Great food crunch

Australia must stop dumping massive amounts

THE 2017 Hunger Report was released by Foodbank to coincide with World Food Day this week – and it makes for frightening reading.

The report shows that, at some point last year, 15 per cent of the population (3.6 million Australians) worried about where their next meal would come from. The number of Australians who are regularly food insecure has dramatically increased in the past year, with 60 per cent of vulnerable Australians now food insecure at least once a month.

The report also reveals that almost half of those experiencing food insecurity in Australia are employed, with “bill shock”, particularly as a result of skyrocketing energy prices, now the top cause for not having enough money for food.

So what does food insecurity actually mean? The Foodbank report says people face food insecurity when they ‘lack secure access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development and an active and healthy life’.

Our situation, while surprising, is only the tip of the iceberg. Today’s global food system leaves an estimated 700 million people undernourished and an additional 2 billion malnourished.

Australia produces more than 90 per cent of its domestic food requirements. Compared with many other nations, we are in a global sense “food secure”. However, there’s no guarantee that will continue.

Climate scientists predict that, if left unchecked, global warming will lead to large cuts in agricultural productivity in most parts of the world, with potentially disastrous consequences for food security and livelihoods.

At the same time, food waste is growing exponentially. Government estimates indicate that food

Jan Davis

waste costs the Australian economy alone $20 billion a year. The average Australian household throws out more than $1036 of food every year; and food waste also makes up to 40 per cent of the total rubbish in household garbage bins.

Another recent study found that up to 87 per cent of undamaged, edible tomatoes harvested from one commercial farm in Queensland were rejected based purely on appearance. Edible tomatoes that were slightly odd-shaped or marked or deemed too small or too large were rejected that at every point in the supply chain because they didn’t meet ‘market standards’. In total, between 68.6 per cent and 86.7 per cent of the harvested produce was rejected.

But that was only part of the picture. The research also found that between 70 and 84 per cent of tomatoes were left in the field, because the cost of harvesting and supplying them to market was greater than any profit to be made.

While the basis for this study was limited, it concluded that post-harvest loss was due to “deliberate and informed actions of supply chain actors, dictated predominantly by private food standards”.

In other words, the supermarkets do this because they can. It is clear that the standards they impose on farmers are lacking in transparency and generally based on subjective opinions with little if any relationship to customer preferences. Farmers have to meet those standards or the supermarkets will just choose other suppliers.

So what can we do on a local scale to reduce this waste and address food insecurity issues?

Breaking the stranglehold of the supermarket duopoly would be a good start. Antitrust legislation modelled on that used in the US could be used to dilute market share and hence reduce market influence. Many supermarket supply contracts include exclusivity terms which prevent farmers from selling or even donating rejected produce. For starters, the ACCC could ensure contracts include reasonable terms for suppliers.

A government focus on developing and supporting food producers and processors would be even better.

Experts advocate policy approaches that increase the demand for healthy foods over unhealthy options, including options that make use of legislation and/or regulation, price control, income management and community education. Regulation and price mechanisms have been used in Australia and found to be effective in reducing the level of food insecurity.

Governments could also invest in co-ordinated promotion of fresh produce – programs like the wellcredentialed “Go for 2+5”. Preventative health measures like this could be funded by the significant savings that would result in the health budget. Or, if that is not a preferred option, the cost of these promotions could be covered by through taxes on junk food or soft drinks.

These are just a few suggestions. We need to promote wider discussion of these issues. Working together, governments, communities, NGOs, and the private sector can reduce the incidence of food insecurity and its devastating human effects. Jan Davis is an agribusiness consultant and former chief executive of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association.