Blog 2 / Sure to Rise... to the challenge

Our food basket vs. the world

The Edmonds Sure to Rise factory and gardens in Woolston, Christchurch, in 1939. Photo sourced from Press Archive, as cited from Stuff NZ, 2018.

There exists an imbalance between what we create and what is consumed. This is an issue at both a global and local level, and New Zealand is no exception. It is estimated that we throw away 122,547 tonnes of food a year; roughly equivalent to about 8 sacks of potatoes per family per year, and at a cost of $1.17 billion NZD each year (Love Food Hate Waste). Rather than being eaten, this wasted food (along with all countries) is thrown away to ‘rot’, a process which causes 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Project Drawdown).

While this amount of waste is occurring, people are going hungry here in Aotearoa. An estimated 40% of New Zealanders experience low to moderate food insecurity, yet an estimated 60% of edible food is going to landfill (Kiwi Harvest). This preposterous reality is following the linear “take-make-use-waste” approach to production and consumption, and is unsustainable for our people and the health of our planet.

Preventing and reducing food waste has environmental, social and economic impacts. Environmental degradation due to intensive agriculture, hunger/poor nutrition, and the economic cost of the food we waste all contribute to poor planetary and human health. These, along with the aforementioned ramifications of food waste are “feeding bins, not bellies”. In other words, a cycle of waste affecting all aspects of society is occurring, and a systemic change toward a circular economy needs to be put in place to change this.

I believe it is important that we recognize that an issue exists here, and that an awareness of food waste will help to combat food waste. It is estimated that up to 305,000 kiwi kids are living in poverty (Kiwi Harvest). Although there have been measures put in place such as Fonterra ‘Milk in Schools’ to reduce this, many do not realise the amount of food that goes to waste in our small agriculturally strong backyard. A 2014 global survey found one in six kiwis ran out of money for food, leaving us with one of the worst food poverty problems among developing nations (Everybody Eats).

Whangārei community trust CEO, Martin Kaipo, sums up this frustration, stating:

"We're wasting food that can be utilised by some of our whānau". "[It's] totally unrealistic when the government say we need to meet the needs of whānau in poverty and yet we're wasting stock that could be utilised by our whānau," (Kaipo, 2018). This is a challenge, but like Kaipo, we must challenge government, challenge consumer habits, and take on the challenge to reduce food waste ourselves.

The (Pātaka Kai) Open Street Pantry Movement is great example of a successful, grassroots, indigenous values based solution to immediate and local food need. Pātaka kai means food house/pantry in Māori, and the organic nature of the movement realises the physically and mentally nourishing role that kai plays for whānau; that it promotes care and generosity and helps ease stresses. They see food rescue and sharing in this way as bringing about a strong sense of Manaakitanga; both for people and planet. It is also unique in that it is resident led, and so brings a strong sense of community and understanding of specific localised need.

Pātaka kai free food pantry. This is just one example of many of the community owned and led food waste prevention initiative here in New Zealand. Photo sourced from Pātaka kai website.

Locally we are lucky to have organisations such as City Harvest here in Ōtautahi Christchurch, as well as Kaibosh and Kiwi Harvest in other cities around Aotearoa. They safely recover perfectly good and edible surplus food from the supply chain and distribute it to people in need; filling the gap in helping reduce food waste, and so reduce hunger as well. According to these organisations/social enterprises, food is often the first step in breaking the cycle of need between social agencies and their clients. In this respect, food rescue groups can allow social agencies to focus their attention on more in-depth ways to help their clients.

Photo source: Wix Images

Other Countries’ responses to food waste…

In industrialised countries, food wastage happens most often at the end of the value chain. A case study analysis carried out by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations examines what different countries are doing top reduce food wastage at different stages of the value chain. For the purposes of this blog, I will focus on two case studies which fit within the area of ‘food waste’; that it, they address food wastage closer to the end of the supply chain.

In Australia, consumers waste about 3.2 million tonnes of food and drink each year (FAO, 2014). This case study involved feeding food wastage to pigs vs anaerobic digestion. Feeding food waste to pigs (with the exception of meat) offers an alternative to using anaerobic digestion to process food waste. This entails collecting food waste from households or larger producers (food industry, farms, retailers) and bringing it to farmers. This food waste is then fed to the pigs rather than beginning a linear process of producing industrial pig feed from raw materials. The output (slurry) from this anaerobic digestion could be used to replace mineral fertilisers, and so go on in a circular way to fertilise and grow more food. In terms of measuring the food waste reduction from this case study, it was determined that “380 g CO2e, 21 litres of water and about 2 m2 of arable land could be saved per kilogram of food waste fed to pigs (economic figures are lacking for this case study).” (FAO, 2014, p. 44). Although technologies would need to be developed to ensure proper sorting of food waste given to the pigs, this case study demonstrates

A second case study, this time a communication campaign in the UK was employed to address some of the 5, 421, 873 tonnes (as of 2012) of annual household food and drink waste. Named the Household Food Waste Prevention Programme of UK Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). WRAP’s aim was “to reduce the amount of food and drink waste from homes by changing attitudes and behaviours of consumers, and by changing packaging, products and the way food and drink are sold, such as through an increase of re-sealable packaging” (WRAP 2011). It included the “Love Food Hate Waste” (LFHW) campaign, which has since been adapted and adopted by New Zealand. The LFHW campaign aims to prevent food waste in households by addressing consumers through direct communication. This might take the form of cooking classes, pop-up stands, advertisements, recipes and blogs on their website, and also social media. This approach to reducing food wastage is necessary though perhaps not as effective as other action approaches. Even so, awareness, education and inspiration is first required to spark interest in the topic and give consumers an understanding of the issue at hand. After a communication campaign, the other parts of a ‘portfolio’ of mitigation measures can be introduced. Findings from a cost-benefit analysis in the UK found huge savings of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, indicating that an information campaign can reduce food waste. This case study demonstrates a willingness by consumers to change, and so I believe, hope that similar campaigns might spark food waste mitigation projects.

Given that the Earth provides for us all, it is imperative that we reduce food waste, and so our strain on the resources required to feed the earth’s population. Due to the globalised world we live in today, many families do not grown their own food, and thus are unaware of the real value and source of food; recipients of the final stage of the supply change. A circular approach to this has to involve reconnecting people with where their food comes from and it’s life-cycle potential. The quote on the home page of this blog is a Māori whakatauki, “Naku te rourou nau te rourou ka ora ai te iwi”, meaning ‘with your food basket and my food basket the people will thrive/live’. It encapsulates the notion that if we work alone we will survive, but if we work together, we will not only survive, but will prosper.