We have the tools to fix our food system. Why aren’t we using them?

Even if we're to stop burning fossil fuels today, the emissions from our food systems would blow us

right past our target of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and also use up nearly all of our

carbon budget for keeping temperatures below two degrees. In other words, if we do not transform

our food systems, we won't be able to limit climate change to our international targets

What impact does food production have on our planet? I think there are very, very few environmental problems that food doesn't touch on

In fact, I think there are very, very few environmental problems that food doesn't sit at the heart of

Our food systems are the leading driver of deforestation, the leading driver of biodiversity loss

the leading driver of freshwater use and the leading driver of water pollution

If we don't address these issues, we'll see the continued acceleration and loss of the world species and ecosystems

We put severe pressure on our freshwater systems, leading to freshwater stress and scarcity

And we pollute our water systems, disrupting ecosystems and making them less amenable to life

Around a quarter of our global emissions come from food, and that comes from various sources

One of the key ones is land use change, so expanding agricultural land, causing deforestation

and other land use changes emits CO2 into the atmosphere. I think some of the other key ones are emissions on the farm

And here some of these key emissions are actually not carbon dioxide, but other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide

So one of the key emitters, for example, is what we call enteric fermentation from cows

which is basically just cows burping. but they burp methane, which is really powerful greenhouse gas

There are other contributors to greenhouse gas emissions from food, such as applying fertilizer

We apply nitrogen fertilizer to the soil, we get nitrogen oxide emissions, which is a really powerful greenhouse gas

You also get the same from manure, which also emits these nitrogen greenhouse gases

Even if we were to stop burning fossil fuels today, those emissions from our food systems would blow us right past our target of limiting warming to

1.5 degrees Celsius and also use up nearly all of our carbon budget for keeping temperatures below

two degrees. In other words, if we do not transform our food systems, we won't be able to limit

climate change to our international targets. I think when we look at the wide range and magnitude

of the environmental impacts of our food system, I'd say we're already eating ourselves into unsustainability

Our food system today is unsustainable. If we don't change the way we produce our food

and the way we eat our food, we will make this problem worse and worse

So when we look at our food system, we have two key goals. The first is that we want to be able to provide everyone

with a good, sufficient and nutritious diet. The second problem that we also want to solve

is to do this with a very, very low environmental impact. So the big overarching problem of our food

system is how do you feed 8, 9, 10 billion people with a very, very low environmental impact

So the average person in the world tends to need around 2,500 kilocalories per day. Now that varies

depending on the type of person, their size, their activity levels, but let's say around 2,500

thousand kilocalories per person per day. Now you might think we just produce about enough to feed

everyone. In reality we actually produce around double that amount. The actual crops coming out

of the ground is probably equivalent to around five thousand kilocalories per person per day

Now you might ask how do we go from five thousand to only two and a half thousand that actually goes

into people's mouths. And there are a couple of really big losses that we have in the system

from crop production to actual food consumption. Now one of the key ones here is meat production

When we feed crops to animals, that's actually converted to meat and dairy very, very inefficiently

So most of the calories you put into an animal are lost along the way and you get very, very

a little out in return. Another key loss in the system is that we divert a lot of food towards

biofuels. So biofuels that go into cars or other forms of transport and not actually into human

mouse. I think the really key last one is also food waste. Now this can come from consumer food

waste, so stuff we throw in the bin or don't use. But we also have food losses along the supply chain

So these are losses that are unintentional, but food that just rots or goes off because we don't

have the storage or the transportation or refrigeration we need in order to get it from the farm to the consumer before it goes off This type of problem a colleague once explained to me is just a Tupperware problem

It's a problem of, for example, just not having a plastic crate to transport crops from the field

to the market. So in some sense this is good news. This is a very, very solvable and tractable problem

We can not only reduce the environmental impacts of these food losses, but it also means that farmers

who ultimately have planted these crops and get them out of the ground

have much, much more to sell at the market and can increase their incomes

There are two key aspects to build a more sustainable food system. The first one is to invest in more productive agriculture

We need to be able to produce more food using less land. It's actually one area we've already made a lot of progress

Over the last 50 years, in many countries, yields have doubled, tripled, in some cases quadrupled. That means we can produce much

much more food using less and less land. Going forward, that will also be a really key solution

Our key here is to use as little land as possible in order to produce the food that we need

Crop yield will be a really, really key solution to this. Now, we know that we can further increase

crop yields. We know this because researchers can estimate what they say is the attainable yield

Now the attainable yield is the yield that you could get using best practices and best technologies

that we already have today. If you compare that to the yields that farmers are currently getting

there's often a really really big gap. That means that by increasing access to technologies such as

improved seeds, fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation, farmers can close that gap that

exists today. In some regions, this gap is really, really wide. Take Africa, for example

where wild crop yields have increased over the last 50 years. They're much, much lower than the

rest of the world and it has started to fall behind. And what's really key about this investment

that it doesn't just improve environmental benefits, it often also provides benefits to the farmer

A farmer will get higher yields and higher income. That's really, really key for some of the lowest income farmers in the world

that are living just at or below the international poverty line. They can produce more food, they can get a higher income and move out of poverty

It'll obviously be really key also for regions where we'll see high population growth

Not only will farmers get higher income and will reduce the environmental impact, but also be able to feed more people at the same time

The second big thing is changing our diets and changing the way we eat

That typically means moving away from meat and dairy, which can include moving to more meat substitute products or dairy alternatives

I think we need to be really, really careful when we're talking about dietary change and environmental impacts of food

that we're not preaching to people or telling them what they should and shouldn't eat

It's none of my business to tell you what you should eat. I think what's really, really painful for me is that when people have really good intentions

they want to reduce the environmental footprint of their diet. They're just working on poor information

So what I try to do is put out good information, such as those that do want to make this change and want to make a difference

have good information to make better decisions. Now here the top recommendation is to reduce the amount of meat and dairy that you're eating

The reason for this is if you look at the environmental footprint, now here we can think about carbon footprint

but it also applies to land, to water, water pollution and biodiversity loss

If you rank foods in terms of their impact, at the top you tend to see a cluster of animal-based products

and at the bottom you tend to see plant-based foods. Most plant-based foods have a lower impact than meat and dairy

Now here, the differences between different food products are really, really stark

For example, if you look at the carbon emissions per 100 grams of protein of plant-based proteins

they can be 10 to 50 times less the impact of really big emitters like beef or lamb

Now it's important to think about not just the total amount of meat that we're eating

but also the types of meat. This is because the carbon footprint of different meat products is also very, very different

The bigger the animal, typically the higher the carbon footprint. So you tend to see beef as the worst emitter, followed by lamb, then pig, then chicken and fish

So we have this metric that we call calorie efficiency. And that basically tells us for every 100 calories of crops you feed an animal

a farm animal such as a cow or a pig or a chicken, How many calories do you get out in return in the form of meat

And what we see when we look at this data is that the calorie efficiency of all animals is actually very very low It tends to be lowest for the biggest animals So for a cow for example for every 100 calories that you feed it you typically

get around two calories out in terms of meat. So that means 98% of those calories are lost just

keeping the animal alive. You don't actually get that out in the form of meat. For lamb, it's maybe

around four, so 100 calories in, four calories out. For pigs, it's around nine, so 100 in

nine out. And for chicken, which is typically the smallest of the animals, it's a little bit better

100 calories in, you get 13 calories out. But even for our most efficient livestock and efficient

animals, you can see that nearly all of the calories that we feed it is completely lost

in that conversion. And people will often say, okay, but we eat mostly meat for protein

not calories. So is the protein efficiency much better? Unfortunately not. It's a little bit

better than calories, but for cows, lambs and pigs, it's still under 90%. So 100 grams of protein in

you'll typically get less than 10 grams of protein out in the form of meat. Chicken is a little bit

better but it's still less than 20 grams of protein out for every 100 grams that you put in

Now a really well plant-based diet can meet most people's nutritional needs. I think there's one

key vitamin that you just cannot get from plant-based products and that's the vitamin B12

So if you are on a plant-based diet you would need to supplement with vitamin B12 which is either

in the form of direct supplementation. Actually many products are actually fortified with vitamin

B12 already. For most other nutrients, whether they're macronutrients such as protein or fat

or micronutrients such as vitamins and minerals, you can typically get the full spectrum on a

plant-based diet. But you probably need to be much more conscious of the diversity of foods

that you're eating compared to a diet with meat and dairy in it. I think a really, really key

innovation and solution we need in this area is better meat substitutes. I think we could hope

that people would just switch from a beef burger to tofu or peas or beans. But for me, I think this

transition globally is going to be really, really unrealistic. I think what we need is to generate

meat-like products that taste like meat, that have the texture of meat, that have the nutrition of

meat, just without the animal and the environmental product. Now, there are a range of companies and

innovators working on this, but I think investing in this much more heavily will really help with

transition away from meat to a more sustainable way of eating. I think when people come to this

issue and they tend to see the stats on how big the carbon footprint of meat and dairy is compared

to plant-based products, they have the impression that the only way out of this is for us to all go

100% vegan tomorrow. I don't think this is realistic and I also don't think this is necessary

For many people the transition towards veganism or a completely plant-based diet seems overwhelming

and daunting and this is not the message i think what's really key is that we can all make a

difference by small changes actually if everyone in the world were to eat 10 less meat or 20 less

meat we'd actually have a bigger impact than a few percentage points of the population going

completely vegan so for many people this is not about doing a full transition of their diet

it's about taking incremental steps maybe first by stopping eating meat on a given day or reducing

at a given meal and slowly working towards a more plant-based diet over time. So I think when people

see the unsustainability of our food system today, they think the solution is just to go backwards

right? The problem of our food system today is the modern ways that we produce our food

If we just rewind the clock and go back to how our ancestors did this, our problems would be solved

Unfortunately, this is just not true. The issue there is scale. The food systems that might have worked for tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people

just don't scale to a population of 8, 9 or 10 billion people

The solutions of everyone lives on their farm, has their own plot of land

produces through organic agriculture with no inputs, just doesn't scale when you need to feed 8 billion people

That's why we cannot go backwards to the ways that we used to do farming and food production

We need to find a way of building solutions that take us forward, that can feed billions of people, but in a much more sustainable way

Now, one solution that tends to get a lot of attention, and to some extent I'm a little bit excited about

but I don't think is a feasible technology today, is vertical farming

Now, vertical farming takes crops from out in the field and brings them indoors

Rather than using sunlight you use LED lights inside in order to have that photosynthesis process There are obvious advantages to this You need much less land for example

You can also use less fertilizers or less pesticides because the crops aren't exposed to pests or diseases

The big trade-off here, though, is that you're substituting land for energy

Typically, vertical farms need a lot of energy to produce these crops

They've been used most commonly for crops, kind of high price crops

such as leafy greens or other vegetables. Even there, we've seen many big companies start to go bust in the last few years

because of a spike in energy prices. It's just not economically feasible for many of these companies to continue producing

I think the economics gets even worse for cereal crops, where actually most of the world's calories come from

Estimates suggest that a loaf of bread produced from wheat from vertical farming would cost around $18

Now, in the future, LED lighting and other energy systems might get more efficient, so we might start to see that cost fall

But you'd probably still expect that a loaf of bread there would cost at least six times as much as the prices that we pay today

So while I think this is an exciting technology and one that might produce some of our food in the future

I think the economics of this technology just don't work today and won't build this silver bullet solution that many people think it is

I think it's really important to highlight that while we produce more than enough food for everyone

nearly 1 in 10 people in the world do not get enough calories to eat. This is obviously an unacceptable position to be in

But we do have the solutions we need to solve this. We do produce enough food for everyone

and we could produce much, much more if we close yield gaps across the world

and change the diets and the way we eat. Another key factor to take into account is that we will also face changes in the climate

and in some regions this might make farming more difficult. So we need to be prepared for this

We need to factor in that we need to not only make up this deficit for the 1 in 10 people today

we might also have additional mouths to feed over the next few decades

We'll also have to contend with the impact of a changing climate on our agricultural systems

Now, these obviously are massive problems, but we do have the solutions we need to solve them

We know that we can increase crop yields if farmers have access to the tools and practices that we need

We can produce really efficient meat substitute products, which means that we can release a lot of land from food production

and also release a lot of crops that we're currently feeding animals

and put it more directly into human mouths. So if we were to implement all of these solutions

if you look at where the world might be in 2060, we'd very comfortably be able to feed a population of 10 million people

We wouldn't have anyone that are undernourished or malnourished. Everyone had access to enough calories, enough protein and a diverse diet

but we'd also produce this food with a much much lower environmental impact. We could massively

reduce the amount of land that we use for farming. For example if the world was to go completely

plant-based which it might not but even if it did you could reduce agricultural land use by 75%

We'd use only a fraction of the land that we currently use for farming which would free up

lots of land for the restoration of wild habitats and forests. We would end deforestation because

food and agriculture expansion is the leading driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss

today. We would also massively reduce the pressure on freshwater resources and freshwater pollution

Again, our food systems are the leading driver of freshwater withdrawals and also freshwater

pollution. In 2060 we could see a world where 10 billion people are fed nutritiously with a fraction

of the environmental impact that our current food system has. What's also really key here is a more

productive agricultural system would massively increase the incomes of many farmers around the

world. Many of the world's poorest are smallholder farmers where most of the family works on the farm

and gets very, very little in return. They're often just at the international poverty line

of earning a few dollars a day, or might even be below it

With more productive agriculture, fewer and fewer people in the family would have to work on the farm

so kids could go to school, to university, to move on to different careers

and the farmers still working on the farm would have a much higher income and a much higher standard of living

So I don't think we should underestimate the scale of this challenge, but we should be aware that we do have the solutions to solve this