Although sustainable food solutions have been expanding in the market, participants at this year’s Sustainable Food Summit argued the food system still largely drives a loss of nature. They discussed options to address this, while examining who should take a leading role. Livestock production, overconsumption and an over-reliance on a few crops have resulted in biodiversity loss. 

At the event, attended by Nutrition Insight, organizations and companies explored initiatives and developments in sustainable food, such as moving to nature-positive production, exploring alternative proteins and encouraging consumers to switch from existing products. 

“I think it’s not one player, but I think that legislation will ultimately play an important role. But, in some ways, the private sector can move faster,” Jurjen de Waal, Netherlands senior director at Mighty Earth, tells us. 

“It would be great to see companies taking a leading role, for example, committing to a goal like saying we want to produce more nature, daily. I think that could make a tremendous difference. Also, in reaching larger groups of consumers, giving people options. I think that could be a very important way to change.”

Unfair burden on consumers 
The summit also included presentations on the future of environmental labeling, wher speakers stressed that improved transparency is what drives more sustainable food consumption. 

The EU recently moved to set parameters around the growing eco-label movement, by releasing legislation on green claims to ensure consumers receive “reliable, comparable and verifiable” environmental information on products. Under this protocol, no new labels can be added to the market. Claims should follow scientific criteria and need to be checked by national governments. 

“I think we should be cautious about looking toward the consumer to create the changes that we need within economies, but also specifically in the food system,” argues De Waal from Mighty Earth, a global advocacy organization for a living planet. 

“We allow different types of products to be sold; some of them are more sustainable for us than others. As a consumer, you are put in a position wher you know two products are in front of you and one is cheaper than the other. But when you decide to buy it, then it’s sort of your responsibility that we’re not moving forward.” 

“When you add an inflation crisis and several other crises that we see right now, it makes it even worse,” De Waal continues. “I think it is unfair on the consumer to put them in that position. It’s also counterproductive because people get a resistance toward the transitions that we need to go through.”

Making green choices easier
Continuing the discussion on how industry can help ease eco-mindful purchasing decisions, De Waal highlights it is essential to consider the setting and motives for people to choose greener meal options. In a recent study by Wageningen University & Research, the Netherlands, he notes that researchers used a restaurant setting to determine how to shift toward more plant-based diets. 

In the restaurant’s menu, they switched what was the standard option. In some weeks, they offered the meal with meat; in others, they used a vegetarian option as standard, without limiting people’s choices. 

When meat was the standard option, a high share of people consumed meat, but while the plant-based version was the standard, most people opted for that version. 

“It shows that there are things we can do and also the companies can do,” De Waal continues. “I think you can set some of these goals as a company. And also realize that the way that we make decisions is heavily influenced by the environment that you can create wher it’s easier for people to make the sustainable choice.” 

Who pays for it? 
The willingness of companies or consumers to pay a higher price for greener food purchases is very difficult, comments Rik Kutsch Lojenga, executive director at unio for Ethical Biotrade (UEBT). Companies in the middle of the supply chain are working to meet demands around sustainability, but their buyers “want it all for the same price or less.” 

“As an overall challenge, we must find ways to make all this accessible and affordable. Biodiversity is complicated, so we are trying to simplify everything into one or two key indicators. That’s wher we risk losing some of the other effects and that’s something to consider.” 

At the Sustainable Food Summit, the Global Nature Fund presented an EU project on Food for Biodiversity, wher stakeholders in Germany aim to improve biodiversity at landscape levels through insect-friendly, responsible sourcing regions. 

In three regions, 23 pilot farmers receive a biodiversity action plan based on an assessment at the farm level. Biodiversity is monitored throughout the project. 

“The idea at the end is to market products that are more biodiversity-friendly and to get an additional price to cover the farmers’ costs,” explains Oliver Peters, business and biodiversity project manager at the Global Nature Fund. 

However, so far, the goal has yet to be reached. Farmers in the project only account for a small amount of a final product, such as wheat, for a pizza. “You also need to define when a product is biodiversity-friendly,” Peters stresses. 

Legislation to set the stage  
The best strategy is legislation, Kutsch Lojenga tells us. UEBT provides tools for sourcing with respect and raises awareness about challenges and opportunities in ethical sourcing and biodiversity. 

“We’ve been talking about this issue for years to companies. And they all say it is very important. And then the EU adopted their due diligence requirements on the Nagoya protocol and from one day to the other, this became an important mission.” 

As farmers increasingly lean on genomic science, the Nagoya Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity aims to ensure the benefits of genetic resources and traditional knowledge are shared fairly among food chain stakeholders. 

The protocol outlines specific guidelines for accessing and using genetic resources and traditional knowledge in so-called Access and Benefit Sharing agreements.

The recently passed EU Deforestation-free Regulation is another example of legislation driving change, notes David Hadley, regulatory impact program director at Preferred by Nature. 

He explains that the legislation places requirements on industries to minimize the consumption of products from supply chains associated with deforestation or forest degradation, while increasing EU demand for deforestation-free commodities and derivatives. 

Hadley stressed that EU businesses must ensure a fully functioning due diligence system that complies with the legislation’s requirements by December 30, 2024, to avoid sourcing products associated with deforestation. He urged that “preparation really needs to start now.” 

However, industry insiders recently warned that the law could fail to achieve the impacts expected, in the event that operators shift their environmentally damaging activities from monitored to unmonitored regions to meet persistent demand for forest-based products.