Lena Meyer

Animal products have become an important part in our diet. Once considered a luxury item, animal proteins are now an almost daily component in our food. But without improvment in the food industry, this diet will no be sustainable. So change is necessary! But how to change is the diffcult question. I will now take a closer look at three possible ways to improve the food system. They greatly differ in the amount of animal product consumed from no consumption of any animal sourced food to a similar amount of consumption as today.

The consum of animal sourced food per person has only over the last 50 years increased over more then 50%. 70% of all agricultural land is currently used for livestock. In addition is livestock also the dominant polluter in the food system, beeing responsible for 60% of the greenhouse gas emissions (Van Zanten, 2018). Studies show that with the current diet and no improvment in production efficiency, there would not be enough land to produce all the needed food to feed the global population in 2050. And even with a healthier diet, meaning more vegetables and fruits, less sugar, oil and animal products and as a whole, less quantity of food, the available land would not be sufficient (Röös, 2017). I have therefore concentrated on three different approaches to improve the current foodsystem in order to secure food safety in the future.

The three scenarios 

Intensive production

Stakeholders containing people from the food and farming industries, research institutes and policymaker see the increase in demand of animal products as inevitable or at least a distinct possibility. In their perception the main challenge is to supply for the growing demand. Or simply said, the problem is « not enough food ». Therefore lies the focus on improving the productivity and reducing the environmental footprint of the system rather than managing the consumption. This implies a lot of technological advances to achieve a sustainable food system (Röös, 2017). Improvments are needed in feed production methods, for example more percise fertilization, also in life-time productivity, where improving the feed digestibility and efficieny, increasing reproductives rates and animal yields and reducing diseases are needed measures. And in manure management are changes necessary such as covering the storage facilities and low-emission spreading of manure. To achieve a smaller footprint, this pathway favours a transition from grass-based to a concentrate-based ruminant feed (Van Zanten, 2018).

Strictly Vegan

Memebers of animal rights and environmental NGOs, additionally some academics interested in fields like environment, nutrition or social science have another perception and see the increasing consumption of unhealthy and resource-demanding food, including animal products, as the main challenge. For them « to much greed » is the most pressing problem. In particular the consumption behaviour of Western countries is highly resource intensive and in need of improvement. The focus of this pathway is the high environmental footprint caused by animal products and the perceived inefficiency of feeding human edible products to animals (Röös, 2017). The basis of their argument lies in studies comparing footprints of different consumption patterns, in which the vegan diet has the most environmental benefits due to low emissions and land use. Therefore should a shift from todays diet to a vegan diet secure a safe food system. But the estimation of the footprint leaves out linkages within the food system. For example can the relation between milk and beef not be included in the calculation and both items are determined seperately. The exclusion of such linkages especially weakens the result of animal sourced food and it creates a small shift in favour of diets containig less animals products (Van Zanten, 2018).

No Feed-Food Competition

The fundemental idee behind this concept is that the role of animals should be centered on converting biomass, that is not consumable for us, into valuable products like meat, milk, eggs or manure (Van Zanten, 2018). Proponents of this pathway believe in an imbalance of power and socio-economic relations among stakeholders in the foodsystem and the natural world. Therefore is the perceived challenge to «rebalance the system». Nature-mimicking farming system are the preferred agricultural practice (Röös, 2017). Arable land will just be used for the production of foodcrops, and not feed for livestock. This stops the competition for land between food and feed production. Only leftovers and non edible biomass from grassland is feed to animals. The livestock recycles the nutriens back into our system as food or manure. Otherwise these nutriens would go to waste. This concept however only work aslong as the consumption of animal sourced food is limited to the products of the low-cost livestock. Exceeding this level leads to a contest for land between food and feed once more. Because of imense differences in the consumption of animal products, some regions would need to reduce a lot and others could even include more food from animals into their diet. Especially Noth America would have to cut down their intake by almost 2/3 of todays value. But also Oceania, Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean and the Middle East would have to change their eating habit and consume less animal product. Asia and Arica on the other hand, could even slightly increase their consumption (Van Zanten, 2018).

Are the scenarios effective ?

If we take a look at the grafik below, we see the predicted land use in 2050 for a number of possible approaches. However I will only concentrate on the three scenarios above. The approach Intensive Production corresponds to the Intensive Livestock scenario, the Strictly Vegan approach to plant-based eating and Ecological leftovers correlates to the No Feed-Food Competition.

Current (2009) yields and current waste levels, Röss, 2017 –Land use for the production of food for the global population in 2050 for Projected Diets (PD) and Healthy Diets (HD) for the different livestock production scenarios. The categories ‘Milk and beef’, ‘Pig meat’, ‘Poultry’ and ‘Aquaculture’ includes feed for these species grown on cropland, including by-products from plant-based foods (allocated based on mass). ‘Unused by-products’ are by-products from plant-based foods not utilized as feed (could be used for bioenergy production or refined to human edible products)

We see that with Livestock-as-usal neither predicted or healthy diet stay under the available cropland. The intensive production approach needs less land because of the increase in productivity however is still clearly excites the available cropland. As a result of the continued high consumption of animal products, much land is needed for feed production. With the transition from a grass-based to a concentrate-based ruminant feeding system, pasture (violet) is almost abscent and the area of cropland increases.

In the Strictly Vegan approach the land use is only slightly above the available cropland and needs the least amount of land compared to the other two scenarios. But it is also visible that this pathway leads to the most unused byproducts (lime-green).

The No Feed-Food Competition is the scenario with the biggest change in predicted and healthy diet. We see clearly that this approach only works with a shift towards more healthy eating habits. It is also is the only scenario still including pasture in large amounts. The quantity of used cropland, similarly to the Strictly Vegan approach, only excites the available cropland a little. However it creates much less unused byproducts due to the recycling of this waste through animals.

The Discussion

I have now shown three different approaches of how the food system could be changed in order to improve food safety in the future. They not only vary in the quantity of animal sourced food consumed and effectiveness in bettering the food system, but also in their philosophies and values. The most liberal scenario is the Intensive Production. Because of the increase in productivity and effectiveness does the consumer not have to change his eating habits. Which leads to the least improvement in 2050 compared to the other scenarios. Additionaly this also causes to some serious different concerns. The pollution is much higher then in the other two scenarios, even exciting todays levels of greenhouse gas emissions in 2050. Also problematic is the routine use of antibiotics, which can lead to antimicrobial resistance, the increased spread of zoonotic disease and negative consequences on animal welfare. For many, this scenario would not be morally acceptable because of the conditions livestock would need be held in order to work (Röös, 2017).

The Strictly Vegan diet is the opposite of this scenario. The concentration lies heavily on addressing the consumption rather then the production. Here consumers are limited in their choice of food, restricted to only vegan options. The exclusion of animal products leads to the least amount of land used in 2050. Also the emissions are lower then in the other scenarios. If compared to todays amount, emissions are cut in half until 2050. But because of the value, in particular meat, holds in our society this scenario is highly unlikely. People resist the idea of eating less meat because of strong cultural resonance. It has been shown that an increase in wealth is linked to an increase in consumption of animal products. This relation only breaks above a certain level of income. Motivating consumers to eat healthier and less meat has so far been a challenge. Health promotion polices had a limited impact over the last years. Only outcomes from economic measures have shown cautiously positive results. To what extend these could motivate people to shift their consumption in the direction of a vegan diet is unknown (Röös, 2017).

In the No Feed-Food Competition scenario consumers are also restricted, however only in the amount of animal sourced food they can eat. Which may be a easyer sell. Also only regions with a high consum have to reduce, which creates a fairer foodsystem. This concept could offer a middle ground, tackeling consumption and production. But eventhough emissions are smaller than in the Intensive Production scenario, if not paired with a healthy diet, emissions still excite todays amount. A similar result is shown for the land use, where the healty diet looks very promising while the predicted diet needs to much pasture. The biggest problem in the scenario is the great uncertainty when it comes to calculting the amount of animal food, we would be able to eat. Scenarios vary from 9 kg to 35 kg per year. To make predictions for this approach is therefore difficult (Röös, 2017).

Looking at all the positive and negative effects of each scenario, the No Feed-Food Competition with a healthy diet seems to be the most reasonable. Combined with waste reduction, this approach should be able to feed the global population (Röös, 2017). It offers the benefit of still eating animal products and recycling agricultural waste through animals, but not impose harsh living condition on the livestock. This would therefore be my prefered direction moving forward.

References

Röös, E. (June 2017). Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Global Environmental Change, S. 1-12.

Van Zanten, H. H. (2018). Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Global Change Biology, S. 4185-4194.