Search results: food policy action

I received an e-mailed news release from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) about its latest report.

The press release headline: Hidden costs of global agrifood systems worth at least $10 trillion.  154-country study makes case for true cost accounting to guide policy.

Our current agrifood systems impose huge hidden costs on our health, the environment and society, equivalent to at least $10 trillion a year, according to a ground-breaking analysis by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), covering 154 countries. This represents almost 10 percent of global GDP.

According to the 2023 edition of The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA), the biggest hidden costs (more than 70 percent) are driven by unhealthy diets, high in ultra-processed foods, fats and sugars, leading to obesity and non-communicable diseases, and causing labour productivity losses. Such losses are particularly high in high- and upper-middle-income countries.

This report, FAO says, presents initial cost estimates.  A report next year will focus on ways to mitigate these costs.  Governments, it says, “can pull different levers to adjust agrifood systems and drive better outcomes overall. Taxes, subsidies, legislation and regulation are among them.”

The FAO director says: “the future of our agrifood systems hinges on our willingness to appreciate all food producers, big or small, to acknowledge these true costs, and understand how we all contribute to them, and what actions we need to take. ”

The report urges governments to use true cost accounting to address the climate crisis, poverty, inequality and food security.

True cost accounting (TCA), according to the report is:

A holistic and systemic approach to measuring and valuing the environmental, social, health and economic costs and benefits generated by agrifood systems to facilitate improved decisions by policymakers, businesses, farmers, investors and consumers.43

Translated, this means trying to assign numbers to the externalized and hidden costs of food production and consumption, meaning not just what you pay at the cash register but also the costs you pay in other ways for health care, animal welfare, biodiversity, polluted water and soil, and climate change.

These, says this report, add up to about $12.7 trillion a year.

The idea is to get food producers to pay their fair share of these costs—issues of accounting and accountability (according to the Scientific Group of the UN Food Systems Summit). 

The report comes with a big collection of resources:

• Read the full digital report
• Read the In Brief
• Read the Interactive story: Beyond the price tag
• Watch the Video: State of Food and Agriculture 2023. Revealing the true cost of food to transform agrifood systems
• Read the press release: Hidden costs of global agrifood systems worth at least $10 trillion

Read the background papers:

• Hidden costs of agrifood systems and recent trends from 2016 to 2023
• Revealing the hidden costs of agrifood systems to enhance their value
• Accounting for the hidden costs of agrifood systems in data-scarce contexts
• The role of true cost accounting in guiding agrifood businesses and investments towards sustainability
• True cost accounting applications for agrifood systems policymakers

That should be plenty to keep us all busy for quite a while.  Enjoy and ponder.

Farm Action, an organization devoted to stopping corporate agrocultural monopolies and building fair competition in rural America, has issued a short report, Balancing the US Agricuiltural Trade Deficit with Higher Value Food Crops.  

Its point (you have heard this from me repeatedly): the U.S. food system focuses on feed for animals and fuel for automobiles.  It ought to focus on food for people.

The current situation:

• Most American farmland acreage is dedicated to animal feed and fuel production.
• Over the last 5 years, American consumption of chicken and exports of pork continued to climb, increasing demand for soy, a key feed crop for pork and poultry.
• Acreage of many key food crops including potatoes, sweet potatoes, sweet corn, tomatoes, apples, and oranges has fallen precipitously 20-90% from peaks in the 20th century.
• Exports fell and imports rose for vegetables, fruits, melons, and key food grains.
• Across produce items, the US was or became a net importer of all 5 of the top vegetables by 2021.

What can be done:

• At 2022 prices, just 3.5-4.4 million acres of higher value fruit, vegetables, and melons would be needed to generate $32.9B in sales, the 2022 size of the US produce trade deficit and more than the projected $27.5B
  overall ag deficit projected for 2024—this amounts to just 0.4% of US farmland.
• This could be accomplished by approximately doubling the amount of land currently harvested for these crops.

Policy (Legislative) recommendations for farmers who grow food for people:

• Improve crop insurance and risk management
• Expand market access

These analyses make these fixes look easy.  Make them happen!

I’m always surprised when the nutrition community opposes evidence for the association of ultra-processed foods with poor health outcomes.

I read an article about such opposition from the British Nutrition Foundation.

Bridget Benelam, a BNF spokesperson, explained: For many of us when we get home after a busy day, foods like baked beans, wholemeal toast, fish fingers or ready-made pasta sauces are an affordable way to get a balanced meal on the table quickly. These may be classed as ultra-processed but can still be part of a healthy diet.

I looked up the position statement of the British Nutrition Foundation.

At present, the British Nutrition Foundation believes that due to the lack of agreed definition, the need for better understanding of mechanisms involved and concern about its usefulness as a tool to identify healthier products, the concept of UPF does not warrant inclusion within policy (e.g. national dietary guidelines).

I also looked up its “Why trust us?” statement.

Our funding comes from: membership subscriptions; donations and project grants from food producers and manufacturers, retailers and food service companies; contracts with government departments; conferences, publications and training; overseas projects; funding from grant providing bodies, trusts and other charities.  Our corporate members and committee membership are listed on our website and in our annual reports.

With some diligent searching, I did indeed manage to find the list of corporate members.

Front group anyone?  Take a look.

Aldi Stores Ltd https://www.aldi.co.uk/corporate-responsibility

Associated British Foods www.abf.co.uk

Arla www.arlafoods.co.uk

ASDA Stores Ltd www.asda.com

British Sugar plc www.britishsugar.co.uk

Cargill Inc www.cargill.com/

Coca Cola www.coca-cola.co.uk

Costa Coffee www.costa.co.uk

Danone Ltd www.danone.com/en

Ferrero www.ferrero.co.uk

General Mills www.generalmills.co.uk

Greggs plc www.greggs.co.uk

Innocent Drinks Ltd http://www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. www.iff.com

J Sainsbury Plc www.sainsburys.co.uk

Kellogg Europe Trading Ltd www.kelloggs.co.uk

Kerry Taste & Nutrition www.kerrygroup.com

KP Snacks Limited www.kpsnacks.com

Lidl GB www.lidl.co.uk

LoSalt www.losalt.com/uk

Marks and Spencer plc www.marksandspencer.com

Mars UK Ltd www.mars.com

McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd www.mcdonalds.co.uk

Mitchells & Butlers www.mbplc.com

Mondelez International www.mondelezinternational.com

National Farmers’ Union Trust Company Ltd www.nfuonline.com/home

Nestlé UK Ltd www.nestle.co.uk

Nestlé Nutrition www.smahcp.co.uk

Nomad Foods Europe www.iglo.com

PepsiCo UK Ltd  www.pepsico.co.uk

Pladis www.pladisglobal.com

Premier Foods www.premierfoods.co.uk

Quorn www.quorn.com

Slimming World www.slimmingworld.co.uk

Sodexo https://uk.sodexo.com

Starbucks www.starbucks.co.uk

Subway UK & Ireland https://www.subway.com/en-GB

Tata Global Beverages Ltd www.tataglobalbeverages.com

Tate & Lyle www.tate&lyle.com

Tesco Plc www.tesco.com

The Co-operative Group Ltd www.co-operative.coop

Uber Eats www.ubereats.com/gb

UK Flour Millers www.ukflourmillers.org

Waitrose & Partners www.waitrose.com

Weetabix www.weetabix.co.uk

Whitbread www.whitbread.co.uk

Wm Morrisons Supermarkets plc www.morrisons.co.uk

Yakult www.yakult.co.uk 

 

Sustaining Members

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board www.ahdb.org.uk

ASDA Stores Ltd www.asda.com

Associated British Foods www.abf.co.uk

Coca-Cola Great Britain and Ireland www.coke.com

Danone UK Ltd www.danone.co.uk www.h4hinitiative.com

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. www.iff.com

J Sainsbury plc www.sainsburys.co.uk

Kellogg Europe www.kelloggs.co.uk

Marks and Spencer plc www.marksandspencer.com

Mondelez International www.mondelezinternational.com

Nestlé UK Ltd www.nestle.com

PepsiCo UK Ltd www.pepsico.com www.walkers.co.uk www.quakeroats.co.uk www.tropicana.co.uk

Tate & Lyle www.tateandlyle.co.uk

Tesco www.tesco.com

Sustaining members agree to provide a donation to the British Nutrition Foundation for at least three years to support our wider charitable work focussing on consumer education, and engagement with the media, government, schools and health professionals. 

The World Health Organization has just come out with a new report on protecting children from the harms of marketing unhealthy food to kids.

Some conclusions from research on the effects of marketing unhealthy foods to kids:

• Across studies, the most frequently marketed food categories were fast food, sugar-sweetened beverages, chocolate and confectionery, salty and savoury snacks, sweet bakery items and snacks, breakfast cereals, and desserts.
• Reductions in children’s exposure to food marketing were more often found with: mandatory policies; policies designed to restrict food marketing to children, including those older than 12 years; and policies that used a government-led nutrient profile model to determine the foods for which marketing was to be restricted.
• Reductions in the power of food marketing were more often found with: mandatory policies; and policies designed to restrict food marketing to children, including those older than 12 years.
• Policies to protect children from the harmful impacts of food marketing would be highly cost-effective or cost-saving.
• Policies to protect children from the harmful impacts of food marketing can be expected to reduce health inequities.
• In HICs [high-income countries], policies to protect children from the harmful impact of food marketing are largely acceptable to
  the public, but industry has generally opposed government-led restrictions.
• Some countries have successfully implemented policies, demonstrating that policies are acceptable to government and policy-makers and feasible to implement.

Therefore, WHO recommends that policies:

• Be mandatory
• Protect children of all ages
• Use a government-led nutrient profile model to classify foods to be restricted from marketing;
• Be sufficiently comprehensive to minimize the risk of migration of marketing to other media, to other spaces within the same medium or to other age groups
• Restrict the power of food marketing to persuade.

Yes!

WHO has just given governments a mandate to take action.  Go for it!

I’m indebted to Politico for this one: Federal government won’t stop buying food from meatpacker tied to bribery case.

********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

TODAY: @Stphn_Lacey will moderate at 1:00 p.m. ET. Register HERE.

********

The Global Health Advocacy Incubator (GHAI) has just released this report.

The report documents how marketing of unhealthy food and beverages is linked to complex political, social, historical, cultural and economic forces that make it a key driver of unhealthy food environments:

• Ultra-processed food and beverage product (UPP) marketers…saturate the marketplace with junk products through tactics that are aggressive, insidious and everywhere.
• Consumers are ambushed with food marketing through the sponsorship of their favorite sports teams, the hidden product placements in their children’s educational shows and the free products that they receive at events.
• The dangers are even more apparent when UPPs target children and adolescents who lack the developmental maturity to distinguish advertisements from entertaining or educational content.
• The UPP industry is notorious for failing to take responsibility for its participation in creating an unhealthier planet.
• The industry instead places blame solely on the individual or the guardian of the child.
• UPP corporations exploit consumers through deception and undue influence, and also gain privileged spaces in policymaking tables.
• UPP marketing threatens public health by decreasing state action to regulate food environments.

More evidence for the need to regulate ultra-processed foods and beverages (see my paper on this precise point).

Let’s get to it !

***********

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

I’m getting caught up on reports this week.  Here’s one from the US Agency for International Development:  COVID-19 and Nutrition Analytical Framework

The purpose of the Framework:

• Allow policymakers and implementers to better track the interaction of the COVID-19 pandemic and nutrition
• Provide a tool for planning policies, programs, and interventions
• Help identify data gaps
• Support a systems approach to addressing problems “caused, increased, or intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic”

The Framework:

What I like about this Framework is how it so clearly identifies the upstream system levels of intervention: food, health, social, education, and infrastructure.

It’s also interactive, but for that you have to go to its source and click on each section.

The UK government has just published its long-awaited food strategy to almost universal disappointment.

But first, some background. Nearly a year ago, I wrote about the UK’s strategy proposals.  These had been commissioned from Henry Dimbleby, a restaurateur with a deep interest in food policy (the British version of Jose Andres?).

To summarize what I said in July 2021.

Henry Dimbleby described the UK’s National Food Strategy as  a “bit of a labour of love.”  It came a slide deck of 175 items.

A separate document. summarizes the report’s 14 recommendations.  Most of the recommendations dealt with school feeding and feeding programs for the poor.  Others:

Recommendation 1. Introduce a sugar and salt reformulation tax.  This came with a separate report on the impact of such a tax; it recommended using revenues to help get fresh fruit and vegetables to low income families.

Recommendation 11. Invest £1 billion in innovation to create a better food system.

Recommendation 13. Strengthen government procurement rules to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on healthy and sustainable food.

So, does the strategy do any of these things?  I have to confess finding the report unreadable.  It is extremely wordy and imprecise, talks a lot about objectives, but says almost nothing specific.  Here is just one example:

The strategy comes at a time of significant increases in food prices, largely because of energy prices and exacerbated by events in Ukraine, which is very challenging for people across the country. We are engaging closely with the food industry to understand price impacts and any mitigating measures, including through our Food Industry Resilience Forum and UK Agricultural Market Monitoring Group. We are also working closely with third sector organisations to understand challenges related to food access.

One section gives action items (I have edited these for clarity):

• Keep producing domestic food at current levels
• Promote job training for the agri-food industry.
• Reduce childhood obesity by half by 2030; reduce diet-related disease; increase healthier food
• Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the environmental impacts of the food system
• Export £1 trillion of food annually by 2030
• Maintain high standards for food consumed in the UK

How?  It doesn’t really say.  The one action item I could locate is to create a Food Data Transparency Partnership.

The partnership will champion consumer interests, providing people with the information they need to make more sustainable, ethical, and healthier food choices, and incentivise industry to produce healthier and more ethical and sustainable food….This partnership will join up with existing work across government to promote healthier food choices, so that government can speak with one voice to industry. It will also support further measures to strengthen incentives to reformulate food, promote healthier food and turn the trend on the overconsumption of calories to tackle obesity.

Unsurprisingly, reactions have been fierce: not a strategy, disappointing, nothing concrete about obesity , health, or reducing meat as a means to address climate change.  If those things are there, I couldn’t find them.

I also couldn’t find The Guardian’s most amusing criticism of the report:

Among its few policy proposals are the suggestion there could be more fish farming, which is environmentally controversial, and an increase in the use of “responsibly sourced wild venison”.

Is that in the report?  I can’t find any reference to venison or deer, however sourced.

Other critiques in The Guardian are here and here.

This is a lost opportunity, and a big one.  Disappointing, indeed.