Co-creating something else in food and agriculture

By Joan Conrow

When the current approach isn’t working, it’s time to try something else. Major shifts are currently under way in food and agriculture as the system struggles to respond to climate change, hunger, obesity and other diet-related illnesses, malnutrition, food waste, animal welfare and more.

This blog will regularly showcase the people, policies, plans and products driving the global transition in what we eat and how we produce our food.

Ultra-processed food

The US government’s dietary guidelines committee is taking a closer look at the science that suggests a link between ultra-processed foods and rising rates of obesity and other illnesses. As The Washington Post reports, the review has implications for the millions of meals served to school children and military personnel as well as in federal buildings.  

It could also shape the government’s guidance on healthy eating, which currently focuses on obtaining sufficient quantities of individual nutrients. The committee is expected to release its recommendations next year, with the departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services publishing updated guidelines in 2025. Though other countries have already issued guidelines that recommend reducing consumption of ultra-processed foods, the food industry is fighting a similar approach in the US.

Eating less meat

Estimates vary widely on the contribution of livestock production to climate change, ranging from about 11% to nearly 20% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, consumption of animal products is increasing globally. It’s also known that wealthier nations, which already produce a disproportionate amount of the GHG emissions driving climate change, tend to eat more meat. 

Individuals can reduce their personal carbon footprint by eating less meat. But that concept has been a tough sell, particularly in the Global North, prompting some to explore novel ways of helping people see the connection. As part of a recent study in the United Kingdom, researchers tried pairing meal options with graphic images in an attempt to influence food choices. 

As Time magazine reports:

In one group, the meat option came with a warning label that read “Eating meat contributes to poor health,” paired with an image of someone having a heart attack. This saw an 8.8% drop in meat meal choices, compared to the control group. Another group was shown the climate warning label with a picture of deforestation—leading to a 7.4% decrease, while the third got a pandemic warning label with an image of exotic meat. This cut meat choices by 10%.

“If these were to be implemented in the real world, what our research shows is that putting these warning labels alongside meat options when people are making decisions might be an effective way to reduce the amount of meat people are choosing,” said research lead Jack Hughes, a postgraduate researcher at Durham University’s psychology department.