The publication of a plan for transitioning the food system to net-zero is a significant moment for the sector. Not for what the plan says – the conclusions will be familiar to anyone with a passing knowledge of what is needed to decarbonise a high impact industry – but for who is saying it.
IGD is not a trade body in the truest sense but its work in delivering data and insight to the food industry is funded by member businesses, including retailers, manufacturers and foodservice operators. As such, its output is closely aligned with the priorities of the sector’s leading players.
The fact IGD’s analysis, published in collaboration with Wrap and EY, is prepared to quantify the reduction in animal protein needed to achieve climate goals should therefore be seen as a turning point in the industry accepting that a net-zero food system is impossible to achieve without supporting dietary change.
Previous industry roadmaps from the likes of the Food and Drink Federation and National Farmers Union have conspicuously failed to mention the need to rethink what we eat, and their credibility has suffered as a result.
Although the British Retail Consortium’s climate roadmap does talk about the carbon-saving potential of “helping customers shift to more sustainable diets, with more plant-based proteins and foods”, it stops short of putting a figure behind the transition.
The IGD, Wrap and EY analysis, by contrast, is unequivocal in concluding that substantial, quantifiable demand-side changes, as well as supply-side measures, will be required to meet overall emissions targets, including a shift in diets towards lower carbon foods like pulses and away from red meat and dairy.
Palatable findings
Perhaps by design, the plan’s findings are not as challenging for businesses as they might otherwise have been. Modelling suggests the equivalent of a 20% reduction in red meat and dairy is required to transition the food system to net-zero by 2050, a more conservative scenario than the 20% by 2030 modelled by the Climate Change Committee, and one that is contingent on less mature supply-side technologies and measures being successfully adopted, like the use of feed additives to reduce methane emissions from grazing animals.
There are plenty of other examples of how the analysis is couched in language and insight that makes it more palatable to member businesses and other stakeholders, such as farmers, who are likely to baulk at the suggestion that meat and dairy consumption needs to fall. The authors are keen to stress that the plan is not intended to set targets but rather to provide an evidence base for the types of actions that are likely to be required for sector decarbonisation.
They state too that “diet change should not be at the expense of health outcomes, which are complex and uncertain” and outside the scope of the analysis.
Nor does diet change necessarily imply the need for reduced UK production of animal protein, according to the plan, the (contestable) rationale being that “the UK has relatively high environmental and animal health/welfare standards, and is comparatively climate resilient, and should therefore be supplying markets at home and growing markets abroad”.
As if pre-empting a backlash from campaigners and farmers on opposing sides of the dietary debate, IGD chief executive Sarah Bradbury acknowledges that “we know that the conclusions drawn from this work will not be universally agreed upon” and that “reaching consensus on every element is not practical or realistic”.
Yet the raw data speaks for itself, as it did in similar analyses by the CCC and Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy: without dietary change, the food system will not contribute its fair share towards meeting the UK’s legally-binding climate goals.
Sales and menus
On this point, food businesses – at least those towards the consumer end of the supply chain – are increasingly aligned, even if many remain fearful of saying so in public. Lidl GB made a splash earlier this month by announcing a target for plant-based protein sales to account for 25% of its total protein sales by volume by 2030 to support the shift towards more sustainable diets.
Foodservice operators are arguably even further ahead of the curve with a number of caterers and restaurant chains working to gradually rebalance menus away from meat in favour of pulses, vegetables and meat alternative products.
None of this need spell disaster for UK livestock farmers. There is still legitimate debate to be had about the role of meat consumption in human nutrition and how livestock production can, in the right circumstances, contribute to wider ecosystem health.
There will continue to be strong advocates for the role of red meat in diets, including from organisations – like the Sustainable Food Trust – who recognise the need to reduce meat consumption at a population level.
What IGD’s analysis does mean is that any responsible business still hoping to wish away the need to support some degree of dietary change is slowly running out of road.
A version of this blog was first published by Footprint Media
Comments