We need radical change in how we produce and consume food

Recently, two papers were published that, in different ways, illustrate the huge challenges we face in delivering global food security. In the first, it was shown how nearly half of the greenhouse gas emissions from producing a loaf of bread arise from the nitrogen fertiliser used to drive wheat cultivation (Goucher et al. 2017). With over 100 million tonnes of such fertiliser used annually to support global food production, and the other impacts that arise such as pollution of water courses, the unsustainability of modern agriculture is exposed. In a second paper, the interconnectedness of the agri-food system was elaborated and a compelling case presented for joined-up thinking when devising future policy. This should be one that analyses together environment, land-use, food production, food consumption and human health. Futhermore, it should be one that fully considers the development and expression of agri-technology in the context of the complex cultural, political, ethical and economic tensions that arise (Horton et al. 2017). These two papers lead to the conclusion that only a radical change in the way we produce and consume food will deliver a sustainable and just global agri-food system. In this article the nature and causes of the problem are identified, and possible solutions defined.

The Green Revolution of the post-World War II era has rightly been hailed as a huge achievement for humankind. Transformation in plant breeding coupled with development of an array of fertilisers and other agrochemicals and mechanisation of agronomic practice brought about massive increases in the yields of the major cereal crops, saving millions of lives. It led to an industrialisation of agriculture which has enabled the development of a complex global food business that delivers a wide choice of safe, nutritious and affordable food to billions of people. However, this industrialisation of food production has had significant and increasingly worrying negative environmental and social consequences.

Most importantly, this industrial agri-food system model requires ever-increasing levels of production at the lowest possible economic cost. It is energy intensive, emitting one third of all greenhouse gases (Tubiello et al. 2015) – it is no exaggeration to state that industrial agriculture turns oil into food (Walker 2009). In doing so, it has other serious environmental impacts: destruction of forests and grasslands for new agricultural land, a major cause of biodiversity loss (Tilman et al. 2017); depletion of non-renewable resources such as ancient ground water (Dalin et al. 2017); pollution of land, water courses and oceans by agrochemicals and animal waste (Zhang et al. 2015); and degradation of the soil upon which it totally depends (Montgomery 2007). Fundamentally, intensive agriculture has neglected and even disrupted the biology and natural capital on which the food production system had been historically based. It has also been argued that, because increasingly efficient cereal production was at the expense of crop diversity, it has contributed to high levels of malnutrition, as well as giving rise to negative social and economic changes (Pingali 2012). Moreover, gross inequality in access to food across the globe has persisted, with nearly one billion people underfed in developing countries (FAO 2014) but ironically, also at the same time, excessive consumption in the developed world (Ng et al. 2014). In conclusion, the current agri-food system is not fit for purpose – it is a flawed way to provide food in both developed and developing countries.

The direction of governments’ policies to agriculture, agricultural subsidies and agricultural research perpetuate this industrial model, absorbing environmental concerns into the idea of sustainable intensification (Garnett et al. 2013), and creating the illusion that to solve “food security” there just needs to be more of the same, but done sustainably. Massive 20, 50 or 100% increases in crop yield are advocated, figures routinely quoted to justify plant science research or denote impact of research publications. Whilst improvements in yield undoubtedly will benefit global food production, this will be only a part of the answer (Foley et al. 2011). Moreover, sustainable intensification capable of delivering yield increases on this scale remains an unproven hypothesis, not yet a blue-print for global food production. The model also gives rise to an assumption that solutions to global health and international development issues are similarly dependent on such technology-led yield increases. Antagonism to this agri-food model leads many to look to the past for solutions, but often do so through “rose-tinted glasses”. We cannot produce enough food by going back to pre-industrial processes, and we should not discount the potential of modern technological advances. Organic agriculture in its strictest interpretation will never feed our growing population adequately or indeed sustainably (Doberman 2012). A radical rethink of the whole agri-food system is needed, from production and consumption, to policy and legislation. We need to be brave, but to ensure global food security for the next generation, this is a challenge we must face now. In order to do this, we must first define the root causes of the problems, then evaluate the possible solutions before finally considering how to enact them in political and social terms.

Much of the knowledge and many of the technologies required to deliver the above changes either exist or only need development for application. Lack of knowledge and technology are not the principal problems. The problem is thinking that the solutions are purely technical, a philosophy that has dominated agri-food research for the last century and given rise to the failed policies that have resulted. But the solutions to the food security problem are not purely technical ones that can simply be applied in a linear manner (DeFries and Nagendra 2017). There has to be a realisation of the complexity, diversity, connectivity and unpredictability of the agri-food system – one that involves all the features of a biological ecosystem, the physical geography, the climate and not least human behaviour and the vastly complicated global socio-economic political system in which we live (Horton et al. 2017). Each of the 10 suggested changes need to be empirically tested in specific local contexts, and knowledge gained fed back into decision making – what are the effects, do they bring about the desired change, are the changes sustained, are there unforeseen side effects, are they scalable etc. Testing, evaluation and implementation require unprecedented levels of collaboration across different sectors, with sharing of data and information and total transparency. Somehow, all stakeholders need to be engaged. The danger is that the level of complexity and the degree of collaboration required is so daunting that either there is recourse to the previous (failed) simplistic technical approaches or there is complete paralysis and inaction. Thus, in order that a new sustainable agri-food system is put in place, it is necessary to work through how to formulate the policies necessary for such change, and how to implement them in a way that reconciles the multiple diverse interests of stakeholders. That is the challenge. In the UK, this challenge is recognised in recent reports from various organisations (e.g WRAP 2017; GFS 2017). But, because food is ultimately highly personal and cultural, embedded with emotion and preference, it is through citizen pressure that such change will be initiated (Horton et al. 2016), although studies suggest also the huge importance of political leadership to carry them forward (Amel et al. 2017). Whether such leadership will emerge remains to be seen.