Putting power in people’s hands: environmental sustainability of food

A. We’d be happy to supply our data to FSANZ. The FZANZ branded foods database is reliant on manufacturers supplying their data. We have created a comprehensive database of all brands by auditing products ranged on supermarket shelves.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. We think there should be a standard labelling scheme to indicated the environmental impact of each food. This is our goal – a science-based environmental rating that is applied to all foods – and perhaps down the track, non-foods also.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

Q. The app is a great opportunity for consumers to become more informed and empowered. But what could be done on the part of food producers? How can greenwashing be tackled at the production level as many producers are inadvertently committing greenwashing when trying to compete against an increasingly selective niche of products?  

A. Today’s event is the first step – to raise awareness and share our ambition. Next, we plan to invite a small number of retailers/manufacturers to join us as foundational partners to develop the scheme further.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. Today’s event is the first step – to raise awareness and share our ambition. Next, we plan to invite a small number of retailers/manufacturers to join us as foundational partners to develop the scheme further.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. We would hope that by 2030 most consumers will care about the planetary impact of many of their activities, including the foods they buy. By then we also hope that environmental ratings will be pervasive and not restricted to our app!

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. Two questions here. Yes – in general, people eat too much, and the foods they eat aren’t so healthy. Currently, our scoring system is mostly driven by the mix of ingredients though we also assign malus points to foods that have a higher NOVA classification – with Ultra Processed Foods (4) attracting the most.  We haven’t yet analysed our data to explore the relationship between the planetary health rating and NOVA classification.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. That’s right – for now. Its been a pretty complex effort and we’re only at the first stage (carbon emissions to the farm gate). Our plan is to get a fuller solution going in Australia. If we can get a scheme endorsed by government then that should include FSANZ.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. Despite the some inevitable data gaps, we are confident that important processes that account for the majority of food system GHG emissions to the farm gate have been included. We plan to enhance our data to account for impacts across the entire supply chain, particularly those that have a higher overall contribution from the processing, transport and retail stages.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. There is generally a good correlation between those foods that are good for human health and planetary health. There are some noteable exceptions. Through the CRE we are investigating whether an overall rating that combines human and planetary health into a single rating is plausible and of interest to consumers.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. Users or brand owners can get in touch via the contact us section in the app.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. No, at the moment we assume global averages for any imported ingredients. There aren’t that many imported products and ingredients overall and the additional work it would take to regionalise everything relative to a potential marginal improvement in accuracy is beyond our current resources.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. We have used the data we hold on 65,000 packaged foods to derive a rating. This is manufacturers’ published data that describe their food’s ingredients, nutrient content and country of origin.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. The app relies on having a barcode to scan – so if the barcode is visible on the online store then yes.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. One of the limitations of our data is in estimating the ingredient proportions of a food – which isn’t published on the label. We use a mathematical approach to do this which is pretty good, but still an estimate.  Our aspiration is to create a system whereby brand owners can update this data along with some specific factors that would impact their rating – though we’ll need to find a solution that respects brand-owners’ IP.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. We need to assume the data on the label is correct. Manufacturers have an obligation to ensure this is accurate.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. Our rating system assigns malus points to foods that have higher NOVA ratings – with Ultra Processed Foods (4) attracting the most.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. Thanks for this suggestion. We have carried out some analysis that compares the HSR to the GHG footprint across different products and also tries to recommend feasible switches across different product categories. The work is currently under review.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. I guess we’ll see! But the app is something we can do right now – as the first step on our path to creating a standard rating/labelling scheme that would be applied to all food labels.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. We haven’t estimated this. We have launched ecoSwitch as the first step towards a bigger goal of influencing all Australians towards better food choices for our planet

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. The ratings apply to all food products across all categories. However, estimates used for similar foods are likely to make them more directly comparable.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. This is a valid concern – though our rating does apply malus points to UPFs. Also, the ecoSwitch app provides environmental impact based on 100g of food rather than its serving size.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. Overall, most agree that climate change is the most important issue and within the context of food, meat consumption has the biggest impact on environmental sustainability.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. Sustainability is indeed much broader than just the environment and should ideally incorporate social and economic indicators. In the public health space, it has become synonymous with the environment – hence the choice in this instance. But I think we should use the term ‘environmental sustainability’ in the future for more clarity.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. This would ideally be a multi-pronged approach because different consumer segments have different priorities. The evidence is growing about the negative effects of (excessive) meat consumption for both human and planetary health, so ensuring consumers are aware of these effects will be an important part of the mix. This is a complicated task in the face of an active and influential meat industry. The planetary health aspect is a powerful argument because meat products are clearly much worse than other product categories – nutrition is a bit trickier because dietary guidelines recommend some meat/meat substitute consumption and mixed messages are always more difficult to convey that simple, clear messages.

Answered by Simone Pettigrew

A. We are unaware of any such guidelines or roadmap around the environmental sustainablity of the food system – and highlighting the importance of food (and beginning such a dialogue) was one of the objectives of this event.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. It really depends on the product being considered. Overall, transport has a limited impact compared to the agricultural production stage for the majority of products.  For certain product categories that require cold-chain transport e.g. perishable fruits and vegetables, fish and seafood, or products that have low agricultural emissions e.g. certain water-based drinks, transport may account for a significant percentage of emissions. We aim to capture this nuance better in our planned upgrades to more comprehensively cover the entire supply chain. You may want to refer to Crippa et al. (2021) for more detailed figures on the global food supply chain and the relative contributions of different food supply chain stages (URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9).

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. Yes, as far as possible, all Australian ingredients are assigned values that relate to the Australian agricultural system. For imported ingredients and a few domestic ingredients where we had data gaps we assigned global values.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. The regulatory framework is an interesting question – as in Australia, our initiative likely spans both the Department of Health (food labelling) and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). In principle the approach could extend to other countries. However, this is complicated and high effort and we plan to focus on Australia in the initial stages.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. Our food systems are inefficient in many respects driven by historic supply chains and profit incentives. However, higher food miles may not be the most significant issue in some categories. There are several instances where longer supply chains actually have a lower impact compared to locally produced seasonal products.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. At this stage we believe we have included the significant majority of GHG impacts of foods to the farm gate. As we move forwards, we intend to apply and adapt the best available data sources to include processing and supply chain impacts and also other indicators of planetary health (i.e. beyond carbon). The data is constantly improving.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. At the moment the app is aimed at helping consumers shift to a better alternative of a similar food rather than shifting diets at a population level. Cumulatively, these individual choices can have a a significant impact and some of our research currently in review strongly supports this hypothesis. The app does apply malus points to UPFs.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. Similarly to transport, the overall impact of food pacakging on emissions (and most other environmental indicators) is significantly lower than what happens during the farm stage for most categories. However, for some foods, particularly those that may have a low agricultural footprints (e.g., potatoes or water-based carbonated drinks) it can still account for a significant percentage of overall emissions and may represent a hostpot for reducing emissions. In fact, in several cases, packaging may even have a positive impact on emissions by reducing spoilage and extending shelf life. We aim to much more comprehensively capture the impact of packaging in future upgrades to account for key properties such as the percentage of recycling, circularity of the package, etc. You may want to refer to Crippa et al. (2021) for more detailed figures on the global food supply chain and the relative contributions of different food supply chain stages (URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9).

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. We have developed this initial rating scheme independently, using the data we hold on 65,000 packaged foods to derive a rating. This is manufacturers’ published data that describe their food’s ingredients, nutrient content and country of origin. We have begun discussing our plans with industry and hope to engage a handful of foundational partners to take this to the next stage.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. This is a big question and I’m sure many would answer this in several different ways. There are many solutions already available and promising technological breakthroughs in development that can reduce the environmental impact of food production, from the farming stage up to the retail and consumer stage (assuming you also include food preparation in your definition of food production). However, these are dependent on the crop/livestock product in question. Generally speaking, agricultural interventions that increase crop yields and improve feed efficiency in livestock are win-win in terms of profit and environment (not always the best for animal welfare though), and have a strong environmental mitigation effect. You may want to refer to the work by the EAT-Lancet Commission which looked at several key demand- and supply- side intervention to reduce the environmental impacts of the food system (URL:  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext)

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. Unfortunately, as a not-for-profit organisation, we don’t have a marketing budget and rely on owned, earned and shared channels to get our story out – so please share!

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. Ideally health services would assess their  food procurement processes to prioritise foods with lower greenhouse gas emissions. They can also provide their clients with guidance around increasing the plant content of their diets. The ecoSwitch tool could be promoted to clients as a means of identifying and selecting foods that are better for the planet. Fortunately, food nutritional quality and sustainability are closely aligned, so dietary changes to reduce carbon footprint will have the added benefit of assisting clients to optimise their own health.

Answered by Simone Pettigrew

A. Recognising the planetary health impact of different food categories is a critical step in guiding government policies relating to the food system. Fortunately, food nutritional quality and sustainability are closely aligned, so policies designed to address climate change should favour the production of healthier food products. Incentivising the production of lower-emission foods and disincentivising the production of higher-emission foods should increase the availability and affordability of healthier food options. Communities and individuals have an important role to play in advocating for sustainable food systems, and speaking out will be critical in overcoming the powerful industry players with vested interests in the current state of play.

Answered by Simone Pettigrew

A. This is a big question, and there is unlikely to be a single sweet spot. Fortunately, food nutritional quality and sustainability are closely aligned, so it is in all countries’ interests to move towards more sustainable food systems on both counts.

Answered by Simone Pettigrew

A. The close alignment between food product nutritional quality and sustainability assists with allied health professionals’ messaging to their clients. Foods with lower greenhouse gas emissions are better for both human and planetary health. Encouraging a high plant food diet and referring to ecoSwitch as a tool for selecting between packaged foods can provide clients with the information and tools they need to optimise their own health and the planet’s health.

Answered by Simone Pettigrew

A. According to the latest statistics from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, in 2021 enteric fermentation (methane) from ruminants accounted for around 37% of the total global emissions from agriculture and 18% of all food system emissions (Source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT). As a short-lived greenhouse gas, methane has a significant impact on the climate. Rapidly reducing methane emissions is therefore a very important priority in meeting climate targets and meeting such amtibious global targets can only be achieved through a combination of diet change (a significant reduction in ruminant meat consumption and to a lesser extend dairy) and technologies such as methane-inhibiting supplements that can significantly reduce the amount of enteric fermentation. There is some evidence that both the industry and retailers are aware of these inevitable trends but actual progress has been slow in the face of an active and influential meat and livestock industry.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. We sourced our GHG emission intensities from the seminal Poore & Nemecek (2018) meta-analysis published in Science in 2018. (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216). We do differentiate between domestically produced and imported ingredients and intend to further refine our coverage of different supply chain stages in future iterations.

Answered by Michalis Hadjikakou

A. The biggest impact any of us can make is to reduce consumption of meat and meat products – particularly ruminant-based.

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. We have already published a paper on the methodology underpinning our approach. You can find it here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652623029748

Answered by Fraser Taylor

A. We don’t have a formal mechanism to share this data with stakeholders. However, the usage metrics will be strongly influenced by the public awareness of ecoSwitch and we are constrained in how much we can promote this beyond our owned social channels, shared channels (please can you share), and any earned media we can generate. I should re-state that the higher objective is to create a rating system that is used across the food industry to provide consumers with environmental sustainability information on their foods much more directly and comprehensively – e.g. through on pack labelling, online shopping, instore signage etc.

Answered by Fraser Taylor