people; that is twice current global requirements. Unfortunately, not all food ends up being eaten by consumers. According to a study published in early 2003 by the British Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 30–50% of food intended for human consumption is lost.8 The main reason for this in developing countries is a lack of storage, processing and transport facilities.
The situation is different in industrialised countries. For example, in Switzerland domestic households account for 45% of the loss.9 Special offers tempt shoppers to buy more than they can consume. In addition, expiry dates are calculated in such a way that perfectly good food is often discarded.
Globally, about one-third of all food produced is currently not consumed. This causes not only a serious economic loss (US$ 940 billion per year) but also 8% of all greenhouse gas emissions. A study by Porter, Reay, Higgins and Bomberg from the University of Edinburgh found that the loss and waste of food accounted for 2.2 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalents each year, which is 323 kg CO2 per person and three times higher than 50 years ago.
Champions 12.3, a coalition of more than 36 business and government representatives as well as those from civil society, published a report during the process leading up to the agreement on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in autumn 2015. It provided a progress report on the fight against food waste and loss. Although the international community had made considerable efforts to achieve SDG Target 12.3, the report concluded that they were not enough to rectify current deficiencies in the supply chain, including production, delivery and the end consumer.
The report highlighted three particular benefits of eliminating food loss and waste: better food security, lower costs throughout the entire supply chain and finally better protection for resources and the climate. The report called for stakeholders to agree on concrete reduction targets without delay. Progress must be monitored regularly and there must be no ifs and buts. There are already some examples of good practice: Italy and France have both passed legislation to reduce food waste. Instead of dumping edible foodstuffs, supermarkets are now allowed to donate them. Similarly, the United States has announced plans to halve food waste by 2030.
The concern remains, however, that action on Target 12.3 will be limited to a few countries and will only involve larger companies. In addition, the mechanisms for monitoring progress are still inadequate in many areas. The report identified a lack of professional systems and methods for the systematic recording of data that is capable of identifying problem areas. To sum up: if we are to achieve SDG Target 12.3 by 2030, each and every country, town, company and in particular each and every consumer on Planet Earth must show greater commitment to efforts to fight food waste and loss.10
Too much meat
Another form of food waste is the high level of meat consumption. To produce one calorie of food from livestock farming requires between two and seven times as much feed as that needed to produce plant-based calories. Global meat consumption has increased fourfold in the last 50 years11 and the average global consumption per head per year is now 32 kg12. In Switzerland it is 51 kg,13 in Germany 60 kg14 and in France 86 kg15. Although meat consumption has stagnated and in some cases even declined slightly in industrialised countries, it is rising in emerging nations, sometimes very rapidly.
Meat is increasingly produced on an industrial scale in intensive livestock units. This type of farming requires a much greater use of antibiotics. Livestock farming now accounts for 70% of the global use of antibiotics.16 Excessive use of antibiotics encourages the development of resistance and it is estimated that some 25,000 people die each year in Europe from infections caused by pathogens resistant to antibiotics.17
In order to use resources as efficiently as possible, it makes absolute sense for humans to include some animal products in their diet. About two-thirds of the world’s available farmland is only suitable for grass or pasture.18 Ruminants eat grass and so are not competing with humans for food; animals also provide manure and some, like hens and pigs, can eat food waste and by-products—a good sow will eat anything.
However, many animals are fed primarily on cereal and other arable crops: animals currently consume about one-third of current global cereal production.19 In addition, much of the feed used in meat production in industrialised countries is imported; some 35 million hectares of arable land in the EU is “outsourced” in this way.20 That means that more than one-third of all EU arable land is not available in developing countries for domestic food production.21
The driver behind such misguided trends in livestock farming is the economic pressure to produce as much meat as possible and as efficiently as possible. For those of us living in rich industrialised countries, this makes meat ridiculously cheap; it is also now affordable for the growing middle classes in developing countries, but the poor come away empty-handed. They are still unable to afford meat and livestock farming consumes their plant-based food. According to calculations by UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme, the calories lost in the process to transform plant matter into animal feed would meet the food needs of 3.5 billion people.22 It should also be noted that cheap meat is in fact expensive, given that the externalities accruing from the intensive, industrial production and the health impact of excess consumption of such meat are being socialised—and carried by all taxpayers.
Too poor to have enough to eat
More than one billion people live in extreme poverty and have to survive on less than US$ 1.25 per day.23 Poor families in developing countries spend 50–80% of their income on food;24 even a small increase in food prices can threaten their very existence.
For example, weather-related crop failures in 2007 and 2008 increased the demand for renewable raw materials and meat and this, combined with speculative trading, triggered an increase in the price of basic foodstuffs. The FAO Food Price Index rose by 52% in one year from July 2007 to July 2008.25 As a direct consequence, the number of people suffering from malnutrition increased from 70 million to 100 million. It caused hunger riots in some countries, and it even caused the government to fall in Haiti.
Apparent paradox: Food is too cheap
The problem, however, is not that food prices are too high but rather the reverse. Food is too cheap. To explain this apparent paradox, we need a little background.
The maxim adopted by the agriculture industry is to maximise production, minimise product costs and minimise labour costs. This reductionist approach, geared as it is to maximum yields, requires mechanized production and monoculture systems that favour high-yielding crop varieties. It requires vast amounts of mineral fertilisers, pesticides and water. This in turn overexploits non-renewable natural resources.
In terms of production volumes, this approach has been extremely successful. Even though the global population more than doubled between 1961 and 2011, grain production per capita increased by 30% in the same period. This increase in yields was accompanied by a fall in prices.26 According to the Swiss Federal Office for Statistics, the average household in Switzerland currently spends just 6.4% of its gross income on food and alcohol-free drinks;27 in Germany it is 10.5%.28
However, only a minority of farmers benefit from new agricultural technology—only those who can afford it. For the vast majority of small-scale farmers in developing countries, a production system that requires huge amounts of expensive high-yielding crop varieties and agrochemicals is not a viable way to increase production and escape poverty.
At the same time, countries from the rich North use export subsidies worth billions of dollars to sell off their surplus produce to those in the South. These imported goods compete with local produce. As a result, more than 70% of those without
