Feed Our Future event to bring science, government and industry together

The Riddet Institute is this week hosting an event to bring together food system stakeholders and decision makers for accessible evidence-based discussion of the key global issues and the local decisions that we need to make.

Sustainably feeding a growing population is a global problem, but also one for New Zealand to consider. Where does our reputation for high quality, premium food products fit in a hungrier world? How can kiwi innovation and ingenuity make a difference to the global future of food?

The event will explore the current conversation of sustainable food, bringing moderation and balance to what is often a debate of extremes. National and international experts in the fields of nutrition, food waste, food systems, life cycle analysis and consumer science will speak on these important issues, with open discussion from the attendees.

This dialogue will inspire our future decisions and put New Zealand at the front of the sustainable food systems debate.

Dairy in a low-cholesterol diet

Read the article

A recent study on dairy’s role in cardiometabolic health has added further nuance to the topic by indicating the different outcomes total dairy and individual dairy products have on biomarkers of disease.

Cardiometabolic diseases including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and chronic renal failure are now the number one cause of death in our aging population. The main cause of these diseases is an unhealthy lifestyle. A broad range of biomarkers (indicators of a disease that can be found in the blood) have been identified and can be used to determine onset. Some studies have linked dairy intake with increased risk of individuals developing cardiometabolic disease. The present study tested these associations to further understand how dairy products can influence cardiometabolic health by measuring biomarkers.

The cross-sectional study included over 35,000 women aged 50 to 79, spanning 40 clinical centres across the US. Concentrations of 20 different biomarkers were compared.

The key findings were:

  • Lower triglyceride (type of fat associated with cardiometabolic disease) was associated with greater intake of total dairy. This was driven by full-fat dairy products
  • Greater total milk and yoghurt intake were associated with lower concentrations of total cholesterol, while greater butter intake was associated with higher cholesterol concentrations
  • Greater total dairy, total and full-fat cheese and yoghurt were consistently associated with lower concentrations of glucose, insulin and C-reactive protein (all of which are biomarkers of cardiometabolic disease).

These findings do not support conclusions of dairy playing a role in cardiometabolic disease, and more specifically the health benefit for low-fat dairy product varieties over full-fat, as promulgated by some health authorities. The challenge in finding consistent outcomes for the role of dairy in the onset of cardiometabolic disease calls for further research in the area. What has been made obvious is the critical role that nutrition plays in the health of our populations and that individual products, rather than food groups, should be considered.

Read the article

Glossary

Photo by Julian Hochgesang on Unsplash   

Finding harmony between plant-based and meat-eater diets

A recent survey commissioned by Finnish plant-based brand “Beanit” was carried out to explore the dispute on various diets, and the barriers this creates in behaviour change. It highlights the contrasting opinions of consumers, with vegetarians and meat-eaters alike feeling judged on their food choices.

Key findings of the study were that 64% of the surveyed population found public discussion around diets polarising, with 44% wanting to increase vegetarian foods in their diets. It is known that there is a gap between consumer intent and action, and this survey highlights the effect public scrutiny can have. Consumer discomfort between information and action can lead to a defensive or confrontational approach. This type of conversation is counterproductive in the transition to a reduced impact lifestyle. It fosters an environment of extremity between two groups.

The survey suggests a flexitarian diet offers the largest opportunity for Beanit’s plant-based market. The company takes the perspective that small changes made by large populations produce better results than a small group cutting out a certain behaviour entirely.

Although Beanit’s value in this may be to urge consumers to adopt a plant-based diet to increase sales, they addressed the results through a campaign named “Meat Saturday”. This encourages consumers to eat meat once a week on Saturdays. It looks to facilitate inclusivity between the labelled meat-eater and plant-based groups, offering the idea of mutual acceptability between diets.

The takeaway from the survey is relevant to any disruptive industry or product claiming to be a sustainable option. A positive, objective and inclusive narrative must be encouraged to facilitate progress towards sustainable behaviour change.

Glossary

Photo by amirmasoud on Unsplash   

DELTA Model version 1.3 launched

The coloured bar shows the global average availability of each nutrient. The error bars show the range in availability in different parts of the world (10th and 90th population percentiles based on country level averages). While there are only a couple of nutrients where global availability is below target, the level of variation results in many more nutrients of concern at a country level.

Go to the model

The latest version of the DELTA Model is now available online. It features new insights into national and regional nutrient availability, as well as nutrient trade.

It’s common to talk about food trade between countries or regions, but less common to think about the movement of individual food nutrients around the world. For example, New Zealanders are probably very aware of our country’s exports of animal-sourced foods (like dairy and red meat), but likely haven’t thought about what this means in terms of the calcium or iron included in these exports.

DELTA 1.3 presents the domestic production of 29 food nutrients, the export and import dynamics of these nutrients, and how this measures up to meeting per capita per day nutrient targets for a country. It also presents how this availability differs in different parts of the world, showing the user the inequalities in access to different nutrients. The results are adjusted for waste, non-food uses and bioavailability in the same way as the rest of the DELTA calculations.

Another change is to the splash page first displayed to the user. This now features an outline of the global nutrition challenge that the world is facing, as well as a description of how the DELTA Model was designed to contribute to our understanding of this complex challenge. Further additions and changes can be found in the release notes.

Go to the model

Could this be the end to ‘dairy-free’ or ‘creamy’ plant-based food in the EU?

The Dairy Ban or ‘Amendment 171’, saw a narrow majority vote by the European Parliament in October 2020, preventing imitation of dairy products by non-dairy products.

This result saw a rally of 21 campaign groups, climate activists such as Greta Thunberg, and large dairy-alternative food producers such as Oatly protest the amendment. A petition against Amendment 171 created by ProVeg has received over 400,000 signatures. Further discussion on the amendment between Council, the Commission and the EU Parliament will continue this year.

Currently dairy terms in the EU are protected by law to ensure integrity of dairy products and to reduce misleading claims by non-dairy products. “Imitation or evocation” of existing dairy products is banned, including terms such as “almond milk” or “vegan cheese”. Amendment 171 furthers this to censor all use of dairy-related language, packaging and imaging in the marketing of plant-based foods. This would see dairy-alternative food producers banned from using terms such as “yoghurt-style”, “creamy”, or packaging that resembles the traditional milk carton and yoghurt pot shapes.

A recent study published in the Journal of Animal and Environmental Law found no difference in consumer perception of products coming from animals, or not, when branding incorporates wording traditionally associated with animal products, e.g. “milk”. Furthermore, omitting these words can lead to confusion from the consumer on taste and use of the product. However, a nutritional aspect was not included in the study, which could provide interesting results in the consumers perception of the product’s nutritional benefit.

Whether the dairy industry secures exclusive rights to the use of dairy-related language or not, this discussion comes down to the consumer. At the heart of both arguments is the push for consumer awareness. Further awareness will allow consumers to make informed decisions on the products they are purchasing and the impact these have on the environment and their health. All of which feeds into the sustainability of us as individuals, communities and globally.

Glossary

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

Bottom trawling dragging up more than just fish

Read the article

A recent paper in Nature includes evidence that bottom trawling releases more CO2 emissions from carbon stores in marine sediment than the entire aviation industry.

Similar to how our soils store carbon, our oceans stock the largest amount of carbon on the planet. The paper suggests a framework to prioritise protection areas of the ocean that would see multiple benefits. These include preserving biodiversity, increasing yield for fisheries and securing marine carbon stocks.

Marine sediment stores carbon, which is released during bottom trawling, a common practise of fisheries. According to the present study, this activity was estimated to release 1 gigaton of carbon every year. Comparatively, the aviation industry releases about 918 million tonnes. However, all is not doom and gloom, as the paper also identifies areas that would be most beneficial to protect. They calculated 90% of the carbon disturbance could be avoided through protecting only 4% of the ocean, although this comes at a cost of 27 million tonnes of fish. Level of benefit in biodiversity, carbon and food are illustrated in various conservation strategies, dependent on the value placed on these factors.

This is not to say we should all rush to the airport, nor does this suggest forgoing fish and chip Friday. Rather, our ever-expanding database on the impact of human activities is a reminder of the system view we must take when exploring what a ‘sustainable’ lifestyle may look like. The global food system is full of intricacies, and the impact some food products have on the world could far surpass what seems reasonable.

As our breadth of knowledge from these individual studies increase, as do our capabilities in modelling and drawing evidence-based insights on our global food system. By also suggesting beneficial protection areas, rather than exclusively focusing on the impacts of bottom trawling, this paper may spark conversation rather than accusation between the fisheries industry and marine conservation groups.

Read the article

Glossary

Photo by Aleksey Malinovski on Unsplash   

Social perspectives on the future of livestock

Read the article

A recent article in Animal Frontiers identifies the social perspectives on the sustainability of animal-sourced food production, with a view to what this production might look like in the future.

The increasing global population and per capita income is predicted to drive food demand up by around 50%. But it is challenging to predict what role livestock will have in satisfying this demand.

As well as requiring increases in productivity with a reduced environmental footprint, animal-sourced food producers must maintain their “social license to operate” – the acceptance of their practices by consumers. General interest in how animal-sourced foods are produced is rising, and the author contextualises this discussion with some statistics for the US livestock industry.

From an environmental perspective, improvements are being made in reducing the amount of feed, land, water and greenhouse gas emissions of animal-sourced foods due to improved genetics, crop yields and management practices. US beef production reduced its land use footprint per kilo of beef by 33% between 1977 and 2007 and greenhouse gases by 16%. US pork production reduced its feed use per kilo of pork by 67% between 1959 and 2009, and water use by 22%. US milk production has reduced land use, fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions by around 20% each in just the ten years up to 2017.

There is also evidence that further improvements can be made, with wide differences in the footprints of animal-sourced food production even within the same country. Bringing the average closer to best practice should be as much a goal as pushing the boundaries of how small these footprints can become. These improvements must also be communicated to consumers.

The article identifies three key issues that should be prioritised by the animal-sourced food industry when considering its future: accounting for greenhouse gases equitably, with consideration of their differing lifespans; wider use of non-human-edible by-products as animal feed; and greater consideration of animal health and welfare. Each of these priorities will have benefits for the production, environmental sustainability and consumer perceptions of animal-sourced foods.

The author’s final thought is around demonstration and communication of the facts around animal-sourced food production, to ensure than consumer choices are evidence-based.

Read the article

Glossary

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020 – 2025 published

Read the guidelines

The USDA has released their latest dietary guidelines document, with a new emphasis on the importance of considering different life stages when designing guidelines.

A new set of dietary guidelines are designed for the US population every five years, based on the recommendations of a scientific advisory committee who review the latest nutrition and health research, ensuring up-to-date advice.

In this document, specific dietary recommendations for infants and toddlers appear, where before this advice was absent. These recommendations cover breastfeeding and infant formula use, as well as complementary foods. Strong emphasis is placed on food variety for toddlers, as well as on the importance of iron and zinc intake.

The guidelines recommend that Americans should eat more whole fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, while limiting added sugars and saturated fat to less than 10% of daily calories each. While this largely chimes with the advisory committee’s scientific report, they had suggested that only 6% of daily calories be from added sugar, due to the negative health outcomes of high dietary sugar intake. The committee were also cautious on the contentious subject of saturated fat, not recommending any change to the current guidelines and mentioning that replacement of these fats with carbohydrates is not advised.

Nutrient density and dietary patterns were pulled out as important terms in the report. Nutrient dense foods are recommended throughout, and listed as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, seafood, eggs, beans, peas, lentils, unsalted nuts and seeds, fat-free and low-fat dairy products, and lean meats and poultry. However, the recommendations put emphasis on dietary patterns rather than on individual foods or food groups to enable adaptations that fit cultural, personal and individual needs and preferences. The three food patterns of the guidelines are the Healthy U.S-Style Pattern, the Healthy Vegetarian Pattern and the Healthy Mediterranean-Style Pattern. All three patterns provide most of their energy from plant-based sources, provide protein and fat from nutrient rich sources and limit intakes of added sugars, solid fats and sodium.

This is consistent with the results of the DELTA Model which illustrates that most of our energy should come from nutrient rich foods to ensure all nutrient requirements are met. Nutrient poor foods such as sugar should be minimised, and it is essential to consider the different needs of different demographic groups.

Interestingly, the guidelines make no mention of the environmental sustainability of different foods or diets. Several countries already make this inclusion, with this number likely to increase, but it will be at least 2025 before any such recommendations appear in the US dietary guidelines.

Read the guidelines

Glossary

Photo by Louis Hansel @shotsoflouis on Unsplash

FAO Statistical Yearbook 2020 shows big changes

Visit the yearbook

The latest global statistics from FAO show large increases in both crop and animal-sourced food production, but also reductions in cropland and agricultural employment.

Since 2000, there has been a drop of just over 1 billion people from the agriculture workforce, going from 40% of global employment to just 27% in recent years.

Countering this, use of agricultural pesticides increased sharply between 2000 and 2012, before levelling off. Increases were also seen for fertiliser, contributing to the 50% increase in crop production since 2000. Sugar cane, maize, wheat and rice dominate crop production, and the production of each is dominated by two or three countries.

The total agricultural land these crops are grown on showed reduction since 2000, decreasing by 75 million hectares, with a similar decrease of 89 million hectares of forest land.

In terms of animal-sourced foods, chicken showed the greatest increase of the meats, growing by 47% and reaching similar production quantities to pork, the highest producing meat sector. Milk production increased by 45%, while egg production increased by 50%.

Fisheries production showed a similar increase of 42% and is still dominated by marine fish. However, the expansion of aquaculture led to a 131% increase in freshwater fish since 2000. Aquaculture now represents 46% of total fisheries production, compared to 26% in 2000, with China largely responsible for the increase.

The increased food production coupled with decreased agricultural land and employment emphasise the increased efficiency, intensity and automation in food production. However, it should be noted that this is a global picture and that insights at a regional level are also necessary to fully understand the global food system.

Visit the yearbook

Glossary

Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash

GMO crops in the global food system

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are already major contributors to the global food system since their commercial introduction in the 1990s. For example, over 90% of US corn and soy acreage is planted with GMO seeds. Despite this, the use of GMO is still controversial, with many individuals against their use and many authorities strictly regulating their production and consumption. Here, the arguments for and against GMO use in crop production are presented. 

GMO are defined as organisms, and products thereof, that are produced through techniques in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. 

The process in which GMO are created differs depending on the degree of modification required but generally, a desirable trait is identified in one organism that could be of benefit in another. The trait is studied and, if possible, the gene(s) responsible for the trait are isolated. These genes are then introduced to the target organism, either via bacterial or viral infection, where the microorganism carries the target gene into the organism for uptake, or by bombarding the organism with particles coated in the target gene. 

The outcome of the process is a GMO that expresses the desired trait isolated from the original organism. 

Advantages of GMO  

The ability to transfer desirable traits between distantly related crops that cannot be interbred has obvious benefits. Examples of GMO use include the ability to increase photosynthetic rate, develop crops that are drought-tolerant with increased yields, and produce crops with disease resistance, such as blight-resistant potatoes

Moreover, crops can be developed that have greater nutritional value than conventional varieties. There exists a long list of such biofortified crops, including cassava with increased zinc, iron, protein and vitamin A content, high lysine maize, high provitamin A rice, and corn with increased provitamin A and folate. These crops are of particular value in global regions where nutrient deficiencies are a high priority public health issue. 

One widely used GMO is Bt-maize. This crop takes its name from Bacillus thuringiensis, the bacterium that donated to the maize plant the trait of producing an insecticidal toxin. Thus, Bt-maize is more resistant to pest insects than conventional maize, leading to higher yields and reduced pesticide use. As a result, 82% of the crop grown in the US in 2020 was the Bt variety. 

Disadvantages of GMO  

The arguments against GMO are largely based on health and environmental risks. The approval process for GMO is nationally administered, so differs between countries. Largely, these processes are more rigorous than for conventional foods and assess both the health and environmental risks of the GMO. 

The World Health Organisation states that no negative health consequences of approved GMO have been shown to date. However, concerns and risks do exist. One health concern raised is the possibility of allergenicity being unintentionally transferred between organisms. An example of this was when early GMO researchers, hoping to increase methionine content, found that the main allergen from Brazil nuts retained its allergenicity after transfer into a GMO soybean. As a result, the GMO soybean was never released commercially and allergenicity is now an important consideration when selecting donor crops. 

From an environmental perspective, there is the possibility that the GMO crop itself, or the introduced gene via cross-breeding or gene transfer, could escape the farmed environment and become a pest. The implications of this would depend entirely on the nature of the GMO crop; for example, transfer of a herbicide resistance gene to a non-target organism could lead to difficulties in controlling its growth. Alternatively, GMO crops could outcompete other plants due to the introduced trait, resulting in decreased biodiversity with unknown downstream implications. While the risk of these unintended consequences is low, they should be considered in the design and management of GMO. 

Finally, some express the opinion that GMO are morally wrong, as they involve too great an interference with living organisms. Such a decision can only be weighed by the individual but will likely mean that a proportion of the population will continue to avoid foods containing GMO products. 

This avoidance is challenging given the ubiquity of GMO products in many foods and by the difficulty for a consumer in identifying GMO foods. Different authorities take different stances on GMO labelling. For example, GMO are not specifically labelled in the US, rather foods that contain ‘bioengineered’ ingredients must be labelled as such. However, specific food labelling for certain types of GMO is on the horizon. The EU has stricter rules, with a requirement for GMO ingredients to be listed on food packaging. However, major food retailers have previously been forced to change their GMO policies due to the increasing “risk of finding GM material in non-GM food”. 

Conclusion 

GMO are widespread in the global food system, but not equally distributed.  

Moreover, regulation of GMO production varies and is not always clear and explicit. There are countries, like the US, where GMO crop production is widespread. Contrastingly, 19 member countries of the European Union have previously voted to either partially or fully ban the use of GMO. In New Zealand, no GMO crops are commercially grown. These variations in use and acceptance will certainly limit investment and development of future GMO. However, there is the opportunity for countries that have a GMO-free stance to use this status to market their products at a premium. 

GMO crops generally result in decreased pesticide use, coupled with increased yields and profitability. Moreover, there are those that believe that GMO will be necessary to adequately nourish a growing population and to adapt production to changing climates. The risks of GMO largely relate to unintended and uncertain consequences that must certainly be properly managed if GMO use and development is to increase. 

This Thought for Food was written by Cody Garton, a summer intern from Pūhoro STEM academy

Glossary

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash