It's pretty difficult to dodge the Brexit and election hotcakes at the moment, and you'll have probably heard the Green New Deal being thrown into the political pit too.
With a nod to Roosevelt's economic reform following the Great Depression, the idea has been taken into the political spotlight by democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and made its way into the Labour Manifesto. It focuses on economic reform towards a green economy whereby growth isn't dependant on carbon consumption and environmental degradation. Currently, pharmaceutical and agrochemical companies lobby the government, meaning UK agriculture is tied to a model whereby big business is in charge.
Many argue that developments in science and technology will provide the answers to the food security crisis and to allowing us to produce food in a way that significantly reduces the environmental impacts. The idea supports Bosserup's theory of the relationship between resources and population; that technology will bridge between these two growing factors. Poore and Nemecek's landmark paper in Science 2018 gives evidence that technology can go some way to reducing effects of the highest impact producers, but that the heterogeneity of producers and products means that technology is not a simple answer. Technology can be a key part of reporting and collecting data at producer levels- as is shown within this meta-analysis study and illustrated in figure 1 - and can have benefits in certain sectors of production in improving systems' efficiency.
The paper however, supports the idea that the consumer plays an equal role in improving efficiency. It comes down to economics- demand feeds supply. Until consumer habits change, the economic viability of altering supply chains in the short term is difficult. They show that, in a scenario where consuming animal products is halved on a global scale, associated GHG emissions could be reduced by 71%.
Others argue that the greatest change that reform could bring is in the form of policy through improving current standards and incentives. This is what comes under question in the next month- if we leave the EU, parliament will have to negotiate our own laws on these matters and it already seems the Agricultural Bill has fallen by the wayside as things continue to heat up in the Brexit ring.
For me, Poore and Nemecek highlight where the focus should be. It shouldn't be entirely based upon technology, as in doing so it would see big business able to continue to swallow up our food systems in the same way agrochemical and pharmaceutical industries have done so. Whilst technology and scientific innovation will need to be at the heart of agricultural reform, so too does policy change, social justice and health and environmental focus.
We can look to the rhetoric of the Extinction Rebellion to see how closely linked social and environmental injustice must be. We should be able to demand of our democracy a food system which is internationally accountable, environmentally sustainable, socially just and fair for everyone regardless of their socio-economic background. If this means that governments must place stricter regulations on the food that makes it to restaurants, hospitals, schools and supermarkets, then that is necessary for future health and sustainability.
Some may argue this is against consumer choice, but the fact is that the modern day is so bombarded by marketing that choice isn't really a thing anymore. We are sold the idea that we have choice by the information overload we are being fed - but do we really choose what we consume? We therefore, as the consumer, need to move outside of that marketing and look at making bigger choices about how we consume and what we demand of our governments and the companies we buy from.