Sustainability and food

At the Food Film Festival (in dutch) I was surrounded by friends and people I felt had a dash of idealism. I usually don't give much for -isms but the point of the festival was to appreciate food, where it comes from and where it's going to. I like food, I like optimistic people and I like to believe in a few good idea(l)s. The main idea(l) that the festival wants people to take home is the durability (or rather sustainability) of food. Do the production, transport and consumption help to create a sustainable world? I never really thought about it much, but this is an excellent opportunity to find out what it is all about.

Food Film Festival at Studio/K

When at the beginning of the seventies the Club of Rome published a report on "The Limits of growth", the environment had been set for the agenda of policy makers and for the public mind. As of late the terms 'organic' 'durable' 'biological' have been connected with food. What exactly do these terms mean? They obviously appeal to our sense of do-good-ery, but are we actually doing anything well by purchasing these products instead of others? There are several aspects to this: health, taste, environment and economy. Some of these might be in conflict with one another. Healthy food is important, but most people equate healthy food with a piece of lettuce and a slice of wholegrain bread on the side. Does this sound very appealing? Usually we decide what to eat with our taste. Fatty, meaty or sugary foods taste nicest. At least, when eating them we have a hard time stopping. We are biologically programmed that way. Why do we need proteins and fats anyway and what makes us crave them?

Proteins are molecules which can be split into parts called amino acids. Amino acids are essential for our existence, and humans need about 22 of them (Proteinogenic amino acids), and our bodies can only produce 11 of these. All of the essential proteins can be found in plants however, and some amino acids that are not found, the body can produce itself. Of course just the fact that vegetarians exist should prove that it's possible to live solely of plants. The amino acids one gets from plants or animals are the same.

Then there are the fatty acids which are equally important to our existence. Animal fats contain a lot of saturated triglycerides. Triglycerides are used to store energy in animals. They are made up of glycerol with three strands of saturated fatty acids. The fatty acids can have any length, and the larger the molecule the more energy it contains, and the more solid the fat is (higher melting point). These usually have a very nice and rich satisfying flavour.

There are also poly-unsaturated fats, usually found in plants. Also fish and seafoods are a good source of he so-called omega-3 fatty acids and omega-6 fatty acids. These are called after the location of the first double bond that occurs after 3 or 6 carbon atoms from the (omega) end of the molecule. (Omega-7 and omega-9 fats are used in a lesser extent.) The poly-unsaturated fats have more double bonds (and hence saturated with fewer hydrogen atoms, or unsaturated). In particular the omega-3 fats seem to have a health benefit over the others. That doesn't mean to say one should eat only omega-n fats, there are also some risks involved, mainly with omega-6. As with anything, moderation is the key.

So why do the saturated fats and animal proteins to a lesser extent, taste so nice? Of course we can only give an evolutionary argument, which is maybe a bit weak. However, if we concede that our species has lived for millions of years in an environment in which it has been difficult to gather food, we can understand why our bodies are so prone to store energy it gets. And the fatty acids contain a lot of energy, especially the triglycerides. One can see why foie gras tastes so darn good. Before agriculture came along (some evidence suggests a start around 10.000 years ago) we were hunters and gatherers for millions of years. It's clear to see that hunting and gathering is a daily task in which most of what you gain will be used in the searches of the next day. In short our bodies have developed to be very efficient and avaricious with the scarce resources it gets. However too much of these saturated fats are detrimental to our health. The storage mechanism is simply too well developed in the times of scarcity over millions of years. These bodily functions have not yet disappeared from the genetic makeup. Although if enough people die of heart failure in a few hundred thousand years maybe we will have evolved to deal with this. For now however we will have to accept the fact that in our contemporary environments in which there are so many refined foods we just have to eat less (for our own benefit).

The production of the food also makes a difference. To make that nice quarter pound hamburger a cow (producing about 1800 quarter pounders per cow) has eaten about 1.5 pounds of silage (2 years*365*60)/(1800*4). A factor of 6. What if the same amount of corn was eaten by humans? The amount of corn grown to feed the animals takes up a lot of space as well, this could be used in a more efficient way. A more sustainable agriculture could have been in place.

Which brings us back to sustainability and the environment. It has something to do with the fact that nowadays food is so plentiful. We already know that we don't need to eat that much, and in fact it's detrimental for our health. There is a very good marriage to be made out of health and producing less and doing that more sustainably. Alright, we still haven't said what sustainable actually means. First of all, in the West we tend to throw away a lot of good products (see "Taste the waste") in a world in which about 1 in 7 people are hungry. Then a lot of the products we use, come from far away as opposed to local producers. Undeniably this is a waste of transportation. A consequence of this is that several products are not available all season or not at all. Of course there are local alternatives that taste just as well. But we seem to be so fixed in our habits that it's hard to change. There is a slight problem however in the protected designations of origin (PDO), which concerns products that may only be produced in the region of origin. There is something to be said about that, but I'm not sure if mozzarella couldn't be produced in any other country and still taste the same. However when you buy apples, it's not strange that they come all the way from the other side of the world. It makes them more expensive and it's unnecessary. Before mozzarella came along in the Netherlands we had a very nice similar cheese called Meikaas, which is nowhere to be found anymore.

How about the terms "organic" and "biological", do they mean anything and how are they connected with sustainability? Organically grown produce seems to mean something as 'naturally' grown in contrast to 'unnaturally' grown. In europe the use of the term is regulated by law and the things which are covered are fertilizers, pesticides, animal housing and feed additives and in general sustainable production. In addition very low genetically modified organisms are allowed in the products (less then 0.9%). They state: "Organic production must respect natural systems and cycles. Sustainable production should be achieved insofar as possible with the help of biological and mechanical production processes, through land-related production and without the use genetically modified organisms (GMO)." This sounds nice, however still I'm skeptical about it. After all, strictly speaking we already changed the natural systems and cycles by domesticating animals. Had this law been in use around the stone age, we would have never drank any milk nor have orange carrots. Also the term genetic modification is very strict given the fact that the cultivation of plants and animals has used cross-breeding, and this is also a form of genetic modification. There has to be a better definition for sustainable production.

Most people agree that using pollutants to make products is not sustainable. At least not in my back yard. But the world has become a lot smaller, mainly by grace of globalisation of trade. This all started when ships sailed the seas to the orient for spices, which where sold at high prices in europe. It's a hard thing to turn back, and we shouldn't want to either. Instead it's good to nurture our local farms and producers. It makes no sense to ship pigs all the way to Parma to be slaughtered there and cured, and shipped back as Parma ham. Couldn't the same process have been done locally? And how different would it taste?

The last thing on my mind is the economic viability of sustainable food. Biologically produced food is still more expensive. Whether this is due to a hyped subculture or because the methods are more labour intensive i can't say. It seems to me that locally grown food is a good thing, and local economies can benefit. Poor us in the north, where the sun doesn't shine so often. Do we have to eat only tubers and beetroots like in the old days? The same arguments hold for large parts of Africa which has more substantial problems, here water is very scarce and soils are poor in nutrients. What can be done to help? I would say that technology can help us a lot here, and genetic technology not in the least!

What can you do and what will I do myself? Try to buy more local products for our consumption. Not consuming too much. And as for organic foods, we can set a goal to get most of the foodstuffs organic and preferably healthy as well :) Happy eating!