There is plenty of evidence that eating less meat and dairy, and prioritising farming methods that ensure high standards of welfare, a low impact on biodiversity, and low usage of antibiotics, can have hugely beneficial effects for climate, nature and people.
Gram for gram of protein, beef produces nearly 200 times as much carbon dioxide as nuts, over 100 times more than peas, and 25 times as much as tofu. Almost all of the UK’s ammonia emissions (88%) are from agriculture – with a considerable proportion contributed by livestock farming. These emissions damage habitats and contribute to urban air pollution.
We can have a positive impact on the climate and nature emergency by eating meat that has been produced to higher standards, and by eating less of it. Local authorities are in a prime position to help make this change, through, for example:
The question is then: what can food partnerships do to campaign for action on less and better meat? Through our work with food partnerships, we have identified key approaches currently being used at the local level.
This involves engaging individual schools, universities, and other institutions, to make amendments to their menus, for example by introducing meat-free days. There are numerous examples of this approach being taken: Public Sector Catering ran a campaign in 2021 asking public sector caterers to reduce meat by 20%.
Every public and private restaurant and caterer can change their menus relatively quickly, so there’s no need to change policy – a potentially easy win. There is also lots of existing support from the likes of ProVeg and Kale Yeah! However, as the change isn’t rooted in policy, it can be very easily reversed. This approach relies heavily on having an interested party working in the organisation and/or catering team who is willing to carry the work forward, from working with suppliers, to building new skills in the kitchen.
Engagement is key for the success of this approach. If stakeholders and customers haven’t been involved in the process, like careers of children at a school where the menu is changed, there can be a backlash.
The second approach is actually getting a policy in place, like in Brighton and Hove, Bristol, and Lambeth. Policy changes create lasting change and are difficult to overturn. This approach can be applied by every local area: places that don’t control school meals can still influence events happening on council land. Because the process takes time and requires bringing lots of stakeholders on board, there’s usually minimal backlash to the change.
However, policy change does require commitment and leadership from the Council. And there’s no guarantee that the policy put in place will go far enough. For example, in Brighton and Hove and Bristol, the Food for Life Silver Award sets a great standard in terms of championing freshly prepared and sustainable food but has limitations in terms of meat reduction.
The third example is setting emission reduction target for council-controlled food, as has been done in Leeds. On the face of it, this isn’t about meat at all – but in practice it does have an impact on the amount of meat being served and how it is sourced.
This is an innovative solution that avoids backlash if it's well communicated and taken in combination with other commitments to source locally and sustainably, in order to bring social, economic and environmental benefits to the wider community. However, it does require robust measuring tools alongside, otherwise it can be open to criticism.
Finally, the council can mandate vegetarian or plant-based meals, as has been done in Oxfordshire. This can be done in a matter of months, however, it can fairly easily be reversed in the event of council leadership changes and if the new leadership is not on board. There is also a risk of backlash if the change has not been discussed and tested with stakeholders, for example the local farming community in areas with big farming economies.
Leicestershire is a rural county, with a big farming economy. The catering wing of the Leicestershire County Council (LCC) serve Gold Standard Food For Life to 35,000 school children, yet they are tied into procurement contracts which mean they can’t support the local food economy or support more climate- and nature-friendly farming methods.
LCC have signed up to be net-zero by 2030, but also have to face the limitations of the cost of living crisis – so how are Good Food Leicestershire planning to help them meet their goal?
Catherine Turnell explains that Good Food Leicestershire follow the mantra “what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” They plan to build an evidence base of the potential carbon and biodiversity impacts of switching LCC’s procurement from large-scale UK produce to small-scale, local, regenerative produce. They will then recommend or develop an accreditation framework for food production, and create a set of standards for managing the council's farming estate, which covers 3,000 hectares across 200 farms.
They have several proposals for taking this work forward, including:
Food Active is a healthy weight programme which aims to address the social, environmental, economic and legislative factors which influence people’s lifestyle choices and behaviours. As well as lobbying for national policy change, they have a huge range of experience of campaigning at the local council level, including the following campaigns and innitiatives:
Beth Bradshaw from Food Active highlighted a number of approaches that can help get buy-in from Local Authorities:
For more information, catch up on our Campaigns Breakfast here.
Sustainable Food Places
c/o Soil Association
Spear House
51 Victoria Street
Bristol
BS1 6AD
info@sustainablefoodplaces.org
Through the power of partnerships we make healthy and sustainable food a defining characteristic of where people live.
2024 © Sustainable Food Places
Data privacy & cookies
Sustainable Food Places is powered by:
