The media and activists alike tend to focus on, and cycle through, pet solutions for sustainable food. What should we do to make the food system more sustainable? Beyond burgers! Cell-cultured meat! Regenerative farming! Vertical farming! Novel, dramatic solutions tend to have an advantage.
Sometimes, when I notice a new sustainable food trend emerging, I’m reminded of diet culture. What should I do to eat healthy? Eat kale! Go keto! Mediterranean diet! This information environment sounds to me like black-and-white thinking–like a search for the one perfect solution. The problem with this is that 1. People are different, and 2. When a new sustainability trend comes along, attention and resources are shifted away from worthwhile, evidence-based solutions.
-
People are different.
Culture, religion, personal preferences, socioeconomic status, and so much more influence the changes people are willing and able to make with food. I’ve talked to vegans who are adamantly against cell-cultured meat, and others who are fine with it but absolutely won’t eat tofu. Some people just hate cooking, and are able to significantly reduce their food waste with a meal kit subscription. For others, meal kits are unaffordable. Some people live with eating disorders, so plant-rich diets may not be appropriate, but composting could be an effective alternative. This is a useful skill that dietitians could have: seeing an abundance of possible options for climate action that are available to their client or community, listening, and then guiding them through or implementing whatever change might actually work.
A huge benefit of operating in a free market is that there’s competition to find or create solutions that work better for their customers (just consider the many options available for birth control now). At least in theory, companies find market segments and then learn about and cater to those needs. There are downsides, for sure, but the alternative is one-size-fits-all, or top-down assumptions about what we need. People are different, and need different options for action.
2. Passing trends.
What’s popular can become unpopular overnight. This is a widespread, ongoing problem of the general fight for people’s attention and resources, and it applies to research grants, governments, and priorities within systems and institutions, as well as what the general public is paying attention to. Again, though, dietitians are well equipped with a key tool to sustain action on climate-friendly food: findings from well-designed research studies, and careful measurement. When we look at trends in diets and nutrition, some stand the test of time and replication, and others fall away with scrutiny and a lack of evidence to support them. The scientific method and process are far from perfect: they carry bias, and some things take a long, long time to get critical about. But they remain the best we’ve got. Science revealed the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions in the first place, and is helping to identify the most impactful actions to take to stall the effects of climate change.
So what should we do to move towards a climate-friendly food system? Consider and offer many different options for different people to take based on their needs and circumstances, and ground long-term efforts in scientific research rather than getting swept up in untested trends.
One more thing: after re-reading this post, I remembered the “150 Acts of Reconciliation” published back in 2017 to activehistory.ca: https://activehistory.ca/blog/2017/08/04/150-acts-of-reconciliation-for-the-last-150-days-of-canadas-150/
This excellent list is a perfect example of breaking down a goal that seems deep, complex, and intimidating–truth and reconciliation–and offering up smaller, actionable steps that people can take (“attend a cultural event, such as a pow-wow”). If our goal is to stop climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, maybe we also need 100 smaller steps to get there.