Peter Tom Jones

Op 2 juni 2010 werd het Engelstalige boek Meat The Truth, Essays on on Livestock Production, Sustainability and Climate Change van de Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation officieel aan de pers voorgesteld. Het boek biedt een hele reeks van essays over de verschilende aspecten van het problematische ecologische, sociale, gezondheidsmatige karakter van de hoge vleesconsumptieniveaus in de Westerse landen.

Voor dit internationale boek schreven Peter Tom Jones en Vicky De Meyere (auteurs van Terra Reversa) samen met Marius de Geus (Universiteit Leiden) hoofdstuk 12: Promoting a Sustainability Transition in the Food Domain (pp. 147-159). Hieronder volgt het officiële persbericht evenals een afdruk van dit hoofdstuk 12. 

Meer info op http://www.meatthetruth.nl/content/view/138

Meat the Truth, het boek

Het Engelstalige boek Meat The Truth, Essays on on Livestock Production, Sustainability and Climate Change van de Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation vormt het vervolg op de documentaire Meat the Truth die in 2008 in Londen gepresenteerd werd en inmiddels in 13 taalversies en 16 landen beschikbaar is.
In de bundel Meat the Truth, Essays on Livestock Production, Sustainability and Climate Change komen tal van wetenschappers aan het woord, zoals Geoff Russell, John Powles, Elke Stehfest, Daniëlle Nierenberg, Barry Brook en Harry Aiking. Ook de wetenschappers van Wageningen UR die de conclusies van Meat the Truth doorrekenden op verzoek van minister Verburg en Marianne Thieme leverden een bijdrage aan het boek. Daarnaast leverden opinieleiders als Mark Bittman (New York Times), Tobias Leenaert (EVA) en Dirk Jan Verdonk (WSPA) een bijdrage aan het boek.

De Engelstalige versie van de documentaire is als DVD-bijlage aan het boek toegevoegd. Meat the Truth markeert de omslag in denken, die plaatsvindt ten opzichte van de productie van dierlijke eiwitten. Repte Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth met geen woord over de veehouderij, inmiddels is hij vurig pleitbezorger van vleesvermindering, evenals Herman Wijffels en de 700 wetenschappers die het pleidooi voor een duurzame veeteelt ondertekenden op initiatief van Roos Vonk.

De Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation beoogt met haar nieuwe uitgave een bijdrage te leveren aan het maatschappelijk debat over de consumptie van dierlijke eiwitten in relatie tot het klimaatprobleem.

Indien u een exemplaar van Meat the Truth, Essays on Livestock Production, Sustainability and Climate Change wilt bestellen, kunt u een email sturen naar: Dit e-mail adres is beschermd door spambots, u heeft Javascript nodig om dit onderdeel te kunnen bekijken

Meat the Truth, Essays on Livestock Production, Sustainability and Climate Change
Paperback - 240 blz. -ISBN 978-94-90034-03-0 - verkoopprijs € 19,95 - Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation

Hoofdstuk 12: Promoting a sustainability transition in the food domain

Peter Tom Jones, Vicky de Meyere, Marius de Geus

“An issue which deserves additional attention of policy makers is the way the world population is meeting its need for meat, fish and dairy products. The expected increase in consumption of these food products is incompatible with the world’s ambitions to protect biodiversity and mitigate global warming. The Dutch government wants to let its citizens free in their food selection, but eventually will have to weigh social goals for the food production and consumption against climate and biodiversity issues.”

Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, Milieubalans 2009, p.11

Introduction

Food production and consumption will always have a special place in the theory and practice of sustainable and unsustainable development.  The way agriculture, husbandry and fishing are organized is in many respects essential to an ecologically responsible society and culture. Similarly, the issue of how we shall feed ourselves in the future is an absolutely vital aspect of a sustainable society.  Historically, governments in both developed and developing countries have made growth in living standards (measured materially) an organizing goal of national policy.  The fact that today people in developing countries are increasingly consuming the way we do in the West and are gradually changing their food patterns, will further increase energy use, food transport and intensify chemical based industrial farming and overfishing.  Indeed, this development will further globalize unsustainable forms of food production, processing, distribution and consumption patterns.

Among the developing countries that are seeking to increase production and consumption rates are countries like China, India and Brazil. While the middle classes are continuously expanding and these countries are trying to catch up with the West, food consumption of especially red meat and fish produce is growing. A complicating factor is that the older and younger generations look upon food consumption differently. Whereas elderly people in for instance India and China are still predominantly living on a vegetarian diet, the young and more affluent citizens have a relatively high meat consumption. In general, the traditional Asian view of food as ‘medicine’, that is food viewed as an essential component of a healthy life, is gradually breaking down as food is rendered another desirable commodity denoting not health necessarily but status and indeed power. Overall, of course, in the western industrialized world the per capita meat and fish consumption has already been high for a long time, causing a great loss of natural resources - both within the west and globally in terms of the west’s ‘food hinterland’ - and a continuous increase in the emission of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). With high consumption levels of animal proteins in developed as well as in developing countries - in combination with growing populations - this is becoming a real burden on Earth’s carrying capacity. According to the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) the worldwide meat production will probably more than double from 229 million tons in 2000 to 465 tons in 2050.

The implications of countries with emerging middle classes catching up with the developed world and adopting a Western lifestyle, in combination with developed countries’ inability or unwillingness not able or willing to reduce animal protein intake are worrying to say the least. This raises the question of whether the world can basically cope with the negative consequences of rising population, the growth of middle classes consuming more red meat and fish produce, and the basically unchanged ‘non-vegetarian’ diet in the Western world.

In order to counter the problems related to animal based food consumption and to prevent unnecessary environmental degradation, a radical shift (transition) to a new economic model in which a high quality of life is combined with a low environmental (food) impact is inevitable. It is striking in this case that healthier diets (i.e. diets with less red meat and processed foods for example) are generally also low carbon – thus opening the potential ‘win-win’ of a low-carbon food system (and associated food culture) which delivers better health for people.  Scientists argue that in the next four decades our total environmental impact (natural resources, fossil fuels, etc.) must be decreased by a staggering 90 %. To successfully take up this challenge the highest priority must be given to the four most important consumption and production domains; food, mobility, housing and recreation/travel, which account for at least 70 % of our environmental impact, based on full lifecycle studies (Tukker 2008).

In this chapter we will focus on the issue of ‘food’. In the first section we shall provide a brief overview of the environmental and health impacts of our current food patterns. In the second section the multidimensional and complex barriers which prevent a transition to environmentally sound and sustainable food patterns will be explored. The third section focuses on strategy and investigates whether in the case of food a large step forward can be made by a combination of structural, technological, cultural and behavioral evolutions. In the fourth section, referring to the British 4 E model, we shall outline what governments can actually do to drastically reduce meat and sea food consumption levels. Finally, the main conclusions are drawn.

Section 1: The problems with our current food patterns

Over-consumption of meat constitutes a real problem

In 2005 the worldwide meat production was more than 269 million tons (FAO 2007). This is more than five times as much as half a century ago. The meat consumption levels are unevenly distributed. The richer a person is, the higher his or her meat intake will be.  Here we must not overlook the fact that ‘wealth’ in our Western culture is symbolized by eating red meat and not a vegetarian diet.  In general terms, projections show that in a business as usual scenario the world’s demand for meat products may increase by 55 % in the next two decades (Steinfeld 2006). This evolution is closely related to an increasing demand of meat in rapidly developing countries such as China and India.

Why do we consider the increase of meat consumption to be such an immense problem? In principle, sustainability of food production requires an efficient use of land, water, energy, etc. The crucial point is that, in general, the growing consumption of meat lowers the efficiency of nature’s productive capacity. On average, 6 kilograms of wheat is required for the production of 1 kilogram of meat protein (poultry and pork are significantly more ‘efficient’ than beef). A considerable amount (40 %) of the world’s total production of wheat is reserved for the cattle stock sector (bio fuels take up around 5 % of the total production of grain/wheat).  Thus, a vegetarian or non-red meat diet is considerably more efficient in terms of ecology, carbon and energy, and therefore more sustainable.

Concurrently, the production of meat and dairy produce also demands enormous amounts of soy, a high protein crop. In 2004 the total global production of soy amounted to 223 million tons. Only 15 % of this amount was consumed in the form of meat substitutes, while 33 million tons was used for the production of soy oil, and 143 tons was given in the form of soy flour to the cattle and fish stocks (Brown 2004). The production of 1 kilogram of meat requires an average of 7 kilograms of soy. Once more this constitutes a major waste of valuable crop land and energy resources.

Furthermore, the world’s livestock sector is responsible for at least 18 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions (Steinfeld et al. 2006). This is one of the least known ‘inconvenient truths’ in the context of the climate change debate. It must be noted that this is greater than the worldwide contribution of road transport. Therefore, meat consumption is a very important factor contributing to climate change, which can have serious consequences for future crop yields. In addition, according to the World Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) in its revealing report Livestock’s Long Shadow, the livestock sector is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. This includes major issues such as land degradation, climate change and air pollution, loss of biodiversity, water pollution and water shortage. With respect to the latter, it is worthwhile to note that production of 1 kilogram of beef requires about 15.000 liters of water (Nature, 2008).

Besides, the overconsumption of (particularly red) meat increases the risk of heart and coronary heart disease, obesity, diabetes and some particular forms of cancer, medical proof that low-carbon diets are also healthy diets for people (McMichael 2007), a typical ‘win-win’ situation. Increasingly, the link between red meat and heart and cardiovascular diseases has been confirmed by medical researchers. Cardiovascular diseases are among the most important causes of death in the European Union. Next to smoking the most significant risk factors are excessive intake of cholesterol and increased blood pressure. Food patterns play a decisive role in the development or prevention of these specific diseases.

In a recent study in the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation (WHO) it was concluded that the explicit stimulation of dairy and meat production by the European Union is causing at least 12.800 fatalities on a yearly basis (Lloyd-Williams, 2008). The authors indicate that in earlier times the European agricultural policies were actually influenced by national health considerations, but can nowadays be controversially described as “a system designed to kill Europeans through CHD (coronary heart disease)”.

The problem of contemporary fish and seafood consumption

A similar story can be told about seafood and fish consumption. In 2005 the world’s total fisheries production amounted to 141 tons, which is eight times more than in 1950. Per capita this implies a quadrupling in the same period (Halweil & Nierenberg 2008). The causes of this remarkable expansion are twofold. In the West fish consumption is advised because of health considerations (decrease of the risk of cancer and heart and coronary disease) while in the South the growing incomes of the rising consumer classes have increased the demand for fish.

Despite the use of extremely high tech systems (satellite navigation, depth sensors, reconnaissance aircrafts, etc.) fishery is nearing its biophysical limits. As a consequence of overfishing the oceans are being emptied: for instance the populations of cod fish, tuna and swordfish have diminished by more than 90 % in the last century. A study in Science has suggested that by 2050 almost all commercial fish species will be exhausted (Worm 2006).  Recently, the film ‘End of the Line’ has made a similar point – it is the fishing equivalent to Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth on climate change (http://endoftheline.com/). The loss of biodiversity in the oceans is problematic when observed in relation to our future food production, water quality, and last but not least the resilience of societies and their food systems to cope with system shocks, some of which, like climate change, seem inevitable.

In the field of aquaculture things are not looking any better. The breeding of carnivorous fish requires the use of high quantities of biocides (in order to prevent diseases), energy and fishmeal, increasing the strain on the oceans even more. For instance, the production of 1 ton of salmon requires 5 tons of ‘wild’ fish. Today about 37 % of the worldwide fish catches is transformed into fishmeal, which again illustrates the amazing global inefficiency of these food practices, as well as underlining this: what makes economic sense in terms of profitability or makes cultural sense in terms of the demonstration and display of status, often makes no ecological sense. A related issue is chemical pollution in the vicinity of aquaculture zones (antibiotics, chemical substances, waste, manure, and potential genetic pollution by accidental escapes of specially bred genetically modified species to natural ecosystems (Rosenberg 2008).

A general food crisis

Clearly, the correct analysis of the problematic developments concerning meat and fish consumption requires that the big picture must not be lost from sight. Over the past decades the carrying capacity of the Earth has been systematically overburdened. We are still confronted with the consequences of this fact on a daily basis. The recent food crisis is most telling in this context. In the period of 2005-2007 corn became 80% more expensive, milk powder 75 %, wheat 70 %, and rice 25 % (Ivanic & Martin 2008). As of early in 2008 these price rises increased even more, particularly those for rice. In numerous markets substantial shortages of staple goods have developed. Whereas this may indeed cause problems for the least well off in Western countries, it is nothing short of a catastrophe for most people living in the southern regions.

It is well known that the food crisis is caused by a number of complex, interrelated causes, such as higher oil prices, rising pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer prices, climate change related harvest failures, increasing speculation in food, and the growing demand for bio fuels and meat products. A structural decrease of demand in bio fuels and meat products will make considerably more food available for the growing world population – currently almost 7 billion people and set to increase to 9 billion by 2050. This would also benefit the struggle against climate change, and would have positive effects on water availability, energy autonomy, public health and the general political and geostrategic stability of the world.

Section 2: Barriers to sustainable food

On the one hand, the brief sketch provided above illustrates the necessity to realise a transition in the way we organise agriculture, husbandry and fishing, and on the other hand it suggests that a radical reduction of the Western levels of meat and fish consumption is inevitable and required. However, the barriers for this sustainability transition should not be underestimated. At the supply side one is confronted with a powerful agro-industrial production apparatus which for profit reasons is not exactly inclined to radically change its methods and strategies. Concerning the demand side, there are numerous barriers as well. In what follows we will shortly analyze these complex and multidimensional barriers, in particular the ones in the domain of meat (and fish) consumption. Following the work of Ken Wilbur we see barriers on the level of behaviour, attitude, worldview and structures.

Behaviour. At an individual behavioural level we may note that meat is relatively dominant in the Western kitchen. In most countries vegetarianism is still marginal and is perceived by many citizens as a “radical option”. For a long time, the Belgians and Dutch have been frontrunners in the field of meat consumption. This is related to a general lack of knowledge about the consequences of meat consumption and is also due to current (and pervasive) culinary routines and conventions. But above all it is due to embedded  ‘food cultures’ and the complex ways in which people relate to food, for e.g. in terms of being part of who they are as individuals or a people.  Take England and France – the French sometimes refer to the English as ‘les ros bouefs’ while reciprocally the English often refer to the French as ‘frogs’ legs’. Food patterns have often been firmly grounded in our culture for many years. Some families even have particular menus for specific days. Habits and routines – the semi automatic regulation of behavior – often make life a lot easier. Research has shown that it is very difficult to alter unsustainable habits and routines, but not impossible – think of the radical shifts in food production, consumption and culture that occurred in Europe during and after the Second World War. Yet food culture is in no way static (Gram-Hanssen 2007). Western food patterns have evolved under the influence of constantly changing and new supplies in shops and supermarkets, with elements of exotic kitchens. Today’s social context, with women working outside their homes, has also fundamentally changed our eating habits. This indicates that different food styles may flourish in the future and indeed, according to our analysis, that they must flourish.

Attitude. At this level we find a number of contrasting developments. Increasingly, people say in interviews that they “do not eat much meat”, or “want to eat less meat”. In practice, however, the actual facts and figures do not confirm this. This is partly due to a so-called ‘perception gap’: on the one hand the Belgians and Dutch eat more meat than they themselves realize, on the other hand their perception is that changing one’s diet is a time consuming and difficult enterprise. Overall, in stating their preferences or buying habits people almost always tend to overestimate their ‘green’ or ‘ethical’ commitments. In addition, many people simply do not believe that a sustainable food pattern will effectively have positive a positive impact on the mitigation of climate change. In this respect we may speak of a low level of ‘perceived behavioral control.’

Worldview. At the subjective collective level, also many barriers still exist. It is important to understand that Western anthropocentrism and individualism manifest themselves clearly in our food culture. In most cases the relationship between animal rights and meat consumption is hardly taken into account when opting for a specific food pattern. All of this suggests that the empathy level with the animal behind the popular steak or entrecote is very small. Clearly, we may note that these days there is a growing health hype concerning our lifestyle and food style. This hype is related to a shift from curative to preventive health care and is also related with the popularization of medical knowledge by the media in general and internet in particular.

The idea that avoiding high levels of cholesterol or a high Body Mass Index (BMI) is one’s personal responsibility has become more widely accepted. In this context vegetarianism has become one of the ways for some ‘cultural creatives’ to effectively handle the current obsession with calories and health. To others it is more an issue of identity creation and lifestyle. The same health hype has been responsible for an increased popularity of fish as a viable alternative for meat.

Once again it is worth stressing that meat is still considered an inherent requirement.within our food pattern. This is because meat is considered ‘normal’; in our culture, not eating meat is considered ‘abnormal’ and this stresses and brings the cultural dimensions o this issue into clear focus.  Food is not simply about getting calories into our bodies so that we can function, but is a culturally significant feature of how humans relate to one another, themselves and the non-human world. Often, not eating meat is considered equal to starvation and personal sacrifice. Many believe that a vegetarian food pattern leads to impairment and illness. As was remarked earlier, it also signifies social failure or that one essentially is a non-conformist, an ‘outsider’.  To many the solution for disease and fatigue still lies in eating a “good steak” on a regular basis. However, today both the supply and the food quality is more than sufficient to adopt alternative, more healthy and environmentally responsible food habits, which implies eating less, or even no meat at all.

Structure. Overall, meat is relatively cheap in relation to the real costs involved in meat production and consumption. The same is true for agricultural products from the mainstream market. If external environmental costs were internalized, meat products would become unaffordable for many of us. In principle, regional, organic, vegetable and fair trade food would then become more affordable, which is in sharp contrast to what we find in today’s groceries and supermarkets. At a political level the seriousness and urgency of the environmental and health costs of excessive meat consumption have hardly been understood. Besides, only very few politicians are prepared to put their political future at risk by proposing radical lifestyle changes and different eating habits. It is fair to say that in many respects a moderation of meat consumption is (still) a political taboo (if not an ethical one). Nevertheless, it is an important task of Western liberal democracies to create a legal framework in which sustainable choices are systematically favoured, while making unsustainable options more costly.

Section 3: Which strategy is needed to achieve sustainable food patterns?

In our perspective, within the context of ‘sustainable production and consumption’ it is vital to apply a systems strategy. In other contributions it has been established that sustainable production functions in synergy with sustainable consumption (see Jones & Jacobs 2006, Jones & De Meyere 2009). On the supply side it will be crucial to find methods that, even in a changing climate, will create improvements in food yields while at the same time lessening environmental impact. In addition, it is equally important to get the demand side under control.

Supply side

‘Business as usual’ will not be sufficient to feed the growing world population in a healthy and ecologically sustainable manner. The IPCC has provided a whole set of policy recommendations which at a technical level must lead to an increase in food production (IPCC 2007). In our view, however, the problems are rooted much deeper. The tandem which is formed by agro-industrial farming and international free trade has come to a dead end.

A transition is required. This was also concluded in the International Assessment of Agricultural Sciences and Technology for Development (IAASTD), commissioned  by the United Nations, Unesco and FAO (Beintema 2008). In this much quoted assessment, 400 scientists have convincingly argued that the ecological and social costs of the current agro-industrial model are insupportably high, dangerous and unsustainable. What is striking is that the IAASTD report calls for nothing less than a new agricultural revolution.

This implies that governments will have to reinvest in the agricultural sector  on a global, huge scale. The IAASTD argues for an agricultural industry that is far less dependent on fossil fuels, and which relies more on family-scale agro-ecological farming and locally available resources. Obviously this does not rule out modern technologies and science. At first instance, the IAASTD’s  plea for family based agro-ecological farming, instead of a classical agro industrial approach, may sound surprising to many. Yet it has been amply documented that the best family based agricultural farms are more productive than their industrial counterparts (e.g. Barrez & Aertsen 2008).

In addition, high performance family based agriculture leads to a much better local economic development and scores favourably in the environmental field (less import of animal feed, fewer pesticides and herbicides, a better energy balance and far less water use. The fact that in our era industrial agricultural enterprises still dominate is primarily due to their ‘economies of scale’. Because of their large scale they have a lower per unit fixed cost and higher cost effectiveness, despite a lower productivity.   

In order to render the development of a family-scale agricultural model possible, many things will have to change in international and domestic policy. Food is not simply another commodity. The free trade politics heralded by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are not capable of successfully countering the food crisis in socially and environmentally responsible ways. Regions deserve the right and the opportunity to take agricultural production into their own hands. Just as biological diversity is important, so is food diversity.  Sustainable economic development presupposes intensive attention for local and regional market functioning in combination with fair world trade.

Undeniably, there is also a strong need for international mechanisms which ensure reasonable prices and guarantee food stocks (comparable to oil and gas supplies). Besides, the inequalities related to the people’s access to land, water, seeds, credits and infrastructure must be successfully addressed. Only then can the fruits of a well-performing family based agriculture be harvested. Diversification combats the negative implications of today’s hyperspecialization in one or in a number of export products.

Demand side

If we really want to supply the world population with sufficient food, without jeopardizing the Earth’s ecosystem, a policy of expanding production will not stand the test, not even if it would be of an agro-ecological origin. The demand for environmentally damaging produce like meat and fish, non seasonal produce (for instance strawberries and blackberries in winter), and (first generation) biofuels must inevitably be limited. Rachendra Pachauri, Nobel Prize winner and chairman of the UN climate panel, shares these worries; “Please eat less meat!” is his urgent message. Medical journal The Lancet recommends a drastic reduction of meat consumption in human diets (McMichael 2007). An additional advantage is that the overall dependence on oil in the food sector can and must be diminished (Pimentel 2008). Dependence on foreign sources of carbon for our food production from a  real politik and the geopolitical stance of ‘food security’ is something that must be reduced.

Section 4: The 4E- Model for meat moderation

So which tools can governments use to reduce meat (and fish) consumption levels drastically? In scientific circles the so called British 4E-model is getting more and more attention: make changes possible (enable), stimulate them (encourage), provide the right example (exemplify) and engage all actors (engage). The 4E-model can best be created by a process in which all actors are actively involved. At the same time, however, in order to achieve a real transition, governments will have to show innovative leadership. In what follows we will describe in a concise way what governments can actually do to reduce meat consumption levels. Of course, other actors – trade and industry, Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s), social movements, schools and knowledge centers – may translate this model to their own context.

Enable. The first E, enable, indicates that in the first place a change to sustainable behaviour must be made possible. Enabling implies the opening of one’s mind to new behavior and a mainstreaming of alternatives. Enabling means that governments take care that environmentally sound behaviour is no longer a matter of a few courageous people swimming against the current, but rather that the direction of the current itself is altered. An easily accessible, affordable and attractive supply of sustainable food alternatives is the minimum condition for a sustainability transition. Governments can realize this by stimulating the hotel and catering industry to increase and improve the availability of vegetarian food and to provide better information to managers and caterers about vegetarian food products. Government may furthermore create partnerships in order to increase the supply of vegetarian dishes on the menu and to improve their quality. Ideally, this can be organized in a legal frame work, arranging that hotels, restaurants, food bars and cafeteria must offer at least one nourishing meatfree menu.
 
Encourage. No doubt meat production is an expensive burden on tax payers. In 2007 the European Union spent 3.5 billion Euro in the form of direct income support to the meat producing industry. The EU has introduced a whole list of intervening measures in favour of this sector. Despite the reforms in European agricultural policy, the taxpayer still contributes large sums to meat production. This money could better have been invested in sustainable agriculture, rural development, and the creation of compensating employment schemes. Overall, the price of meat products (particularly beef) is not in accordance with the real costs caused to our climate, environment and health. Alternatives for meat are often a lot more expensive than ‘real’ meat.

Clearly, this situation is counterproductive: the price difference shies people away from adopting a more responsible diet. In the light of ‘correct’ market functioning the price setting must change: if sustainable alternatives become cheaper, this will help stimulate people to opt for the latter. In the Netherlands, for instance, it has been investigated whether it is possible and feasible to raise the VAT on meat products. Interestingly, in Estonia the government has introduced a ’flatulation tax’. This is a special tax on the emission of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas which is produced in large quantities by cattle. Of course, this approach can be combined with positive measures, such as the introduction of a zero VAT tariff on meat substitutes and organic and regional products.

In the Netherlands De Stichting Natuur en Milieu (The Foundation for Nature and Environment) has recently argued for an environmental meat taxation of at least 2 euros per kilogram. In the Dutch media the idea of levying a tax on meat because of its environmental, health related and social costs has received much attention. As a matter of fact, an intensive public debate on this issue gained ground in the autumn of 2009 and according to recent research the public support for a “vleestaks” (meat tax) is actually on the rise. Whereas previously Dutch governments have always wholeheartedly supported the meat and dairy sectors, the Balkenende IV cabinet (a coalition between the Christian Democratic Party (CDA), the Social Democratic Party (PvdA), and the much  smaller conservative Christian Union Party (CU)) is seriously considering a change of policy in this field.

Indeed, as was noted explicitly in the media by the director of the influential Dutch Planning Bureau for the Environment, Prof. Dr. Maarten Haijer, the cabinet will have to actually “stimulate citizens to consume less meat, fish and dairy, since these products are causing great environmental damage” (NRC Handelsblad 2009). This is nothing less than a revolution in the low countries where Christian parties – supported by the agricultural sector, including massive farmer associations and of course their individual members who constitute many of the Christian voters - have been able to dominate politics and implement a pro meat, fish and dairy politics for the last decades. The latter is still the case in Belgium and Flanders.

Another encouraging method is the investment in so called ‘pull factors’. This means that the appeal of a sustainable alternative is put in the limelight. To a large degree, pull factors have more influence on the targeted groups than push factors, which primarily indicate why we – from a rational point of view – should move away from the current unsustainable situation. Generally, pull factors tend to focus on the following question: why would we choose the sustainable alternative at all?

An example of an organisation which has successfully focused on pull factors is the Belgian association called EVA, a small but fast growing association which promotes vegetarianism. Instead of constantly inundating the potential public with arguments why it is an ecological necessity to eat less meat (the push strategy), EVA primarily makes use of the instrument of ‘seduction’. With the help of a glossy magazine, convenient restaurant guides and by organising culinary evenings, EVA has succeeded in making vegetarianism hip and trendy. Moreover, EVA has been emphasising the health aspects of a meat free diet. The push arguments (animal rights, North-South relations, ecological arguments) are only used by this organisation as supportive arguments.

Exemplify. However one looks at it, increasing the sustainability of our food pattern will necessitate a complete turnover of social norms. It needs to be stressed that this transition is not without historical precedent – i.e. the experiences during World War II and the post-war food economy. It must be underlined that a change in social norms is difficult but not impossible, as has been become clear by the example of society’s view on smoking habits. A basic condition is that prominent social actors, especially the government, provide the right example and clearly demonstrate leadership. In many segments of the general public an inconsistent government policy will eventually have a negative impact on their behavior. By giving the right example, the government can make abundantly clear that a reduction of meat intake is a feasible and desirable option for everyone.

This will increase public support of healthy and responsible eating habits and routines. In response to these issues in the Netherlands - in all government restaurants and cafeteria - people can choose one or more sustaining (and sustainable) vegetarian dishes. In such manners the government may actively stimulate its employees to actually opt for the vegetarian options. For instance, it could declare one or two days of the week to become ‘Veggie Day’. The same can be decided for hotels, restaurants, schools and universities, hospitals, retirement homes, etc.

Within this context, the media also have a large responsibility, since they influence our general world view in many ways. For example, by the government could use public broadcasting in oder to influence the population, stimulating them to choose a more sustainable food pattern in their homes and kitchens. Indeed, many governments today are still doing the opposite. Television campaigns selling “the surprising quality of pork” and the “health benefits and enormous appeal of beef” are aired  regularly. These promotion videos are skillfully cloaked as ‘messages of public interest’, as if they contain important and objective information. However, there is now unequivocal evidence that further encouragement of meat consumption is neither in the general interest, nor beneficial to public health.

Engage. The fourth instrument starts from the consideration that it is crucial to engage people in active ways when processes of social change occur. Humans are embedded in a large and complex web of social relations. Overloading people individually with information has far less impact than approaching them in a communitarian social process. The government can support these community based projects. A good example in the food sector is the ‘Thursday Veggie Day’ campaign of EVA mentioned above. Because of the analogy with ‘Friday Fish day’ the initiative is provided with a name which will be remembered. In public relations terminology this is often referred to as the ‘stickiness factor’. It should be noted that EVA has intentionally opted for a moderation of meat consumption, rather than full blown vegetarianism. The reason behind this choice is that this call will find greater public support and may cause spillover effects in society.

Undeniably, education deserves special attention. Our attitudes are formed by the knowledge which has been passed on to us from our childhood onwards. At most schools children are still informed about a balanced diet on the basis of the  so-called ”four leaf clover method”, in which pasta and pastry, dairy products, meat and also vegetables and fruit have an equal weight. Alternative pedagogical tools can clarify that alternative products actually exist and that some nutrients (saturated fat, etc.) are in fact healthy only when they are consumed with moderation. The government must take on essential role in this context. All of this suggests that what we need is a food equivalent of the ‘waste hierarchy’ denoting clearly that, in terms of the environment and of health, the best diet is vegetarian.

Concluding reflections

The problem outlined at the beginning of this chapter is that with today’s high consumption levels of animal protein in developed and increasingly also in developing countries the impact on the earth’s carrying capacity is becoming critical. This raised the question of whether the world can cope with the negative consequences of the increase of the upcoming middle classes in the South who consume more red meat, dairy products and fish produce, while at the same time the great majority of Western citizens still routinely and conventionally cling to a basically ‘non-vegetarian’ diet.

As we have seen, in order to counter the problems related to animal protein based food consumption and to prevent unnecessary environmental decline, a transition to a new economic model is required, in which a high quality of life is combined with a low environmental food impact. As we have noted the need for drastic changes is inevitable, especially when considering that in the next four decades our total environmental impact (natural resources, fossil fuels, etc.) will have to decrease by approximately 90 %.

Our analysis has particularly focused on the food sector. We have suggested that in order to realize a fundamental ‘systems transition’ in the direction of sustainable food production and consumption a lot of stakeholders must be convinced of its necessity and desirability. This must include farmers, food specialists, researchers, opinion makers, celebrity chefs and policy makers in sectors like agriculture, public health, ecology, and so on. We have argued that a minimum condition for public acceptance will be to provide excellent and objective information and education through which the social, ecological and health advantages of a sustainable food policy are fully exposed.

It will be vital to ‘sell’ these many advantages (in the field of  climate change, depletion of resources, public health, energy autonomy) in intelligent and convincing ways and to communicate as clearly as possible that eventually they will result in a net profit for both individual citizens and society as a whole. In fact, our argument has been that a combination of structural technological and cultural behavioral development provides the best opportunities for such a radical change. Although there are a number of strong barriers preventing drastic changes, it is important to emphasise that alternative social strategies and the application of the 4E- model can accelerate a transition, encompassing behavioral, social and cultural change.

There are, then, plausible strategies which will lead to moderation in the production and consumption of meat, fish, seafood and dairy products. Possibly, these strategies will not meet all the challenges presented by our contemporary food issues. However, they may prove to be a very important vehicle for providing realistic and systematic solutions to fundamental problems in the field of natural resource conservation, food efficiency, ecological stability, and public health.

Acknowledgements

Our thanks are due to John Barry (Queen's University, Belfast) for his valuable comments, criticisms and encouragement. We are very grateful for his detailed remarks and suggestions on the first draft of this chapter.

It must also be noted that this chapter builds on earlier work of the authors on ecological issues, environmental justice and climate change, in particular Chapter 6 of the recent book Terra Reversa: De transitie naar rechtvaardige duurzaamheid (Jones/De Meyere, 2009, EPO/Jan Van Arkel). For a more extensive overview on transitions and a more elaborate bibliography we refer to this book.

References

Barrez, D., Aertsen, J., (2008) Wie zorgt er voor een echte groene revolutie?, MO paper, 20

Beintema, N., et al, (2007), International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), Global Summary for decision Makers

Brown, L., (2004), The Soybean Factor, Outgrowing the Earth: The Food Security Challenge in an Age of Falling Water Tables and Rising Temperatures, Earth Policy Institute.

FAO, (2007), Food Outlook, FAO, November http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah876e/ah876e08.htm

Gram-Hansen, K., Consuming technologies – developing routines, Journal of Cleaner Production [doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.08.006]

Halweil, B., Nierenberg, D., (2008), Meat and Seafood: The Global Diet’s Most Costly Ingredients, 2008 State of the World: Innovations for a Sustainable Economy, World Watch Institute, 61-74

http;//endoftheline.com/

IPCC, (2007), Fourth Assessment Report, (AR4), WMO/UNEP, Geneva

Ivanic, M., Martin, W., (2008) World Bank, Implications of Higher Global Food Prices for Poverty in Low-income Countries, Policy Research Working Paper, 4594, 57 pp.

Jones, P.T., and Jacobs, R., (2006), Terra Incognita: Globalisering, Ecologie en Rechtvaardige Duurzaamheid, Academia Press, Gent

Jones. P.T., and De Meyere, V., (2009) Terra Reversa, EPO/ Jan van Arkel, Berchem/Utrecht 

Lloyd-Williams, F. et al (2008), Estimating the cardiovascular mortality burden attributable to the European Common Agricultural Policy on dietary saturated fats, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86, 7, 535-541

McMichael, A.J. et al, (2007), Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health, The Lancet, 1253-1263

Nature, (2008), A fresh approach to water, Nature, 452, 253

NRC Handelsblad, Kabinet mist bijna alle milieudoelen, 9 september, p. 1, and also Al lang niet meer cool om een steak te eten, 9 september, p. 3 (This last article was written by NRC journalist Arjen Schreuder)

Pimentel, D., et al, (2008) Reducing Energy Inputs in the US Food System, Human Ecology, [DOI10.1007/s10745-008-9184-3]

Rosenberg, A.A., (2008), The price of lice, Nature, 451, 23-24

Steinfeld, H. et al, (2006), Livestock’s Long Shadow, FAO

Tukker, A (ed.), (2008), Systems Innovations for Sustainability 1: Perspectives on Radical Changes to Sustainable  Consumption and Production, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield

Worm, B., (2006) Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystems Services, Science, 314, 787-790

 …………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Biographies:
 
Peter Tom Jones (1973) is a Civil Engineer in Environmental Studies. He is Doctor in Applied Sciences and works as Industrial Research Fellow at the University of Leuven. He is co-author of Terra Incognita (Acadamia Press, Gent 2006/2007), Het klimaatboek (EPO, Berchem 2007), and Terra Reversa (EPO/ Jan van Arkel, Berchem, Utrecht 2009)

Vicky de Meyere (1980) is an Anthropologist and Political Scientist and works for the project on Culture and Mental Health at the Centre for Mental Health Care in Brussels. She has published various articles on Ecology, Ethics and Behavioral Change, and is co-author of Terra Reversa (EPO/ Jan van Arkel, Berchem, Utrecht 2009)  

Marius de Geus (1954) is a Political Scientist and Doctor in Law. He is Senior Lecturer in Political Philosophy at the Institute of Political Sciences at Leiden University. He has published a number of books on Environmental Philosophy, including Ecological Utopias (Jan van Arkel, Utrecht 1999), and The End of Over-consumption (Jan van Arkel, Utrecht 2003)