Brussels , Belgium , 04 June 2013 – Green Week 2013 – Opening session – Cleaner air for all – policies for Europe and beyond – Karl Falkenberg , Director General for Environment , European Commission © EU – Patrick Mascart
European Policy Centre Breakfast meeting – Eating our way to a more sustainable system
Anyone who is aware of how the European Commission works and develops policy knows that it can seem like a Gordian knot. We have Commissioners representing different policy sectors, Member States protecting their perceived national interests and some of the strongest lobby groups active in Brussels. Unfortunately the most important question of our time – the sustainability of our food systems which includes protecting the environment addressing world hunger and improving citizen health – is subject to these competing forces.
On 18 of October 2013, those working on food policy in Brussels met at the European Policy Centre (EPC) debate ‘Eating our way to a more sustainable food system’, and we were given perhaps the frankest explanation of what sustainable food policy actually means for the EC. This included what red lines exist when it comes to the more contentious issues.
Mr Karl Falkenberg, Director General for DG Environment, opened the debate and explained the likely future direction of the Commission in the medium to long term. Also on stage was Tony Long, Director of the WWF European Policy Office, who gave a critique of Europe’s approach to sustainable food and offered a solution in the shape of LiveWell for LIFE. David Rennie, a Vice President of Nestlé Europe, completed the panel and was able to show how large corporations were positioning themselves to be sustainable in the future.
The Commission must walk on egg shells
The Commission’s approach is based on the reality that there will always be Member States that will object t to Brussels centralising action on food policy. The Commission is reluctant to be perceived as nannying citizens and dictating what they eat, what retailers stock and what food companies sell and market; it has long ago decided to back away. This is regrettable as the potential rewards of better diets are clear. If sustainable diets were followed across Europe, we would see a fall of 25 per cent in greenhouse gases and more space for biodiversity. There is also an important health dividend which must be considered but does not seem to be factored into the overall benefits of such a campaign.
Instead Mr Falkenberg suggested that fighting food waste was the silver bullet that could reduce our environmental footprint. With over one third of food ending up as waste across the supply chain a substantial reduction would have impact.
Tony Long pointed out that the Commission was fighting the problem with one hand tied behind its back if waste was the only means used to reduce our environmental footprint. While it was accepted that well over a third of our food production is thrown away, we have more arrows in our quiver. Instead he suggested we should look at adopting a five pronged attack, starting with improving technical knowledge on the environmental impacts of food, stimulating sustainable food production, promoting sustainable food consumption, reducing food waste and losses, and improving food policy coherence.
Europe fails to engage on sustainable diets
For the time being, the Commission sees itself as primarily an information provider when describing sustainable diets. Through public information campaigns, encouraging healthy eating in schools and supporting projects like our own LiveWell through LIFE, it is hoped to convince citizen of the merit of eating sustainably. But we have previously identified, the Commission was needed to engage with business and ensure that they were providing the right food options and also generating public awareness of better diets and not just fads
Addressing the problems of excessive meat consumption
Another important red line indicated by Mr Falkenberg was the Commission’s reluctance to engage with the issue of meat consumption. Those of us who know a little about the environmental effects of farming know that meat has a carbon footprint 20 -35 times higher than a staple like potatoes. Mr Falkenberg‘s view was that the Commission would never intervene in this area as Governments in France, Germany and Poland might block a campaign or serious proposal.
Meat in or out?
One has to realise that the meat and sustainable diets message has always been seen as an all or nothing option. You are either a meat eater or not. For many a total abandonment is too big a step to make and so they continue, much as before. But Tony Long did forward the LiveWell principal of changing how we regard the meat on our plate: from being the central piece of what we eat, to a situation whereby it is a tasty accompaniment. This shifting of mentality seemed to be a solution many in the audience could agree with.
One interesting solution suggested as a reason for Europeans inability to take on the message of meat consumption was that it moves down to a different level of governance. Regional and municipal governments across Europe are tackling the issue of sustainability with meat-free days or low-carbon diets. This may well be part of the solution of getting the message out but overall food policy is still decide in the corridors of Brussels and needs to find agreement there.
In conclusion
Despite the tight political red lines drawn by the Commission, WWF sees the recently closed consultation on the future of sustainable food as a starting point to a wider debate on how Europe implements a better food policy. Whether it is aware or not the EC has opened a can of worms in the form of a debate with this consultation and the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain and the consultation on ‘food sustainability’. Action is now needed in the following communications which will prove that the EC and companies like Nestlé understand the urgency relating to reducing consumption to a level which does not squander the earth’s resources.
