Sectors: the siloing of health and environmental food research

Environmental and health concerns have been the primary drivers of the renewed attention to food systems in the last decade. There is a substantial disconnect between these two research streams, however, as each has focused on different sectors of the food chain. This has contributed to a siloing of advocacy and policy in each area, with a lack of attention to the interrelated nature of health and environmental issues across the food system.

In the environmental sustainability literature, the emphasis has largely been on the production phase of the food chain⁽ Reference Castellini, Boggia and Cortina ^{19 –} Reference Lal ^{21 )}. Agricultural production accounts for an estimated 14 % of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide⁽ Reference Barker, Bernstein and Bogner ^{22 )}. Certain aspects of production, such as the farming of ruminants (i.e. cows, goats and sheep) for meat, are considered particularly problematic due to their high greenhouse gas output⁽ Reference Yip, Crane and Karnon ^{23 ,} Reference Gerber, Steinfeld and Henderson ^{24 )}. The predicted drop in global agricultural production due to climate change and a parallel rise in world population have generated fears of future food insecurity and even, in the view of some, ‘a coming famine’⁽ Reference Cribb ^{25 )}. Other predicted changes, including a decline in fossil fuels needed for the global trade of foodstuffs and a rise of food-borne diseases, have exacerbated these concerns⁽ Reference Edwards, Dixon and Friel ^{26 )}.

Conversely, health-related food research, which incorporates equity concerns on issues such as food availability, accessibility, affordability and acceptability, has largely focused on the distribution and consumption sectors of the food chain⁽ Reference Black, Macinko and Dixon ^{27 –} Reference Lee and Lim ^{29 )}. This research is often concerned with the dietary options available to urban populations, especially lower-income populations, through the industrial food system⁽ Reference Gittelsohn, Franceschini and Rasooly ^{30 )}.

To create resilient urban food systems for population health in a changing climate, however, it is necessary to move beyond this traditional siloed approach. Research instead needs to focus on the interconnections between health and environmental issues across the food system as a whole.

Scale: globalised industrial food subsystem through to localised civic subsystems

One common thread between environmental- and health-related food research and advocacy is that both areas have focused on the localisation of food production and distribution as a means to address the perceived problems of the prevailing industrial food subsystem⁽ Reference McMichael and Friedmann ^{31 ,} Reference Dubbeling and Zeeuw ^{32 )}.

The industrial food subsystem, with its focus on transnational food commodity producers, supermarket chains and the food-service sector, is the dominant system in most developed countries⁽ Reference Burton, Lyons and Richards ^{33 )}. Few would question the efficiencies introduced by this type of food system due to the scale and technological sophistication of the supply chain of producers, processors and logistics enterprises⁽ Reference Roggeveen ^{4 )}. However, the industrial model is associated with widespread land degradation and pollution, and stresses the ecosystem services that society is reliant upon for sustaining production for future generations⁽ Reference Naylor, Steinfeld and Falcon ^{34 ,} Reference McMichael, Powles and Butler ^{35 )}. Industrial food systems have also increasingly produced large volumes of highly processed foods. When over-consumed, these foods are associated with adverse health and environmental impacts due to their typically energy-dense and nutrient-poor compositions and the additional environmental resources (water and energy) required for production⁽ Reference Monteiro ^{36 )}. Due to these traits the industrial system is viewed by many as the least resilient of the three food subsystems, being most vulnerable to economic and social disruptions and potentially to environmental disruptions caused by climate change⁽ Reference Dahlberg ^{37 )}.

The ethical, social and environmental problems associated with the industrial food subsystem have led to a championing of local, alternative options such as urban agriculture as a solution to food system problems⁽ Reference Dubbeling and Zeeuw ^{32 ,} Reference Harris ^{38 )}. In these discourses, civic and alternative commercial subsystems are associated with local or regional scales and the industrial subsystem is associated with the global and sometimes national scale⁽ Reference Morgan, Marsden and Murdoch ^{39 )}. The underlying assumption within much of this literature that local and/or alternative food systems create better environmental, health and equity outcomes has, however, been challenged by recent research⁽ Reference Brodt, Kramer and Kendall ^{40 –} Reference Born and Purcell ^{42 )}. Furthermore, the apparent conflation of scale and subsystems is not necessarily accurate: industrial subsystems operate at the geographically local level and ‘alternative’ subsystems can operate at national and global levels.

These considerations bring into question whether focusing on localised alternative subsystems is the most effective approach for creating resilient urban food systems. The lack of empirical research examining the relative efficacy of different subsystems in achieving environmental, health and equity outcomes within a whole-food-system framework, however, means that it is difficult to ascertain how best to intervene⁽ Reference Edwards-Jones, Milà i Canals and Hounsome ^{43 )}.

Domain 1: Environmental footprint of food subsystems: how do they differ?

The environmental impact of production is a key focus of current international research concerned with identifying ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and supporting adaptive capacity to address food security concerns⁽ Reference Alder, Barling and Dugan ^{48 )}. Domain 1 of the project examined the environmental footprints of a selection of foods from different urban food production systems. Assessing the vulnerability and opportunities for mitigation in food subsystems can be done using life-cycle analysis (LCA)⁽ Reference Garnett ^{49 )}. In the present study, LCA was performed on two food commodities (chicken meat and lettuce) produced from two food subsystems (industrial and civic).

For a detailed description of the study design and results, see Hall et al.⁽ Reference Hall, Rothwell and Grant ^{50 )}. In brief, the two food commodities chosen were important in dietary terms regarding quantity consumed and nutritional value, as well as significant production in Sydney by different food systems. The LCA undertaken were: (i) compare the environmental health impact of the production of 1 kg of chicken meat in the industrial subsystem and the civic system; and (ii) compare the environmental health impact of the production of 1 kg of lettuce in the industrial system and the civic system.

In both the chicken and lettuce LCA, the most environmentally influential stages of the supply chain were found to be the production and processing stages, with retail and food preparation/cooking having relatively little environmental impact.

Domain 2: Sustainable and healthy food consumption: issues of availability, affordability and access from urban food subsystems

The importance of integrating environmental considerations into people’s food choices is now recognised as a significant component of both adaptation and mitigation policy responses concerned with sustainability, food security and health⁽ Reference O’Halloran, Fisher and Rab ^{51 – 60 )}. Adoption of sustainable diets among urban populations has at least two important benefits: (i) stresses on ecosystem services may be reduced, which in turn helps reduce food-related climate change impacts; and (ii) such a mantra helps foster the consumption of healthy and nutritious foods, which in turn fosters a reduction in chronic disease. There are, however, gaps in the evidence base concerning which type of food subsystem (industrial, alternative commercial and civic) best provides consumers with a healthy and sustainable diet (hereafter ‘H&S diet’) and the cost of the H&S diet from different food subsystems relative to a typical diet.

In Domain 2 of the project we first outlined what an H&S diet might contain based on three principles: (i) reducing overconsumption; (ii) reducing consumption of discretionary foods; and (iii) eating less animal-derived foods and more plant-based foods. Second, we assessed the availability, affordability and accessibility of an H&S diet across different food subsystems in GWS in five different socio-economic neighbourhoods, surveying eighty-two food provisioning outlets. For a detailed description of the study design and results, see Friel et al. and Barosh et al.⁽ Reference Friel, Barosh and Lawrence ^{61 ,} Reference Barosh, Friel and Engelhardt ^{62 )}.

Domain 3: Creating a demand for sustainable and health food consumption: citizens’ views, practices, and access to healthy and sustainable foods

Consumers are increasingly encouraged to become ecological citizens and much literature exists on alternative communities’ transition to sustainable living⁽ Reference Sherriff ^{66 )}. Mainstream consumers are less understood in this regard, particularly the experience of people in socio-economically disadvantaged urban areas. The creation of climate-resilient urban food systems requires an H&S diet not to be considered only ‘yuppie chow’⁽ Reference Guthman ^{67 )}; rather it must be adopted by the mainstream population. In Domain 3 of the study, we undertook qualitative research in three different socio-economic areas of Sydney, with the aim of uncovering mainstream consumers’ views towards sustainable and healthy diets. For a detailed description of the study design and results, see Dixon and Isaacs⁽ Reference Dixon and Isaacs ^{68 )}. In brief, interviews were undertaken with households in a low, middle and high socio-economic status area in Western Sydney to investigate the food provisioning practices. Many participants indicated a discrepancy between the food practices they wished to practise, such as buying more Australian produce, and the reality of what actually occurred. This discrepancy was attributed at least in part to cost. Even in terms of the practices people would like to implement, however, the environment did not rate highly in the concerns of the majority and a low priority was accorded to the purchase of sustainably credentialed foods. How mainstream consumers construe nutritious (as fresh food, preserving family ties, entertainment and pleasure, rather than nutritionally recommended food groups) and local foods (Australian made) appears to be at odds with the definitions set out in official public health guidelines, by council food planners and the local food movement⁽ Reference Dixon and Isaacs ^{68 )}.

1. Develop multiple food subsystems: beyond local v. industrial

There has been much emphasis on localisation of food production to increase resilience of urban food systems⁽ Reference Ruge and Mikkelsen ^{12 ,} Reference Hawkes ^{71 )}. This has been supplemented by a view of the industrial system as problematic environmentally, ethically and health-wise⁽ Reference Horrigan, Lawrence and Walker ^{72 )}. Our study has found that the industrial system is efficient at producing two core dietary items (chicken and lettuce) and at least in the case of chicken, in a way that is less environmentally damaging than civic production. In terms of retail/distribution, the conventional outlets of large supermarket chains provided the greatest number of healthy and sustainable options, operating often in a vacuum of alternative retail outlet options.

Climate change is, however, likely to challenge many of the current efficiencies of the industrial system. Predictions suggest that as temperatures increase so will the requirement for inputs such as fertilisers, water and fuel to sustain production⁽ Reference Larsen, Turner and Ryan ^{73 )}. In distribution, there may be an even greater emphasis on energy-intensive cold chains and highly processed foods with a long shelf-life for food safety⁽ Reference Lobstein, Friel and Dowler ^{74 )}, with flow-on implications for food prices and the types of foods stocked by retailers and food vendors⁽ Reference Lobstein, Friel and Dowler ^{74 )}. A critical step for climate adaptation is to increase resilience and reduce vulnerability by incorporating diversity and flexibility within systems⁽ Reference Edwards, Dixon and Friel ^{26 )}. Adaptive capacity combined with ongoing mitigation provides major protection against vulnerability. Development of multiple sustainable food subsystems is therefore a strategic mechanism to increase resilience.

Our findings suggest that the different food subsystems should be seen as complementary, rather than conflicting, in creating resilient urban food systems. While alternative and local food subsystems may have the capacity to provide new and potentially more environmentally sustainable options across all sectors of the food chain, our research illustrates that this potential has not yet been realised. To contribute to a more resilient urban food system, alternative systems of production, distribution and consumption need to be strengthened and improved in a number of ways (see Table 1).

Table 1 Summary of key action areas and policy directions for a whole-of-food-system approach to creating climate-resilient urban food systems improving sustainability, equity and population health

GHG, greenhouse gas; H&S diet, healthy and sustainable diet; SES, socio-economic status.

2. Improve health, equity and environmental sustainability across all sectors of the food system

Our findings also indicate that production itself is not the only, or even the most, important sector in the food chain in creating a more environmentally resilient and healthy food system. All sectors of the food system must be addressed, and improved, to reach this goal, specific strategies for which are detailed in Table 1. In addition to addressing production, the retail, distribution and consumption aspects of the food chain must be improved as they are the conduit through which consumers can access what has been identified as a H&S diet. Equity is a key concern here, with the need to ensure that healthy and sustainable food items are not only available but also accessible and affordable across the different geographic and socio-economic communities that comprise the urban population.

In addition to reducing structural barriers, consumers themselves have a critical role to play in the transformation of the urban food system. The small but expanding body of literature on H&S diets focuses primarily on the impact of particular dietary items and the need to change consumption habits in relation to these food items⁽ Reference Saxe, Larsen and Mogensen ^{75 ,} Reference Vieux, Darmon and Touazi ^{76 )}. The emphasis, therefore, is principally on individual consumer choices. The findings of our consumer research in Domain 3 support this conclusion to the extent that it affirmed the importance of consumer choice in moving towards an H&S diet. It is clear that unless consumers think it is sufficiently important to change their current shopping habits they will not move to an H&S diet.

Addressing the barriers identified by consumers to consumption of an H&S diet, such as equity concerns around cost and accessibility, cannot be left purely to the marketplace. Taking locally produced fresh food as an example, when left to market demand farmers’ markets often struggle to survive in lower-income neighbourhoods⁽ Reference Markowitz ^{77 ,} Reference Colasanti, Conner and Smalley ^{78 )}. People in higher socio-economic neighbourhoods have more discretionary income and so can more easily afford healthy and sustainable items such as farm fresh fruit and vegetables. In addition, among many people in middle to high income groups, purchasing local food has become a social more⁽ Reference Zukin ^{79 )}. To shift the perception of healthy and sustainable food as the domain of wealthy, middle-class consumers and encourage greater consumption across the urban population requires addressing the systemic barriers around access, affordability and availability. This requires a comprehensive approach encompassing all sectors of government.

3. Whole-of-government approach

In Australia there is no government department for food. Instead responsibilities for different aspects of the food system sit with a wide range of departments⁽ Reference Crammond, Van and Allender ^{80 )}. Creating comprehensive food system change and encouraging the consumption of an H&S diet would require the engagement of departments as diverse as agriculture, health, the environment, climate change, trade, regional development, and community and family services. It would also require integrated action across the different levels of government in Australia – local, state and federal – as they all have responsibility for different aspects of the food system⁽ Reference Shill, Mavoa and Allender ^{81 )}.

Rather than rely on one measure to create change, a whole-of-government approach would require a range of policy actions working together to achieve a common goal–policy coherence⁽ Reference Crammond, Van and Allender ^{80 )}. This suite of policies could include regulatory, information and/or market based options, as outlined in Table 1.