sustainable food systems: challenges, state of the art...

Sustainable Food Systems: Challenges, State of the Art and Questions for Research

Importance of ‘farm gate to consumer’

food chain

‐

Eating patterns

‐

Environnemental impact

‐

Resources use

Learning from the AGRIMONDE foresight study Importance of eating patterns

In the AG 1 scenario:

‐

available supply of 3,000 kcal/person

‐

of which 500 from animal and aquatic products

This would imply in OECD countries

A 25% drop in available kcal,

an over 50% drop in calories from animal products (1200 → 500)

Food has a high impact on the environment

EIPRO study

(Environmental Impact of Products, 2006)

•

Scope: all products and services in EU 27

•

8 environmental impacts for each industrial sector, per monetary unit of production

•

Results (as percentage of impact): 3 major fields: food, transport and housing (70 to 80% of total impact)

A large proportion of downstream sectors in the energy consumption of the food system...

USA in 2000 (Source: Heller and Keoleian, 2000)

… And a large proportion of this energy consumption for household food

activities

Agriculture22%

Processing16%

Packaging7%Transport and

logistics14%

Distribution4%

Catering7%

Home preparation (storage,

preparation and washing)

30%

in terms of

Resource use

Impacts on ecosystems and GHG

Impacts on health (overweight, obesity and diet‐related diseases)

Western‐style food systems, and indeed their global extension, are not sustainable

How, in this context, can food systems be adapted to take into account the challenges of sustainability?

DuALIne: A non standard‐based approach

‐

125 experts

‐

A bibliographical analysis

‐

Including stakeholders (industries, NGO,..)

‐

A public conference to discuss the results

‐

18 months: nov 2010 →july 2011

The aim is not to define or characterise a specific sustainable diet

The questions

are rather to identify and understand the drivers

Method

4. Food

systems

5. Critical points along the chain

8. International

markets

6. Urban dynamics and

locations

2. Consumer

3. Carbon impact

of eating patterns

7.Losses/

wastage

1. Context9. Foresight study

10. Methods

Scope of duALIne: from the farm gate to the consumer's plate

Food consumption: retrospective analysis, challenges and

questions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750

Proteins

Lipids

Carbohydrates

Energy: kcal/person/day Source: FAO Stat

Global mean 2001-2003Nutritional convergence: energy intake structure

Source: from FAO Stat

Animal calories (kcal/person/day)

Total calories (kcal/person/day)

Animal calories and food availability: from 1961-63 to 2003-05

Spain Italy

France

Germany

MexicoJapan

NigeriaBangladesh

Pakistan

Brazil

Indonesia

USA

India

China

050

010

0015

00

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Saint Kitts and Nevis DominicaAntigua and Barbuda

SeychellesKiribati

Grenada

Saint Vincent and Grenadines

Sao Tome and Principe

Saint LuciaSamoa

Netherlands AntillesFrench Polynesia

BarbadosMaldives

Bahamas

Brunei Darussalam

Malta

Suriname

Cape Verde Guyana

Djibouti

Fiji

Cyprus

SwazilandMauritius

Gabon

Trinidad and TobagoJamaica

Kuwait

Albania

Panama

Congo

LebanonCosta Rica

Denmark

Jordan

Sierra Leone

Lao People's Democratic Republic

Paraguay

Libyan Arab JamahiriyaEl Salvador

Israel

Honduras

Austria

Benin Guinea

Sweden

Bolivia

Rwanda

Dominican Republic

Hungary

Tunisia

Portugal

Greece

MaliGuatemala

Ecuador

Burkina FasoCambodia

Angola

Chile

Netherlands

Cameroon

Syrian Arab Republic

Sri LankaYemen

Romania

Ghana

Saudi Arabia

Korea, Democratic People's Republic of

Malaysia

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of

Nepal

Peru

UgandaMorocco

Algeria

Sudan

Espagne

Colombia Korea

Myanmar

Italie

France

ThailandIran

Egypt

Allemagne

PhilippinesViet Nam

MexiqueJapon

NigeriaBangladesh

Pakistan

Brésil

Indonésie

USA

Inde

Chine

050

010

0015

00

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000


Animal calories (kcal/person/day)

Total calories (kcal/person/day)

5333 million people

Animal calories and food availability: from 1961-63 to 2003-05

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Developed Countries

Developing Countries

Egypt

China

Source: FAO Stat

Energy: kcal/person/day

Acceleration of nutritional changes: 20 years versus a century

Increased income leads to:‐

a rise in quantities consumed

‐

followed by a rise in animal calories consumption

But differences upon more detailed investigation

Ex: Meat consumption in Europe

Beef Pork Poultry

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1960 1970 1980 1990 20000

5

10

15

20

25

30

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

5.6 2.6

9.3

2.8

7.4

2.6

Relative difference (max/min)

kg/person/year kg/person/year kg/person/year


Demand: Which drivers of action? Acting on choices •

Prices (taxes and grants). Controversy on effect, for ex CAP impact

•

Nutritional and environmental labelling . Willingness to pay? Acting on preferences (long term

modifications)•

Education

•

Generic information : efficiency on long term of consensus messages

•

Social norms: most efficient but most difficult

A priority topic: Eating patterns, health and the

environment:Converging recommendations?

(Northern countries)

RESULTS on french consumptionAVERAGE

N=1918 Carbon Footprint

Average(E‐T) 4090 g CO2e/day/pers.

(1175)

Can the carbon footprint (GHG eq) of real diets be calculated?

DISTRIBUTION

Men4725 g CO2e/day

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 g CO2e/day

Women3658

g CO2e/day => High inter‐individual variability=> Women's CF < Men's CF (p<0.001)

Coherent order of magnitudeFinland: 4800

g CO2e/day/pers Risku‐Norja

2009Sweden: 2557

g CO2e/day/pers Wallen 2004

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Le premier résultat est un ordre de grandeur de l’impact carbone journalier moyen associé aux consommations alimentaires individuelles. Nous arrivons à une moyenne de 4kg d’équivalent CO2 par jour et par adulte, ce qui est relativement cohérent avec d’autres valeurs publiées, notamment celles tirées d’une étude Finlandaise. Le deuxième résultat est que derrière cette moyenne se cache une grande variabilité inter-individuelle, et vous pouvez la visualiser, cette variabilité, à travers les courbes de distribution de l’impact carbone journalier de l’alimentation des femmes et des hommes Et vous voyez d’ailleurs que les hommes ont en moyenne un impact carbone plus fort que celui des femmes.

Carbon footprint relatively unaffectedby the nutritional quality of diets

CO2

e

Men

No significant differences

in impact between the different diets

Women

Impact [high nutritional quality diets] > Impact [low nutritional quality diets]

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Venons en enfin à l’impact carbone de l’alimentation de ces 4 groupes de mangeurs. Vous voyez que, pour les hommes, il n’y a pas de différence significative d’impact carbone entre les 4 groupes de mangeurs�- pour les femmes, en revanche, il y a une différence, petite mais significative, et elle est dans un sens opposé à ce que l’on attendait initialement, puisque c’est le groupe des mangeuses inadéquates qui a le plus faible impact carbone.

High nutritional quality diets: a predominance

of

plant‐based

foods, which have lower CFs than animal products

However,

high

nutritional

quality

diets

contain

large

quantities

of these

lower

impact

foods,

so

ultimately

they

are

associated

with

equally or even higher emissions

Quantities are more important than quality of diets

→ Further studies are needed: other countries, other diets, other environmental impacts

What is the link between carbon footprint and nutritional quality?

CONCLUSION:

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Alors, comment interpréter ces résultats et que conclure ?�- En fait, nos résultats montrent que L’alimentation des mangeurs Adéquats sur le plan nutritionnel est caractérisée par la prédominance d’aliments végétaux, tels que les féculents et les fruits et légumes, qui sont effectivement des aliments qui ont des Impacts Carbone plus faibles que les pdts animaux … - Mais nos résultats montrent aussi que les mangeurs Adéquats consomment des quantités importantes de ces aliments peu impactants, si bien qu’ils ont in fine, quand on regarde les résultats bruts, une alimentation aussi impactante (Hommes), voire plus (Femmes), que celle des mangeurs Inadéquats

4. Food

systems


8. International

markets


locations

2. Consumer

3.Carbon impact

of eating patterns

7.Losses/

wastage


10. Methods

Food demand evolution

Food tendency

Processes and formulations to increase organoleptic quality

Safety optimisation

Industrialisation and homogeneity

Innovations and new processes

Traditionnal food industrialisation for natural and typical products

1980197019601950 1990 2000 2010

Processes and formulation evolution for nutritionnal quality

sustainability

1. Food process conception and sustainability

Will it be possible to comply with the constraints of sustainability without having to go back on some of the constraints previously

integrated?Is it possible to answer by optimising existing technologies, or is it

necessary to fundamentally redesign food processing methods, the relationship between agriculture and industry, and the organisation of

food chains?

2. Fractionation, assembly and variety of products downstream (for ex milk, wheat,..)

Increased energy cost and increased variability in the supply of raw materials raises the question of the desired extent of deconstruction activities, so as to exploit and functionalities of raw materials

Food systems: major challenges (i)

3. Logistical organisation of chains and product flow management from upstream to downstream

Evolution has led to the constitution of large specialised agricultural production areas

and the creation of large industrial entities

Energy and environmental constraints can change this trend

An alternative to be considered lies in the trade‐off

between

Downscaling to very flexible, small industrial units suitable for diversified production

areas (short transport distances but many small quantities)

Upscaling to large co‐located mass production

units (minimising field to factory

distance for mass transport of stabilised products)

Food systems: major challenges (ii)

4. Food

systems


8. International

markets


locations

2. Consumer

3. Carbon impact

of eating patterns

7.Losses/

wastage


10. Methods

Food Losses and wastage ( kg per personne and per year) in different regions of world

Consumer

Processing ‐

retail

Responsability at all steps of food chain

Kg/person and year

Gustavsson et al., 2011

Causes and locations in the chainPost‐harvest lossesRetail and consumption wastage

Reduce food losses: a short term possibility. Which drivers of action?

4. Food

systems


8. International

markets


locations

2. Consumer

3 . Carbon impact

of eating patterns

7.Losses/

wastage


10. Methods

An urbanised society

Almost

40%

of

the

world

population

lives

in

a

city

of over 1 million inhabitants

Ageing population

Number of cities of > 1M inhabitants more than doubled between 1950 and 2007

Observation

Transport of agricultural goods and foodstuffs: 20% of transport

+ 25% for the average distance travelled since 1975

x3 for international transport by lorry since 1975

Increase in purchasing distances (consumers)

Share of food in transport: flow management

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Deux exemples. Comme le rappelle une étude pour l’Ademe, le transport du yaourt consommé en Île-de-France (y compris la logistique) représente le tiers des émissions de gaz à effet de serre attribuées à ce produit (Rizet et Keita, 2005). Par ailleurs, selon le bilan carbone de la ville de Paris, le transport de marchandises à Paris contribue à hauteur de 27 % des émissions de CO2. De manière générale, si la production agricole est source de diverses pollutions, le transport des marchandises agricoles et alimentaires génère également des nuisances environnementales significatives et consomme beaucoup d’énergie . Le secteur agricole au sens large constitue le second plus grand demandeur de transport. en 2005.

Share of food in transport: flow management

Determinants

•Changes in food trends (greater diversity, more processed products)

•Specialisation of processing units and regions due to a decrease in transport costs and times

•Change in supply chain management (just‐in‐time)

•Change in retail organization

From an energy and environmental point of view: efficiency not clear

Food miles versus technologies generating more or less pollution depending on local conditions for production

Food miles versus

modes of transport

Food miles and conflicts of use (land, water, …)

For local authorities: not clear either

Cities

(whatever the size): new players in terms of food security and quality

Seeking diversity in the food supply (local and global)

Promoting urban agriculture?

Presenter

Presentation Notes

La littérature sur les systèmes de produits locaux souligne que la durabilité des politiques alimentaires des villes ne doit pas se résumer à l’approche par les food miles, mais englober également d’autres dimensions (Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2003 ; Coley et al., 2009). Si la politique alimentaire a une dimension locale, par le maintien d’un potentiel de production agricole dans les régions urbaines, elle doit avoir une dimension globale. Différentes raisons peuvent être avancées. Nous en retenons trois. 1, En premier lieu, pour des raisons stratégiques, les agglomérations urbaines ont intérêt à diversifier leurs sources d’approvisionnement. En achetant des produits alimentaires en provenance de différentes régions, les villes réduisent les risques de pénurie. 2, En deuxième lieu, quand bien même la proximité géographique peut réduire les problèmes environnementaux liés au transport (un impact toutefois controversé), le bilan écologique peut être au final négatif. En effet, les nuisances environnementales liées à la production varient dans l’espace pour un même produit. Il peut être préférable d’importer certains produits car les conditions de production dans d’autres régions sont plus favorables pour l’environnement. Les gains écologiques sont d’autant plus importants si les importations se font par des modes de transport moins polluants. 3, En troisième lieu, la dimension éthique est importante. L’acquisition de produits alimentaires dans le cadre du commerce dit équitable l’illustre bien. Morgan et Sonnino (2010) parlent dans ce cas de localisme cosmopolite incluant la diversité ethnique et culturelle des villes – un localisme ouvert, multiculturel et inclusif –, qu’ils opposent à un localisme défensif. La ville apparaît alors duale, incluant un espace frontière ouvert sur la périphérie rurale et doté d’une identité territoriale et un espace réseau incluant les pays et régions d’origine des diasporas urbaines.

Impact of the price of energy on relocation and the organisation

of food chains within a context of growing urbanisation

To what extent can a circular urban economy that upgrades food‐ related waste be technically and economically efficient?

Impact of the action of new players in the emergence of local food systems (local public authorities, …)

Questions

4. Food

systems


8. International

markets


locations

2. Consumer

3. Carbon impact

of eating patterns

7.Losses/

wastage


10. Methods

Why methods for food systems sustainability assessment?

•

Evaluate and caracterise, identify critical points

•

Put on light the mecanisms

•

Predict/ simulate evolutions

•

Choices driving•

public policies

•

Technical and managing developments,

•

consumer (labelling)…

No simple method

•

Dealing with food system complexity

•

Diversity of eating patterns

•

4 pillars for sustainability (including health)

Developing multi‐criteria approaches

Methods must be defined according to challenges

Multiple methods, never taking account of this complexity

Define the priorities will be a choice for society

Need for european database, esp on processing stages

duALIneConclusions ‐

1

Some require a consensus

Quantities/frugality: eat less, an option to be explored further. What business model?

Animal products: how can this question be addressed beyond the meat‐eater versus vegetarian dichotomy? Take into account their production systems.

duALIneConclusion‐

2

On how themes are taken into account

Interconnections at all levels, dynamics

•

nutrients, foods, diets, food choices, •

chains, sectors, actors

Heterogeneity of systems, diversity of raw materials: resilience

factors?

Space and time scales

Beware of shifts in meaning

•

Sustainable

Environment

•

Sustainable

Global food security

Publication

Thank you for your attention

sustainable food systems: challenges, state of the art...

Documents