Sustainable food

Written evidence submitted by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board

About the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB)

1. AHDB is classified as a Non-Departmental Public Body. It plays a pivotal role in improving farm business efficiency and competitiveness. It is funded by farmers, growers and others in the supply chain through statutory levies. Approximately 80% of total AHDB levy income is funded by primary producers.

2. AHDB serves six sectors representing about 75% of total UK agricultural output: Pig meat in England; Beef and lamb in England; Commercial horticulture in Great Britain; Milk in Great Britain; Potatoes in Great Britain; Cereals and oilseeds in the UK.

3. We undertake research and development and farm-level knowledge transfer/exchange activity. We provide essential market information to improve supply chain transparency, deliver marketing promotion activities to help stimulate demand and also work to maintain and develop export markets.

Key Points from this submission

4. The evidence we have suggests that farms that have lower GHG emissions also tend to be more competitive and have lower costs. This means that in theory it should be possible to meet both targets of increased sustainability and competitive food costs by ensuring our agriculture and horticulture is as efficient as possible.

5. The importance of efficient land use means that we should strive to produce as efficiently as possible on the smallest footprint of land capable of delivering market requirements. This approach is usually the most sustainable and profitable way to farm. This approach also spares land for other purposes including carbon stored in forests and grassland, biofuel production, as well as wildlife and amenity uses.

6. It is generally the case that UK farmers are up with or ahead of competitors overseas in the area of sustainable production in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production (litre of milk or kilo of beef for example). This is a good reason for consumers or those involved in food procurement to source assured produce.

7. Tracking research produced by AHDB shows that the majority of consumers are reluctant to pay more for food products which have been produced with a lower carbon footprint. The majority expect to pay the same. Consumers in the UK remain less committed to buying local food than their counterparts in other countries around the world.

8. It would be a very complex task to achieve accurate and objective on-pack labelling on the majority of food products against a single set of sustainability criteria, in a way that is compellingly simple and easy to understand for consumers. It is therefore unlikely that the sustainability challenge will be met merely by supplying additional on-pack information to enable consumers to make informed choices.

9. Retailers and manufacturers will continue to be ahead of mainstream shoppers in terms of the work that they are doing to reduce and communicate the environmental impact of their products. To that extent, a retailer-directed drive to make their supply chains more environmentally sustainable is most likely.

10. This "pull", coupled with the farm-level "push" work of the AHDB, could help drive a larger proportion of producers to become more efficient, thereby lowering their carbon footprint per kilo produced and helping UK Plc deliver its sustainability agenda.

How can the environmental and climate change impacts of the food we choose to eat best be reduced? What are the land-use trade-offs that affect food production and supply and how should these be managed?

11. The importance of efficient land use means that we should strive to produce as efficiently as possible on the smallest footprint of land capable of delivering market requirements. This approach is usually the most sustainable and profitable way to farm. This approach also spares land for other purposes, including carbon stored in forests and grassland, biofuel production, as well as wildlife and amenity uses.

12. It is generally the case that UK farmers are up with or ahead of competitors overseas in the area of sustainable production in terms of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production (litre of milk or kilo of beef for example). Food production, environmental goods and climate change impacts will necessarily always be a compromise and it is important to recognise this.

13. With input from Cranfield University, AHDB commissioned a detailed study of the carbon footprint of commercial beef and sheep farms in the UK. Across both sectors it categorically showed a positive link between the environmental performance and the economic performance. This was most pronounced in the sheep sector where every 1kg CO2 eq/kg reduction yielded a 28p improvement in enterprise margin.  Therefore work to improve farm efficiency and lower costs also lowers emissions – a win win.

14. As an organisation which plays a pivotal role in helping the industry to improve its competitiveness, we have many examples of how the sectors we work with are improving their sustainable food production. This work covers three key areas:

· environment (use of materials, energy and water, pollution, waste, biodiversity)

· social (access to markets, education, health and safety, noise)

· economy (resource efficiency, harnessing innovation, developing new markets)

15. The primary objective of land use for agriculture is the efficient conversion of solar energy into varied and valued forms of chemical energy (in the form of food and other outputs) for utilisation by mankind. It also recognises that some land is best used to produce forage for animals as intermediates in the energy conversion process; grazing and browsing ruminant animals can eat plant material indigestible by humans and convert it into fats and protein that man can digest. This energy conversion process involves management of the interaction between animal and/or plant and the environment. This management is the essence of what agriculture is and farmers do.

16. Around 60 per cent of England is grassland and large swathes of this are managed effectively and efficiently by grazing animals. Much of this land would not be suitable for growing crops and the grazing animals convert grass into produce suitable for feeding humans. If grazing cattle and sheep were removed from the land, there would be significant ecosystem implications and other grassland management systems would have to be employed.

How can the Government help to deliver healthy food sustainably, whilst also delivering affordable food for all?

17. It is estimated that primary agricultural production contributes 7% of the UK’s GHG emission (as CO2 eq). CO2 emissions from agriculture are a small component, accounting for just 0.7%. For agriculture, natural processes intimately connected to the means of food production are responsible for the remaining 6.3%. and N2O accounts for 3.5%. The latter results from the natural processes of nitrification and denitrification, mediated by soil bacteria, Nitrogen is an absolute requirement for crop growth (including forage crops) and a primary determinant of the productivity of agricultural systems. It is inevitable that a proportion of the reactive nitrogen in an agricultural system will be lost as gaseous N2O.

18. The efficiency of an agricultural system can be defined by the Kg of CO2 eq per unit of production (tonne of grain, litre of milk, kg of meat etc,). Within the UK it should be possible to define the GHG emissions that will inevitably result from our most efficient systems producing the home-grown food required to sustain the future population (of for example 70 million in the case of the UK). This figure for GHG emissions, together with the quantities of agricultural products, could become an important target as an indicator of sustainability (and the sought after levels of efficiency) provided it was also closely linked to systems for carbon capture and storage on the same time scale (annually for example). A concentration on increased yields and efficiency would allow more land for forestry, the cultivation of bioenergy crops and the maintenance of permanent grassland all of which should increase the store of fixed carbon or substitute for burning fossil fuels.

19. In addition, the evidence we have suggests that farms that have lower GHG emissions also tend to be more competitive and have lower costs. This means that in theory it should be possible to meet both targets of increased sustainability and competitive food costs by ensuring our agriculture and horticulture is as efficient as possible.

20. A key question relating to UK land-use is whether the balance alluded to in paragraph 19 is achievable. If calculations demonstrate there is an imbalance, it will be necessary to seek trade-offs, such that food is purchased from more efficient producers outside the UK or the means to fix and store carbon beyond the boundaries of the UK system are purchased.

21. This approach seems fundamentally more sound than the somewhat arbitrary targets for reductions in GHG emissions being required by the Committee on Climate Change (3m tonnes of CO2 eq per annum for England to 2020). These targets will most likely simply incentivise reductions in production which, without any reduction in demand (unlikely given projected population increases), will simply result in more imported, and in many cases less efficiently produced, food. The outcome of this scenario could be a move away from, rather than towards, sustainability.

22. On consumer messaging to do with healthy eating, AHDB believes it is important that we continue to provide consistency of messaging around the balanced plate approach for a healthy diet.

23. Nutritious and beneficial food groups (eg red meat and dairy) should not be excluded due to NGO pressure. A recent report by the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) demonstrated that lean red meat makes a significant positive contribution to both micronutrient and macronutrient intakes without risking any negative health effects.

24. A benefit of pigs which is often overlooked is the traditional role that pigs play as natural recyclers of food waste in the UK. This includes everything from whey to broken biscuits. This role could be looked at again as part of the solution to the food waste issue.

How can consumers best be helped to make more sustainable choices about food?

25. Recent consumer tracking research conducted by the AHDB indicates that around half of all adults agree that they "are very concerned about global warming", although only 18% agree that "the climate change debate has influenced the way in which I purchase food".

26. For consumers, the most obvious connection between their food shopping behaviour and its environmental impact is the link between buying local produce and the consequent reduction in food miles, with 44% of adults agreeing that they "try to buy local produce in order to reduce my food miles". This chimes with the output of recent IGD tracking research which showed a doubling between 2006 and 2010 of those shoppers who claimed to have deliberately bought locally produced food in the last month, up from 15% to 30%.

27. As the IGD analysis showed, the reasons for buying locally produced food are a bundle of inter-related factors, with freshness claimed as the number one driver ahead of supporting the local economy, being good for the environment and being tastier. But it would be fair to say that for many consumers, local food equates simplistically to lower food miles.

28. It is clear from the AHDB tracking research however that the majority of consumers are reluctant to pay more for food products which have been produced with a lower carbon footprint: only 15% say that they would be prepared to pay more, and indeed 12% say that they should pay less (one assumes due to their recognition that such food products would have lower input costs).The majority expect to pay the same.

29. Indeed one could make a case that despite the increases in propensity to buy local food, as measured through the above quantitative tracking research, consumers in the UK remain less committed to buying local food than their counterparts in other countries around the world. Recent tracking of consumer attitudes by Datamonitor has shown that consumers in most other western European countries, Australia, the Middle East and the emerging BRIC countries are all more likely to say that they try to buy food produced locally than consumers in the UK. Of countries involved in the polling exercise only consumers in the Netherlands have a lower propensity to buy local food.

30. There is not necessarily any absolute correlation between, on the one hand, the proximity of food production to its consumption and on the other its overall carbon-equivalent footprint. Nevertheless, tracking this criterion of food choice does perhaps indicate that we still have a long way to go before we can anticipate an upsurge in consumer awareness about the sustainability criteria attached to individual food products.

31. So what is the prognosis for the future? To what extent will the food industry be able to lower its environmental impacts and what role will consumers play in this? Will a more sustainable food industry be brought about through producer/retailer "push" or consumer "pull"?

32. The Government has signalled its commitment to clearer labelling by retailers. Clear, transparent food labelling, including country of origin marking. The promotion of assurance schemes like the Red Tractor scheme and EBLEX’s Quality Standard Scheme, certainly helps ensure consumers have informed choice and confidence that what they are buying has clear traceability.

33. However, it is going to be a very complex task to achieve accurate and objective on-pack labelling on the majority of food products against a single set of sustainability criteria, in a way that is compellingly simple and easy to understand for consumers. It is therefore unlikely that the sustainability challenge will be met merely by supplying on-pack information to enable consumers to make informed choices.

34. Much more probable is that retailers and manufacturers will continue to be ahead of mainstream shoppers in terms of the work that they are doing to reduce the environmental impact of their products, across a range of dimensions such as reduced carbon impact, less water use, less packaging, less waste to landfill and more efficient use of transport.

35. Increasingly their project work in this area will be one of the key components in retailers’ Corporate Social Responsibility strategies. Indeed many of their stakeholders will expect them to do the right thing with regard to the environmental sustainability of their supply chains, just as we have seen expectations grow with regard to other criteria such as animal welfare, child labour and Fairtrade.

36. The inherently competitive nature of the British grocery retailing market, nurtured by both UK and EU competition law, may make it unlikely that a common format of labelling is eventually deployed to assist consumer choice. The desire for differentiation and first-mover advantage might result in a variety of retailer own-label sub-brands or bespoke retailer presentation of on-pack information.

37. Nonetheless it is possible that the attention which will increasingly be paid to sustainability criteria in the supply chain will not prove to be onerous for primary food producers but rather it could serve to benefit them. This benefit may be seen in two ways.

38. Firstly there is a broad correlation in most primary production sectors between efficiency in terms of production costs and efficiency in terms of resource use and GHG emissions. To that extent, a retailer-directed drive to make their supply chains more sustainable could help producers to lower their costs and to become more competitive.

39. Secondly it will be difficult for retailers to make their supply chains more sustainable without becoming more attached to those chains, taking a keener interest in how all the links in the chain integrate with each other and therefore adopting a more strategic view of how those chains could develop. Stronger linkages will be required between primary producers and retailers in order to measure the impact of interventions to reduce emissions or resource use. These should produce a "win-win" for primary agricultural producers, many of whom have been asking for a more integrated approach to supply-chain management in order to help them manage risk better and to reduce volatility of pricing or demand.

40. In this way the collateral effect of a strategic drive for greater environmental sustainability could in fact be greater economic sustainability for primary producers, food processors and retailers alike.

Which aspects of the food production and supply chain are presenting the biggest problems for the sustainability of the food industry?

41. Issues of emissions beyond the "farm gate" are relatively straightforward to quantify and deal with since reduction in use of fossil-fuel derived energy is almost the only consideration. In contrast, activities before the "farm gate" result in emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from complex biological processes (primarily nitrous oxide and methane) which are integral with the productive management of terrestrial and ecosystems. In addition, there are often consequential changes in land-use with significant impacts on system sustainability.

42. Other specific problems include:

· The milk, pig meat, beef and lamb supply chains do not necessarily distribute profits fairly, with the large retailers often taking the lions share and many producers, as price takers, currently loss making. (For example in the 12 weeks to January 2011 AHDB Market Intelligence estimates: British pig producers lost £35m; Processors made £100m profit; Retailers made £192m profit).

· Pig production is highly feed intensive: historically, around 60% of production costs are attributed to feed. Profitability within the industry is, therefore, highly dependent on the price of feed. In January 2011, it was estimated that feed now accounts for 77% of total costs. In contrast, on the beef and sheep side, because of the rain-fed pasture system in England, we are able to make best use of the available resources with much of the animals’ food and water intake coming from naturally occurring grassland and rainfall, giving the industry impressive sustainable credentials in this area.

How might the changing powers of local authorities and the localism agenda hinder, or be used to encourage, more sustainable production and supply of food?

43. AHDB is concerned that the localism agenda could be used by interest groups to prevent producers from building facilities to improve sustainable production, such as livestock finishing barns and anaerobic digester plants. Many of these projects are misrepresented as the "expansion of industrial livestock farming." We are concerned that the localism agenda could lead to further problems in the planning system, often driven by national NGO campaigns, which will hinder the progress that livestock producers are making. Many of these developments may reduce GHG emissions through more efficient practices.

How could Government procurement practices be improved to promote better practice across the food sector?

44. AHDB encourages the public sector to lead by example, and so welcomes recent Government commitments to ensure all Departments procure goods that meet UK minimum production standards.

45. The procurement of products which meet UK minimum production standards, or ideally Red Tractor standard, also helps public sector bodies such as schools and hospitals meet Government requirements relating to sustainable procurement. This is because the Red Tractor is an independently audited assurance scheme that ensures internationally recognised standards are applied. In some sectors, such as pig meat, this assurance is throughout the production chain, from farm to supermarket shelf.

46. We hope that examples like University Hospitals Trust in Nottingham sourcing 95% of meat from a local supplier will become the norm. This came as a direct result of the Government issuing advice on food buying by public-sector organisations.

47. However, we are concerned that the Government’s commitment to British standards is subject to "no overall increase in costs". The higher standards may mean that in some cases UK produce is slightly more expensive than imported products. However, in the case of imported pork, bacon and other pork products without specifying welfare standards, Government Departments may inadvertently be supporting production that would be illegal in the UK.

29 March 2011