). “
See the Figure below for a map of antimicrobial consumption per country in 2020 and 2030.
Figure. Antimicrobial consumption per country in 2020 and 2030. Circles are proportional to quantity of antimicrobials used. Red circles correspond to the quantity used in 2020, and the outer dark red ring corresponds to the projected increase in consumption in consumption in 2030.
The authors concluded that: “National-level reporting of antimicrobial use should be encouraged to better evaluate the impact of national policies on antimicrobial use levels.”
One Health Approach to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
Prime Minister Mottley of Barbados recently hosted the seventh Meeting of the Global Leaders Group on Antimicrobial Resistance, or AMR.
At this international meeting, it was articulated that, “To protect human, animal, planetary and economic health, we must address AMR head on through a One Health approach.”
One Health is an approach to designing and implementing programs, policies, legislation and research in which multiple sectors communicate and work together to achieve better public health outcomes. The One Health approach is critical to addressing health threats in the animal-human-environment interface (WHO, 2023).
The areas of work in which a One Health approach is particularly relevant include:
food safety
control of zoonotic diseases
laboratory services
neglected tropical diseases
environmental health
antimicrobial resistance.
As reported in a recent review article by Dr. Matthew Hayek, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at New York University (Hayek, 2022), “Infectious diseases originating from animals (zoonotic diseases) have emerged following deforestation from agriculture. Agriculture can reduce its land use through intensification, i.e., improving resource use efficiency. However, intensive management often confines animals and their wastes, which also fosters disease emergence. Therefore, rising demand for animal-sourced foods creates a “trap” of zoonotic disease risks: extensive land use on one hand or intensive animal management on the other.”
“Not all intensification poses disease risks; some methods avoid confinement and improve animal health. However, these “win-win” improvements alone cannot satisfy rising meat demand, particularly for chicken and pork. Intensive poultry and pig production entails greater antibiotic use, confinement, and animal populations than beef production. Shifting from beef to chicken consumption mitigates climate emissions, but this common strategy neglects zoonotic disease risks.” Preventing zoonotic diseases requires 1) international coordination to reduce the high demand for animal-sourced foods, 2) improvement of forest conservation governance, and 3) selectively intensifying the lowest-producing ruminant animal systems without confinement.” (Hayek, 2022)
“Now, as we look down the road to the UN General Assembly 2024 High-level meeting on AMR, there are three key areas in which we can accelerate action.” The three areas include:
One, making the economic case for fighting AMR.
The many impacts of AMR damage the global economy. The Global South is hit hardest. If decision makers understand the costs, they can be motivated to act.
Two, pushing R&D on prevention.
While R&D is needed to advance the antibiotics pipeline, prevention is key. Stronger engagement with industry and specific regulatory changes can boost R&D on keeping antimicrobials effective, rather than just racing to stay ahead of resistance with new drugs.
Three, increasing funding.
More coordinated action needs increased and predictable funding. The Bridgetown Initiative to reform the international development financial architecture can make a positive difference to developing nations. Opportunities are being explored through the GEF and the Pandemic Fund. Other ways to mobilize funding include realigning incentives, public-private collaboration and eliminating harmful subsidies in agriculture. (WHO, 2023)
References
Mulchandani R, Wang Y, Gilbert M, Van Boeckel TP. Global trends in antimicrobial use in food-producing animals: 2020 to 2030. PLOS Global Public Health 2023;3(2): e0001305. https://lnkd.in/g-wWCAyi
“Demand for food products, often from international trade, has brought agricultural land use into direct competition with biodiversity. Where these potential conflicts occur, and which consumers are responsible is poorly understood.” In a recent study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) (2023), by combining conservation priority maps (CP) with agricultural trade data, researchers estimated the current potential conservation risk hotspots driven by 197 countries across 48 agricultural products (Hoang et al., 2023)
“The study ranks which commodities are sourced from regions with high priority for conservation. While previous studies have quantified the carbon, land, and water footprints of the agriculture industry, the threats to biodiversity and ecosystems from farming are poorly understood and thus often omitted. The new results are expected to assist with the formation of policies that protect biodiversity while preserving global food security.” (Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2023)
The authors found that: “Globally, a third of agricultural production occurs in sites of high CP (CP > 0.75, max = 1.0). While cattle, maize [corn], rice, and soybean pose the greatest threat to very high-CP sites, other low-conservation risk products (e.g., sugar beet, pearl millet, and sunflower) currently are less likely to be grown in sites of agriculture–conservation conflict.” Furthermore, the authors’ analysis suggests that a commodity can cause dissimilar conservation threats in different production regions.” (Hoang et al., 2023)
Beef, rice and soy biggest footprint
“The international research team, with members from Norway, the Netherlands and Japan, divided agricultural areas into four tiers, based on their conservation priority, from lowest to highest. They then determined which individual agricultural commodities were produced in these different priority levels. See Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. The map shows the land use and conservation priority index for major agricultural commodities. The grid cells are colored according to the dominant crop grown, and the intensity of the color, from lighter to darker shades, indicates the conservation priority of each cell. Credit: Hoang et al. 2023
“The researchers found that about one-third of all farming occurs in areas that were considered highest conservation priority. One pattern that emerged was that some staple commodities, such as beef, rice, and soybeans, tended to be produced in high conservation priority areas. At the same time, other substitutes, such as barley and wheat, were predominantly sourced from lower risk areas.”
“A surprising takeaway for me was how much the impact of the same crop can vary based on where it is sourced from,” said Daniel Moran, a senior scientist at the Climate and Environmental Institute NILU and a research professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s (NTNU) Industrial Ecology Program who was also a co-author of the study.
Beef and soybeans, for example, are grown in high conservation priority areas in Brazil but not in North America. Similarly, wheat is grown in lower conservation priority areas in Eastern Europe than in Western Europe.” (Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2023)
International trade a factor
“Coffee and cocoa are primarily grown in high conservation priority areas in equatorial nations, but these cash crops are largely consumed in richer nations like the United States and members of the European Union, the researchers’ model showed. At the global level, China, with its high demand for multiple commodities, has the biggest influence on food production in high priority conservation areas.”
“The study also illustrated how different nations can have sharply different biodiversity food footprints. The United States, EU, China, and Japan all depend heavily on imports to satisfy their demand for beef and dairy. In Japan, more than one-quarter of the beef and dairy consumed in that country comes from high conservation priority areas. For the other regions, that number is closer to just ten percent.”
“That suggests there are opportunities to change the biodiversity footprint of food consumption by simply changing our sourcing of food products,” said Kanemoto.
“While it’s well known that cattle, soybean, and palm oil are farmed in high conservation priority areas, the study found that other commodities, including corn, sugarcane, and rubber, are also problematic and deserve more attention from policymakers.” (Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2023)
Effects of climate change
“The changing climate is expected to alter both cropping patterns and available habitats. The research team used their model to look at different scenarios to see how the interaction between wild biodiversity and farming would change under predicted 2070 temperatures.
Species are likely to colonize new territories in a warmer world, which could result in the emergence of new high conservation priority areas or mitigate conflicts in current conservation hotspots.”
“While the researchers did not produce a detailed map forecasting future conflicts between agriculture and conservation, the paper’s supporting information offers some estimates of future competition under a range of scenarios.
“Our spatial approach is a valuable complementary method with other standard techniques to evaluate the impact agriculture has on biodiversity. The knowledge gained from our study should help reduce the trade-off many nations associate with agriculture production and environmental protection,” said Kanemoto. “It fills in a big missing piece in the footprint of food.”
“Our lifestyles are causing alarming damage to the atmosphere and water supplies. Farmers and governments worldwide are seeking policies that sustain prosperity while minimizing irreversible harm to the environment. Similar sustainable development policies are needed for agriculture. The calculation of detailed footprints for food and other farmed commodities is crucial to support these policies,” Moran said.” (Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2023)
On the planet’s current trajectory, emissions from food systems alone will exceed 1.5°C between 2051-2063. A new report from the Food Systems Partnership – Pathways for food systems transformation – calls for food and agriculture to be central to global climate dialogue and negotiations. The report was launched on the fourth day of the Bonn Climate Change Conference (SB58) (8 June 2023), and is expected to lay the groundwork for the negotiations at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai later this year. See Figure 1 below for an overview of the six critical pathways needed for food systems transformation.
Figure 1: Six critical pathways for food systems transformation
Adopting a food systems approach
“The update to the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture negotiated at COP27 saw, for the first time, the inclusion of the term ‘food systems’ in the final text.” The Bonn Climate Change Conference (SB58) established itself as the next milestone in the run up to the Global Stocktaking moment and COP28, where Parties and non-party stakeholders can accelerate a food systems approach to address interconnected climate, health and economic challenges.
“The WWF [World Wildlife Fund] submission on the updated Sharm-El Sheikh Joint Work on Agriculture (the successor to the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture) makes the case for anchoring a food systems approach in the Joint Work and provides a series of arguments for how embedding such an approach would help in delivering its objectives.” By adopting a food systems approach, The Food Systems Partnership calls on the outcomes of the SB58, COP28 and beyond to support the role of food systems in achieving climate targets through the proposed ‘Six critical pathways for food systems transformation.’
“The Pathways report synthesizes key findings from national action plans, analysis of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and assessments from leading food organisations including WWF, the Global Alliance for the Future of Food and the Food and Land Use Coalition. While there has been a positive trend in the recognition of food systems as part of national climate solutions, the studies reveal that most countries are yet to realize the full potential of including and implementing action on food systems in their climate strategies and action plans. “
“Despite food and agriculture being recognized as the largest sources of environmental degradation, there is no mention of food or food systems in any of the four Global Goals for 2050 outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework launched at CBD COP15 in November last year.”
Within the report, various countries are highlighted in the different pathways necessary for food systems transformation. Pathway 1: Enhance – collaboration and inclusion across all parts of our food system (Colombia and Canada), Pathway 2: Enable – a transition to healthy, nutritious and sustainable diets for all (Costa Rica), Pathway 3: Embrace – agricultural reform and nature-positive production (Liberia), Pathway 4: Increase – action against food waste and loss (The Gambia), Pathway 5: Transform – financial mechanisms to support sustainable, equitable food systems (Germany) and Pathway 6: Champion – consistent, accurate monitoring to track global progress on implementation.
Pathway 6: Champion
Numerous parties including national governments and the private sector must CHAMPION consistent, accurate monitoring and reporting to track global progress on implementation of food system transformation.
“There are presently a number of challenges around accurately measuring and conveying progress on the implementation of country NDCs [Nationally Determined Contributions], and therefore global efforts to monitor food systems emissions and stay within the critical threshold of 1.5°C. One key component is that emissions associated with imported food products represent a considerable portion of a country’s ‘attributable’ GHG emissions, yet remain unaccounted for in policy or decision-making. As it stands, no country’s NDC fully accounts for emissions associated with food imports. Policy change in relation to ‘offshoring emissions’, tracking externalities, and accounting for the environmental, social and health impacts of food systems policies and practices requires new mindsets, tools and methodologies.
“We know that food systems transformation is already happening with positive climate, health and socio-economic impacts, and this work needs to feature more deliberately in action plans. Consistent, accurate ‘stocktaking’ provides valuable evidence of how local, regional, and national food systems initiatives are contributing to climate action, nutrition security and health, as well as resilience, biodiversity restoration, and economic empowerment.” COP28 will be a key milestone, both to recognize progress and achievement and to provide momentum and focus for the next phase of action on food systems.
May 22nd is the International Day for Biological Diversity. This year’s International Day for Biological Diversity is an especially significant one. “To Build Back Biodiversity, we must move from Agreement to Action.” We must implement the Framework and deliver on the promises for 2030 that are encapsulated in its 23 targets.
Much must be done if we are to address the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss:
All governments must not only develop their national targets but put in place the laws, policies and programmes necessary to achieve them.
Businesses need to assess and disclose impacts and pivot towards sustainable practices.
The efforts of indigenous peoples and local communities in protecting biodiversity must be recognized and protected.
We all need to reduce waste and shift to more sustainable consumption.
And we need to raise the necessary finance to facilitate these actions, reform subsidies and align major investment flows with the goals and targets of the Framework.
“We need a whole-of-government, whole-of society approach. Everyone must be engaged. Everyone must be involved.”
Here are seven steps you can take to protect biodiversity every day: 1) buy organic and sustainably-produced foods whenever possible; 2) eat a sustainable diet (e.g., vegan, vegetarian, planetary health diet, flexitarian); 3) reduce food and packaging waste; 4) reduce, reuse, and recycle; 5) use environmentally-friendly cleaning products; 6) reduce use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers – research shows that organic agricultural practices are best at protecting pollinators; and 7) start composting. Protecting biodiversity is also important for addressing climate change and creating climate resilience in the food supply.
22 May 2023: International Biodiversity Day: From Agreement to Action: Build Back Biodiversity. Conventional on Biological Diversity. May 2023. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/article/idb2023
Rigal S, et al. Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2023;120 (21) e2216573120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216573120
Wintermantel, D, Odoux, J-F, Chadœuf, J, Bretagnolle, V. Organic farming positively affects honeybee colonies in a flower-poor period in agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol. 2019; 56: 1960– 1969. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13447
Romain C. Ekroos J, Henrik G. et al. Organic farming supports spatiotemporal stability in species richness of bumblebees and butterflies. Biological Conservation, 2018; 227: 48 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.08.022
Today, April 26th 2023 is Stop Food Waste Day! It’s easy for you to get involved with reducing food waste – not just today – but everyday, using three easy strategies:
Prevent, Inspire and Repurpose:
Prevent food waste at source by storing food optimally, making use of every edible part of the ingredient and planning meals ahead of time.
Inspireothers to waste less, and repurpose more.
Repurposefood by redistributing any surplus to your local community, or by giving a second life to ingredients that most commonly go to waste.
Last year the Compass Group and its Stop Food Waste Day partners created an Stop Food Waste Day Digital Cookbook, featuring recipes from over 50 Compass chefs across nearly 40 countries. The cookbook makes it easy to create meals which give a ‘second life’ to ingredients that most commonly go to waste. This year there is a Second Edition of the Stop Food Waste Day Digital Cookbook, which includes new recipes such as “leftover bread casserole from Austria, wonky vegetable enchiladas from Mexico, and stuffed potatoes with vegan Bolognese from Spain.”
You can download the Second Edition Stop Food Waste Day Digital Cookbook here:
Finally, you can use these 10 quick tips to cut down on your food waste:
Plan ahead and shop smart
Use a shopping list or take a photo of what’s in your refrigerator and pantry before going to the supermarket/grocery store or farmers’ market).
Keep a food waste diary
See the FAO (2021) publication titled Your Guide to Living Free of Food Waste for more information on how to keep a food waste diary.
Keep fruits and vegetables fresh longer by not washing them until you are ready to use them.
“Too much moisture on produce can cause premature decay and send food to the trash. If you get a particularly dirty batch of potatoes or other fruits and veggies, you can still give them a good wash if they’re dried completely before being stored.”
Cook with leftovers
Consult the new cookbook by Tamar Adler titled The Everlasting Meal Cookbook: Leftovers A-Z (2023)
In The Everlasting Meal Cookbook, Adler “offers more than 1,500 easy and creative ideas to use up nearly every kind of leftover—and helpfully explains how long each recipe takes. Now you can easily transform a leftover burrito into a lunch of fried rice, or stale breakfast donuts into bread pudding. These inspiring and tasty recipes don’t require any precise measurements, making this cookbook a go-to resource for when your kitchen seems full of meal endings with no clear meal beginnings in sight. Organized alphabetically and filled with foods across the spectrum—from applesauce to truffles and potato chip crumbs to cabbage—this comprehensive guide makes it easy to flip through so you can find a use for all types of unused food.”
Revive limp kale and other leafy greens
Grow your own herbs in a kitchen garden
Freeze leftover herbs
Use the “first in, first out” (FIFO) principle
Try picklingvegetablessuch as cucumbers, onions, cauliflower, beets and even fruits
Blend up the extras from fruits and vegetables into a nutrient-dense smoothie.
According to Kearney’s annual Earth Day Survey (2023), “The environment is increasingly playing a role in purchasing decisions, with 42% of consumers stating they always or nearly always consider it. This figure, the highest on record, was an 18 percentage point increase from the prior year. The report also said the cost of more environmentally friendly products is becoming less of a barrier. When asked what prevents them from buying products with sustainability claims, 46% of consumers said the cost was a primary factor, a decline of four percentage points from 2022 and seven percentage points from 2019.” (Casey, 2023)
Kearney’s new Earth Day survey of 1,000 US consumers saw awareness of the environmental impacts of their food choices significantly increase since their last survey. Figure 1 [see below] shows that 42 percent of 2023 respondents reported always or nearly always considering environmental impacts when making a purchasing decision, a historic high and an 18 percentage point increase over 2022. “ They observed that “This is a clear signal that our observation last year that ‘climavorism’ was growing from the “consumer fringe” to the heart of the mass market is becoming a reality.” (Kearney, 2023)
“Kearney said ‘climavorism’ — which it defines as “actively making food choices based on climate impacts with the intent to benefit the planet” — is less sensitive to price. The survey of 1,000 consumers found cost is “decreasing as a barrier to purchasing products claiming environmental benefits,” despite persistent inflation across food categories.” Keaney’s 2023 Earth Day survey also reported that consumers believe that producers and food manufacturers should be the most responsible for faster adoption of environmentally-friendly food choices” (Kearney, 2023). Among the 42% of consumers who said food producers should bear the responsibility, 54% said food manufacturers should play the largest role, compared to 25% for grocery stores and retailers.” (Casey, 2023)
A study published in the journal Nutrients titled “Modern Diets and the Health of Our Planet: An Investigation into the Environmental Impacts of Food Choices” (2023) reported that:
“The diets found to have the lowest environmental impacts were the vegan, climatarian, and Mediterranean diets. These low-carbon-footprint diets can likely be attributed to a reduced reliance on ruminant meat (cattle and sheep) and processed food consumption, while diets with high carbon footprints are more dependent on ruminant meat and saturated fat. Moderate consumption of meats such as chicken, pork, and fish in conjunction with an emphasis on locally grown fruits and vegetables can be maintained without adversely affecting the planetary carbon footprint and with the added benefit of promoting good health. Thus, making simple substitutions within each individual’s diet can be advertised as an effective approach to collectively lower the environmental impact in tandem with improving health and longevity.” (Dixon et al., 2023)
Four Scenarios for Rapid Adoption of ‘Climavorism’
Based on its 2023 survey results, Kearney proposes “Four scenarios for rapid adoption of climavorism” which include:
Scenario A: “A soybean a day keeps the apocalypse away”
Scenario B: The long clammy arm of the legislator is grabbing your plate”
Scenario C: “Capitalism anyone?” and
Scenario D: “Mother Earth called, and she isn’t happy with us.”
Learn more about all four of these four ‘climavorism’ scenarios at:
With regard to Kearney’s Scenario A, “A soybean a day keeps the apocalypse away,” be sure to pay close attention to the details in this proposed scenario. Why?
As reported by Forest 500, a project of Global Canopy (Thomson & Fontes, 2022), the vast majority of the world’s soy produced globally is used for animal feed, so it is a hidden ingredient in meat (e.g., poultry and pigs), fish, and dairy products. Harwatt et al. (2022) and Ritchie & Roser (2021) reported that 77% of soy production is used for animal feed. Ritchie & Roser also point out that “Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh.” (Ritchie and Roser, 2021). Thus, if you don’t want to contribute to the ‘soybean apocalypse’ then consume soybeans in a form that is meant for human consumption and not those soybeans that are produced for use as animal feed. The bottom line: to contribute to sustainable food systems, consume most of your soy in the form of soy milk, tofu, tempeh, miso, edamame, soy nuts, and other soy products meant for human consumption.
The Role of Government in Promoting ‘Climavorism’
Recently, “The Danish Climate Council, an independent adviser to Denmark’s government, has recommended a reduction in meat consumption to help the country meet its climate goals.”
“The council said that two-thirds of the meat consumed by Danes should be replaced by plant-based foods, and suggested that the products with the highest carbon footprint should be taxed. A 33% tax is recommended for beef, which is one of the most high-emission foods.”
“The advice was published as part of an annual review, aimed at helping Denmark achieve its legally binding target of a 70% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 (compared to 1990 levels). According to the Danish Climate Council, annual emissions could be cut by up to 3.9 million tons of CO2-equivalents if everyone reduced their meat consumption by the suggested amount. In Denmark, consumption of animal-based foods is more than twice the global average.” (Vegconomist, 2023)
On a more positive note, in 2021, “over half of Danes were said to be looking to eat less meat. The same year, $90 million in subsidies were earmarked for Danish farmers producing plant-based foods, with the aim of aiding the transition to a more sustainable food system.” (Vegconomist, 2023)
Dixon, K.A.; Michelsen, M.K.; Carpenter, C.L. Modern diets and the health of our planet: An investigation into the environmental impacts of food choices. Nutrients2023, 15, 692. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15030692
“Growing edible mushrooms alongside trees can produce a valuable food source for millions of people while capturing carbon, mitigating the impact of climate change,” according to a new study that was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The approach not only reduces the need for deforestation to make way for crops, but it also incentivizes tree planting.
“There is currently a significant global issue of land-use conflict between forestry and food production and, as a result, net loss of forest area remains high at some 4.7 million hectares per year, according to data for 2010 to 2020. Demand for agricultural land is the biggest driver of global deforestation and this is forecast to accelerate.
Analysis by Professor Thomas at The University of Stirling found that the cultivation of edible ectomycorrhizal fungi (EMF) in forests may sequester up to 12.8 tons of carbon per hectare annually and produce a nutritious food source for nearly 19 million people per year.
Professor Thomas said: “We looked at the emerging field of mycoforestry, where fungi that grow in symbiosis with living trees are used to create a food crop from new tree plantings, and we found that production of fungi using this system can lead to a very significant sequestration of greenhouse gas.”
“This is a huge benefit which means that by producing this food we can actively help mitigate climate change. When we compared this to other major food groups, this is the only one that would result in such benefits – all other major food categories lead to a greenhouse gas emission during production.”
Photo: Growing edible mushrooms alongside trees can produce a valuable food source for millions of people while capturing carbon, mitigating the impact of climate change, a new study by University of Stirling scientists has found (Ben Birchall/PA) (PA Archive)
Professor Thomas observed that: “We calculate that if this system was combined with current forest activities, the food production levels could be huge. If it had been used in forestry that has taken place during the last ten years, we could have produced enough food to feed 18.9 million people annually.”
“For China alone, their forestry activity for the last ten years could have put in place a food production system capable of enough calorific output to feed 4.6 million people annually.”
“Professor Thomas said the technology is emerging and much more needs to be done to realize these benefits. He has called on researchers to join the field and for support from relevant agencies.”
He added: “This food production system is highly scalable, realistic and a potentially powerful route to sequester greenhouse gas. It would help with biodiversity and conservation globally, triggering rural socio-economic development and providing an incentive for increased tree planting rates with all the associated benefits that brings.”
Thomas PW, Jump AS. Edible fungi crops through mycoforestry, potential for carbon negative food production and mitigation of food and forestry conflicts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences(PNAS) 2023; 120 (12) e2220079120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2220079120
Greenhouse gas emissions that are produced from the way humans produce and consume food could add nearly 1 degree of warming to the Earth’s climate by 2100, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Continuing the dietary patterns of today will push the planet past the 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) limit of warming sought under the Paris climate agreement to avoid the worst effects of climate change, according to this new study, and will approach the agreement’s limit of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
The modeling study found that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from three major sources: meat from animals, especially ruminant animals (e.g., cows, sheep); rice; and dairy. Those three sources account for at least 19% each of food’s contribution to a warming planet, according to the study, with meat contributing the most, at 42% (ruminant meat = 33%; non-ruminant meat = 9%). See the Figure below.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide. The researchers calculated that methane will account for 75% of food’s share of warming by 2030, with carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide accounting for most of the rest.
“I think the biggest takeaway that I would want (policymakers) to have is the fact that methane emissions are really dominating the future warming associated with the food sector,” said Catherine C. Ivanovich, a climate scientist at Columbia University and the study’s lead author.
Ivanovich and colleagues from the University of Florida and Environmental Defense Fund calculated the three major gases produced by each type of food over its lifetime based on current consumption patterns. Then they scaled the annual emissions over time by gas based on five different population projections.
And then they used a climate model frequently used by the United Nations’ panel on climate change to model the effects of those emissions on surface air temperature change.
“The study highlights that food is absolutely critical to hitting our Paris Agreement climate targets — failure to consider food is failure to meet our climate targets globally,” said Meredith Niles, a food systems scientist at the University of Vermont who was not involved in the study.
Multiple recent studies and reports have recommended eating less meat in order to reduce greenhouse gas creation by animals raised for consumption. Reducing methane may be the most important goal of all. Although methane is far more potent than carbon, it also is much shorter-lived — meaning cuts in methane emissions can have a quick benefit, Ivanovich, the lead study author, said.
Food-related temperature rise could be curbed, the researchers said. If people consumed red meat only once a week (a single serving), such as what is outlined in the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet, the rise could be cut by 0.2C. Such a diet would mean a big cut in meat eating in wealthy countries but could mean an increase in meat consumption in some poorer countries. For more information on implementing sustainable diets, see this 10-minute interactive guide to a Healthy Plate and a Healthy Planet, which is available at: https://www.gaplesinstitute.org/sustainable-diets/
Cutting methane emissions from cattle using feed additives and better management of manure could avoid another 0.2C, the researchers said, while switching to green energy in the food system would cut 0.15C. Ivanovich said the emissions reductions options included in the study were those possible today but that future technological advances might be able to reduce emissions further.
“We already know that livestock production has a disproportionate contribution to climate change – even using traditional metrics, in 2021 we showed that 57% of emissions from the food system arise from animal agriculture,” said Prof Pete Smith, at the University of Aberdeen, UK. “This very neat study uses a simple climate model to show the disproportionate impact of methane emissions from agriculture on temperature increases, and throws light on the importance of reducing methane emissions from the food system.”
“Only a third of the world’s countries have included policies to cut emissions from agriculture in the climate plans they have submitted under the UN Paris Climate agreement. The researchers said their work was aimed at increasing the understanding of the impact of global food consumption on future global heating. Ivanovich also said policies to cut emissions had to protect access to food and livelihoods for vulnerable populations.”
References
Ivanovich, C.C., Sun, T., Gordon, D.R. et al. Future warming from global food consumption. Nature Climate Change.13, 297–302 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01605-8.
Sustainable RDN 