Food, glorious food — or restraint?
We need to take a closer look at our relationship with food, says
Our relationship with food is bonkers. Advertisements asking for food donations for needy families vie with endless cooking shows where expensive ingredients are “heroed” on the plate.
We’ve been told that for one in six Kiwi children living in New Zealand’s poorest communities, food was all they wished for at Christmas.
Then we see tables groaning with more food than can possibly be consumed by the people present — and it’s only an internet click away.
No comment about leftovers, recycling and landfill.
Or restraint.
For the world grappling with climate change, restraint could be the focus for 2024 — whether in food, fuel or general lifestyle.
Cop28 (the 28th United Nations Conference of Parties in Dubai) reached an agreement that “signals the ‘beginning of the end’ of the fossil fuel era by laying the ground for a swift, just and equitable transition”.
The “just and equitable” philosophy was also part of the food and agriculture discussions where “the fundamental principles of food security and nutrition” emerged as “intrinsic human rights”.
To achieve this, the UN said increasing meat production to address health challenges in poorer countries was required, emphasising that animal protein was needed to address hunger and nutrient deficiencies.
Rather than point out that New Zealand could provide animal protein with a low environmental impact, the media here focused on the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s goal of reducing methane emissions from the livestock sector by 25 per cent by 2030 (compared with 2020) and the Greenpeace call for halving the dairy herd.
The organisation identified actions to achieve the goal, including improving the productivity of livestock through better genetics, intensifying livestock production in relevant locations and improving feeding practices — as well as protecting animal health through improved veterinary services and disease surveillance.
Feeding improvement through new sources of proteins, restoration of degraded pasture and improved grazing management practices were also identified as steps towards a lower methane future.
New Zealand dairy farmers have been working on these steps successfully for over 30 years, and have the data to prove it.
Similarly, red-meat farmers have improved productivity with simultaneous improvements in environmental footprint.
Concerned environmentalists urging New Zealand to move to halve the dairy herd do not seem to understand the global issue or the scientific reality — the Food and Agriculture Organisation has pointed out that the mitigation effects of reducing consumption of animal-based foods depend on what replaces them.
Ongoing media reports about the land use and greenhouse gas production of animals for so few calories overlook the importance of protein, the essential amino acids within that protein, and the minerals and vitamins that are found in accessible form in animal protein.
Of 98 foods in the human diet, milk ranks in the top five contributors to 23 of the top essential 29 nutrients.
Further, a quick calculation shows that it does so for low-calorie intake. Meat has similar advantages. Also leather, wool and various other components from animals contribute to reduced requirements for products from the fossil-fuel industry such as polyester.
Although bamboo and lyocell (from trees) are touted as alternatives, the chemical processing and energy required to turn wood into something people are prepared to wear on their bodies are considerable.
“Reports on people being misled by overzealous labelling and marketing of pollutive materials as ‘better’ for the environment or more sustainable” are not difficult to find.
While it is true that many people in higher-income countries could benefit from reduced consumption of animal-source foods, many people in lower-income countries will benefit from increased consumption.
Questions might also be asked about the number of clothes or trips that people in developed countries really need (1.7 million passengers on Air NZ this holiday season).
Restraint, moderation and understanding are key to moving the global debate — and action — forward.
The Farmers’ Constituency of the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change wants to assist and has explained that “context-relevant research and innovation” are needed for the future.
Further, it has pointed out that “bottom-up, science-based and outcomes-focused solutions already exist and can deliver multiple cobenefits; scale-up and uptake should be accelerated globally”.
A top-down one-size-fits-all approach simply will not work for agriculture — the solutions will be as diverse as the world’s farms and farmers.
Kiwi farmers and researchers have been on the journey for decades.
And perhaps it is time for a discussion on treating food as a global resource.
What does the world need in terms of essential amino acids, carbohydrates, fats and oils, minerals and vitamins?
Which location can produce what is needed for the fewest resources?
New Zealand would have animal protein (not the pineapple lumps featured in the Pascall’s advertisement).
Oliver Twist, dreaming of glorious food instead of gruel, sang “What’s next is the question?”
Although his answer was “Rich gentlemen have it boys, indigestion”.
Now the answer should be “all countries have it, guys — the ability to think sensibly about food as well as fossil fuel”.
Restraint might be the outcome. It could be a resolution for 2024.
For the world grappling with climate change, restraint could be the focus for 2024 — whether
in food, fuel or general lifestyle.