I recently wrote an editorial piece for the Baines Report (a publication from the University of Texas at Austin LBJ School of Public Affairs). Due to word count constraints, they can’t publish the full draft of the article. As the article was meant to be an introduction to the topic of food and energy, I thought I’d post the full text here to give you some background on the topic and to present some possible solutions to the problems I see in the food sector. Enjoy!
Our grocery stores are fully stocked now, but we must make changes to the food system to keep it that way in the future
Food and energy are inextricably linked. The chemical structures in food store energy its plant components once harvested from the sun. But food can do much more than power you through a bike ride around the green belt; the chemical energy in plants can power your car as ethanol or biodiesel, fuel your stove in the form of biogas from decomposing leftovers, and even generate electricity through the burning of biomass. The miraculous powers of food to sustain both life and machines is easy to forget when we stare at row after row of gleaming produce, cellophane wrapped meat, and the surprisingly edible zebra cakes (I couldn’t bring myself further malign the infamous twinkie). In the last 65 years, food production has increased dramatically allowing us (mainly people living in the developed world) to enjoy a plethora of sustenance as well as a life beyond the farm. Energy has been key in the miraculous development of the food industry, and, ironically, may also be the main constraint to continued food production in the future. Although there are many concerning trends in the food system, there are also many unexploited opportunities for improvement in all steps of food production. With recent public concern about the quality, environmental impacts, and safety of food, policy makers have a unique opportunity to encourage the food system to adjust to the modern constraints of a larger population and an increasingly fragile environment.
It takes energy to make food. Yes, most food comes from plants, which, as the abundance of weeds in highway ditches tells us, grow well enough on their own. The need for energy to grow food arises from the fact that we need a dependable and large source (enough to feed the 300 million people in the U.S. and 6.7 billion people worldwide) of food. Energy shifts throughout the history of agriculture (from human labor, to animal labor, wind and water energy and finally to fossil fuel energy inputs) have allowed us to increase food yields while decreasing resource inputs to agriculture such as land and human labor. The use of fossil fuels eases labor inputs by powering both the production of agricultural machines and their operation as well as maximizing yields as the primary ingredient in agricultural chemicals (think fertilizers and pesticides) and in providing the energy necessary to develop GMOs (genetically modified foods). In short, using fossil fuels as an energy input to food production has led up to the abundance and variety of food we are now able to enjoy in developed countries and in many developing countries as well.
Despite the many benefits fossil fuel inputs and energy intensive techniques have provided us, there have been serious detrimental effects to the environment as well. Agricultural chemicals and copious quantities of animal manure from CAFOs (concentrated animal feed operations) run-off, eventually contaminating water sources and the land. Animal waste and agricultural chemicals (mostly fertilizers) can volatize to create an array of criteria pollutants that harm the health of farm animals and humans alike. Repeated cultivation also leads to the loss of topsoil and leaches nutrients from the land. Likewise, irrigation has diminished river flows to trickles and may soon lead to the depletion of prominent aquifers around the country. Population growth coupled with the widespread implementation of energy intensive, high-yield agriculture has compounded the negative environmental effects of agriculture to the point of producing numerous dead zones in large bodies of water around the world (the result of fertilizer and manure run-off) and directly contributing 6% of annual GHG emissions in the U.S. from agriculture (this number will be much higher if we include the entire food system and indirect emissions).
The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) projects that we will need a 70% increase in food production by 2050 to feed a population projected to reach 10 billion. Experts predict that we can produce the necessary food through the use of high-yield agriculture in developing countries and by cultivating marginal lands, but at what cost to the environment? And how sustainable will such a system be considering the detrimental effects we have already seen from food production? Agriculture in the United States can be considered a model example of the advantages that high energy inputs and mechanization can produce in the food system. Thus, we also have the opportunity to be a model for energy efficiency and environmental stewardship in the food sector through the implementation of policies that encourage the food industry to decrease energy and chemical inputs while maximizing food production.
The development of agricultural chemicals has revolutionized agriculture, but their use has yet to be optimized. In terms of fertilizers, only 30-50% of nitrogen and 45% of phosphorus applied to crops is absorbed by the plants. Researchers have developed various methods using existing technology to optimize crop uptake of nutrients from fertilizers. Reducing fertilizer run-off by optimizing uptake would reduce the need for an energy intensive input and ease the severity of the environmental impacts of agriculture. Policies which fund the teaching of these methods to farmers, subsidize the purchase of necessary equipment, and fund research and development of practices that optimize resource use in agriculture will incentivize the wide implementation of techniques that optimize resource utilization. Likewise, technologies such as irrigation drip tape can decrease the evaporative loss of water and should also be supported by farmer education programs and subsidies.
Although the agriculture sector produces numerous criteria pollutants, both from the volatization of agricultural chemicals and emissions from animal waste, they are not regulated by the Clean Air Act. Regulation of agricultural air emissions may not be a popular measure, but it is a necessary one to incentivize farmers to install technologies and use practices that minimize emissions. Technologies such as anaerobic digesters treat animal waste and convert it to an odorless effluent, a nutrient rich fertilizer, and biogas, a natural gas substitute. Agricultural subsidies should also be reformed to encourage farmers to produce multiple crops (polycultures have been shown to require less pesticides than monocultures, which are encouraged by current policies), use low energy and environmental impact techniques, and to limit overproduction of a few commodity products.
In the past few years, when energy prices were low, wages were high, and consumers valued their free time highly, food preparation and clean up was outsourced to food processors who then resorted to energy services over human labor for these tasks. This trend resulted in an increase in the energy intensity of food processing from 1997 to 2002. Though the energy use of the food processing industry is largely governed by the cost of energy and demand, there is still an opportunity for the use of more efficient machinery and packaging, which the government could encourage through monetary incentives.
As evidenced by the popularity of organic food, farmers markets, and the local food movement, people want to make the best choices for themselves and the environment when it comes to food. A few food producers in the U.S. and Europe have done lifecycle analyses of their products to determine their carbon emissions and placed the information on the label. Unfortunately few manufacturers have done such an analysis on their products, so the amount of carbon emissions on the few products that have calculated it is just that, a number with no context and of no value to the consumer. A national labeling mandate accompanied with a procedure for calculating the carbon emissions (or a compounded environmental impact index) as well as governmental aid for producers to label their products would provide consumers with a powerful tool to purchase food in line with their means and environmental concerns. Such a labeling requirement must be accompanied by a procedure for calculating the impact index so that the value can be compared equally across products and to evoke consumer confidence in the labeling system. Consumers must also be educated about the significance of the environmental index chosen and its limitations so that it does not become just another label in a plethora of health and environmental claims on food packages.
Food retailers in the U.S. waste 1% of food purchased at the low end (in small family establishments) and up to 40% of food at the high end, in medium-sized fast food restaurants (estimates are for 2004) whereas households are estimated to waste 14% of the food they purchase. Food waste is also a waste of energy and resources used to produce the food. Government has a role to play in curbing food waste at all levels of the food system through public service campaigns to encourage retailers to offer smaller portions and educate their employees about waste mitigating practices. At the consumer level, public service campaigns that teach the public how to determine when food is no longer edible, on the best methods for preserving food and to reuse leftovers similar to the British ‘Love Food Hate Waste’ campaign would help consumers decrease the amount of food they throw away.
Residential energy use for food preparation and clean up is cited by a recent study as the greatest contributor to overall energy use in the food system. Consequently, the government should also focus on educating the public about cooking methods that conserve energy such as putting the lid on pots (covering a pot of water can reduce boiling time by one half), turning down the heat when cooking, and using energy saving devices such as hot pots for boiling water, toaster ovens, and pressure cookers. The government can also reward consumers that decide to purchase an energy efficient refrigerator, stove, dishwasher or other kitchen appliance.
Perhaps the biggest way for households to decrease the energy intensity of their food, and the most controversial, is to eat less meat. Raising animals for human consumption required the most energy per capita of all food categories in 2002 and has serious detrimental effects on the environment mainly because we feed livestock with grain produced using energy intensive agriculture. Livestock themselves convert only a fraction of the grain they are fed to edible product, and then their waste contaminates the environment when they are raised in CAFOs. By regulating the environmental impacts of the agricultural system, the price of livestock’s effect on the environment will then be reflected in the price of the product. This may encourage consumers to re-evaluate the importance of regular meat consumption against the environmental effects of meat production in monetary terms.
Overall there are many opportunities to decrease the impact of the food system on the environment and to lessen its energy intensity. These solutions require the government to evaluate the worth of a healthy environment and to encourage food producers to decrease their impact. Food retailers and consumers must also be educated about the effects of food production on the environment and the means by which they can mitigate their contributions to environmental degradation. A government mandated framework for labeling food with an environmental index and for evaluating the environmental impact of different foods is a crucial means for conveying the environmental impact of different food choices to consumers in a manner that allows comparison across various products, that consumers can interpret easily, and that they can trust. The sustainability of our most valuable resource, food production, is an issue of great concern, but one that we have the knowledge to improve.
Food and Energy Basics
I recently wrote an editorial piece for the Baines Report (a publication from the University of Texas at Austin LBJ School of Public Affairs). Due to word count constraints, they can’t publish the full draft of the article. As the article was meant to be an introduction to the topic of food and energy, I thought I’d post the full text here to give you some background on the topic and to present some possible solutions to the problems I see in the food sector. Enjoy!
Our grocery stores are fully stocked now, but we must make changes to the food system to keep it that way in the future
Food and energy are inextricably linked. The chemical structures in food store energy its plant components once harvested from the sun. But food can do much more than power you through a bike ride around the green belt; the chemical energy in plants can power your car as ethanol or biodiesel, fuel your stove in the form of biogas from decomposing leftovers, and even generate electricity through the burning of biomass. The miraculous powers of food to sustain both life and machines is easy to forget when we stare at row after row of gleaming produce, cellophane wrapped meat, and the surprisingly edible zebra cakes (I couldn’t bring myself further malign the infamous twinkie). In the last 65 years, food production has increased dramatically allowing us (mainly people living in the developed world) to enjoy a plethora of sustenance as well as a life beyond the farm. Energy has been key in the miraculous development of the food industry, and, ironically, may also be the main constraint to continued food production in the future. Although there are many concerning trends in the food system, there are also many unexploited opportunities for improvement in all steps of food production. With recent public concern about the quality, environmental impacts, and safety of food, policy makers have a unique opportunity to encourage the food system to adjust to the modern constraints of a larger population and an increasingly fragile environment.
It takes energy to make food. Yes, most food comes from plants, which, as the abundance of weeds in highway ditches tells us, grow well enough on their own. The need for energy to grow food arises from the fact that we need a dependable and large source (enough to feed the 300 million people in the U.S. and 6.7 billion people worldwide) of food. Energy shifts throughout the history of agriculture (from human labor, to animal labor, wind and water energy and finally to fossil fuel energy inputs) have allowed us to increase food yields while decreasing resource inputs to agriculture such as land and human labor. The use of fossil fuels eases labor inputs by powering both the production of agricultural machines and their operation as well as maximizing yields as the primary ingredient in agricultural chemicals (think fertilizers and pesticides) and in providing the energy necessary to develop GMOs (genetically modified foods). In short, using fossil fuels as an energy input to food production has led up to the abundance and variety of food we are now able to enjoy in developed countries and in many developing countries as well.
Despite the many benefits fossil fuel inputs and energy intensive techniques have provided us, there have been serious detrimental effects to the environment as well. Agricultural chemicals and copious quantities of animal manure from CAFOs (concentrated animal feed operations) run-off, eventually contaminating water sources and the land. Animal waste and agricultural chemicals (mostly fertilizers) can volatize to create an array of criteria pollutants that harm the health of farm animals and humans alike. Repeated cultivation also leads to the loss of topsoil and leaches nutrients from the land. Likewise, irrigation has diminished river flows to trickles and may soon lead to the depletion of prominent aquifers around the country. Population growth coupled with the widespread implementation of energy intensive, high-yield agriculture has compounded the negative environmental effects of agriculture to the point of producing numerous dead zones in large bodies of water around the world (the result of fertilizer and manure run-off) and directly contributing 6% of annual GHG emissions in the U.S. from agriculture (this number will be much higher if we include the entire food system and indirect emissions).
The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) projects that we will need a 70% increase in food production by 2050 to feed a population projected to reach 10 billion. Experts predict that we can produce the necessary food through the use of high-yield agriculture in developing countries and by cultivating marginal lands, but at what cost to the environment? And how sustainable will such a system be considering the detrimental effects we have already seen from food production? Agriculture in the United States can be considered a model example of the advantages that high energy inputs and mechanization can produce in the food system. Thus, we also have the opportunity to be a model for energy efficiency and environmental stewardship in the food sector through the implementation of policies that encourage the food industry to decrease energy and chemical inputs while maximizing food production.
The development of agricultural chemicals has revolutionized agriculture, but their use has yet to be optimized. In terms of fertilizers, only 30-50% of nitrogen and 45% of phosphorus applied to crops is absorbed by the plants. Researchers have developed various methods using existing technology to optimize crop uptake of nutrients from fertilizers. Reducing fertilizer run-off by optimizing uptake would reduce the need for an energy intensive input and ease the severity of the environmental impacts of agriculture. Policies which fund the teaching of these methods to farmers, subsidize the purchase of necessary equipment, and fund research and development of practices that optimize resource use in agriculture will incentivize the wide implementation of techniques that optimize resource utilization. Likewise, technologies such as irrigation drip tape can decrease the evaporative loss of water and should also be supported by farmer education programs and subsidies.
Although the agriculture sector produces numerous criteria pollutants, both from the volatization of agricultural chemicals and emissions from animal waste, they are not regulated by the Clean Air Act. Regulation of agricultural air emissions may not be a popular measure, but it is a necessary one to incentivize farmers to install technologies and use practices that minimize emissions. Technologies such as anaerobic digesters treat animal waste and convert it to an odorless effluent, a nutrient rich fertilizer, and biogas, a natural gas substitute. Agricultural subsidies should also be reformed to encourage farmers to produce multiple crops (polycultures have been shown to require less pesticides than monocultures, which are encouraged by current policies), use low energy and environmental impact techniques, and to limit overproduction of a few commodity products.
In the past few years, when energy prices were low, wages were high, and consumers valued their free time highly, food preparation and clean up was outsourced to food processors who then resorted to energy services over human labor for these tasks. This trend resulted in an increase in the energy intensity of food processing from 1997 to 2002. Though the energy use of the food processing industry is largely governed by the cost of energy and demand, there is still an opportunity for the use of more efficient machinery and packaging, which the government could encourage through monetary incentives.
As evidenced by the popularity of organic food, farmers markets, and the local food movement, people want to make the best choices for themselves and the environment when it comes to food. A few food producers in the U.S. and Europe have done lifecycle analyses of their products to determine their carbon emissions and placed the information on the label. Unfortunately few manufacturers have done such an analysis on their products, so the amount of carbon emissions on the few products that have calculated it is just that, a number with no context and of no value to the consumer. A national labeling mandate accompanied with a procedure for calculating the carbon emissions (or a compounded environmental impact index) as well as governmental aid for producers to label their products would provide consumers with a powerful tool to purchase food in line with their means and environmental concerns. Such a labeling requirement must be accompanied by a procedure for calculating the impact index so that the value can be compared equally across products and to evoke consumer confidence in the labeling system. Consumers must also be educated about the significance of the environmental index chosen and its limitations so that it does not become just another label in a plethora of health and environmental claims on food packages.
Food retailers in the U.S. waste 1% of food purchased at the low end (in small family establishments) and up to 40% of food at the high end, in medium-sized fast food restaurants (estimates are for 2004) whereas households are estimated to waste 14% of the food they purchase. Food waste is also a waste of energy and resources used to produce the food. Government has a role to play in curbing food waste at all levels of the food system through public service campaigns to encourage retailers to offer smaller portions and educate their employees about waste mitigating practices. At the consumer level, public service campaigns that teach the public how to determine when food is no longer edible, on the best methods for preserving food and to reuse leftovers similar to the British ‘Love Food Hate Waste’ campaign would help consumers decrease the amount of food they throw away.
Residential energy use for food preparation and clean up is cited by a recent study as the greatest contributor to overall energy use in the food system. Consequently, the government should also focus on educating the public about cooking methods that conserve energy such as putting the lid on pots (covering a pot of water can reduce boiling time by one half), turning down the heat when cooking, and using energy saving devices such as hot pots for boiling water, toaster ovens, and pressure cookers. The government can also reward consumers that decide to purchase an energy efficient refrigerator, stove, dishwasher or other kitchen appliance.
Perhaps the biggest way for households to decrease the energy intensity of their food, and the most controversial, is to eat less meat. Raising animals for human consumption required the most energy per capita of all food categories in 2002 and has serious detrimental effects on the environment mainly because we feed livestock with grain produced using energy intensive agriculture. Livestock themselves convert only a fraction of the grain they are fed to edible product, and then their waste contaminates the environment when they are raised in CAFOs. By regulating the environmental impacts of the agricultural system, the price of livestock’s effect on the environment will then be reflected in the price of the product. This may encourage consumers to re-evaluate the importance of regular meat consumption against the environmental effects of meat production in monetary terms.
Overall there are many opportunities to decrease the impact of the food system on the environment and to lessen its energy intensity. These solutions require the government to evaluate the worth of a healthy environment and to encourage food producers to decrease their impact. Food retailers and consumers must also be educated about the effects of food production on the environment and the means by which they can mitigate their contributions to environmental degradation. A government mandated framework for labeling food with an environmental index and for evaluating the environmental impact of different foods is a crucial means for conveying the environmental impact of different food choices to consumers in a manner that allows comparison across various products, that consumers can interpret easily, and that they can trust. The sustainability of our most valuable resource, food production, is an issue of great concern, but one that we have the knowledge to improve.