Consumers
Water
Farmers
Figure 3.4-1
Schematic diagram of the food system.
Source: WBGU based on GOS, 2011, and Willet et al., 2019
173 consumption as well as production. Accordingly, the
English-language literature has coined the term ‘food and nutrition system’ (Burchi et al., 2011) alongside
‘food and nutrition security’ (FAO, 1996b). In addition to ensuring availability, access and stability, the use of appropriate foodstuffs also plays a key role in food security. Food sovereignty is also increasingly seen as a condition of food security (Edelman, 2014). Food sov-ereignty is first and foremost the right of consumers to healthy food. Such foods reflect cultural diversity and are produced using sustainable methods. Food sover-eignty promotes the right of consumers to control their food and nutrition (Nyéléni Declaration; La Via Camp-esina, 2007).
The new understanding of the food system thus not only involves the quality aspect, but also emphasizes consumers as key actors: ”A resilient food and nutrition system involves people, as consumers, as the central focus” (Burchi et al., 2011). However, such a food sys-tem can only be created in combination with the sus-tainable management of agricultural production sys-tems, a health-oriented food industry and corres-ponding consumption. It thus becomes a dynamic sys-tem characterized by diverse food chains, cycles, networks and contexts. This system consists of activi-ties and processes that transform raw materials into foodstuffs and nutrients into health. Moreover, they are embedded in biophysical and socio-cultural con-texts; the biophysical variables comprise climate, soil, water and biodiversity, while the socio-cultural factors include cultural values and traditions, knowledge and experience, and scientific findings, but also political and economic aspects such as geopolitical relations and markets or capital (Burchi et al., 2011).
3.4.1.2
Effects of the food system
The food system is responsible for massive breachings of the planetary guard rails relating to the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, biodiversity, land-use changes and the climate (Meier, 2017; Willett et al., 2019). The cur-rent food system has met few, if any of the key sustain-ability targets, especially in the fields of the environ-ment, animal welfare and health (Schrode et al., 2019).
In Germany, for example, current figures on the ‘pro-tection of human health’ deviate considerably from the target values (Tab. 3.4-1).
The current food system also has a negative impact on all three dimensions of the WBGU’s normative com-pass (2016a, 2019b; Box 2.3-1). The comcom-pass dimen-sion of ‘sustaining the natural life-support systems’ is threatened by a significant breaching of planetary guard rails (Chapter 2). Nevertheless, some 690 million people worldwide currently suffer from hunger and undernutrition (Willett et al., 2019; Section 3.3.1.2;
Box 3.4-1), while a further 1.3 billion people are affected by malnutrition caused by micronutrient defi-ciencies (‘hidden hunger’; FAO, 2019d).
At the same time, overweight and obesity constitute the second global malnutrition problem (Box 3.4-4).
Both types of malnutrition – overweight/obesity and hunger/undernutrition – drive up the costs of human health. In addition, education and economic productiv-ity are also severely affected by malnutrition. It is esti-mated that in Ecuador and Mexico, for example, the combined impact of the double burden of malnutrition causes a net loss in gross domestic product of 4.3%
(overnutrition) and 2.3% (undernutrition) per year (ECLAC and WFP, 2017).
Furthermore, rationalization, specialization and con-centration processes lead to an unsustainable develop-ment in the food system (Schrode et al., 2019). As a result, a large proportion of humanity does not have adequate access to a wide enough range of foods to pro-Table 3.4-1
Deviation from target values in Germany.
Sources: DGE, 2015; Willet et al., 2019; Schrode et al., 2019; Sachs et al., 2018
Category Actual value Recommended target
value Reference
Health-promoting levels of fruit and
vegetable consumption 259 g per capita per day 400 g per capita per day DGE, 2015 500 g per capita per day Willet et al., 2019
Meat consumption 600 g per capita per
week (women) or 1,000 g per capita per week (men)
300–600 g per capita per
week DGE, 2015
300 g per capita per week Willet et al., 2019 Obesity prevention (BMI ≥30) 22.3% of the adult
population ≤10% of the adult
popula-tion Schrode et al., 2019
Sachs et al., 2018
vide a balanced and healthy diet (FAO, 2019c; Willett et al., 2019). The current food system is able to provide more and more people with abundant quantities of affordable and safe foods. However, these are average calculations that do not adequately reflect the dimen-sions of food security (availability, access, food use and stability) described at the outset (Pingali, 2015; Krause et al., 2019).
3.4.1.3 Dietary habits
Culturally and regionally different dietary habits, also referred to as ‘personal food systems’ (Shepherd and Raats, 2006), develop within the food system. The EAT-Lancet report (Willett et al., 2019) refers to the current, dominant dietary habits as ‘lose-lose’ dietary habits because they meet neither health nor sustain-ability targets. Such diets are primarily characterized by a high caloric value, added sugar and salt, saturated fats, highly processed food with low fibre content, and the consumption of red meat (Willett et al., 2019;
FOLU, 2019). Since these dietary habits, as part of the food system, not only threaten the climate and food security, but furthermore contribute indirectly to biodi-versity loss, they could, in the WBGU’s view, even be described as ‘lose-lose-lose’ dietary habits.
Via trade, the food system influences the quantity, quality, and therefore the availability and a stable sup-ply of food (Walls et al., 2019). Dietary diversity, which is considered essential for human health, can of course be promoted and thus make a significant contribution to the compass dimension of Eigenart (Remans et al., 2014). At the same time, however, commercial enter-prises promote dependence on food imports and the
‘westernization’ of dietary habits based on animal products and highly processed foods that are often rich in fat, sugar and salt. The term ‘nutrition transition’
(Popkin and Gordon-Larsen, 2004) is also used in this context. For example, it has been calculated that increasing prevalence rates of obesity among women in
Mexico can be attributed to rising imports of food from the United States between 1988 and 2012 (Giuntella et al., 2020). Not only trade policies, but also increased foreign direct investment (FDI) in the food system, some of which is promoted under regional trade agree-ments, have an impact on the quality of food and thus on the population’s health. For example, it has been found that FDI has led to increased consumption of sugary drinks (Baker et al., 2016). As the WBGU (2016a: 90f.) has argued, dietary habits in developing countries and emerging economies are changing pri-marily due to ”easier access to ready-made high-calorie food ... [and] the effect of targeted marketing for highly processed products”. Furthermore, a primary role is played by the social (also symbolic) significance of cer-tain unsuscer-tainable consumption patterns that are asso-ciated with modernity and status (Hawkes, 2007). This counteracts an understanding of socio-cultural and spatial diversity.
The development of animal-product consumption While the world population has doubled over the past 50 years, global meat production has tripled (Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2019b). It can be assumed that the demand for food will continue to accelerate in the future due to rising incomes and the associated pur-chasing power. From 2006 to 2050, this increase is expected to be around 70% (FAO, 2009), and as high as 85% for meat (Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2019b). How-ever, consumption differs from one region to another (Fig. 3.4-2). In 2017, meat consumption was around 15 kg per person per year in countries such as India and some African states like Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique. This relatively low per-capita consumption can be explained on the one hand by the predominant vegetarian food culture in India, but it is also related to poverty and food insecu-rity in African states. In most industrialized countries (Fig. 3.4-2), meat consumption is well above the cli-mate-compatible level. In the USA, for example, it aver-Indigenous peoples and dietary diversity
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) and eth-nic or religious minorities are very frequently among the undernourished groups, having lost their access to land and traditional food sources. Indigenous peoples' territories cover approximately 22% of the world's surface area and contain a significant proportion of its biodiversity (ECLAC and WFP, 2017; Section 3.2.3.5). Traditional food systems of indige-nous peoples often include the production of diverse crops
thus supporting adaptation to climate change. At the same time, they promote dietary diversity, as many of the neglect-ed and underutilizneglect-ed species they cultivate are very rich in micronutrients and are functional foods (e.g. marula, which is native to southern and eastern Africa, is very rich in vitamin C). Indigenous peoples complement their wide range of foods with products that stem from forests and fishery and are thus adapted to the local environment (ECLAC and WFP, 2017: 100).
175 ages over 140 kg of meat per person per year.
It is estimated that, compared to the last decade, around 200 million tonnes more meat and one billion tonnes more cereals will need to be produced every year by 2050 to meet future demand (FAO, 2009). The demand for animal products will increase not only in the industrialized countries, but also and especially in the emerging economies and developing countries, since an up-and-coming middle class is simultaneously driving up the demand for animal products there. Thus, the animal-product-heavy dietary habits of the indus-trialized nations are becoming more and more wide-spread in emerging economies and developing coun-tries. This trend is being reinforced by growing afflu-ence there, coupled with low food prices (Graham and Abrahamse, 2017; Steinfeld et al., 2006).
Effects of meat consumption
Animal husbandry has been a traditional element of agriculture worldwide for thousands of years. In inte-grated systems, there are synergies between crops and livestock, where manure is used as fertilizer to improve soil structure and as a source of fuel (IAASTD, 2009:
176). A large proportion of the pastureland used today is unsuitable for any other agricultural use than exten-sive grazing, especially in arid regions (‘absolute grass-land’; IAASTD, 2009: 37). Pasture-raised animal prod-ucts are an important part of the local diet in these
regions. However, only half of the land used globally as pasture (about 26% of the Earth’s ice-free surface) sists of natural grassland; the other half has been con-verted from forests (IAASTD, 2009). From a global per-spective, the share of livestock products from pasture-land is negligible: about 72% (Greenpeace, 2019) of animal products in Europe and about 99% (Anthis, 2019) in the US currently stem from industrial factory farming. This form of meat production has led to a decoupling of crop cultivation from animal husbandry, with the result that animal feed has to be purchased in large quantities and liquid manure is spread in large concentrations on too small areas of agricultural land (Section 3.3.1.1).
Although total meat production (including grassland use) uses about 77% of global agricultural land, meat consumption supplies only 17% of global calorie needs (Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2019b). This comparatively unfavourable balance is mainly due to losses and inef-ficiencies in the conversion of feed into animal products (within the animals’ bodies) and is repeated when the focus is on proteins, where the average loss rate is 82%
(Alexander et al., 2017).
In the context of industrial animal fattening, there are also health risks for humans and animals from the use of growth-enhancing antibiotics and the resist-ances that develop as a result (multi-resistant germs;
Box 3.4-2). To prevent and counteract disease and
0 5 10 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
No data
[kg per person and year]
Figure 3.4-2
Global provision of meat in kg per person per year (2017).
Source: Our World in Data, 2019
176
Box 3.4-2
Factory farming and COVID-19
In the course of the COVID 19 pandemic, there have been cluster outbreaks of infection in slaughterhouses all over the world, leading to their closure (Terazono and Schipani, 2020).
Emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) such as COVID-19 can (1) spread as a result of the working conditions in factory farms, (2) lead to a conflict between animal ethics and economic interests, and (3) are intensified by the way in which farm animals are kept and looked after.
1. The higher infection rates have been linked primarily to socially precarious working conditions, including “peo-ple working shoulder-to-shoulder with no [physical] dis-tancing” (Dyal, 2020; Terazono and Schipani, 2020). In addition to outbreaks in German slaughterhouses, there have also been such COVID 19 hotspots in Canada, Spain, Ireland, Brazil, Australia and the USA. Low tempera-tures, high humidity and extensive ventilation systems in slaughterhouses could be good conditions for viruses to survive and spread. However, current research is insuffi-cient to draw definitive conclusions (Asadi et al., 2020;
Dyal, 2020; Beck et al., 2019). Preliminary results show that COVID-19 is also transmitted through the air (Lu et al., 2020). Ventilation systems could, on the one hand, be migration routes for the virus; on the other hand, the constant draughts in buildings could reduce the effective-ness of (social) distancing measures (Asadi et al., 2020).
Exhaustion caused by the hard physical work in slaugh-terhouses reduces people’s resistance to viral infections (as in other food industry plants, although the effect is exacerbated here by cool, enclosed spaces). Moreo-ver, foreign workers are often employed who share the same housing units and means of transport in large num-bers (Wolf, 2020; Piller and Lising, 2014; Lever and Mil-bourne, 2015).
2. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic and the socio-po-litical countermeasures are causing disruptions in the food sector’s supply chains (Hobbs, 2020). Supply-chain dis-ruptions or abrupt falls in demand can also cause a pro-duction bottleneck in the factory-farming system, lead-ing to problems of animal ethics. This is because it means that animals that are not processed or transported have to be destroyed (Le Roy et al., 2005). Here, farm animals are seen as an economic resource, and their health and aspects of animal ethics are hardly a major concern. Their transport is a particular stress factor, e.g. due to heat and their spatial confinement (Minka and Ayo, 2009;
Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al., 2012). Stress and physical exhaustion reduce the animals’ resistance to pathogens (Espinosa et al., 2020). When a virus or disease occurs in the factory-farming system, in certain cases uninfected animals also have to be destroyed as a preventive meas-ure, and the carcases are not subsequently used. Exam-ples have included foot-and-mouth disease (Haydon et al., 2004; Manning et al., 2005) and BSE (Le Roy et al., 2005). In the latter case, cattle, which are herbivores,
were given feed containing animal-product ingredients to increase productivity (BMEL, 2019a).
3. Factory farming provides a new habitat for viruses and potentially contagious parasites that can transmit dis-eases to human communities (Mennerat et al., 2010).
Domesticated animals are carriers of most zoonotic viruses (Johnson et al., 2020) and can spread them to other livestock. Recurrent zoonoses increase the risk of zoonotic-disease transmission at the human-animal interface in factory farms (Johnson et al., 2020; Kilpat-rick and Randolph, 2012; Karesh et al., 2012). The close proximity of the farm animals increases the incidence of zoonoses. More frequent transports of animals and ani-mal products increase the likelihood of pathogens being spread (Espinosa et al., 2020). Factory farms in particu-lar are not sufficiently protected from pathogens either at the entrances (e.g. from incoming animals from other breeding farms, hatcheries or livestock markets, and from feed and water deliveries) or at the exits (excreta, animals being transferred to other farms, markets or slaughter-houses) (Schmidinger, 2020). Viruses can also enter the environment via food products or manure – which nor-mally makes a positive contribution to the circular econ-omy (Graham et al., 2008; Leibler et al., 2009). Manure can be another source of infection, especially for wild-life (Schmidinger, 2020). Wildwild-life farms are especially problematic because, in addition to the problems of hus-bandry already mentioned, new, unresearched pathogens are introduced via the international trade in wild animals (Karesh and Cook, 2005; Daszak et al., 2000). Preventive antimicrobial and anti-parasitic treatments, e.g. through the widespread use of antibiotics in factory farming, play a crucial role in the development of resistance and newly emerging infectious diseases (Liverani et al., 2013).
The factory-farming system not only exacerbates the risk of EIDs, it has also been criticized for years over a number of health, animal-welfare and environmental issues. Past out-breaks of diseases such as BSE and swine or avian influenza show that the health of factory-farmed animals has an impact on human health. This is compounded by the clearing of rain-forests to produce the enormous amounts of feed needed and to keep livestock on this land (Ruiz-Saenz et al., 2019). This forces resident wildlife to adapt to new habitats and leads to more frequent overlaps between humans, livestock and wild animals (Box 3.2-3). The factory-farming system again demonstrates the need for a holistic approach to health in the sense of ‘planetary health’ (Box 2.2-2), which regards animal, human and ecosystem health as positively interdependent influences. De Boer and van Ittersum (2018) have proposed a three-part circular-economy approach to food production that would be compatible with this: (1) plant-based food should be used exclusively for human consumption; (2) by-products are returned to this production, to processing and to consumption as far as possible through recycling; (3) livestock (not only mammals, but also fish and insects) are kept in order to process the residual by-products and to utilize the ecosystem services, e.g. for the preservation of pasture landscapes and the production of fertilizer.