Chain of events: a blog of Food Chain Intelligence

As previously blogged (is that a verb??), I attended the CSIRO food manufacturing forum in North Ryde on February 16th. This was a very interesting event and difficult to summarise in a few lines. Instead, I encourage you to check the presentations:

Sustainable food manufacturing forum presentations: Session 1:

• Mr Jay Sellahewa (CSIRO), who leads CSIRO’s program on Sustainable Food Processing
• Dr Steve Crimp, Stream Leader, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems
• Dr Peter Carberry, Theme Leader, Sustainable Agriculture National Research Flagship
• Dr Roger Bektash, Director of Scientific Affairs, Mars Australia
• Dr Brad Ridoutt, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

Sustainable food manufacturing forum presentations: Session 2:

• Dr Manny Noakes, Research Program Leader and Co-author of the CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet books, CSIRO Food and Nutritional Sciences
• Ms Peta Ashworth, Co-author of the CSIRO Home Energy Saving Handbook, CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
• Mr Tony Mahar, Director Sustainable Development, Australian Food and Grocery Council
• Dr Brad Ridoutt, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.

Sustainable food manufacturing forum presentations: Session 3:

• Anne-Marie Poirrier, NSW Department of Environment Climate Change and Water
• Dr Silvia Estrada-Flores, Food Chain Intelligence
• Dr Sean O’Malley, Head of Technical Consulting for Planet Ark
• Prof Julian Cribb, editor of the Australian R&D Review and ScienceAlert.com.au.

Sustainable food manufacturing forum presentations: Session 4:

The speakers were Mr Lloyd Higginbotham (CSIRO) and Kate Parker, Deputy State Director New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory, Enterprise Connect, who were followed by a panel of experts.

“Food security and climate change are linked - sides of one coin. Each day we wake up we should be thankful for living here. No matter our circumstance, we are better off than most people. The 1 billion facing hunger and starvation and the second billion living on $2 a day represent a third of the world.”. Neil Hamilton, Professor of Law & Director of the Agricultural Law Centre, Drake University.

“Roughly around 31% of emissions come from agriculture [...] hence the impact of good policies to lessen the negative impact and good policies to increase the capacity for carbon sequestration”. Jacques Diouf, director-general of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

“Food production at high latitudes must rise as quickly as it falls elsewhere, but this is unlikely to happen. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the potential for global food production is ”very likely” to decrease above about 3 degrees. The panel uses the phrase ”very likely” to mean a probability of above 90 per cent. Unless a strong climate deal is struck soon, the probable outcome is a rise of 3 degrees or more by the end of the century”. George Monbiot, Columnist, WA Today.

“The Treasury modelling found that in 2013, the average price impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on food bills will be around $68 a year — less than 1 per cent of household food bills”. Peter Garret, Environment Minister.

“The average shopping basket is about $200 a week, so the government’s modelling suggests a barely 0.5 per cent increase off the back of increases in electricity prices of 20 to 40 per cent. That is not even vaguely credible in a manufacturing industry”. Kate Carnell, Australian Food and Grocery Council.

“Many of the conflicts we see between agricultural productivity and forest conservation are largely the result of market and governance failures. We need to correct these in such a way as to achieve more optimal outcomes for society.” Francis Seymour, director general, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).

“Many farmers worldwide hoped that negotiators in Copenhagen would devise a way to shield them from the heat waves, droughts, floods, and other unpredictable weather predicted under climate change, and reward them for activities that trap greenhouse gases. But agriculture wasn’t mentioned in the final accord signed December 18th by the United States, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa.” Steve Baragona, VoA News.

The report “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States: A State of Knowledge Report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program”, provides some crucial aspects that need to be considered by food producers in the US and globally.

In the following paragraphs, I summarise some key points made in reference to the climate change effects on the US production of fruit and vegetable crops. However, the report also discusses the impacts in US livestock and fisheries.

• While climate change affects agriculture, the latter also affects climate change. Agriculture contributes 13.5 % of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) globally. In the US, agriculture represents 8.6 % of the nation’s total GHG emissions.

• Higher temperatures will mean a longer growing season for crops that do well in the heat, such as melon, okra, and sweet potato, but a shorter growing season for crops more suited to cooler conditions, such as potato, lettuce, broccoli, and spinach.

• Warmer temperatures are likely to affect specialty crops in California, such as apricots, almonds, artichokes, figs, kiwis, olives, and walnuts. These crops (and other not mentioned in the list) require a minimum time of exposure to chilling temperatures during winter to induce a dormant state and be ready for fruit bearing in the next harvest season. However, the length of time where these low temperatures are achieved is already decreasing in California. The worst case scenario for economic losses is 40% for wine and table grapes, almonds, oranges, walnuts and avocados.

• Higher temperatures also cause plants to use more water to keep cool. But fruits, vegetables and grains can suffer even under well-watered conditions: if temperatures exceed the specific maximum level for pollen viability in a plant, the plant will not produce seed and therefore it will not reproduce.

• Nighttime temperatures are expected to continue to rise in the future. For example, snap beans show substantial yield reduction when nighttime temperatures exceed 26.7°C.

• Water irrigation is sometimes used to maintain adequate temperature conditions for the growth of cool season plants (such as many vegetables). With increasing competition for freshwater supplies, the water needed for these crops will be limited.

• Fruits that require long winter chilling periods (e.g.some apple varieties and berries)will experience declines. Cranberries have a particularly high chilling requirement, and there are no known low-chill varieties. It is expected that Massachusetts and New Jersey, which supply about half the US cranberry crop, will be unable to do so.

• Even crop species that are well-adapted to warmth, such as tomatoes, can have reduced yield or quality when daytime maximum temperatures exceed 32.2°C for even short periods during critical reproductive stages.

• Many insect pests and crop diseases thrive due to warming, increasing losses and necessitating greater pesticide use. Additionally, higher temperatures are known to reduce the effectiveness of certain classes of pesticides. Pesticide spraying will be needed more frequently or in higher doses.

• Predicting the optimum planting date for maximum profits will be more challenging under increased climate uncertainty. This uncertainty applies for both local production and supply from competing regions.

The report also suggests some strategies for adaptation, presented below:

• Adaptation strategies for agriculture include more efficient irrigation, shifts in cropping patterns and the use of groundwater. In particular, changing planting dates can be an effective no- or low-cost option for taking advantage of a longer growing season or avoiding crop exposure to high temperature stress or low rainfall periods. Effectiveness will depend on the region, crop, and the rate and amount of warming.

• Another adaptation strategy is changing to crop varieties with improved tolerance to heat or drought, or those that are adapted to take advantage of a longer growing season. This is less likely to be cost-effective for perennial crops, for which changing varieties is extremely expensive and new plantings take several years to reach maximum productivity.

• Even for annual crops, changing varieties is not always a low-cost option. Planting stress-tolerant varieties often requires new farming equipment or a wide range of adjustments. In some cases, it is difficult to breed for genetic tolerance to elevated temperature or to identify an alternative variety that is adapted to the new climate and to local soils, practices, and market demands.

The report has abundant scientific references backing each of their claims. For those interested in these, I recommend to go straight to the source:

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 2009.

I read the report “A future for food”, by the Public Health Association of Australia. Although I agree with some points made in the report (e.g. developing a single national food industry strategy and developing holistic regulations to food supply chains), I disagree with some of the report’s statements.

For example, the report states that “Food policy needs to include actions to reduce dependency on refrigeration through local food production, more appropriate food choices, improved food literacy and effective food storage techniques”.

Suggesting that the reduction of refrigeration will enhance food security is not only ill-informed but downright dangerous. Climate change is likely to lead to higher ambient temperatures and refrigeration will be a much needed technology to ensure food safety and adequate food storage. Temperature is the single most important factor contributing to bacterial growth and survival in perishable foods. Therefore, temperature control and maintenance of adequate cold chain conditions are critical to food safety.

Food safety itself is an angle that “A future for food” did not take into account. However, the impact of climate change on food safety is under review by FAO and other global organisations. The Australian Government itself is recognising that climate-related risks of food-related outbreaks need to be further investigated. This realization is vital in Australia: in 2000, food-related diseases caused approximately 5.4 million cases of gastroenteritis per year, along with 6,000 non-gastrointestinal illnesses and 42,000 episodes of long-term effects (chronic sequelae). Assuming that the same numbers apply each year, the total cost of foodborne illness in Australia is estimated at $1,249 million per annum (see reference here).

Going back to the PHAA report, I also question the following comments and methods:

-Using international data and extrapolate to Australian conditions. I have mentioned already in this blog the importance of getting our GHG estimates right on meat production in Australia. Further, tropical food is normally transported by land for domestic consumption in Australia, not by air as is done in Europe. Exports are a different operation altogether.

-The impact of horticulture (i.e. fruit and vegetables) has not been fully assessed in Australia and until these aspects are not explored, recommendations to switch diets to plant products on the basis of environmental impact are not made in a solid scientific basis.

-Although PHAA’s report emphasizes the role of food waste, it fails to emphasize the role of proper refrigeration on decreasing such waste. The maintenance of low temperatures to decrease food waste has been known since prehistoric times.

Overall, the PHAA’s report highlights the lack of adequate Australian-based information to back policies that call for a decrease in protein-rich diets, switch to organic production or include agricultural industries in an ETS scheme.

While I am supportive of rethinking our diets and the entire chain associated to them on the light of climate and food security challenges, I am not keen on doing so without an adequate scientific assessment of these issues. I am even less supportive of demonising agricultural industries, labelling some as “the great polluters” without acknowledging that these industries are the very same ones that have led to a strong economic growth in the past decades.

A balanced, whole-of-the-chain approach (which I thoroughly support) should be exactly that: involving representatives from the whole industry (including meat, dairy and horticulture). The goals are ensuring that our food chains are: secure (i.e. food supply, food safety, bioterrorism, resilient food chains) and sustainable (i.e. competitive food chains, environmentally oriented design).

I recently read “Tackling the global food challenge” a great article by Julian Cribb (thanks for bringing my attention to this, Gerry). This article and my previous concerns about food production and distribution prompted me to think about specific measures that can adress these issues. What can we specifically propose to solve crises such as a global shortage of food?

To me, the fundamental aspect is “How can the agri-food sector can be more competitive?” The issues of affordability, productivity and sustainability are all angles of competitiveness. Let’s frame this problem in the specific situation of Australian food production. It is also necessary to take a whole-of-the-chain approach: we cannot resolve the issue of affordability if we focus our attention on growers and farmers, knowing that retailers play a significant role on food affordability.

Therefore, we need to focus on the entire efficiency of the food supply chain, including growers, manufacturers, logistics providers, suppliers, wholesalers, convenience sector and retailers. Furthermore, competitiveness is also a reflection of the historic public and private investment in building and developing the agri-food industry, thereby involving policy makers, research and education providers, entrepreneurs, and all the actors needed to innovate and educate new entrants in the sector.

I have a list of ideas that I have collected in the past 3 years, some of these resonate strongly with Julian’s views. These are:

1. Develop a national innovation system that supports food and agricultural science and research.

2. Conduct a review of the National Public Health Nutrition Strategy, taking into account healthy eating and carbon footprint of the food we eat.

3. Investigate the use of distributed food production, which makes use of hydroponics to cultivate horticultural products in the roofs of large commercial buildings and centres. What about the use of hydroponics in drought-affected areas?

4. Increase agricultural mechanization to tackle labour shortages in the farm.

5. Investigate the use of micro-machine processing, flexible manufacturing and production de-scaling in the food industry.

6. Employ innovative supply chain strategies, such as the Sustainable Distribution strategy in the UK.

7. Establish and enforce a minimum quota of arable land in Australia that needs to remain dedicated for food production (as opposed to biodiesel production) and develop policies that will support and enforce these limits.

8. Enforce reductions on food wastage in Australia, covering production, distribution, retail, convenience (e.g. restaurants, hotels, take-away businesses, hospitals, schools) and consumer.

9. Redouble efforts in research and commercialisation focused to develop the native food industry (e.g. bush tomato, desert limes and wattle seeds).

10. Simplify/streamline the food regulatory system to support innovation and NPD, decreasing delays in the regulatory response to new product.

11. Investigate the effect of changing supermarket practices on the entire supply chain, e.g. packaging formats required by supermarkets greatly affect farmers.

12. With decreased food security and increased food imports, an increase in food safety hazards can arise. Food safety in the Australian food supply chain should be highlighted as a potential issue of climate change and food shortages.

13. Government-led initiatives and policies that encourage horizontal and vertical collaboration between food chain partners can go a long way in shifting the way of doing business in the food industry.

14. Consider lowering the barriers to food imports to tackle food affordability, thus allowing the imports of low cost food staples.

15. To soften the effect of easing trade barriers for domestic producers, offer opportunities to add value to the products imported domestically, through improved packaging, storage, processing of imported raw materials, etc. Differentiation through improved packaging, new product development and so on is essential to ensure that a downfall in food production can be tempered with increased value addition and product differentiation.

16. Explore the benefits of using agricultural by-products to extract health-related substances (i.e. nutraceuticals) or biofuels.

No rocket science here. Any further ideas?