Resolute action is required to address the impacts of climate change on our ability to feed the global population. Tom Hollands explores strategies for enhancing the sustainability of our food systems.
Our environment is changing – the activities of our species and our failure as stewards continues to have a significant and profound impact on our planet through climate change. Whether it is rising CO2 levels [1], ocean acidification [2] or increasing global sea temperatures [3], these changes are altering our landscapes and radically changing the way we live and work; it is happening in our lifetime.
Changing food systems
Our food production systems are interlinked with our environment and are the de-facto backbone of any civilisation. Our daily toils are ultimately to facilitate our sustenance and it should come as no surprise that as the environment changes then so too do our food production systems – not only in terms of agronomy but also in terms of emerging, new food safety risks, such as Tetrodotoxin (TTX). TTX is a microbiologically produced potent toxin (categorised alongside ricin) that was previously only detected in tropical climates and commonly associated with the Pufferfish. In 2014/15 the toxin was detected at low levels in wild bivalves (oysters) [4] from the English Channel and then in 2015/16 it was detected (at higher levels) in both wild and farmed bivalves in Holland [5]. New risks will continue to emerge as our intrinsically complex and embedded ecosystems continue to adapt to the changing environment resulting from the folly of our species.
The world economy is driven by capitalism, which warmly embraces changes that reduce cost and/or increase profit. There is a common perception that food safety is enhanced at the cost of sustainability, whereas reducing resource utilisation will almost certainly reduce cost. At face value there is evidence to support this: reducing the temperature of a fridge will retard microbiological functions but at the cost of increased energy (electricity) expenditure. Washing fruit and vegetables to reduce the microbiological load is carried out at the expense of water consumption (and the energy to treat, monitor and transport that water). Even at the most fundamental level, heat is applied to make food safe. But is the perception of increased resource use for food safety as rigid as it seems? Perhaps when considering water use the jury is still out.
There is a common perception that food safety is enhanced at the cost of sustainability, whereas reducing resource utilisation will almost certainly reduce cost.
![]()
Reducing water consumption
A simple example of improving food safety by reducing resource use is the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) ‘Don’t wash raw chicken’ campaign, which advises the public not to wash poultry prior to cooking due to environmental cross contamination as well as Campylobacter morphology (i.e. its ‘hooks’ that anchor it into the flesh, making it harder to remove with mechanical action). Another example could be limiting the use of water in food handling environments to reduce the incidence and proliferation of Listeria monocytogenes and other foodborne pathogens – water is understood to be the biggest vector for process contamination. Another more process specific example is changing raw materials, such as moving to a cold hydration variety of couscous, which does not require boiling. This amounts to reduced energy consumption, reduced condensation (from cooking) and no additional refreshing stage (i.e. chilling), which further reduces water consumption. These examples demonstrate that with some ingenuity, cost can be reduced (labour, maintenance and utilities), food safety and product shelf life can be enhanced and progress can be made towards sustainable practices, all of which are warmly embraced by the food industry and its stakeholders.
Water use is ubiquitous across the food industry and important in delivering safe food. The examples above demonstrate that besides the well understood tensions between food safety and sustainability, there is ample scope for resource reduction while enhancing food safety and quality and reducing cost. Taking this approach is not a panacea to climate change, because global warming is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon and careful stewardship of resources is but one aspect. However, if a food business operator (FBO) wishes to achieve enhanced food safety and sustainability without exposing the business to unacceptable risk and cost, then water management is a good example of an area where considerable benefits can be achieved.
... there is ample scope for resource reduction while enhancing food safety and quality and reducing cost.
Desert factories
But how would an FBO commence such a journey towards being a ‘desert factory’? Assuming that senior management buy-in has been accomplished, then the organisation would commence from the first principle that water is a scarce resource, in a very similar manner to a desert. Contrary to popular belief, deserts are not utterly devoid of water, rather rainfall is rare and all successful organisms that live in their barren and forsaken lands are extremely adept at making efficient use of this precious commodity.
The second principle requires a more holistic approach to food production and a new way of thinking. Changes to part of a system, for example CO2 emissions, can have drastic consequences on other embedded and interconnected systems (a fundamental tenant of System Theory). Rather than having separate systems for food safety (HACCP), quality management (QMS) and environmental management (EMS), these systems should be considered as a whole construct – a meta-system – that needs to be managed with careful and considered stewardship focused on minimising water use and maximising water recovery and reuse. At present and to the author’s knowledge there is no certification standard that combines these key components for FBOs into a coherent, balanced system.
The third principle is that no process, procedure, material or machinery is unassailable; every aspect of a processing operation must be on the table and open and susceptible to change. There can be no sacred cows - all options for combining or removing processes and reagents should be possible. If the scope of targets for process improvement is limited, potential benefits and impact will also be limited. From a systems perspective this makes sense because fencing off parts of a system restricts the inner-outer connectedness of the components. Furthermore, technology and learning continues to progress and although there may be no immediate solutions, in time this will change. Processes and procedures are human constructs and therefore wholly susceptible to patient human ingenuity and teamwork. This introduces the fourth and final principle, which underpins the previous three but is essential for success, i.e. unification of the distinct components of the metasystem, including food safety, food quality and sustainability, through teamwork to manage every aspect of water use.
Innovation by SMEs
The majority of food businesses are small and medium enterprises (SMEs) with limited resources; their technical expertise to facilitate this type and scale of change is limited and wholly susceptible to customer demands (technical support, audits and complaints). Coupled with an ageing and depleting skill pool [6] – a major concern – these circumstances do not inspire confidence that food SMEs will be able to respond to the challenge of changing the way water and other key resources are managed and could be a major stumbling block to progress. But with smaller size comes agility; the size of SMEs can be of significant benefit to them. Unlike larger, more structured food businesses, SMEs can review, test and optimise new process features before they have even reached the agendas of larger companies. Communication lines are typically shorter, with the owners often working within the business, which reduces information asymmetry. Thus size is not an over-riding problem; the most important factor is the team of people which delivers and maintains the process of managing the evolution of a more sustainable strategy.
Collaboration
To facilitate this type of change, the involvement of a local tertiary educational establishment could provide much needed objectivity as well as expanding the innovation network and the innovation capacity of SMEs. This type of applied science – where academia meets real world applications – is becoming increasingly important; academic establishments must be able to produce graduates ready for the workplace as well as helping to facilitate innovation through knowledge transfer and support. Quasi-academic organisations, such as FERA, are embracing this model as there is an understanding that only by collaborating with industry can innovation be driven forwards to enhance performance.
Nutrition and health
This broad skeleton of a paradigm shift comprises four core principles that unify food safety, quality and sustainability systems. This meta-system aims to reconcile contradictory aspects of process design and management, while aligning with business core aims of reducing cost and increasing profit. However, there is one final system that is fundamentally linked with food safety, quality and sustainability, i.e. nutrition and health. One third of our planet’s emissions stem from feeding the world’s population (badly); diet quality is poor [7] and more people are obese than underweight [8]. The demand for protein from animal sources is growing significantly and the world’s population is estimated to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 [9]. Partly due to the poor management and worldwide utilisation of antibiotics (50%~ use in primary production), microbial resistance to antibiotics is prevailing and we are entering a terrifying post antibiotic era. The prognosis is poor and these powerful negative disruptive changes are also exacerbating one another. We can no longer ignore this elephant in the room. The food industry and the citizens it feeds must change; it must demonstrate leadership, be bold, innovative and start to turn the tide. In order to effect change, the food and drink industry must consider food safety, food quality, sustainability and health within a single framework across the supply chain. This broad, all-encompassing approach requires a new set of tools and sharing of best practice and data. Government could play a key role in partnership with industry and NGOs in helping to develop tools to support decision making.
As a starting point there is plenty of evidence that suggests that consumption of animal protein must be reduced as livestock production and processing is a major contributor to CO2 emissions and water consumption.
Reducing meat consumption
As a starting point there is plenty of evidence that suggests that consumption of animal protein must be reduced as livestock production and processing is a major contributor to CO2 emissions and water consumption [10]. We need to reduce overall meat consumption but at the same time retain jobs, grow the economy and create conditions for better standards of living and health for everyone. This could be achieved through a number of mechanisms and strategies, some legislative and others involving pressure on citizens to act responsibly and increasing their awareness:
- All processed meat products (including traditional products) must contain 5% non-animal protein, such as artificial meat, insect protein, vegetable protein etc. Similar to the salt targets the minimum content rises with time;
- Restrictions on packaging formats for retail meats – single person/ portioned;
- Restrictions on meat portions in food service;
- Significant resources allocated to alternative, sustainable protein sources;
- Significant resource deployment to develop tools to support a unifying system;
- Creating networks between multiple stakeholders to facilitate information flow and knowledge transfer;
- Decoupling of genetic engineering from genetic alteration – the former involves adding genes from other species and the latter involves modifying the existing genome to provide a benefit (e.g. reduced susceptibility to a certain pathogen).
- Perhaps even rationing of animal protein (likely to be very unpopular).
Conclusion
Food is a very emotive topic and no one (least of all the author) desires to restrict consumer choice, but the global problems are titanic compared to an individual’s choice between a Meat Feast Pizza and a Sustainable Meat Feast Pizza. The author does not advocate monetary measures (tax) as this creates an unequal and unfair footing between the rich and poor. These very real challenges affect our entire species and if wealth were an alleviating factor, then the burden of dietary change would fall upon poor countries and individuals. It is up to the wealthy nations to start the trend and support other nations in this herculean task.
This article has introduced a pragmatic and practical approach that seeks to integrate management strategies for food safety, quality, sustainability and nutrition & health systems into a single meta-system. This system would initially focus on water stewardship, but it is anticipated that significant benefits (including cost reduction) can be achieved in multiple areas through careful analysis, sharing of best practice and ultimately bridging these currently unconnected systems. We – our species – are the architects of climate change; our tools and our way of life have created this problem and it is within our gift to slow it down and eventually solve it.
Tom Hollands was formerly Science Delivery Programme Manager at the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and UK Focal Point (and Advisory Forum Alternative) to the European Food Safety Authority. LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/tom-hollands-csci-mifst-bsc-hons-8330951a
References
1. NASA (2016), The Relentless rise of carbon dioxide, [Online] http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/, [Accessed] 05/07/2016
2. UKOA (2016), UK Ocean Acidification Research Programme introduction, [Online] http://www.oceanacidification. org.uk/ [Accessed] 06/07/2016
3. European Environment Agency (2015), Rising sea surface temperature: towards ice-free Artic summers and a changing marine food chain, [Online] http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/sea-surface-temperature [Accessed] 06/07/2016
4. Eurosurveillance (2015), Detection of the Pufferfish Toxin Tetrodotoxin in European Bivalves, England, 2013 to 2014, vol 20, Issue 2
5. Dutch Food Safety Authority (2016), Precautions mussels and oysters in Oosterschelde (translation), [Online] https://www.nvwa.nl/actueel/nieuws/nieuwsbericht/2077041/voorzorgsmaatre... [Accessed] 06/07/2016
6. Justine Fosh (2015) Appetite for success, in Food Science & technology, vol 29, issue 4 p44.
7. Tim Benton (2014) Food futures, in in Food Science & technology, vol 28, issue 2 p20.
8. Nature (2016), NCD Risk Factor Collaboration, Lancet 287, p1377 – 1396
9. UN (2015), World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, [Online] https://www.un.org/development/desa/ en/news/population/2015-report.html [Accessed] 06/07/2016
10. FAO (2015), Tackling climate change through livestock; A Global Assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities, [Online] http://www.fao.org/3/i3437e.pdf [Accessed] 06/07/201
