Yoors
Premium
A sustainable food system is possible
Translated from Dutch. View the original post
here
But then the rudder has to be completely. In thirty years, the Dutch food system can be almost completely circular, if it is up to professor of animal production systems Imke de Boer and researcher Evelien de Olde. Their 'integral food vision' goes along to Rockefeller Food
Through strips of beets, oats, carrots and potatoes drive robots to harvest. On the flowery edges of farmland wind turbines rise; on roofs of farms lie solar panels. Song birds fly between buzzing drones that scan and optimize the growth processes of vegetables.
It's 2050 and the Dutch food system is almost completely circular. Precious agricultural land is no longer used to produce animal feed, only for human food. Animals eat only residual products and grass. The vegetables are taken to the cities, where there are vegetable gardens on the roofs of residential towers. Meals of residents consist only a small part of animal products. Their excretions are separated, purified and returned to the polder to serve as manure there.
This is what the Dutch food system will look like in thirty years' time when it lies to Imke de Boer, professor of animal production systems at Wageningen University & Research, and researcher Evelien de Olde. This spring they worked together with fourteen partners on an 'integral food vision' for the future of the Netherlands. The vision was submitted for the Rockefeller Food System Prize, a competition to design the food system of 2050. 200,000 euros can be won with. At the beginning of August, the rash.
Lots of problems
Both were settled at the wooden table in De Boer's sun-drenched backyard for an interview with Vrije Nederland, just a stone's throw from the university. They are primarily scientists in the field of animal production systems, “but to understand the role of the animal in the food system, you also have to look at the rest.”
“Phosphate, nitrogen, the climate: it's interrelated. That's why we have developed this vision. '
'The current system does not function properly on multiple planes', says De Boer. 'Our food system contributes a quarter to greenhouse gas emissions, causes a third of acidification, 80% of the avoidance, and has a significant impact on biodiversity loss. In addition, it does not lead to healthy nutrition for everyone. Especially when you look around the world: there are too many people who are hungry and too many people who are too heavy. Then you also have lousy working conditions and animal welfare. There are a lot of problems.”
'It is clear that we need a long-term vision that is actually being implemented, 'says De Olde. 'Not that nothing is happening at all, but each time we look at one aspect: five years ago the phosphate discussion, now the nitrogen, and soon we get the climate. '
That is why there is a need for integrated policy, the scientists say. “Phosphate, nitrogen, the climate: it's interrelated. That's why we have developed this vision. ' An idealistic vision, they admit, but one that is quite possible.
Where do we start?
'We need to ensure a healthy nature and biodiversity, with healthy soil and clean air and water, 'says De Boer. 'That's why we need clarity about the environmental ceilings of our food system: we set the maximum use of land and water and the maximum emissions of greenhouse gases, nitrogen, phosphate and all of them. '
Environmental ceiling
The scientists base their model on the donut economy, a theory developed by Oxford Professor Kate Raworth. This model consists of two parts: the basic needs of man (the inner edge of the donut) and the environmental ceilings of the planet (the outer edge of the donut).
'In the middle is the social foundation, 'says De Boer. “With not only human rights, but also those of the animal. Between that social foundation and the environmental ceiling there is room for agro-ecological systems that produce in harmony with nature and take care of humans and animals. For example, you can see exactly how many animals fit in a particular region. And then you'll see that we don't have to export and import as much as we do now. '
I'd like to be able to keep drinking my cup of coffee.
'That must continue to be possible, 'says De Olde. 'We will continue to import and export, but it needs to be better balanced with what can be within those two layers of the donut. We should also stop creating added value on imports. So: don't buy cocoa and unroasted coffee beans, but fair trade chocolate bars and coffee. Then the added value added by the processing industry remains in the country of origin. Much more honest, because we are now removing raw materials from countries that desperately need that added value. '
“What we can produce here, we must also consume here. Like dairy, potatoes, carrots.”
De Boer: 'What we can produce here, we must also consume here. Such as dairy, potatoes, carrots. We are better at producing milk, so we must continue to do so.. But it's better to grow coffee and citrus fruits somewhere else than here. '
What do we solve with less import and export?
'The huge transport of food all over the world did not ultimately provide more food security but rather dependency, 'says De Olde. 'Countries become dependent on imports or on exports, as we. Especially now, during the coronacrisis, you see the consequences of. We have huge potato surpluses, whereas elsewhere there is a threat of serious shortages. '
Then it's easy to talk in the Netherlands, if we start producing and eating more locally. We live here in a fertile delta with lots of food. We'll make it.. But in countries where there is not such a pleasant climate to grow food, they do not depend on imports for nothing.
De Boer: 'That's why trade remains necessary. But now three quarters of the country we use for our food consumption lies outside the Netherlands. While we produce and export a lot of food! We've ended up in a really weird squirm. There's so much unnecessary transport.”
The discussion on the future of food production sometimes seems to consist of two camps. Like Charles C. Mann described in his book The Wizard and The Prophet: you have the 'wizards', who believe in globalization, progress and technology, and the 'prophets', who think we should go back to local, small-scale and lower production. What camp are you in?
'We don't take sides, 'says De Boer. 'We combine the best of both worlds. Basically we insist on the ecological principles, but you can combine them with technology. For example, with strip cultivation: if you mix different crops, you make more effective use of the substances in the soil, you are more resistant to drought and diseases, and you do not need to use pesticides. These strips can be grown on a large scale and in the future we will be able to use drones and robots for monitoring and harvesting.
We are also not against the use of fertilizer or genetic modification. But also with classical breeding, we can develop robust crops that can better cope with the drought and the silted soil that will result from climate change. A typical “sorcerer's approach”, with the foundation of the ecological “prophets”.
De Olde: 'We have learned a lot from the biological and ecological movement, but from us everything does not necessarily have to be organic. However, we are very clearly opposed to the use of pesticides and herbicides because of their impact on soil and biodiversity. '
Always stay up to date with the best stories? Subscribe to our newsletter.
Sign up and receive the best stories of Vrij Nederland in your mailbox.
Our cookie statement applies to our newsletters.
Are the yields not much lower without the use of pesticides? So you need more land to produce the same, while large-scale land use and deforestation are among the major causes of climate change?
'That's just the question, 'says De Boer. 'Those pesticides also destroy a lot, like useful insects. If you don't include that in your calculations, you get a distorted picture. If you do take the profit for biodiversity, you might be able to get a higher yield with strip cultivation. The only problem is that we can still harvest these strips with large machines. That must be possible in the future, and that is now being worked hard on. '
People will also have to change their eating patterns: wholegrain instead of white bread, seasonal and unknown vegetables such as sea kale and New Zealand spinach, far fewer animal products and the animals we eat from head to tail, with guts, ears and all. Is the Dutch consumer waiting for that?
'We need to make consumers more aware of the importance of good food, 'says De Olde. “What you eat affects your body and health, and the planet. That is why we also advocate food education as a compulsory subject in all schools. Sustainable food should be normal, attractive and easy. If the environment changes, from canteen to supermarket to restaurant, the consumer also changes. '
De Boer: 'Many people will ask themselves whether eating animal products is still ethical. You can see that there is still a lot of cognitive dissonance now: people prefer to look the other way. But we know more about the feelings, intelligence and empathy of animals every day. So I think it's a natural process that we all eat less meat, dairy and eggs.”
Should we all be vegan?
'We calculated that there is an effective place for animals in a food system, 'says De Boer. 'Whether you should kill and eat them, that is an ethical question that people will have to answer for themselves. I personally struggle with that, too. I barely eat meat, but I still find it hard to leave dairy and eggs and my husband likes meat. '
De Olde: 'If we are at least a little more aware of where food comes from, and how much effort it takes to produce it, then we don't all have to be vegan. I would like to see that, as a consumer, we consciously choose a certain production system. That requires more awareness and transparency. '
We also spoke to De Boer about her vision of the herd in this profile about D66-MP Tjeerd de Groot Wat drijft 'farmer' Tjeerd de Groot (D66)? 'I get up every day to change the world' May 30, 2020
That choice is also often determined by the consumer's wallet. Certainly on the lower steps of the socioeconomic ladder people look at what they can afford. Sustainable products are not exactly cheaper.
De Boer: 'The food prices of today are not a fair reflection of costs. Food is actually gigacheap. If you include all costs, including environmental and animal welfare, then sustainable products are not necessarily more expensive. So it's just how you look at the economy. A more sustainable food production comes with a fair price in the store. '
A 'fair price' in the supermarket is easy to say if you can afford it yourself.
'That's right, 'says De Olde. 'That is a possible trade off: that inequality is increased by this transition. We really need to think very carefully about how we can ensure that people with less incomes can also eat healthy and sustainable. '
'And so think differently about the entire economy, 'says De Boer. “Where does this inequality come from? That's not from the food system. It's a little faint to link socioeconomic inequality only to food. But we do want healthy and sustainable food for everyone. That is why this transition requires a different economic system that addresses the causes of social inequality, and not its consequences. '
Do the farmers want to change? We have seen many protests in recent months from farmers who are protesting against change and who are afraid of losing their earnings model.
De Olde: 'First, European agricultural subsidies must be adjusted. You can now see the first steps in the Green Deal and the From Farm to Fork strategy of Frans Timmermans in the European Commission. And so we need to make visible what the added value of sustainable farmers is, so that people are also willing to pay a little more. '
De Boer: 'Now intermediate links in the chain − companies like FrieslandCampina and Ahold − earn relatively much more than the farmer. There's room. And farmers do want to change, but they are angry at the rules that change over and over again. First there was the phosphate problem, then the nitrogen crisis, and soon there will be more stringent climate rules. They don't know what the future brings. Therefore, it is so important to make a vision for the long term. Our farmers, gardeners and fishermen ask. I am convinced that when that clarity is there for the long term and we value farmers for all their services, they are entrepreneurial and creative enough to produce healthy and sustainable food for everyone'.
This story was offered by Vrij Nederland
Unlimited reading? Become a subscriber from 4.99 per month.
” I am already a subscriber
Through strips of beets, oats, carrots and potatoes drive robots to harvest. On the flowery edges of farmland wind turbines rise; on roofs of farms lie solar panels. Song birds fly between buzzing drones that scan and optimize the growth processes of vegetables.
It's 2050 and the Dutch food system is almost completely circular. Precious agricultural land is no longer used to produce animal feed, only for human food. Animals eat only residual products and grass. The vegetables are taken to the cities, where there are vegetable gardens on the roofs of residential towers. Meals of residents consist only a small part of animal products. Their excretions are separated, purified and returned to the polder to serve as manure there.
This is what the Dutch food system will look like in thirty years' time when it lies to Imke de Boer, professor of animal production systems at Wageningen University & Research, and researcher Evelien de Olde. This spring they worked together with fourteen partners on an 'integral food vision' for the future of the Netherlands. The vision was submitted for the Rockefeller Food System Prize, a competition to design the food system of 2050. 200,000 euros can be won with. At the beginning of August, the rash.
Lots of problems
Both were settled at the wooden table in De Boer's sun-drenched backyard for an interview with Vrije Nederland, just a stone's throw from the university. They are primarily scientists in the field of animal production systems, “but to understand the role of the animal in the food system, you also have to look at the rest.”
“Phosphate, nitrogen, the climate: it's interrelated. That's why we have developed this vision. '
'The current system does not function properly on multiple planes', says De Boer. 'Our food system contributes a quarter to greenhouse gas emissions, causes a third of acidification, 80% of the avoidance, and has a significant impact on biodiversity loss. In addition, it does not lead to healthy nutrition for everyone. Especially when you look around the world: there are too many people who are hungry and too many people who are too heavy. Then you also have lousy working conditions and animal welfare. There are a lot of problems.”
'It is clear that we need a long-term vision that is actually being implemented, 'says De Olde. 'Not that nothing is happening at all, but each time we look at one aspect: five years ago the phosphate discussion, now the nitrogen, and soon we get the climate. '
That is why there is a need for integrated policy, the scientists say. “Phosphate, nitrogen, the climate: it's interrelated. That's why we have developed this vision. ' An idealistic vision, they admit, but one that is quite possible.
Where do we start?
'We need to ensure a healthy nature and biodiversity, with healthy soil and clean air and water, 'says De Boer. 'That's why we need clarity about the environmental ceilings of our food system: we set the maximum use of land and water and the maximum emissions of greenhouse gases, nitrogen, phosphate and all of them. '
Environmental ceiling
The scientists base their model on the donut economy, a theory developed by Oxford Professor Kate Raworth. This model consists of two parts: the basic needs of man (the inner edge of the donut) and the environmental ceilings of the planet (the outer edge of the donut).
'In the middle is the social foundation, 'says De Boer. “With not only human rights, but also those of the animal. Between that social foundation and the environmental ceiling there is room for agro-ecological systems that produce in harmony with nature and take care of humans and animals. For example, you can see exactly how many animals fit in a particular region. And then you'll see that we don't have to export and import as much as we do now. '
I'd like to be able to keep drinking my cup of coffee.
'That must continue to be possible, 'says De Olde. 'We will continue to import and export, but it needs to be better balanced with what can be within those two layers of the donut. We should also stop creating added value on imports. So: don't buy cocoa and unroasted coffee beans, but fair trade chocolate bars and coffee. Then the added value added by the processing industry remains in the country of origin. Much more honest, because we are now removing raw materials from countries that desperately need that added value. '
“What we can produce here, we must also consume here. Like dairy, potatoes, carrots.”
De Boer: 'What we can produce here, we must also consume here. Such as dairy, potatoes, carrots. We are better at producing milk, so we must continue to do so.. But it's better to grow coffee and citrus fruits somewhere else than here. '
What do we solve with less import and export?
'The huge transport of food all over the world did not ultimately provide more food security but rather dependency, 'says De Olde. 'Countries become dependent on imports or on exports, as we. Especially now, during the coronacrisis, you see the consequences of. We have huge potato surpluses, whereas elsewhere there is a threat of serious shortages. '
Then it's easy to talk in the Netherlands, if we start producing and eating more locally. We live here in a fertile delta with lots of food. We'll make it.. But in countries where there is not such a pleasant climate to grow food, they do not depend on imports for nothing.
De Boer: 'That's why trade remains necessary. But now three quarters of the country we use for our food consumption lies outside the Netherlands. While we produce and export a lot of food! We've ended up in a really weird squirm. There's so much unnecessary transport.”
The discussion on the future of food production sometimes seems to consist of two camps. Like Charles C. Mann described in his book The Wizard and The Prophet: you have the 'wizards', who believe in globalization, progress and technology, and the 'prophets', who think we should go back to local, small-scale and lower production. What camp are you in?
'We don't take sides, 'says De Boer. 'We combine the best of both worlds. Basically we insist on the ecological principles, but you can combine them with technology. For example, with strip cultivation: if you mix different crops, you make more effective use of the substances in the soil, you are more resistant to drought and diseases, and you do not need to use pesticides. These strips can be grown on a large scale and in the future we will be able to use drones and robots for monitoring and harvesting.
We are also not against the use of fertilizer or genetic modification. But also with classical breeding, we can develop robust crops that can better cope with the drought and the silted soil that will result from climate change. A typical “sorcerer's approach”, with the foundation of the ecological “prophets”.
De Olde: 'We have learned a lot from the biological and ecological movement, but from us everything does not necessarily have to be organic. However, we are very clearly opposed to the use of pesticides and herbicides because of their impact on soil and biodiversity. '
Always stay up to date with the best stories? Subscribe to our newsletter.
Sign up and receive the best stories of Vrij Nederland in your mailbox.
Our cookie statement applies to our newsletters.
Are the yields not much lower without the use of pesticides? So you need more land to produce the same, while large-scale land use and deforestation are among the major causes of climate change?
'That's just the question, 'says De Boer. 'Those pesticides also destroy a lot, like useful insects. If you don't include that in your calculations, you get a distorted picture. If you do take the profit for biodiversity, you might be able to get a higher yield with strip cultivation. The only problem is that we can still harvest these strips with large machines. That must be possible in the future, and that is now being worked hard on. '
People will also have to change their eating patterns: wholegrain instead of white bread, seasonal and unknown vegetables such as sea kale and New Zealand spinach, far fewer animal products and the animals we eat from head to tail, with guts, ears and all. Is the Dutch consumer waiting for that?
'We need to make consumers more aware of the importance of good food, 'says De Olde. “What you eat affects your body and health, and the planet. That is why we also advocate food education as a compulsory subject in all schools. Sustainable food should be normal, attractive and easy. If the environment changes, from canteen to supermarket to restaurant, the consumer also changes. '
De Boer: 'Many people will ask themselves whether eating animal products is still ethical. You can see that there is still a lot of cognitive dissonance now: people prefer to look the other way. But we know more about the feelings, intelligence and empathy of animals every day. So I think it's a natural process that we all eat less meat, dairy and eggs.”
Should we all be vegan?
'We calculated that there is an effective place for animals in a food system, 'says De Boer. 'Whether you should kill and eat them, that is an ethical question that people will have to answer for themselves. I personally struggle with that, too. I barely eat meat, but I still find it hard to leave dairy and eggs and my husband likes meat. '
De Olde: 'If we are at least a little more aware of where food comes from, and how much effort it takes to produce it, then we don't all have to be vegan. I would like to see that, as a consumer, we consciously choose a certain production system. That requires more awareness and transparency. '
We also spoke to De Boer about her vision of the herd in this profile about D66-MP Tjeerd de Groot Wat drijft 'farmer' Tjeerd de Groot (D66)? 'I get up every day to change the world' May 30, 2020
That choice is also often determined by the consumer's wallet. Certainly on the lower steps of the socioeconomic ladder people look at what they can afford. Sustainable products are not exactly cheaper.
De Boer: 'The food prices of today are not a fair reflection of costs. Food is actually gigacheap. If you include all costs, including environmental and animal welfare, then sustainable products are not necessarily more expensive. So it's just how you look at the economy. A more sustainable food production comes with a fair price in the store. '
A 'fair price' in the supermarket is easy to say if you can afford it yourself.
'That's right, 'says De Olde. 'That is a possible trade off: that inequality is increased by this transition. We really need to think very carefully about how we can ensure that people with less incomes can also eat healthy and sustainable. '
'And so think differently about the entire economy, 'says De Boer. “Where does this inequality come from? That's not from the food system. It's a little faint to link socioeconomic inequality only to food. But we do want healthy and sustainable food for everyone. That is why this transition requires a different economic system that addresses the causes of social inequality, and not its consequences. '
Do the farmers want to change? We have seen many protests in recent months from farmers who are protesting against change and who are afraid of losing their earnings model.
De Olde: 'First, European agricultural subsidies must be adjusted. You can now see the first steps in the Green Deal and the From Farm to Fork strategy of Frans Timmermans in the European Commission. And so we need to make visible what the added value of sustainable farmers is, so that people are also willing to pay a little more. '
De Boer: 'Now intermediate links in the chain − companies like FrieslandCampina and Ahold − earn relatively much more than the farmer. There's room. And farmers do want to change, but they are angry at the rules that change over and over again. First there was the phosphate problem, then the nitrogen crisis, and soon there will be more stringent climate rules. They don't know what the future brings. Therefore, it is so important to make a vision for the long term. Our farmers, gardeners and fishermen ask. I am convinced that when that clarity is there for the long term and we value farmers for all their services, they are entrepreneurial and creative enough to produce healthy and sustainable food for everyone'.
This story was offered by Vrij Nederland
Unlimited reading? Become a subscriber from 4.99 per month.
” I am already a subscriber
Like
- Report this post
