Of course it has always been easy to measure money but not easy to measure the environmental and social effects of a purchase. This must sound very simplistic but we see that the most compelling driver for public procurement , and our own shopping baskets is the cheapest option especially in these troubled financial times. But what if we could measure those environmental and social issues. We now have Fair Trade products, although it beats me as to why this should not apply to UK farmers. Fair Trade allows a more informed social discussion when shopping. But the environmental issue is the confusing aspect. Is it better to buy a tomato produced in a heated greenhouse that one that come in a diesel burning lorry from Spain where only the sun heated the crop ? We have one pointer towards sustainable production and that is the Organic growing system.

Food miles contribute approximately 2% of the carbon produced in food production while making artificial fertilizer contributes about 30%. Blended fertilizers are better but we are running out of the mined ingredients for artificial fertilizer. So why do we not try to do something about that. Organic production uses natural methods of fertility building. This does compromise yield a little but at least to does not harm the soil, produces far less carbon and is probably sustainable.

I am seeing so many references to sustainability when policies are written, specifications are compiled and instructions for procurement are given. They are often followed by the caveat that Organic produce is not purchased. This is not hard to research, there is miles of information on the internet. So why do so many people only have a subjective opinion about these matters. The facts are out there although you may be blinded by the vested interests of companies desire to maximize profit at any environmental or social cost.

Thank you for reading my rant of the day.

Who stands to gain?

The Global Harvest Initiative has identified this target as its express goal:

By 2050, we must eliminate the global productivity gap by sustainably doubling agricultural output to meet the needs of a growing world.

Feeding the world is an undeniably commendable aim, but is a rush to increase agricultural productivity really the best way to go about it? As Paula Crossfield, of Civil Eats, has observed, the target may do more to increase the profits of multinational agri-business than to feed the world’s hungry. Who’s behind the GHI? DuPont, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and John Deere.

More achievable and sustainable approaches to addressing hunger include reducing food waste along the food supply chain, distributing the world’s food more equitably and managing demand for resource-hungry meat and dairy products.

Profligacy

Tristram Stuart examines these issues in his powerful new book, Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. Stuart developed a very personal interest in food waste from seeking swill for his pigs as a child to rescuing supermarket waste from bins as a campaigning freegan. He successfully combines personal experience with extensive research to present a compelling argument that profligate waste of food is at the heart of our dysfunctional food system.

Stuart digs up some truly shocking statistics from FAO data: of a total global edible food harvest of 4,600 kCal per person per day, only 2,000 kCal are consumed (1,700 are fed to animals, yielding just 400 in return; 600 are lost between field and food industry, 800 lost in distribution, retail, catering and households). The world is already producing more than twice the amount of food we actually consume.

One of many striking graphs in the book’s appendix plots countries’ GDP against edible crop harvest (including crops fed to livestock) as a percentage of nutritional requirements. In every country except the Democratic Republic of Congo, the harvest is over 100% of requirements, rising (in close correlation to GDP) to over 300% in most of the developed world and over 400% in the USA and Greece. Meat production is an important part of the story, but needn’t be such a drain on resources: another telling morsel of information is that livestock in Kenya are net contributors to food supply, feeding on residues and grass rather than arable crops.

Besides the abundance of informative data, a diverse collection of photos starkly illustrates rampant profligacy in farming, processing and retail.

Positive lessons

Stuart examines, and dismisses, possible arguments that waste is inevitable, identifying positive examples of less wasteful countries and cultures, particularly the Uighurs of China. The FAO identifies a food supply level of 130% as providing a sufficient buffer against crop failure and other supply problems; achieving this would leave enough surplus food at current production levels to feed an additional 3 billion people (without any change to dietary patterns), about the number by which the world’s population is expected to rise by 2050.

All of which suggests that we don’t need another Green Revolution to feed the world, rather to eliminate profligate waste from farm to table. Such a waste revolution will not even require drastic changes to our lifestyles, but will have to be achieved piecemeal, changing the attitude and behaviour of individuals, households, businesses and farms across the world.

Practical local steps to eliminating waste

At a local level, farms and businesses can take relatively simple steps to reduce waste. Production planning, supplying food through more diverse and direct markets, professional supply chain management, raising production standards, collaborating and sharing information, auditing sustainability and monitoring waste: all can contribute to a more efficient and less wasteful food supply system. Provenance hopes it can play a part in helping businesses achieve such vital steps.