全球粮食安全与营养论坛 (FSN论坛)

该成员提交的意见和建议涉及：

    • The Vegan Society: Building Resilient Food Systems

      A critical missing element in the scope for the ‘Building Resilient Food Systems’ investigation and report is:

      Consistent Global North leadership in the transition to plant-based food systems.

      At every level of Government and policy-making, this must now be explicitly, constantly emphasized:

      There is an urgent, overdue necessity for consistent leadership in the Global North in making the vital, rapid shift towards sustainable, fair, plant-based food systems and away from our dependence upon industrialised exploitation of animals (The Vegan Society 2022).

      The stated aim of the “Building resilient food systems” process is help achieve the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) vision – ‘for all stakeholders to work together to ensure food security and nutrition for all ’ – as well as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs ) 2 – ‘End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture’ - and an array of other SDGs, including SDGs 8 (economic growth), 10 (inequality), 12   (sustainability), 14 (marine environment) and 15 (terrestrial environment).

      Transitioning to plant-based agriculture, aquaculture and food systems in the Global North is crucial for achieving all these aims, alongside the many other valuable elements of resilient food systems which are proposed in the report draft scope.

      Research in the UK suggests that many current farmers of animals are open to transitioning to plant-based methods to create a more sustainable food system, with the right support (Thriving Beyond the Protein Challenge 2022, Planting Value In Our Food System 2021).  
       
      In response to some of the specific guiding questions of this consultation:

      Q1c:    What kind of inequities and power imbalances are present in food systems and how do they affect resilient FSN and especially for those groups facing multidimensional and intersectional aspects of inequality and vulnerability?

      The Global North and especially, our animal farming industry lobby, has disproportionate influence in our current food system.   

      For example, InfluenceMap demonstrates how reveals the the European animal use industries are investing heavily in lobbying to disrupt EU policies attempting to transition to sustainable food systems less reliant upon industrial-scale farming of animals (InfluenceMap 2024). Similar tactics have been revealed by studies in the USA (Lazarus 2021).                    

      They use their power to directly work against fair, sustainable, culturally appropriate plant-based food security, which would benefit us all but particularly those facing ‘multidimensional and intersectional’ food insecurity.  Yet, it is rarely acknowledged that amongst the many ‘inequities and power imbalances .. present in food systems’, the power of leaders and influencers in the Global North - policy-makers, large company owners and executives, large farmers, and animal farming industry lobbyists - vastly exceed the power of plant-based food system practitioners, of people in Global South, of non-human animals, and of their would-be allies.    

      The evidence to support plant-based global food security has been accumulating over decades. This evidence has been documented from at least 1971, when Frances Moore Lappé in ‘Diet for a Small Planet’ argued that basing global food policy on large-scale farming of animals was causing both hunger and environmental damage, to ‘Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems’ in 2019.  Industrial-scale farming of animals, which relies upon feed grown on land that could grow food for human consumption, arguably causes the greatest range of harms including to people living with food insecurity, free-living animals and animals in farming (Hampton et al. 2021).

      Yet, the disproportionate power of industrial farmers of animals and their supporters continues to drive expansion of their model, eroding the resilience of our food and nutrition systems, especially for those ‘living with multidimensional and intersectional’ food insecurity. The 2023 Global Hunger Index - a peer-reviewed annual report, jointly published by Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe – concludes that global hunger remains too high, and progress on reducing hunger has largely stalled.

      Research in the UK suggest that many current farmers of animals are open to transitioning to plant-based methods to create a more sustainable food system, with the right support (Thriving Beyond the Protein Challenge 2022, Planting Value In Our Food System 2021).  This must include moving Global North Government subsidies away from less resilient industrial-scale agriculture, towards sustainable plant-based methods.     

      At the same time, Global North countries need to be systematically reducing demand for unsustainable food, by supporting the transition the sustainable, healthy, culturally appropriate plant-based diets.  This can be, for example, through improved Global North public procurement policies and public health campaigns, and re-targetting subsidies. Denmark for example is showing leadership in this area with The Danish Action Plan for Plant-based Foods (2023).

      Transitioning away from industrial-scale farming of animals will reduce both the reliance of Global North countries upon food imported from   regions already experiencing serious food insecurity, and our contribution to the accelerating climate crisis.  The UK Food Security research network emphasises that – because we currently import over 10% of our food from Global South regions – we are decreasing their food system resilience due to the embodied water, fertility, finance, labour and energy resources as well as the food value (BBSRC 2024). In temperate zones, we will then be able to revert former extensive woodlands back from pasture to managed tree cover and use all the arable land to grow food instead of feed for industrially farmed animals.  This could sequester carbon equivalent to up to 12 years of temperate country carbon dioxide emissions, based upon the UK case study (Harwatt & Hayek 2019).  Both through sparing Global South food resources, and reducing our contribution to carbon dioxide emissions, this will reduce the stress upon those already living with food insecurity and extreme climate events.   

      Policymakers must resist the power and influence of Global North industrial-scale farming of animals and its supporters, and instead, urgently promote the transition to a plant-based food system and stop blocking the Global South and plant-based food system practitioners who are already reducing inequality and food insecurity.

      Q1f: How can resilience be evaluated and/or measured at different scales (household, community, national, regional)?

      Industrial-scale farming of animals always tends to reduce resilience and cause disproportionate harm, as is currently the case in the Global North (Hampton et al. 2021).  

      This is, firstly, because of the disproportionate use of land, soil fertility, water, energy, finance, food and other vital resources.   This use should be evaluated as waste, since we could produce significantly more food calories, protein and other nutrients, in a more resilient plant-based food system, if we moved away from industrial-scale breeding of animals for farming. The United Nations Environment Programme has estimated that, by 2050, in cereal calories alone, we could be losing sufficient to meet the needs of 3.5 billion people per year (UNEP 2009) in this way. Secondly, industrial-scale farming of animals causes disproportionate pollution of air, water and land, and damage to ecosystems.  Thirdly, industrial-scale farming of animals is a significant cause of potentially epidemic and pandemic serious diseases such as COVID19, for example due to habitat destruction and over-crowding of animals in industrial farming.  

      Some key measures we can use to measure resilience are the proportion of calories and protein from, and funds allocated to, industrial-scale farming of animals (including fish) vs. plant-based food at each scale in the Global North.  

      For example, we need to track how much protein and calories are produced and imported by Global North countries such as the UK, accounting for plant-based protein and calories, industrial-scale animal farming-based protein and calories, and other sources.  This will reveal how much protein, calories, and other vital nutrients such as dietary fibre, are lost to the food system at each scale because they are used to feed farmed animals (UNEP 2009 ), thus undermining nutrition and food system resilience and security.

      We must also track how Global North Governments are shifting funding away from industrial-scale farming of animals, towards sustainable plant-based methods.


      Q1h: Which and where are the weak points in global food systems in terms of ensuring the resilience of food security and nutrition?  

      We must be explicit about how Global North reliance upon industrial-scale farming of animals is disproportionately harmful, including to the resilience of our global food and nutrition security (Hampton et al. 2021).  

      These harms are due, for example, to the harms to ecosystems; the risks of serious zoonotic diseases; the disproportionate use of land, water, food, finance, energy and other resources for industrial scale farming of animals; and the calories and protein lost to the food supply chain. 

      The loss of calories simply from feeding cereals to industrially farmed animals, instead of using the cereals directly as human food, would add net calories to the food system sufficient for the annual needs of hundreds of millions of people (UNEP 2009).

      Research in the UK suggest that many current Global North farmers of animals are open to transitioning to plant-based methods to create a more sustainable food system, with the right support (Thriving Beyond the Protein Challenge 2022, Planting Value In Our Food System 2021). 

      In Alternatives to Commercial Grazing (2020), experienced plant-based farmer Jenny Hall sets out viable temperate climate options for Global North farmers currently reliant on large-scale farming of grazing animals.  

      Therefore, these ‘weak points’ can significantly be addressed by urgent leadership in the Global North to promote a rapid transition towards sustainable, fair, plant-based food systems (The Vegan Society 2022).    

      Q2d: Are there ways of enhancing resilience to unknown and unforeseen shocks?  

      Diverse plant-based food systems in the Global North, which rapidly reduce our reliance upon industrial-scale farming of animals, will enhance resilience to as-yet unknown or unforeseen shocks.

      Industrial-scale farming of animals always tends to reduce resilience and cause disproportionate harm (Hampton et al. 2021).  For example, the EU-27 ecological footprint is disproportionately due to our food systems, and despite improvements, still significantly exceeds our sustainable regional natural resource capacity (Galli et al. 2023). Plant-based food systems including much increased Global North pulse production for food are vital for resilient global farming and food.

      These changes will free up land, water, energy, finance, labour and food resources, including in the Global South, to help provide more options to cope with unforeseen and unknown shocks.

      Research in the UK suggest that many current Global North farmers of animals are open to transitioning to plant-based methods to create a more sustainable food system, with the right support (Thriving Beyond the Protein Challenge 2022, Planting Value In Our Food System 2021). This must include moving Global North Government subsidies away from less resilient industrial-scale agriculture, towards sustainable plant-based methods.  

      Q4a: How are countries preparing for food systems resilience today?  What are the main policies and documents that can provide information on these national level plans?

      There are a few examples of better practice already underway in countries of the Global North, in the necessary shift towards sustainable, fair, plant-based Global North food systems.

      Denmark has made significant national policy and finance commitments to a plant-based food plan, for health, environment and food security reasons.   This is set out in Denmark: The Danish Action Plan for Plant-based Foods (2023) for example: “Plant-based foods are the future. .. Denmark — and the rest of the world — has faced several major crises in recent years that have affected our health, environment, climate and food supply. .. Increasing the production and consumption of plant-based foods will help solve these challenges. ..”

      The Netherlands has developed, funded and begun to implement plans to reduce the numbers of animals in farming, to cut nitrogen pollution by 50%.  However, this programme is currently paused.  Much more work in partnership with farmers – such as proposed by The Vegan Society’s 'Grow Green' plant-based farming transition (Planting Value in Our Food System 2021) – is required to meet the needs of farmers who want to move out of farming animals. Global North Governments need to significantly improve our plant-protein food supply chains, including nitrogen-fixing pulse protein crops.   This must include investment for farmers to reskill, re-equip and connect to distribution networks so they can make the plant-based transition smoothly.  

      Canada has a four-decade track-record of consistent investment in plant protein crops including peas, lentils, beans and chickpeas. Canada had only c. 200,000 hectares (ha) of pulses in 1981, which had been expanded to 3.5 million ha – 10% of field crops – by 2021, predominantly using sustainable no-till growing. Canada is now the largest exporter of pulses in the world, and projects up to 40% more hectares of pulse farming by 2030.  This work is continuing, with proven results and plans improve locally viable varieties, farmer livelihoods, and sustainable, healthy, culturally appropriate food supply, as well as reduce greenhouse gases and nitrogen pollution (Pulse Canada 2023). Pulse Canada gives national representation to Canadian pulse growers, traders and processors. Canada's International Development Research Centre notes that pulses need up to 20 times less water than the farming of animals, increasing protein food supply resilience and sparing increasingly scarce drinkable water supply.

      In 2017, Portugal put into law a requirement for vegan-friendly plant-based meals in all public sector catering (Portugal Lei n.º 11/2017). Surveys by the Portuguese Vegetarian Association (AVP) suggest that more work is needed to ensure all public sector caterers are confidently implementing this provision. There are also policies in Germany, France, Sweden and the USA encouraging the inclusion of pulses in school and other public sector menus.

      Since 2019, Scotland  has been working towards becoming a ‘Good Food Nation’ , to create a locally-centred, environmentally sustainable, healthy food system that supports flourishing rural as well as urban communities, and respects their international sustainability duties too. Their first concrete step was passing the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act in 2022.  Now, Scotland is developing their Good Food Nation implementation plan.  At every step, the Scottish Government is emphasising transparent, collaborative, cross-Departmental work so that everyone with a legitimate interest in food in Scotland can be suitably involved.  This working philosophy should reduce historic food systems power imbalances, and allow full weight to be given to locally appropriate plant-based food system techniques.
       
      Q4e: What gaps are there in the current portfolio of country adaptation / resilience policies?  

      Consistent leadership from the Global North - both collectively and on a country-by-country and region-by-region basis - in the shift towards sustainable, fair, plant-based food systems, away from reliance upon industrial-scale farming of animals, is currently missing from the portfolio of policies (The Vegan Society 2022).

      Research in the UK suggest that many current Global North farmers of animals are open to transitioning to plant-based methods to create a more sustainable food system, with the right support (Thriving Beyond the Protein Challenge 2022, Planting Value In Our Food System 2021). This must include moving Global North Government subsidies away from less resilient industrial-scale agriculture, towards sustainable plant-based methods.  

      A rapid transition away from industrial-scale farming of animals is needed to reduce both the reliance of Global North countries upon food imported from regions already experiencing serious food insecurity, and our contribution to the accelerating climate crisis (Harwatt & Hayek 2019). 

      Sources: Share recent literature, case studies and data that could help answer the questions listed above.

      Alternatives to Commercial Grazing 2020, A guide for farmers in an age of climate emergency and public goods, Hall J https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Campaigns/Alternatives%20to%20Grazing_0.pdf 

      BBSRC 2024, The Food Security Challenge: Your Food is Global, https://www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/challenge/your-food-is-global/ 

      Denmark: The Danish Action Plan for Plant-based Foods 2023 
      Overview: https://en.fvm.dk/news-and-contact/focus-on/action-plan-on-plant-based-foods   
      Detail: https://en.fvm.dk/Media/638484294982868221/Danish-Action-Plan-for-Plant-based-Foods.pdf 

      Galli et al. 2023 EU-27 ecological footprint was primarily driven by food consumption and exceeded regional biocapacity from 2004 to 2014 Galli et al. Nat Food 4, 810–822 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00843-5 

      Global Hunger Index 2023, Global Hunger Index: The Power Of Youth In Shaping Food Systems, von Grebmer et al. 2023
      https://www.globalhungerindex.org/pdf/en/2023.pdf 

      Hampton et al. 2021 Animal Harms and Food Production: Informing Ethical Choices. Hampton et al, Animals (Basel). 2021 Apr doi: 10.3390/ani11051225 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8146968/ 

      Harwatt & Hayek 2019, Eating away at climate change with negative emissions: Repurposing UK agricultural land to meet climate goals
      https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/Eating-Away-at-Climate-Change-with-Negative-Emissions%E2%80%93%E2%80%93Harwatt-Hayek.pdf 

      InfluenceMap 2024, The European Meat and Dairy Sector's Climate Policy Engagement How the meat and dairy industry is influencing the EU's agenda to reduce the climate footprint of diets and livestock, 2024
      https://influencemap.org/report/The-European-Meat-and-Dairy-Sector-s-Climate-Policy-Engagement-28096 

      Lazarus 2021, The climate responsibilities of industrial meat and dairy producers Lazarus, O., McDermid, S. & Jacquet, J.  Climatic Change 165, 30 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03047-7 

      Planting Value In Our Food System 2021, Parts 1 Our Vision & 2 The Research, The Vegan Society & Sunderland University https://www.plantingvalueinfood.org/ 

      Portugal Lei n.º 11/2017: An Act to Establish the Mandatory Existence of a Vegetarian Option on the Menus of Canteens and Public Cafeterias (Estabelece a obrigatoriedade de existência de opção vegetariana nas ementas das cantinas e refeitórios públicos) 
      https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/11-2017-106886578 

      Pulse Canada 2023: Pulse Canada Submission on the Canadian Sustainable Agriculture Strategy, 2023
      https://pulsecanada.com/news/2023-04-14-submission-on-the-sustainable-agriculture-strategy 

      Scotland Good Food Nation: https://www.gov.scot/policies/food-and-drink/good-food-nation/    

      The Netherlands: The National Termination Scheme for Livestock Farming Locations with Peak Load (Lbv-plus) 2023 https://www.onslevendlandschap.nl/maatregelen/landbouw/landelijke-beeindigingsregeling-veehouderij-plus-lbv-plus 

      The Vegan Society, 2022, Achieving climate goals through plant-based agriculture and food: Policy Briefing for UN FCCC COP27 https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/uploads/downloads/2022-COP-27-The-Vegan-Society-Policy-Briefing.pdf 

      Thriving Beyond the Protein Challenge 2022, Thriving Beyond the Protein Transition Farmer Receptiveness to Stockfree Land Management Farmers For Stock-Free Farming https://stockfreefarming.org/home-3/latest-3/survey-report/ 

      UNEP 2009: The environmental food crisis, United Nations Environment Programme 2009
      https://www.unep.org/resources/report/environmental-food-crisis 

      p 27, “Thus, taking the energy value of the meat produced into consideration, the loss of calories by feeding the cereals to animals instead of using the cereals directly as human food represents the annual calorie need for more than 3.5 billion people.”

      END

       

      See the attachments:

    • This contribution is from The Vegan Society, led by Head of Campaigns, Policy and Research Claire Ogley ([email protected]), with AC Baker.

      In summary: The vested interests in the industrial animal farming system are a huge barrier to efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems.

      The scale, complexity and speed of the necessary agrifood policy and practice transition requires fully-funded and consistent leadership from Global North Governments and Intergovernmental Organisations.

      Policymakers must fund traditionally marginalized voices, including small-scale, Indigenous and plant-based agrifood stakeholders to assess the evidence, to update the policies, and to co-ordinate the implementation of the efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood system policies too.

      The language and culture of Global North 'science and innovation' can directly and actively, exclude Indigenous and small-scale practitioners, community members, activists, and traditional knowledge.  We need to be alert to the contradiction in the following statement: “While science is fundamentally important, the Strategy also recognizes the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and small-scale producers as an important source of innovation for agrifood systems.”

      Whose norms are used to establish 'credibility' of evidence?  How are 'rigor' and 'neutrality' defined?  Whose knowledge is included, and who is excluded e.g. stock-growers, permaculture based upon Indigenous farming?

      This is key learning, to quote this call for contributions: “Decades of development efforts around the world have shown that narrow approaches and technological quick-fixes do not work, especially in the long-term.”

      The Strategy emphasizes guiding principles: rights-based and people-centered; gender-equal; evidence-based; needs-driven; sustainability-aligned; risk-informed; and ethics-based. 

      Our guiding principles must include the rights, needs, and ethical relationships of all, including all people, and with all free-living and artificially bred animals.

      Complexities and practical problems

      We have some knowledge of how agrifood systems policy is enacted, but the systems are hugely opaque, complex and surrounded by barriers at every level.

      We have some awareness of opportunities to contribute.  But the resources of time, and thus money, required to have your knowledge, evidence and research incorporated into agrifood systems policy are huge.

      Knowledge and evidence which confirms the status quo, or only slightly changes it, are greatly privileged in current processes.  

      Knowledge and evidence which challenges the status quo faces huge barriers from the vested interests who are benefiting from how things currently work.   Also, someone who is representing a large organisation, who has generally supported the status quo, and/or who has consistently had access to significant resources (time, money, land, staff etc.) is hugely privileged in agrifood systems policy at local, national, regional and global levels.

      A current example are moves in various countries and regions by the industrial animal farming lobby to place restrictions on the labelling of plant-based foods.  If food policy knowledge and evidence was neutral and transparent, no one would be suggesting such restrictions.  Empirical research (e.g. published & summarised here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3727710, https://proveg.com/press-release/new-reports-reveal-best-ways-to-label-…) demonstrates that most people understand that both traditional and newer products can accurate be described as vegan-friendly animal-free, plant-based meat, sausages, burgers, butter, cheese, milk, eggs etc.  Leaving out these food description words on appropriate plant-based products is what seems to cause people confusion when they are buying food.   Agrifood policymakers should actively support the use of these food description words, which have been used for example to describe coconut meat, soya milk, peanut butter, damson cheese and so on for decades or even centuries. 

      Current weaknesses in processes

      The biggest weakness of the current processes is the power of vested interests, particularly large-scale animal food industries, to stop sustainable plant-based land management and food systems. 

      For example: Canada is a world-leader in legume growing. The country has invested strongly in legume farming, including diversified legume cropping & improved legume cultivars since the 1970s. The Pulse Canada organisation of farmers and exporters now has an ambitious “25 by 2025” strategy, to get 25% of pulse production into new, higher value markets by 2025.

      https://www.foodincanada.com/features/exporting-canadian-value-added-pu…

      In Canada, about 20% of arable land is now in crop rotations including legumes.  In contrast, the figure is only about 1% across Europe. Meanwhile, Europe imports vast quantities of soya beans for animal feed from South America, driving Amazon deforestation.

      So, we must critically examine the question, given Canada’s work, why hasn’t global food policy and practice also focused on pulses for the past 50 years? There are pulses which are suitable for high-value food uses which grow well in many of the global agricultural climate zones. 

      The vested interests in the industrial animal farming system are a huge barrier to efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems.

      Opportunities and challenges

      There are many serious barriers to drawing from sustainability science, interdisciplinarity and trans-disciplinarity to inform policy.

      Over the past ten years, food policy experts have increasingly urgently explained the opportunities that plant-based farming, food manufacturing and diets offer for creating an efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood system. 

      One of the main challenges has been the lack of leadership from Global North Governments in using agricultural subsidies, public procurement and other huge policy and finance levers to make this potential, reality.  At the moment, a relatively small proportion of people who have the personal resources to make more sustainable food choices, along with relatively well-financed interested businesses driving innovation within plant-based food.  However, we need to move further, faster to achieve sustainable transition to end multiple crises including: catastrophic climate change; malnutrition and food insecurity; destruction of free-living animals and the biodiverse habitats which support them; and the daily suffering of thousands of millions of farmed animals. The scale, complexity and speed of the necessary agrifood policy and practice transition requires fully-funded and consistent leadership from Global North Governments and Intergovernmental Organisations.

      We are left with a ‘wicked problem’ with complex interdependences.  Land managers, food businesses, and all of us as people who eat, are unable to bring about the efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood system without co-ordination.  Action and academic research, and policy development, remain locked into the industrial animal-based inefficient, exclusive, fragile and unsustainable agrifood model of the twentieth century.

      Ending Power Asymmetries

      Money is time is power.  Substantial financial redistribution has to be part of the solution.  People need money to access land to do the action research required to demonstrate efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood systems. Substantial grant funding to small-scale practitioners will empower them to also hire the staff to collate, assess, and repeatedly present the evidence to policy makers that comes from practical experimentation 'in the field'.  Agrifood stakeholders need substantial transitional funding to escape from industrial animal-based systems, along the lines of the transitional funding that some Organic producers can access.

      Alongside funding, stakeholders need policymakers to actively listen to, believe, and act upon the vast existing evidence from people who are already involved in sustainable agrifood.   This means policymakers must be committed to consistently challenging the vested interests so we can dismantle the current inefficient, exclusive, fragile and unsustainable industrial animal-based agrifood system.

      Knowledge Production

      We keep in contact with land managers, food producers and grassroots food needs, particularly in the UK & the EU. We mostly do not undertake primary research, we commission and synthesize evidence relevant to plant-based efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems. Our Grow Green policy series: https://www.vegansociety.com/take-action/campaigns/grow-green/policy-ma… including our Planting Value in Our Food System report, is based upon primary research with agrifood system stakeholders: https://www.plantingvalueinfood.org/ and has extensive science-based policy recommendations.  Although focused upon the UK, many of these policy points adapt well to other temperate zones, and much of the Global North.

      Large, well-funded industrial animal-based agrifood organisations have a disproportionate influence on research questions across the board.

      There is a growing convergence between researchers and high-level global policymakers (including various UN bodies) that efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems must be plant-based.   However, policymakers at local, national and regional level are continuing to be disproportionately swayed by industrial animal-based agrifood organisations.

      Our work is intrinsically trans-disciplinary and inclusive of action research by practitioners: we envision a completely plant-based society, free of animal (ab)use.  This must be founded upon a plant-based agrifood system.  Indigenous Peoples had inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems for millennia before the Global North created the industrial animal-based agrifood system.  Small-scale producers including Indigenous People are re-creating inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems almost every microclimate.  The work of small-scale and Indigenous land managers is indispensable for efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood systems.

      We keep in contact with land managers, food producers and grassroots food needs, particularly in the UK & the EU. We mostly do not undertake primary research, we synthesize evidence relevant to plant-based efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems. Our Grow Green policy series: https://www.vegansociety.com/take-action/campaigns/grow-green/policy-ma… including Planting Value in Our Food system which is based upon primary research with agrifood system stakeholders: https://www.plantingvalueinfood.org/ has extensive science-based policy recommendations.  Although focused upon the UK, many of these policy points adapt well to other temperate zones, and much of the Global North.

      Knowledge translation

      A key purpose of The Vegan Society is to synthesize and share knowledge of plant-based efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems to all relevant audiences.

      Our Policy Team works with our Research Team and our Business Development Team to continually find new ways to share plant-based agrifood system knowledge and innovation.  The Vegan Society has a Research Advisory Committee (https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/research/who-we-are) of about 30 people who conduct and share academic and other research, give specialist advice, act as peer reviewers, recommend peer-reviewed evidence, and otherwise support our agrifood and other work. We also have a Researcher Network (https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/research/researcher-network), which is also open to independent, early career and postgraduate student researchers conducting any relevant research.  The Researcher Network community of about 45 people helps create and strength knowledge sharing between agrifood researchers and agrifood practitioners working independently or in organisations.   We work with about 40 UK and 10 non-UK Universities through these groups.  We published about 25 Research News articles (https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/research/research-news).    The most popular of these articles was the psychology of veganism and why people adopt or drop plant-based eating patterns. We have also looked at plant-based nutrition in dietetic clinical practice.  We also had nine episodes of our ‘On the Pulse’ Webinars in 2022, where researchers share their knowledge with other researchers as well as the wider interested community such as land managers, farmers, foresters, food manufacturers, retailers and vegans (https://www.vegansociety.com/get-involved/research/pulse-webinars).  We usually have one or two active research collaboration projects underway too.

      Our registration system, The Vegan Trademark (https://www.vegansociety.com/the-vegan-trademark), is run by people with expert knowledge of the practicalities of plant-based products including food and drink.  Our Senior Management Team regularly attend networking events for the agrifood system, including international events such as the UN IPCC Climate Change COP26 in Glasgow in 2022.

      The work is its own incentive: This is the core role for our Policy Team, and fundamental to how their work is appraised and assessed each year.

      Our Research and Policy Teams collaborate with a wider Research Advisory Committee and Research Network.   We are in constant dialogue, including about research and policy on plant-based agrifood systems.  We regularly have external researchers briefing us on recent advances, and consult them in turn for policy input.

      We produce briefings for policymakers working in agrifood about how plant-based land management, food systems and industrial supply can support work to end the ongoing harms of the climate, biodiversity, public health and malnourishment crises.  We work with our Research Advisory Committee and Researcher Networks (c. 75 people across c. 50 institutions) to identify gaps in knowledge around plant-based agrifood system, and complete the research needed to fill them.   We produce concept reports to synthesize existing knowledge on plant-based agrifood systems, targeted to specific audiences.

      Our Grow Green project, reports and campaigns aim to change agrifood policy. The United Nations agrees, no sector can be ignored if we are to achieve climate change targets. Therefore, agrifood policy at every level must fully address the harmful impacts of a century of industrial animal-based farming.  The health, environmental, and ethical case for a shift from animal protein to plant protein diets is widely documented.  We address why this transition is not yet rapid enough, and what policies could catalyse the needed changes. https://www.vegansociety.com/take-action/campaigns/grow-green

      This includes our landmark, ‘Planting Value in Our Food’ system project and report, which is based upon primary research with agrifood system stakeholders: https://www.plantingvalueinfood.org/ has extensive science-based policy recommendations.

      ​​​​​

      In 2022, our Policy Team responded to numerous agrifood consultations run by the Welsh, Scottish, UK and EU Government, as well as agrifood non- and inter-governmental organisations.  With our Business team, we also engage with industry consultations.

      We contextualise evidence on plant-based agrifood systems for equity in many contexts including land management, food security, public health, and freedom for non-human animals.

      Assessing evidence

      What makes evidence credible, relevant and legitimate? These are subjective criteria: People rate as more credible, relevant and legitimate evidence which corresponds to their existing values systems, and existing knowledge of agrifood systems.  However, people tend to frame such assessments as ‘objective’, to avoid cognitive dissonance.  when our conscious attitudes, and our past, current and planned behaviours, and our beliefs about the world and ourselves, clash with new information, we tend to reject the new information.  

      However, it is a widely held ethical belief that it is wrong to cause harm unnecessarily.  We are particularly ethically repelled by causing unnecessary suffering – that is, harm that is experienced by people or animals.  Yet our whole current industrial animal-based agrifood system is founded upon suffering and harm.   We know that agrifood has to change to avert the ongoing harms of the climate, biodiversity, public health and malnourishment crises.  We know that thousands of millions of people and animals are currently suffering in the agrifood system.  But we all need to and deserve to eat, to eat well, and to eat food that we enjoy. 

      So, every time we eat, if we are facing up to the realities of the current agrifood system, we are liable to feel painful or even paralysing cognitive dissonance.  We are ‘good’ people actively, daily participating in a ‘wicked problem’ (Churchman C. W. (1967). "Wicked Problems” https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.14.4.B141). 

      Not everything that is faced can be changed; But nothing can be changed until it is faced, as James Baldwin said. Land managers, food businesses, and all of us as people who eat, have to learn to face the true harms of our agrifood system to bring about the efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood system which can end those harms. 

      We need a critical mass of agrifood stakeholders to absorb, not simply state, the harms of the current system. The Table Debates organisation is actively researching how to move beyond this deadlock, for example in their "Gut feelings ..: (where) does animal farming fit?" paper. https://www.tabledebates.org/node/12341

      Money is time is power.  Policymakers must fund traditionally marginalized voices, including small-scale, Indigenous and plant-based agrifood stakeholders to assess the evidence, to update the policies, and to co-ordinate the implementation of the efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood system policies too. We approached two highly respected UK-based practicing stock-free farmers, neither who had the capacity to contribute to this consultation without being paid.

      Substantial financial redistribution has to be part of the solution.  People need money to access land to do the action research required to demonstrate the necessary agrifood system changes. Agrifood stakeholders need substantial transitional funding to escape from industrial animal-based systems, along the lines of the transitional funding that some Organic producers can access.

      Alongside funding, stakeholders need policymakers to actively listen to, believe, and act upon the vast existing evidence from people who are already involved in sustainable agrifood.   This means policymakers must be committed to consistently challenging the vested interests so we can dismantle the current inefficient, exclusive, fragile and unsustainable industrial animal-based agrifood system

      We are most likely to believe new evidence that comes to us from trusted peer sources.  We are most likely to believe new evidence that comes to us from trusted peer sources. Policymakers must fund traditionally marginalized voices, including small-scale, Indigenous and plant-based agrifood stakeholders to co-ordinate the communication of  implementation of the evidence and techniques required for efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood systems.

      Agrifood stakeholders need substantial transitional funding to implement evidence and change.  This is necessary for them to escape from industrial animal-based systems, along the lines of the transitional funding that some Organic producers can access.

      The most influential agrifood system stakeholders, including funders, land owners, large animal-based organisations and policymakers must be committed to dismantling the current inefficient, exclusive, fragile and unsustainable industrial animal-based agrifood system.

      Examples of translating knowledge to policy

      The Vegan Society Public Relations, Policy and Research Teams have been reviewing, collating, generating and sharing plant-based agrifood system knowledge with policymakers for many years.  Most recently:

      - Our Grow Green project, reports and campaigns aim to change agrifood policy. The United Nations agrees, no sector can be ignored if we are to achieve climate change targets. Therefore, agrifood policy at every level must fully address the harmful impacts of a century of industrial animal-based farming.  The health, environmental, and ethical case for a shift from animal protein to plant protein diets is widely documented.  We address why this transition is not yet rapid enough, and what policies could catalyse the needed changes. https://www.vegansociety.com/take-action/campaigns/grow-green

      - Our Planting Value in Our Food system project and report, which is based upon primary research with agrifood system stakeholders: https://www.plantingvalueinfood.org/ has extensive science-based policy recommendations.

      - The Vegan Society Policy Team have responded to around 14 Consultations in 2022 at EU, UK, and UK Nation Region levels relating to the agrifood system: EU Sustainable Food System; EU Forestry; EU Soil health; EU School Fruit, Vegetables & Milk scheme; EU Waste Regulations; EU alcoholic drinks labelling; UK 2030 World Climate & Nature Strategy; UK Food Standards Agency Precautionary Allergen Labelling; UK Bread & Flour Regulations;  England Agriculture & Horticulture Development Board reform; England Dept. Health & Social Care Vitamin D; England Public Sector food; Scotland Land Reform; Scotland Agriculture.

      The impacts of such work are notoriously hard to quantify without dedicated financial investment in monitoring.   However, as part of the wider plant-based agrifood system movement since 1944, we have moved the policy debate and agrifood practice forward significantly.

      For example, the EU's strategy, ‘Creating a sustainable food system’ now explicitly recognises that, “Although EU agriculture is the only major farm sector worldwide to have reduced its greenhouse gas emissions (by 20% since 1990), it still accounts for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions (of which 70% are due to animals).” https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20200519STO794…).

      In summary: The vested interests in the industrial animal farming system are a huge barrier to efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems.

      The scale, complexity and speed of the necessary agrifood policy and practice transition requires fully-funded and consistent leadership from Global North Governments and Intergovernmental Organisations.

      Policymakers must fund traditionally marginalized voices, including small-scale, Indigenous and plant-based agrifood stakeholders to assess the evidence, to update the policies, and to co-ordinate the implementation of the efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable plant-based agrifood system policies too.

    • Good evening,



      I am delighted to contribute our feedback, on behalf of The Vegan Society. 



      Development of a Code of Conduct on Food Loss and Food Waste Prevention

       

      The world is ALREADY producing enough food for 10 billion people.  Some people are going hungry because other people are actively preventing the food from reaching everyone who needs it.  Some of the hungriest people are small food producers, who are forced  to 'bake the loaf of bread to get the money to buy one slice."

       

       1) With respect to the proposed outline and structure of the CoC:

       

       a) Does the proposed outline of the CoC address the issues in an exhaustive and comprehensive way?

       

       Largely, yes, with the caveats set out below.

       

       b) Are there any particular issues and aspects of importance that you think are not be addressed in the proposed structure?

       

      Yes: food waste in farming animals.  The Code of Conduct must make explicit that artificially breeding animals to farm, who then need land dedicated to grow their food, is currently one of the biggest forms of global food waste.  

       

      In 2009, Christian Nelleman et al. demonstrated this for the UN Environmental Food Programme, just considering the cereals grown to feed to farmed animals. "[T]he loss of calories by feeding the cereals to animals instead of using the cereals directly as human  food represents the annual calorie need for more than 3.5 billion people."  

       

      (p27 box, 'How many people can be fed with the cereals allocated to animal feed?'  Nellemann, C. et al. 2009. The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal, www.grida.no ISBN: 978-82-7701-054-0  http://gridarendal-website-live.s3.amazonaws.com/production/documents/:… accessed ACB 2019/08/14)

       

      The harmful impacts of the global animal farming system, causing greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, erosion, water pollution - and hunger - must finally be ended.  All farmers and land managers who want to transition away from artificially breeding animal  to farm, toward more sustainable plant-based land management, need to be given all the support they want and need to do so. 

       

      Secondly, food security and sovereignty is part of every single person's basic human rights.  A basic living income, and fair access to good farm land, are vital to empower every person and every community to claim their food sovereignty.  This will include  the power to make better food choices, with less waste in the household.  This will also involve the power to grow, harvest, store, and eat their own plant protein crops, staples, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, herbs, spices and other elements of a nutritious,  appropriate plant-based diet. 

       

       c) Are there any disadvantages or gaps you see in the current structure

       

      The structure does not identify the most important people in bringing food sovereignty:  the people who are currently impoverished and denied access to a basic living income, and good farm land;  the people who are currently locking in the system of artificially  breeding animals to farm, thus depriving impoverished people of food;  the people who are hoarding the land, money and other resources which communities need to secure their own nutritious, appropriate food supply.

       

       2) With respect to the content of the different sections of the CoC:

       

       a) What are the general guiding principles that you think are important for section 2.1?

       

      We must expect to make major changes to our land management methods.  In particular, farmers who want to move away from artificially breeding animals to farm, toward sustainable plant-based land management, must urgently be given all the support they need. 

       

      There is already enough food for 10 billion people.  The people who are hoarding land, money and other resources, and managing land to increase their wealth and power, are blocking our global justice and sustainability goals.   Every one has the right to a  sustainable, nutritious, appropriate plant-based diet.  

       

       b) What are the specific guiding principles and practices do you think are important for sections 2.2.1(a, b& c), 2.2.2 and 2.2.3?

       

      2.2.1(c)  Food is first and foremost, for everyone to eat as part of a decent basic quality of life.  Food 're-distribution' as a charitable endeavour completely misses the key principle: the right to sustainable, nutritious, appropriate plant-based food must supersede any perception that non-humans or humans can be exploited for profit.  

       

      2.2.2.  The 're-purposing' of food should have lower priority.  Every effort should be made to ensure that crops are grown, harvested, stored and used appropriately by local communities.  Food has huge embodied energy and value, and should always be intended for people to eat if at all possible.  Free-living animals also have the right to appropriate nutrition, within appropriate habitats. Composting is extremely valuable for protecting soils and thus future harvests.  All these needs should supersede any other use of food. 

       

       c) Taking into account the need to foster FLW policy coherence, which cross-cutting issues are relevant to the FLW topic, as addressed in section 2.2.4?

       

      Ending exploitation in the food sector is paramount.  Empowering people to make better food choices within their local communities, will in turn empower people to move away from exploiting non-human beings.

       

       3) Can you provide specific examples of policies, interventions, initiatives, alliances and institutional arrangements which should be considered as best practices in FLW prevention, reduction, food recovery, repurposing and recycling?

       

      The methods used on Tolhurst Organic farm in England (http://www.tolhurstorganic.co.uk/), including agroforestry, large scale composting, and local food distribution, demonstrate 20+ years of best practice.  The  specifics of Tolhurst's methods apply particularly to temperate lowland management.  But the principles translate well to many other climates and land types.  Co-Founder, Iain Tolhurst, is a leading expert in the UK Soil Association of organic farmers and  growers, and teaches land managers across temperate and lowland farming regions around the world. 

       

      The Grow Green policy work (https://www.vegansociety.com/take-action/campaigns/grow-green) of The Vegan Society and collaborators looks at many ways to support land managers and farmers  seeking to move toward sustainable plant-based management techniques.  Developed in a wealthy temperate climate country, the principles - such as plant protein crops for direct human consumption, and agro-forestry - can be applied in many other situations. 

       

       4) How could this Code of Conduct on FLW prevention and reduction be most useful for different stakeholders, especially at national and regional levels?

       

      Create a brief, practical summary.  Empower small food producers to demand that the principles and practices are respected.  Make explicit the need to move away from artificially breeding farmed animals, toward plant-based land management techniques. 



      Thank you, and we look forward to the next stages in ending food loss and building food sovereignty for all,



      A C Baker