Explore le compte-rendu officiel des Concertations

Is there social justice in the food system? The answer across the groups was a resounding ‘no’. It was suggested major corporations are largely responsible for this as they shape the food system to match their own agendas. Some people have too much food and waste it, others are starving. As a safety net, it was considered that food banks, while sadly necessary are perhaps an excuse for the government to not address the underlying issues that create the need for food banks in the first place. In north London there has been a seismic change in attitudes to using food banks with some of the g... Lire la suiteroup noting that may of their friends and colleagues who have been adversely affected by Covid (creatives, company directors etc) are using food banks. There were discussions among several groups as to whether food banks are a good or bad thing. It was suggested that if there were no food banks using up the surplus food, there would be a lot more waste going to land fill. However should we be tackling food poverty in a different way? On waste it was also suggested that best before / sell by dates are wrong and scare people into wasting stuff. Issues with the Universal Credit system were noted – with the application process and the length of time it takes to access/receive funds. One possible solution touted was for there to be a basic universal income which may also help reduce or alleviate food bank demand. It was also discussed that people could be issued a fruit and vegetable box with recipes as part of the Universal basic Income package. Possible routes to social justice in the local food system discussed include more independent shops, shopping directly with suppliers/producers, further use of allotments (more would be needed), affordable farmers’ and local markets. It is complicated to provide social justice for everyone so strategies are needed at policy level – both national and local - thinking about metrics other than GDP. Buying directly from producers was echoed across several groups. Buying directly - ie from the Milk Delivery Person and using companies like Crop Drop / Odd Box - ensuring the farmer gets the fair return for his produce that major super markets refuse. Generally improved connections with farmers and other suppliers was mentioned. An improved focus on land management would also help. There is inherently injustice in the management of land which is largely owned by very few people. It is difficult to get access to land for the rest of the population so there is very little land for people to grow food. The question was asked how much land is needed to sustain the population of London. Could parks be used for growing food? London is surrounded by a green belt and we should be accessing food from local farms – but farmers are largely invisible. In the city, there is no or little connection to how our food is grown and access is mainly through large retailers with little connection to the shopper or corner shops with little transparency on provenance. It was commented that there is racial discrimination in our food systems. POC growers have little access to land, pay is low but it was also suggested that the farming industry is systemically racist and not as progressive as many other industries. There were also local examples of discrimination such as in allotments. Better intertwined communities was seen as one part of the solution. There is amazing work going in with different projects: Chalk Farm Village is going to be a large urban farm. Grange Big Local is a neighbourhood of East Finchley that has won a grant to be run by residents for the community. The aim to create an inclusive eco system where people support each other. Soup kitchens could also benefit from linking up to make better use of their resources. There is an website born out of the Muswell Hill Soup Kitchen which aims to help people find where soup kitchens are using GPS: nextmeal.co.uk Lire moins

Do people in north London have access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food? PT2 It was felt that the UK had lost its rich history of locally produced good food compared to other countries where the street food markets bring to the city a diverse range of fresh, local food that is affordable and the place where most people shop. Large scale farming in the UK since WW2 meant the loss of farmers markets, market gardens and orchards. There are examples of organic farms within London eg. Forty Hall Farm in Enfield that sells organic veg and meat, but they are often expensive. Rather than bein... Lire la suiteg a cheap way for people to get their fresh produce and being a direct route to market for farmers, they have become ‘artisan’ and ‘gentrified’. It was felt that this was due to the commercialisation of public space, where even food markets are expected to generate profits rather than provide a public service. There was also concern that the few remaining genuinely affordable street markets in London are at risk due to new building developments. It was noted that the environmental and health agenda are connected in the long run and more should be done together. It was thought that subsidies are not always directed towards organic farms and producers and this needs to be addressed at a Policy/government level. A lack of education equals people eating unseasonably which has negative health and environmental consequences. It was also raised that there is little to no transparency about the logistics and delivery chain of the food – both its transportation and origin. Among the participants there were people with access to an allotment and others with gardens who grow smaller crops. Having children seemed to be a driving force for home growing food – to create awareness and educate the children about seasonal, sustainable food - personally growing food amplifies that message. Allotments also provide escape which is great for mental wellbeing. More growing spaces should become available to everyone. Corporations should free up their space for community plots - some developers have started to successfully do this so it is evident positive intention does exist. The group went on to discuss the importance of primary curriculum to include gardening and cooking - fundamental life skills that needs to be weaved through the learning from an early age. Schools used to teach home economics but school education now values academic achievement over life skills such as cooking. Totteridge Academy is an example of a school that teaches children how to grow and cook food. People feel that schools are an important place for learning about food and eating healthy and nutrition but the quality of food being served to school children is not always good enough. People felt that the problem was the fact that school meal services have been privatised in many cases. And then post schooling, society puts a lower value on working in the service industries and it is not seen as a good career path. It was noted that improved education and access to healthy and nutritious food would take pressure off the NHS. Lire moins

Do people in north London have access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food? PT1 Most participants, on a personal level, thought they did have access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food, although many were keen to acknowledge their privilege and that not everyone does have this access. It was suggested that the key barriers to access are available resources and education. It was recognised that north London has a wide range of incomes. There are very wealthy people living alongside families who are really struggling. It was noted that the intersection between people’s level of ed... Lire la suiteucation and their income is stark. Education is also key when it comes to food - people don’t know what to do with food and how to cook it. People often say that they don’t have enough time to cook but perhaps it’s more a question of not knowing how to cook fast, simple, but healthy meals. It was suggested that we no longer prioritise food and healthy eating, or eating together and enjoying food in the way that other cultures do. The question arose whether this is also a political question: the politics of convenience and the food lobby. Have we lost our interest in a creative food culture and does this benefit big business? It was also pointed out that some people’s living situation makes it difficult to cook food- they have no facilities, utensils, space etc. People might compromise on the food they buy due to other factors such as rent and bills. Also people who are chronically ill, not earning, or need support can’t always access healthy food. There are people locally who are starving/can’t afford food. There are also elderly people who can’t chop veg, lift pans etc. so end up microwaving their food. The point was made that food banks are great as a lifeline but do not always provide high quality or fresh food. Much of it is pasta, tinned food etc. Variety of food isn’t a problem in the area, with there being a lot of choice on the high street with a diversity of cultures and diets catered for. However it was argued that local councils should regulate the high street better to create a more mixed high street with cohesive planning, to build better, stronger more resilient communities. An increase in smaller independent shops and less betting shops, hair dressers and estate agents. It was suggested that Belsize Park and Marylebone are good examples of this. It was however also mentioned that independent shops can be expensive. Generally it was considered that organic food can be inaccessible due to its pricing. It was particularly mentioned that Muswell Hill is expensive for organic fruit and vegetables but there are alternatives close by such as Wood Green Market which is lots cheaper but people don’t know about it. This messaging needs to improve so the community are aware of all options on their door step. It was added that if you are aware of local food sources and are resourceful it is also possible to access cheaper, nutritious foods. It was noted that big supermarkets dominate the local food supply and due to aggressive pricing the smaller independent shops are affected by this. It was also noted that during the pandemic there has been a rise in online shopping. Customers often go for the cheaper deal which is not always the best quality – such as processed fast food. Convenience impacts on our health – in terms of nutrition and physical health and weight gain. And people were generally not happy with the excessive plastic packaging that supermarkets use. It was considered that as the main source of food shopping supermarkets should be more responsible. Lire moins

Most participants, on a personal level, thought they did have access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food, although many were keen to acknowledge their privilege and that not everyone does have this access. It was suggested that the key barriers to access are available resources and education. When it came to the question of social justice in the food system the answer across the groups was a resounding ‘no’. It was suggested major corporations are largely responsible for this as they shape the food system to match their own agendas. Some people have too much food and waste it, other... Lire la suites are starving. Other takeaways include that farmers could be made more visible in the food system, and connected to consumers. Food hubs is one way to achieve this. The local food system should be linked and connected better. Access to land is key to achieving sustainable production and access. Change needs to happen at a policy level. Lire moins

There were three sessions - two break out group sessions and a larger group session. Each session considered one main question: Session 1 - Do people in north London have access to healthy, nutritious and affordable food? Session 2 - Is there social justice in our food system? Can we make improvements? Session 3 - What do we want to see this picture look like in 10/3 years’ time?

Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized are the farmers and ranchers, both large and small. A common theme in each of the discussions was it cannot be on farmers and ranchers alone to achieve neutrality because they still have a bottom line and not all solutions can be adopted across all operations, but the emissions from each type of operation can be mitigated.

The livestock sector will see increased innovation and deployment of various mitigation tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from beef and dairy cattle. There are many powerful tools available to reduce methane emissions from livestock such as feed additives, manure management, and animal efficiency. While reducing enteric methane emissions is promising it is not the only strategy. In fact, reaching 50% methane reduction will be an uphill battle with feed additives as our only strategy. There is no silver bullet for farmers. We must look at the system as a whole and make reductions along t... Lire la suitehe supply chain at every chance we have. If we zoom out and look at the whole system we can begin to identify inefficiencies. We then must communicate these efficiencies to the whole supply chain. More research to measure emissions from grazing systems and deeply understand methanogenesis in the rumen is needed. It cannot be on farmers and ranchers alone to achieve neutrality because they still have a bottom line and not all solutions can be adopted across all operations. If we can find a viable market for mitigation solutions farmers and ranchers will adopt them. Lire moins

Public policy can incentivize an acceleration of climate-smart solutions in beef and dairy production to reach climate neutrality. We need a standardized life-cycle analysis of the beef and dairy systems that can be used regionally and more broadly. Ultimately climate neutrality for the sectors cannot happen without policy and a mechanism to incentivize farmers and ranchers to mitigate greenhouse gasses. Programs that allow farmers to sell the energy they make from tools such as dairy biodigesters back to the grid, can make the investment in the technology worth the cost. Not being able to rev... Lire la suiteerse meter is a big policy roadblock. Inconsistent policies across state lines are also confusing and costly. Incentives and initiatives that count multiple ecosystem services at once may help to cover mitigation costs. For example, in California it might be feasible to combine GHG management opportunities with air- and water-related environmental policies. Ultimately we need engagement from industry and researchers to craft policy that meets both environmental and economic needs. Market limitations on biodigester products is one example of impediments to their widespread adoption. Policy can open up markets or provide other incentives that make mitigation strategies profitable for farmers and ranchers. Public policy can provide a guideline on development and approval of technology. Lire moins

The U.S. beef and dairy sectors can be climate neutral. The question is: How soon? Answering that question will depend on how we choose to assess and measure. There will always be trade-offs when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. How we choose to evaluate these trade-offs will affect whether or how we can achieve climate neutrality. Mitigation comes at a cost and policy can address societal needs in a way that makes mitigation economically feasible. All the while we need to be in dialogue with farmers and ranchers, sharing information, as well as getting their input. Connecting an... Lire la suited reaching the next generation of farmers will be crititical in finding ways to leverage technology to improve efficiencies for livestock farmers. Educating multiple audiences such as consumer, farmers, the public, decision makers is necessary. Producers must be involved when building communication plans and programs from the ground up. This remains complex as it examines multiple impacts of sustainability such as social, economic, and environmental impacts. What a policy might incentivize might not be what the farmer or rancher needs or is feasible to implement, and therefore not be practically achieveable. Market incentives, grants, and markets for greenhouse gas reductions and other ecosystem services are critical to successful adoption of mitigation measures. Putting research realities into an achievable timeline acknowledges the time it takes to do mitigation research and bring those solutions to market. We need more research funding on various aspects of the system and that research needs to be funded, not only by industry, but also governments and non-profits. Lire moins

A common theme in all of the three discussions within this dialogue was the need for a systems approach that takes into account global production of beef and dairy products. We will need to see both developed and developing countries make good use of better practices and technological improvements in efficiency and mitigation strategies that are incentivized to limit burden of producers. Without a market for things like manure byproducts and ecosystem services, for example, ranchers operate on thin margins and will not be able to implement mitigation strategies which inevitably will raise thei... Lire la suiter costs. Panelists and participants agreed that removing barriers, doing more research on enteric solutions, and developing product markets encourage sustainability. It is incumbent on all global regions to develop climate-smart solutions if we are to reduce absolute greenhouse gas emissions from this sector. Large-scale climate change benefits when a combination of methane mitigation strategies are achieved in beef and dairy. Lire moins

This dialogue's major focus was an exploration of Action Track 3 of the Summit, Boost nature-positive production.