TiR attended the Soil Association Conference on Wednesday 3rd February 2010. The conference focused heavily on debating the contrasting farming methods of organic and conventional farming.
In view of decreasing oil and fossil fuel availability, massively reduced soil fertility and chemically intensive agriculture, the onus was placed on the need for a radical transition from conventional intensive farming to a sustainable organic farming methodology.
Organic farming is different to intensive farming as it bans chemical fertilizers, heavily restricts the use of pesticides, disallows the use of chemical medicines, and antibiotics and instead encourages preventative livestock rearing methods such as maintaining larger fresher pastures and keeping smaller herds, GM feedstock for livestock is also prohibited. Conversely, conventional intensive farming frequently creates dense monocultures of crop and livestock, encouraging high yields through the thick application of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and dosing animals with chemical antibiotics. When synthetic fertilizers are applied to soil they are released quickly, so enabling rapid crop growth. However, the chemical fertilizers are an illusion of fertility as they maim living organisms in the soil. Once application is reduced, it takes a long time for the microbial life in the soil to recover. Such intense chemical application also decreases the soil organic matter, a vital range of ingredients that allows soil to lock up carbon, which if encouraged could be an effective carbon reduction land management method.
The farming, food production and supply system is complex, and we were interested to join in the debate and study sessions of subjects such as soil carbon and low carbon farming, however the main reason we went was to ask Hilary Benn a question from the floor. As one of the main speakers on food policy on the day, and the secretary of state for food environment and rural affairs. TiR thought he would be the ideal MP to question about plans to implement an obligatory annual food waste audit and subsequent food waste reduction targets across the food industry. When questioned about policy plans to reduce food waste in the supply chain, and whether or not such stringent regulations would be introduced to quantify and reduce food waste, he said no. His main reason was because such a system would be impossible to roll out and police. However, this is indolent thinking on the governments part. Main retailers often quantify how much they throw away, they just don’t release it. If the data is already there then the government must force the retailers to declare their annual waste quantities and reveal their waste quantification methodologies. Waste auditing could even be based on simple arithmetic; quantities of stock is ordered in minus quantities of stock is sold, the remainder is surplus. The harder aspect of such waste reduction strategies would be to introduce a means of quantification that can be employed at every level of our myriad supply chain.
Surprisingly, it seems that it would be relatively easy to audit food waste arising at large manufacturing centres. In the UK and the EU large manufacturers are already required to report on tonnages of solid waste arising in their process under a regulation known as the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). Within this measuring mechanism, the quantification of food waste could also be introduced. This would immediately allow food waste reports to be conducted on 30 – 40% of the UK’s food manufacturing industry. In terms of human resources, that dear old Benn might be worried about the expense of, Defra estimates that it would take only 2 employees to manage this entire scheme at a cost of £100,000 per year. If such a scheme was rolled out with the inclusion of food waste fines / tonne, the subsequent income generated from the tax could assist the funding of an industry wide food waste auditing scheme, covering catering, the public sector and farms.
The Food Industry Sustainability Strategy (FISS) proposes that food industries adopt a voluntary food waste reduction target of 3% annual food waste reduction from a 2006 baseline, this is unsatisfactory because it is a low target but also it is a non enforced action. In his book Waste, Tristram Stuart suggests that a 50% food waste reduction across main food industries should be incentivised over a period of 5 years. If reduction targets aren’t met, then businesses will have to pay for the wastage of valuable food. This is Rubbish endorses the introduction of such waste reduction targets. In the first years of auditing and the adoption of food waste reduction targets, big businesses and main retailers should lead the way in demonstrating best low food waste practice. This would mean that the biggest wasters, reduce their waste initially and incur any costs due to the fact that such businesses have been central in accepting and concealing an incredibly edible waste problem. This main industry waste audit and reduction adoption would also mean that smaller businesses and local food producers and suppliers aren’t disadvantaged; such businesses value their products far more than the excessive market monoliths so are inherently less wasteful.
The introduction of transparent annual mandatory food waste audits across all large food industries and the introduction of fiscally driven food waste reduction targets would see a huge and lasting reduction in food waste. The scheme will not be hard to implement at large scale, and would encourage business based on companies being able to demonstrate to the consumer that they are committed to environmental and social responsibility. Hilary Benn and the rest of them at DEFRA must push forward, taking EFRA’s recommendation seriously. ” We recommend that Defra requires food retailers and manufacturers to report the tonnages of food waste from their businesses at least on an annual basis. Defra should also work with the food industry to ensure that retailers give suppliers sufficient flexibility to be able to minimize wastage, including disseminating examples of industry best practice. ”
TiR is campaigning solely on demanding a transparent food waste auditing policy across all main food industries, and the subsequent introduction of mandatory food waste reduction targets. We would like to see Tristram Stuarts 50% food waste reduction over the next 5 years, measured from a 2011 baseline (when the annual food waste audits should be introduced).
Such resource squanderance is not an isolated problem; it indicates how market superpowers devalue primary resources such as food, which is dependent on natural resources such as land, soil, water and soil fertility. It is not acceptable to throw away inherently valuable resources; food, soil and water. The resources that sustain food production and food itself are not commodities but vital resources that should be valued outsides the framework of money; the environment and the food that the natural world provides is to be conserved and maintained in a sustainable and respectful way. If the government doesn’t act to reduce the levels of food waste arising within our supply chain, they are also disregarding the safeguarding of the environment and complex and irreplaceable ecosystems by not regulating rapacious and reckless capitalist markets.
TiR will carry on following Hilary Benn and his associates, continuing to ask just why they are so hesitant to introduce food waste quantification and reduction policies.
