Sustainable Food Consumption: Some Selected Issues and Policies Xavier Irz, LUKE Economics & Society Research Unit (e-mail: xavier.irz@luke.fi) Raisio Oyj:n Tutkimussäätiö ELINTARVIKETUOTANNON KESTÄVYYS SEMINAARI 22.4.2016, Raisio
Sustainability UN Brundtland Commission: sustainable development development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 2005 World summit: Multidimensional, three pillars of sustainability 2 25.4.2016
Why worry about sustainability in relation to food? Environmental issues: Depletion and degradation of eco-systems and natural resources: water, soils, fish stocks Planetary boundaries approaching limits on key dimensions: climate change, biodiversity loss Social issues: Obesity and related chronic diseases versus undernutrition Economic issues: Price levels and volatility Concentration and market power 3 25.4.2016
Why worry about food consumption? Total volume Food energy: Available for consumption: 3500 kcal/cap/day in industrial countries, Finland 3300 (FA0) Required 2000 (women), 2500-2800 (men) over-eating? Measured (Findiet 2012): 1733 (women) and 2243 (men) Issue of waste throughout the food chain (10-15%) Source: Katajajuuri, OECD FCAN, 2013 4 25.4.2016
CO2 eq. (kg/kg) Why worry about food consumption? Composition 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 Source: Hartikainen and Pulkkinen, 2016 25.4.2016
Diet composition and health Evidence linking nutritional factors to diet-related chronic diseases: Diabetes; CVDs; strokes; some cancers List getting larger (e.g., Alzheimer) Most likely culprits: high intakes of saturated fat, salt and sugar; low consumption of F&V, fibers Official recommendations, with some controversy Source: VRN, 2014 6 25.4.2016
Potential Synergies Source: BCFN Hot spots: Meat and dairy Empty calories, i.e. fatty and sugary foods 7 25.4.2016
INCQ=1 INCQ=2 INCQ=3 INCQ=4 INCQ=5 INCQ=1 INCQ=2 INCQ=3 INCQ=4 INCQ=5 INCQ=1 INCQ=2 INCQ=3 INCQ=4 INCQ=5 Actual Synergies in self-selected diets? Socio-economic gradient in diet quality well established: the better-off and better-educated eat more healthily Same for environmental impact? 5 4 3 2 1 0 CO2 equiv.: Level (kg/cap/day) Males alone Females alone Couples (no children) 8 25.4.2016 5 4 3 2 1 0 Food group CO2 intensity PO4 intensity (g/kcal) (mg/kcal) Cereals 0.7 0.9 Meat 3.1 3.9 Fish 2.7-9.9 Dairy 3.0 3.7 Fat 0.5 0.6 Fruit 1.6 3.4 Vegetable 2.1 1.2 Sugar 0.3 0.4 Other foods 1.6 0.9 Hot drinks 3.9 0.6 Cold drinks 1.5 4.0 All 1.5 1.7 Difficulty of adding apples to oranges Synergies should not be taken for granted Need to identify sustainable diets compatible with consumers preferences for food
Identifying Sustainable Diets Ongoing (SUSDIET) Find combinations of foods compatible with: A set of nutritional constraints A set of environmental constraints Objective function: Minimize cost unrealistic diets, importance of preferences and acceptability Minimize deviations from observed consumption patterns arbitrary (SUSDIET - healthy diets with reduced GHG) Alternative: Rely on preferences estimated from actual consumption data (SUSDIET) 9 25.4.2016
Red meat Other meat Processed meat Cheese, butter, cream Other Dairy Fish Eggs Grains Potatoes Fruits - Fresh Fruits - Processed F&V juices Vegetables - Fresh Vegetables - Processed Fruits - Dry Ready meals Oil, margarine Salty snacks Sugary snacks Soft drinks Water Alcoholic beverages French Example: Meat Consumption -5% 15% 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% Axis Title Complex adjustments Some unintended effects, sustainability effect not obvious 10 25.4.2016
What effect of consumption changes on the food chain? Relevance of question where agriculture is heavily based on animal productions Example: 20% decrease in red meat consumption (Lehtonen and Irz, 2013) Main substitutions with animal products (e.g., dairy, poultry) Little effect on livestock production in Finland importance of subsidies and trade Little impact on land use and GHG emissions from Finnish agriculture On-going attempts to link diet change models to models of international trade (SUSFANS) 11 25.4.2016
Policy Options for Consumption Changes Relatively little government intervention to change behaviours Different options: Informational measures Market-based mechanisms Regulation Other: nudging; public-private partnerships etc. 12 25.4.2016
Informational Measures Labels: Organization role for government (e.g., organic certification) Limited effectiveness in changing behaviours, e.g., Grunert & Hiekke (2013): sustainability labels currently do not play a major role in consumers food choices Social marketing and education: Impact on awareness of issues, but effect on behaviours more uncertain Unclear what message should be prioritized Construction of a simulation model of effect of sustainable diet recommendation 13 25.4.2016
14
Epidemiological model (DIETRON) Behavioural model Overview 1- Estimate preferences U(x) N representative types 2- Simulate sustainable diets : max. U(x) subject to sustainability constraints 3A- Changes in calories and diet quality 3B- Changes in global warming and acidification Life-cycle analysis model 4- Disease incidence and deaths avoided Equity effects Taste costs = short-term utility cost Environmental effects Health effects Overall comparison of recommendations in terms of equity, efficiency, environmental and health effects 15
Social Marketing and Education Six sustainability recommendations, French context Health Benefit: Deaths Avoided (DA) DAs as % deaths from dietrelated diseases F&V +5% Na -5% SFA -5% eq. CO2-5% Red meat -5% All meats -5% 2 513 2 777 2 129 2 328 226 238 3.8% 4.2% 3.2% 3.5% 0.3% 0.4% D eq. CO2 (Kt) -1 564-460 260-2 980-275 -512 D eq. SO2 (Kt) -27-4 -3-67 -7-17 Short-term consumers cost (M ) As % food budget 466 128 288 961 10 76 0.64 % 0.17 % 0.37 % 1.25 % 0.01 % 0.10 % Health benefits for all recommendations Health-environment synergies, but no obvious best Significant and variable taste costs 16 25.4.2016
Social Marketing and Education (2) Valuation required in order to establish which recommendation should be promoted first The health effects accounts for the largest share of the benefit Most recommendations are cost-effective The traditional health recommendations (F&V, SFA, Na) rank highest Conclusions: No pressing need to revise dietary recommendations, at least in France Pessimism about ineffectiveness of informational measures somewhat unwarranted 17 25.4.2016
Source: Prättälä et al., 2003 18 25.4.2016
Taxes and Subsidies Growing in popularity, mainly health based: SF in DK, hamburger tax in Hungary, soda tax in France etc. Studies related to meat or carbon tax Candy tax in Finland and related discussion on sugar tax Key issues: Substitutions and unintended effects, e.g. UK tax on SFA Inelastic demand tax rate >= 20% to have any effect, but: Regressive Political opposition 19 25.4.2016
Taxes and Subsidies (2) Other issues: Administrative and transaction costs Transmission of tax along an imperfectly competitive food chain Not a panacea! 20 25.4.2016
Concluding Remarks Need for truly multi-dimensional analyses: Not assuming synergies Taking into account economic impact Joint policy-thinking/making still only in its infancy Preferences and behaviours matter - policy needs to start where people are at present Taxes are not a panacea, traditional campaigns may be too easily dismissed Some opportunities for growth and innovation: Elderly market Fish production 21 25.4.2016
Thank you!
Sustainable Food Consumption - Definition The UK SDC defined sustainable food consumption as: safe, healthy, and nutritious for consumers in shops, restaurants, schools, hospitals, and so forth; can meet the needs of the less well off at a global scale; provides a viable livelihood for farmers, processors, and retailers whose employees enjoy a safe and hygienic working environment; respects biophysical and environmental limits in its production and processing while reducing energy consumption and improving the wider environment; respects the highest standards of animal health and welfare compatible with the production of affordable food for all sectors of society; and supports rural economies and the diversity of rural culture, in particular by emphasizing local products that minimize food miles. 23 25.4.2016