Tuesday, April 23, 2019

Five dollars a day is not enough for five a day


In discussions about food, environment and health, a resource perspective is often lacking. For more than half of the global population what ends up on their plate is mostly a function of their economic and energetic circumstances. If one want to change what people eat it is necessary to understand the realities of the global food system. Without that, all well-intended advice for a diet better for health or for the environment are falling on barren rock instead of in fertile ground.

The WHO says that 3.9 million deaths could be avoided if people ate more fruit and vegetables. The recent report of the EAT Lancet Commission recommends that people should eat at least 500 gram fruit and vegetables per day. Many countries have similar recommendations of a certain quantity in weight or in number of servings or portions. But in almost no country are people doing what they are told.  In Sweden only 1 percent of the men in rural Arjeplog eat their half a kilo per day while 19 percent of the women in wealthy, urban Täby does it.  Are people stupid or what?

In order to understand fruit and vegetables consumption it is essential to realize some pertinent facts. Fruits and vegetables are mostly luxury plants in comparison with grains, pulses, root crops. Very few traditional farming systems have had a high share of fruits and vegetables unless you include starchy crops like plantains, potatoes, cassava or yams in your definition. The reason for it is that they are fairly demanding to grow and their content of the most essential food components, energy and protein, is low. Even today, fruits and vegetables are expensive to buy.

Almost half of the world’s population live on less than $5.50 per day. Five dollars give you more in a poor country than in a rich one, but when it comes to vegetables is my experience that they are not particularly cheap in poor countries. On the contrary, I am normally envious of the prices local farmers get for their vegetables compared to what I get in Sweden. There are certainly some exceptions of coarse local vegetables such as leaves of cassava or sweet potatoes, they also happen to be by-products of the cultivation of a starchy staple foods. In some places mangoes or bananas can be very cheap.


Also in the rich countries there is a direct relation between income and consumption of vegetables. During the economic recession following the financial crisis 2008/2009 vegetable consumption shrank with one third among the poorest tenth of the British population. And in the USA, there is direct relation between low consumption of vegetables and incomes up to four times above the poverty line. In a comparison of a healthy and an unhealthy food basket in the UK, the healthy food was around 30% more expensive. In addition, the cost was much higher and the availability of fruit and vegs much lower in rural areas than in cities.

In the dominating, mostly simplistic, food, health and environment narrative we are told that people should eat less meat and more vegetables. But such calls miss that the consumption of meat and vegetables are not opposites but complementary. Normally, meat consumption and vegetable consumption increases parallel to wealth. Prajal Pradhan, Dominik E. Reusser och Juergen P. Kroppi  classifies food consumption patterns in the article Embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Diets in PLOS. They show, convincingly, that most people in poor countries eat little fruit and vegetables as well as little meat (there are some exception, such as pastoralist). The food of poor people is dominated by a few starchy staple crops because they do give most value for money or most food per hour worked if you grow your own food.

When incomes increase there is a shift away from those staple crops towards more protein rich products, such as egg, milk, simple meat products (offal, sausages etc.). Often consumption of rough vegetables such as root crops, cabbage and onions increase in parallel. With further increase in income people tend to eat more whole meats and more luxurious vegetables, such as lettuce, tomatoes, peppers and cucumbers.

This last stage also mostly coincides with that people do much less hard physical work and thus need less energy. As much as the economic perspective is missing from the food narrative, the energy perspective is also missing. There is a very strong correlation between the amount of (fossil) energy invested in food production and income. Fueling the diets of the wealthy uses up to forty times as much fossil fuels as producing the diets of the poor according to the research by Pradan and colleagues.  Clearly, it is only the wealthy that can afford to have a diet based on consumption of meat produced largely by cultivated feeds and energy poor vegetables.

In former times, it was unusual that poor people were obese for energetic reasons. Traditional staple foods are rather voluminous. You need to eat 3 kg of potatoes to get 2500 kcal, which is not even enough for somebody doing physical work. The taste and digestibility of most staples also didn’t stimulate overconsumption even if you would have afforded it. This is why pulses have not been as popular among the poor as one might believe. When income increases, for many of those that have been on a traditional staple food diet, it is an easy step to buy energy and protein dense foods such as meats and fats, rather than vegetables. Vegetables give little energy for a given volume, which is why they are popular among those trying to control weight. But they also give little energy per krona, pound, euro or dollar.

Lately things have changed. Now the industrial food system all the way from farm to table with massive energy use can provide people with very energy dense foods for a the same cost as, or even cheaper than, traditional staple crops. I think about sugar, palm oil and other mass produced vegetable oils, industrial foods made of wheat, soy and corn. This has led to increasing obesity among poor. As these foods also crowds out more nutrient dense foods we face the fact that people can be obese and still suffer from malnutrition.

Poor people don’t only have little money, they also little time as it takes a lot of time to deal with all the issues caused by poverty.  A team of Harvard economists came to the conclusion that the decreased time people spend on cooking is a major cause for obesity. Or in other words: the time cost for being sated has shrunk. The same energy dense industrial food comes in very handy, it is both rather cheap and quick to prepare. All this is reinforced by an agricultural system of constant overproduction and a food system with strong incentives to make people buy more than they need.

It seems to me that the very strong lobby for people eating more vegetables would benefit from some analysis and understanding of the actual situation of many poor people and the actual drivers in the food system, instead of believing that information or propaganda will change the situation.




How good are they – really?

I have grown vegetables professionally or semi-professionally for forty years, I was a founder of a vegetable marketing cooperative 1983 and I assisted in publishing a vegetable cookbook some thirty years ago. So clearly I am a fan of vegetables.

The article above is written without questioning the health benefits of vegetables. I don’t doubt that fruits and vegetables are healthy to eat. I am much less convinced that there is sufficient evidence that consuming fruit and vegetables is the only way to reach certain health outcome. For example, two of the most featured nutritional benefits of fruit and vegetables are that they have much fiber and that they have low energy content. But there are other foods that contain a lot of fiber. If you eat whole grains and oats you will get a lot of fiber. And the argument that there is little energy in vegetables is not a very relevant argument as long as you don’t have some particular eating disorder. Ironically, it is exactly because vegetables have little energy that they have not been prominent many diets.

It is also a bit strange that there is no agreement on what constitutes a vegetable or a fruit in the various dietary guidelines. In some countries potatoes count as vegetables, in others not. Fruit juice can count as fruit here and there, beans in some cases. A plantain (a cooking banana) can be called a fruit but dietary wise it is perhaps more similar to a potato, yams or cassava. Some countries express their recommendations in grams while others use state a recommended number of ”portions” or ”serving”. There is also no global standard for what constitute a serving. Adding all this together, the actual recommendations may vary considerably were they expressed in a comparable way in all countries.

When it comes to environment, the average fruit and vegetables are certainly not very beneficial. Few crops are sprayed with chemicals so frequently as fruit and vegetables and fruit and vegetable crop farming use a lot of irrigation, fertilizers, plastics (for protective structures) and machinery. Greenhouse production in colder climates also use very much energy for heating, and after harvest most of them are perishable and need resource demanding cold chains. In the end, a high share is discarded either by producers, middle men or consumers. Many vegetables are not even climate friendly if you count per kg, and if you count per energy unit or protein they are no better than many livestock products.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

A tilted market is the normal market


The image of the market with two equal partners making a fair deal is just a dream, with no grounding in reality. Regardless if we like the market economy or not, we are better off if we realize the flaws in the claims of fairness and see the shortcomings of it.  


Oxfam in Belgium, SOS Faim the European Milk Board (which is an independent association of milk farmers) and Mon lait est local (My milk is local) are currently running a campaign against the exports of European milk powder to West Africa. They have produced this video explaining the problem. 





Huge European dairy companies have expanded aggressively into West Africa. Over five years, they have nearly tripled their exports of milk powder to the region. Since 2008, EU exports of fat filled milk powders (see below) to Ghana have almost tripled (from 4,370 tons to 18,828 tons). Had the increased “milk” consumption been met by local sources, this could have given rise to some 318 new dairy enterprises with an average herd size of 100 head.  This would also have stimulated local feed production and preparation. This stands in sharp contrast to the 8 jobs created by Arla’s recent investment in Ghana, according to EPAMonitoring.

"People who live from milk are struggling," Adama Ibrahim Diallo, the president of Burkina Faso's milk producers and mini-processors union told Politico in August 2018. He said farmers in his region are gradually giving up, explaining that his processor receives 200 liters of milk a day where once it took 300. Diallo warned that the problem is aggravating the security situation in the Sahel. "The sons of pastoralists become jihadists — not out of conviction but because there are no jobs."

The formula for success is to skim the cream from the milk, the cream and butter market in Europe is still good. Then, instead of the cream, you add palm oil (!) and some sugar and you get the product “fat filled milk powder”, made from skimmed milk, buttermilk, palm oil and sucrose. Then you export the stuff to developing countries, such as Senegal, Burkina Faso or Nigeria. Of course in the marketing, the replacement of expensive butter fat with cheap palm oil is expressed as a health benefit.

The locally produced milk doesn’t even compete with milk, but with a product that would not be allowed to be marketed as milk in the countries of origin. “ ’Milk’ means exclusively the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom” as is stated in an EU regulation from 2013. 

The export of milk powder to West Africa is not new, but it gained new momentum in conjunction with the milk crisis of 2014-2016. It’s root cause was global overproduction and falling prices. It hit European dairy farmers extra hard through a combination of the abolition of milk quotas in Europe and a Russian embargo in the aftermath of the Russian annexation of Crimea.  In order to deal with the crisis the European Union took a number of measures, including special support packages to farmers as well as buying huge quantities of milk powder to lift the pressure on the market. As a result of EU interventions, EU exports of skimmed milk powder increased with 59%, despite a 50% decline in global prices.

It is not a new story though, or unique for dairy. Consumption of poultry meat, in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) increased 99% between 2004 and 2014. However while domestic SSA production has increased only 57%, imports have increased a massive 209%. Often the exports are of the less desirable parts of the chicken which are hard to sell in Europe.


It is frequently argued that these are examples of unfair trading practices. And of course they are unfair.

Unfair is normal when it comes to trade, and the more so the bigger difference in scale and abilities there are between the trading partners. The successful actor will use its strength. To have conducive policies in a country is essential for competitiveness, which is expressed by politicians and businesses alike. To be big is also a success factor and European dairy companies are very big. Danone annual sales are bigger than the total economy of Senegal. Big companies will get favorable credits and preferential treatments by governments. A successful actor will innovate, e.g. by replacing butter with palm oil and pack their products in tiny disposable plastic bags affordable and easy to use. Successful actors will seize opportunities and “beat the competition“.

The sales of fat filled milk powder in West Africa are not the result of market failure or market distortions, they are the result of the normal workings of markets as we know them. The image of the market with two equal partners making a fair deal is just a dream, with no grounding in reality. Regardless if we like the market economy or not, we are better off if we realize the flaws in the logic and the shortcomings of it.   

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

The Planet of the Cows


Five years ago my wife, Ann-Helen, and I bought this small farm, Sunnansjö, in Sweden, some 30 km east of Uppsala. I have all my life been keen on growing vegetables and lately my interest has been more into trees and perennial plants. So the main idea was to use most of the land for such crops.

But a place has its own conditions, its own genius, as expressed by Wes Jacksson. Most our lands are wet and heavy, prone to floods. For me, having farmed for more than thirty years on light sandy soils, where water was almost always short in supply, it was a shock to realize that I knew almost nothing that was relevant for our new farm. Mud and water were all over the place, all over me.

Slowly, we began adjusting our plans to reality, to the local conditions, opportunities and limitations, I had to rethink my role from grower to ecosystem manager. The real treat of our land is that is so varied. We own a long stretch of the shore of a lake, there are rich wetlands, peat bogs, meadows, old growth forests and many fields with what we call ”field islands” in Swedish, i.e. bigger rocky patches with scattered trees in the  fields. Overall, we have a lot of ecotone zones (edges, borders) between the various biomes, and such border zones are often very rich in diversity and productive in their own way. Our mission now on the farm is to manage and enhance all those transition zones.

For sure, some fields which are a bit higher and sloping, we ditched and drained for intensive horticulture, including a green house. Other fields we have planted with tree crops, mostly apples and hazel nuts and we grow crops in between the trees while they are small.

When we moved in, we could hardly see the lake. Looking at old maps and even aerial photos we could observe that the landscape was much more open some 60 years ago. Like all farms at that time, they had cows here, and the cows were grazing a lot, even in the forest. Gradually we realized that we needed companions in our landscape management. For sure, we could use some more hands here, but what we really needed where quadrupeds to graze the meadows, the wetlands and many of the border zones. We settled for cattle some three years ago, and gradually we are transforming the landscape together. Admittedly, it is not only for ecosystem functions we opted for grazing, to have an open parkland (pastoral in its true sense) landscape to live in is esthetically appealing. And yes, we will get some meat and tallow as well; the first animal was slaughtered last fall.  

Learning to know each other (the cows and us) and see how we together shape the farm made us think more about cows and cow-man interaction and dependency.

In media there is a binary debate about cows. They destroy the climate or they maintain precious grasslands, they are resource wasters or resource enhancers, their meat is deadly or healthy.

My friend Chris Willie, long time engaged in the Rainforest Alliance and the Sustainable Agriculture Network call cattle for “eco-destruction machines” and he tells me that that grazing is the leading cause of species destruction in the US West. Still, he doesn’t advocate cow eradication but engages in the Grassland Alliance, that support grazing operations that protect the environment and public health; maintain high animal welfare; and treat ranchers, farmers, and workers fairly.

Reality is not black and white and a lot of it depends on how we manage the cows. Industrial farming practices, including feed lots and the feeding of grain and soy to dairy cattle, have changed the ecological role of the cow and it has also changed the way people see cows. Farmers are told to run their farms as businesses and to lower costs or increase productivity again and again. Many consumers have lost the connection with farms and farm animals and see livestock rearing as a brutal and unethical activity. And of course, industrial farming is confirming and aggravating that impression. To some extent, industrial agriculture and vegans share the same view on why we have cows: they are only kept to be exploited. 

But then there are millions of farmer who keep their animals in a good way, both ethically and environmentally. They are sticking to the old contract between man and cattle, a contract which benefitted both. An extremely successful partnership. Some would even say too successful as cattle and humans together are totally dominating the mammal planetary zoo, leaving little space to other species. In the case of Sweden, despite a doubling of human population in hundred years there is only a third of the number of cows compared to the peak in the 1930s. Meanwhile, the number of elks and deer have expanded their numbers to be bigger than in many hundred years. In Sweden, loss of semi-natural grassland is the major threat to biodiversity these days.

Rarely are cows discussed as cultural beings and human – cattle interaction with the perspective multi-species organization. We have not only bred cattle and farmed plants to suit our needs, we have also shaped whole cultures and landscapes according to the needs of those animals and plants. And they have shaped us, body and soul. And cattle perhaps more than any other domesticated organism (in competition with rice). All the early civilizations had some kind of cow or bull gods or myths. In the Norse creation myth, the cow Audhumla even created the giant and the gods.
By having those cows, interacting with them, see how they interact with each other and with the landscape, we realized that there is a story to be told. A story about the co-evolution of man, cows landscape, culture and society. We are now busy writing that story, which will be published (in Swedish) early 2020.