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

WWF encourage planet-based diet

Read the report

The WWF report Bending the Curve: The Restorative Power of Planet-Based Diets joins other efforts to demonstrate the negative health and environmental consequences of our current way of producing and consuming food, while proposing ways to turn this around.

The report opens with the assertion that our food system must provide healthy, safe, affordable and nutritious diets for all, with reference to the UN Food Systems Summit later this year and the Sustainable Development Goals. This is completely in line with the principles of SNI: nutrition must come first when considering the global food system. The report then goes on to define planet-based diets as win-wins: healthy and with low environmental impacts and explores how these can be achieved.

A major recommendation of the report is that national dietary guidelines need to be more ambitious. This echoes a results of a previous WWF model. Currently, these guidelines largely reflect a healthier version of current consumption patterns and do not consider environmental impacts. The report argues that guidelines could be simultaneously healthier and more sustainable.

The main health recommendation of the report is to increase the plant-based proportion of the diet and decrease overconsumption. This is supported by the Global Burden of Disease study findings, indicating that low wholegrain and fruit intake, as well as high sodium intake, were the greatest dietary risk factors.

Beyond these overarching directions, recommendations for dietary and production change vary on a regional level. This is due to the difference in dietary, health and environmental factors seen in different parts of the world.

Countering biodiversity loss also requires a nuanced approach. For example, the report finds that most of the biodiversity loss associated with the Danish diet is due to imports of coffee, tea, cocoa and spices. Contrastingly, red meat holds this place for Latin American countries.

Similarly, the report states that we must feed our population on existing agricultural land and not further expand, but again the implications vary by region. Countries suffering from widespread undernutrition may need to expand their agricultural land to ensure healthy diets for their population, while more developed countries may need to contract.

The same regional variability is true for the planting of trees for carbon sequestration, conversion of grazing land to arable or optimising water use. The results of the report emphasise careful consideration of actions at a national level, as healthier diets can lead to increased environmental damage of one kind or another in vulnerable regions. A one-size-fits-all approach will not lead to a sustainable food system.

Read the report

Glossary

Photo by Tomas Tuma 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

Peas please

Read the article

Food Foundation in the UK are gaining traction with their ‘Peas Please: Making a pledge for more veg’ initiative, the results of which were recently described in Nutrition Bulletin. 

Despite a historically growing UK market for fruit, which has increased by around 50% since 1970, vegetable purchasing was seen to slowly decline over the same period. The common perceptions of vegetables as boring or not that tasty was likely not helped by minimal publicity, with only 1.2% of the UK food advertising spend used to market vegetables. On top of this, there are questions around the environmental impacts of the average UK shopping basket, and ample evidence that field-grown vegetables have small environmental footprints. 

Most of the UK public do not meet dietary guidelines for vegetables, particularly those with lower incomes. On top of low purchase rates, 40% of purchased vegetables in the UK are wasted at home. This matches the global trends of food waste shown by the DELTA Model, where most of the nutrient waste is from plant-sourced foods. Altogether, the nutritional and health implications of low vegetable intake due to consumer choice and waste needs to be tackled. 

The ‘Peas Please’ initiative aims to make eating vegetables more healthy, affordable, sustainable and pleasurable. Organisations, such as supermarkets and restaurants, pledge to follow these directives, in the hope of changing the way the country treats vegetables. Their website features ways in which individuals, communities and businesses can engage with the initiative and forge better relationships with vegetables. 

Read the article

Glossary

Photo by Artem Kostenko on Unsplash

Comparing apples with potatoes: the Vego-guide

Read the article

Researchers in Sweden have designed a tool for comparing the environmental impacts of different plant foods. The tool is designed for interested consumers who want to know more about the environmental implications of these foods in their diets. 

Using life-cycle analysis data for 90 plant foods, the Vego-guide considers the climate, biodiversity, water use and pesticide use impacts of each food. This information is used to generate a traffic light rating for each food, from orange (greatest negative impacts) to green star (least negative impacts). 

The tool is currently in further development for application to the Swedish market, but we can expect to see similar tools becoming available worldwide as consumer desire to make food choices based on their environmental impacts increases. 

Currently, the only nutritional consideration in the model is to group plant foods together based on their main role, e.g. carbohydrate source, protein source and so on. This is important, as the carbohydrate sources (such as pasta and potatoes) receive better Vego-guide ratings than fruits. Care must be taken to ensure that these higher ratings do not influence consumers to choose energy dense foods over nutrient dense foods, a choice that would be detrimental from nutrition and health perspectives. 

Read the article

Glossary

Photo by Charles Deluvio on Unsplash

SNI in spotlight at Primary Industries NZ summit

Representatives from industry, policy and research came together last week to attend presentations on trade, sustainability, consumer science and future trends for the primary sector in New Zealand at the Primary Industries Summit in Wellington. The summit, organised by Federated Farmers of New Zealand, was held at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (23rd – 24th November). Delegates heard a selection of world class, global and local experts delivering insights that will support and enable the sector to plan and prepare for its transition and adaptation to a sustainable future.

On the second day of the summit, over 400 delegates heard from the Riddet Institute’s Dr Nick Smith, who discussed the research being undertaken by the Institute’s Sustainable Nutrition Initiative (SNI). SNI focuses on how global food production will need to adapt to adequately and sustainably meet the nutritional requirements of the world’s population, now and in the future.

After the opening keynote from the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, Nick gave an overview of the global food system, which encompasses far more than our common perception of farm, processing, distribution and consumption. Professor Warren McNabb, deputy director of the Institute and leader of SNI, comments “our research investigates many aspects of the global food production system, including food waste, international trade, environmental impacts and governance. We incorporate this into a working model (the DELTA Model) to assess scenarios for delivering sustainable and adequate nutrition for all”.

Nick’s talk struck a chord with the audience as he discussed micronutrient availability (what is often called ‘hidden hunger’) and his contention that a global food production system that fails to nourish people can never be considered sustainable. Although macronutrient production is currently more abundant than many people think, our current global food production system paints a chilling picture when the supply of micronutrients is considered. For example, the world doesn’t produce enough calcium or Vitamin E for its current population, and these deficiencies will grow as the population increases. Other micronutrients, including those sourced predominantly from animal foods, like Vitamin B12, will likely be problematic in the future. Nick reiterated that any proposed changes to food production must consider the nutritional consequences to people, alongside environmental considerations, if our global food production system is to be truly sustainable.

Sustainable nutrition is a key research topic for the Institute, given our vision to support the primary industries with their adaptation to a sustainable future and underpinning their products with world class fundamental science. Nick outlined to the assembly SNI’s key findings in the area and also discussed the work of Distinguished Professor Paul Moughan. Paul and his team recently demonstrated that a US citizen could purchase a nutritionally adequate diet for US$1.98 a day (NZ$2.83). Nutritionally adequate means a diet that is able to supply all the nutrients needed by the consumer.  An adequate, but entirely plant-based diet would cost US$3.61 (NZ$5.15). This emphasised the role of nutrient dense animal-sourced foods in a nutritious and affordable diet.

The DELTA Model allows current and future global food production system scenarios to be analysed for their ability to supply sustainable and adequate nutrition to the world’s population. Our work with DELTA demonstrates that sufficient macronutrients (i.e. energy, protein, fat) are produced today to nourish the world’s population. In fact, from a macronutrient perspective, we already produce enough food to feed the forecast 2030 world population of 8.6 billion. The issues are really around the supply of the aforementioned micronutrients and trace elements. 


Glossary

Photo courtesy of PINZ2020

The requirement for balanced global diets that connect 9 billion consumers


Wayne Martindale, Associate Professor of Food Insights and Sustainability at the University of Lincoln, provides a perspective on sustainable diets and how we should think about them.

The food and beverage system functions globally; we all source our meals from a global marketplace. The responsibility for a nutritious and balanced diet begins with producers and manufacturers before it is presented to consumers. The flow of foods and ingredients in the global food system provides many surprises.  

This article is a viewpoint from Europe and the United Kingdom, where our nation is soon to realise the impact of globally sourcing our food. Sustainability and security are inseparable attributes here and we believe a sustainable diet must provide balanced nutrition and security. This article will develop this relationship using existing evidence and demonstrate that limiting the discussion to a single attribute of sustainability such as greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity or land use change will only result in polarised debates that will never get us to where we need to be. 

Best practice in the food and beverage industry has been transformed by sustainability. It resonates across industry and consumers as an ideal we should rightly strive to achieve. Much of what we have been aiming for is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and consumption of foods. Manufacturers are now reporting carbon zero product categories including whole milk and beef, which was unthinkable ten years ago. Our improved understanding of how resources flow through food systems has made carbon zero a reality. Programmes that sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ten years ago exposed many gaps in our understanding of food systems.  

The initial debates tended to demonise food and beverage products with higher carbon footprints – namely livestock products and beef (Cederberg et al., 2011). What these studies did not consider was nutritional delivery and consumer experience, both of which are important because without them sustainability will never be delivered (Haddad, 2018). This is because every meal must deliver balanced nutrition and a favourable experience. If it does these two things, it is more likely it will result in optimal health and not be wasted. I was working with CSIRO in Melbourne as a McMaster Fellow when I realised that these relationships were critical. This was in part due to the publication of the Total Well Being Diet (TWD) book by CSIRO (Noakes and Clifton, 2005). What influenced me here was the fact that a formalised and scientifically formulated diet for health – the TWD – could resonate so strongly with consumers that a Government Science Agency publication on dietary change became a best seller! In the UK, this was only achieved by our best celebrity chefs, with the science part often in second place for editorial decision making. The TWD demonstrated the requirement for a healthy diet is clearly resonant with consumers. The notion of what is a sustainable one was less so, but it raised the issue of whether the two are related in any way? 

The issue of sustainability in food has often been associated with carbon footprint. The first studies of crop and livestock production that calculated what we now recognise as a carbon footprint were reported over 20 years ago (Brentrup et al., 2000). These were transformative in that they identified production processes that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of agricultural products, their application resulted in reductions in diesel and fertiliser nitrogen used in sustainable farming.  

However, in terms of guiding responsible consumption, carbon footprints can be cumbersome. Such direct measures of carbon footprints for food lead to comparing livestock and plant proteins without considering any dietary requirements. Consumers are often told to not eat specific products, with beef being the main target for such attacks. This leads to a ‘stand-off’ in the sustainability arena, stifling innovation in manufacturing. Nutrition, consumer experience and taste all play an important role in quantifying what is sustainable, and they need to be accounted for when we place carbon footprinting into diets, meals and lifestyles. 

Carbon zero thinking has been transformative in breaking this deadlock and the launch of branded zero carbon livestock products such as whole milk, beef and lamb have shown that food producers and manufacturers are confident in claiming it (read more here). The subsequent re-thinking of carbon footprinting is enlightening because it can be related to achievable and nutritious diets and lifestyles so that responsible consumption is possible.  

Plant products typically have a lower carbon footprint than livestock products. Converting plant protein into livestock protein as efficiently as possible often means an increased carbon footprint. But even here there are exceptions. For example, rice has a greater footprint than whole milk (Clune et al., 2017). This is because of the requirement to flood and drain the soils used to grow rice, resulting in methane emissions (Burney et al., 2010). 

Consideration of production volume can provide a transformative view of the global food system carbon footprint. Production of the ‘big four global commodity crops’: rice (0.7 billion tonnes per year), wheat (0.7 Bn t/yr), maize (1.0 Bn t/yr) and soy bean (0.3 Bn t/yr) account for around 2.8 billion tonnes of production each year (Clune et al., 2017). Three of these crops have a carbon footprint of 0.5 tonnes CO2-equivalent per tonne production, and rice has 2.6 tCO2-e/t, summing to 2.8 Billion tCO2-e associated with the big four each year. The mean or average carbon footprint for beef globally is around 25 tCO2-e/t, some 50 times that of wheat, maize and soybean crops, used for both feed and food. However, only 64 million tonnes of beef are produced globally each year, which accounts for some 1.5 Bn tCO2-e. The GHG ratio of the ‘big three’ (‘big four’ excluding rice) to beef is therefore not 50 but 1.5! If we include rice, beef has half the global carbon footprint of the big four crops. This means we are being mis-led by slavishly following carbon footprint data alone. 

There is also much more here, in that a number of studies on beef for the reported average carbon footprint include the prime production of Wagyu beef under extremely intensive conditions (beer and massages) that holds no resemblance to grass fed and finished beef systems including typical Wagyu systems. The issue of production volume together with variation in carbon footprint data is overlooked in simplistic carbon footprint assessments. If we include variation in livestock production systems, the idea of a typical carbon footprint becomes unrealistic at best! Moreover, the spotlighting effect of carbon footprint will often leave the issue of nutrition aside and this is another reason there is a requirement to look at how carbon footprints of food are measured.

If we were to eat the lowest carbon footprint food group per calorie it would be cake and confectionery alone, because these foods have a carbon footprint of around 80 gCO2-e/100 kcal, whereas fruit and vegetables produce over 400 gCO2-e/100 kcal (Drewnowski et al., 2014). This is surely the opposite to what we are told as consumers. Milk and dairy products are in the middle of this range, lower than meat. And this is only considering calories; considering other essential nutrients such as protein would likely paint a different picture again. The dietary context for carbon footprint clearly needs to be clarified and that is why the Sustainable Nutrition Initiative seeks to find methods of providing robust evidence that will guide realistic, sustainable consumption that provides good health. 

An improved ability to access data has brought energy balance and carbon footprinting into the consumer goods arena and the drive for carbon zero is creating much innovation in food and beverage. It has brought sustainability closer to the consumer in that the consumption of a nutritionally balanced diet can be delivered sustainably even if we do not choose or eat food based on carbon footprints.  

It is important that improvements do not get lost in purely carbon footprinting diets. We are developing models for the UK that identify where critical points and connectivity in the food system control resource flows (Martindale, Duong, et al., 2020). These can be integrated with the nutritional insights of the DELTA Model developed by the Sustainable Nutrition Initiative and build on established indices of food sustainability. New Product Development (NPD) is the operational activity we are focusing on because, if product developers and technologists build in sustainability at the concept stages, there is an increased possibility that the final product will deliver it (Jagtap and Duong, 2019). One of our models – Centreplate – is currently being tested with respect to NPD strategies, improving protein supply and reducing waste (Martindale, Swainson, et al., 2020).  

We are currently at a point where food system insights have the potential to bring sustainability and nutritional datasets together because of two technological advances we would consider most notable. The first is the ability to embed digital technologies into resource packaging so that traceability and analysis of supply chain data can be enabled securely for most food companies (Martindale et al., 2018). The other is the projection of dietary impact of nutrition on populations. This changed forever a generation ago in response to the newly sequenced human genome. What followed was a scramble for therapeutics but the interaction of health and nutrition through our diet was largely overlooked (King et al., 2017). We now have a greater understanding of how genes and metabolism interact with what we choose to eat. It is essential to keep the food system lens, and this is what the Sustainable Nutrition Initiative’s DELTA Model does. Connecting datasets and making sure we speak to each other is becoming increasingly important. This is otherwise known as interoperability in the digital arenas. We have the capability to deliver a net zero sustainable food system, but without interoperability it will not happen. 

Our food future depends on all partners in the global system connecting methods and data that will guide sustainable dietary choices. At present the sustainable diet arena is noisy and confusing for many consumers because polarised views can dominate. This is why actions such as the Sustainable Nutrition Initiative are so important; they lay bare facts and guide routes to sustainable and secure global consumption that still provide the choice and experience that consumers require.

Wayne Martindale directs the Food Insights and Sustainability Service at the National Centre for Food Manufacturing at the University of Lincoln. Wayne has been working in sustainability since 1998, after eight years of doctoral research in biochemistry in the UK, Japan and USA. He started his sustainability practice with the BASIS/FACTS leadership team delivering certification programmes for UK agriculture and has held visiting scientist roles at CSIRO Australia and the OECD in Paris.


Glossary

Photo courtesy of Wayne Martindale.

FAO: The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020

Read the report

FAO’s latest ‘The State of The World’ report assesses progress towards achieving sustainable development goals of ensuring access to safe, nutritious food for all people all year round, and eradicating all forms of malnutrition.

Current estimates are that nearly 690 million people are malnourished. This has been on the rise since 2014, increasing by nearly 60 million in 5 years. The world is not on track to achieve zero hunger by 2030. While there are significant challenges in just accessing food, accessing healthy diets is even harder. Based on FAO’s estimations, a healthy diet is five times more expensive than diets that only meet dietary energy needs and is unaffordable for more than three billion people globally.

In order to increase availability and affordability of healthy diets, cost of nutritious foods must come down, requiring large transformations in food supply chains globally. This must begin with prioritising agricultural production towards more nutrition-sensitive food. This is supported by the DELTA Model, which shows us that nutrient-dense foods must be prioritised to give the best chances of sufficient food production to meet global nutrient requirements. 

Read the report


Glossary

Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash

World Food Day

Our Actions are our Future: Grow, Nourish, Sustain. Together.

Today – Friday 16th October – is World Food Day, the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations with its goal to achieve food security for all and make sure that people have regular access to enough high-quality food to lead active, healthy lives. We congratulate the FAO on reaching this anniversary and all the good work the organisation does.

At the same time, it is a day for all of us to reflect on the challenges facing the global food system. Despite advances in agricultural production methods and yields, we fail to produce and distribute sufficient food to nourish an increasing global population. Many production systems are damaging the natural resources on which they or other food production systems rely, and many food producers receive subsistence income from their products. The 2030 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) of Zero Hunger looks as far away today as it did when the SDGs were first developed. 

Sobering facts from the FAO’s World Food Day 2020 webpage:

  • Over 2 billion people do not have regular access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food whilst the global population is still growing and expected to reach almost 10 billion by 2050. 
  • Nearly 690 million people are hungry, up 10 million since 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic could add between 83-132 million people to this number. 
  • The impact of malnutrition in all its forms – undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, as well as overweight and obesity – on the global economy is estimated at USD 3.5 trillion per year. 
  • Today, only nine plant species account for 66% of total crop production, despite the fact that there are at least 30,000 edible plants. We need to grow a greater variety of foods to better nourish people and sustain the planet. 
  • Approximately 14% of food produced for human consumption is lost each year between the “farm” and the wholesale market. Even more food is wasted at the retail food and consumer stages. 

Our ability to effectively nourish an increasing global population is one of the key challenges facing the human race. The global food system is incredibly complex, the world’s largest economic sector, with multiple inputs and outputs. It is often politicised, is subject to various socio-cultural forces, and touches every human being on the planet. Charting a course for the food system of the future requires quality thinking and discussion built on strong evidence-based foundations.   

The Sustainable Nutrition Initiative was founded to meaningfully contribute to this discussion.  Some key thoughts as we consider the future of food:   

The DELTA Model has been developed to help people explore different futures for the food system for themselves. 

The goal remains to achieve food security for all and make sure that people have regular access to enough high-quality food to lead active, healthy lives. We can all help towards this through understanding the food system in all its complexity, strengths, and weaknesses, leading to better informed discussion on the future of food for all of us. 


Glossary

Image from FAO World Food Day 2020 website