Engineering Interventions to Reduce the Impact of Meat A Systems Thinking Approach

(1)

Engineering Interventions to Reduce the Impact of Meat

A Systems Thinking Approach

Mariel Alem Fonseca

Lucy Cavendish College

Centre for Sustainable Development

Department of Engineering

University of Cambridge

This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Master of Philosophy

August 2019

(2)

i

Declaration

This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text.

Mariel Alem Fonseca

Friday, August 30th, 2019

_______________________

(3)

ii

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to acknowledge the financial support I received from the Costa Rican Ministry of Science, Technology and Telecommunications (MICITT) and the Costa Rican National Council for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICIT), without which my studies would have not been possible.

Second, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr David Morgan, the academic staff, and the entire 2018-2019 ESD cohort for their constant support, guidance, and enthusiasm throughout the year. I am so grateful to have shared such a wonderful time with you.

Third, a huge thank you to my family: my parents, cousins, aunt, godfather, and Moises. Thank you for your endless support, for brushing away my insecurities, and for encouraging me to always be happy.

Lastly, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my mother, who is my compass and my biggest inspiration.

(4)

iii

Abstract

With 10 billion people expected to live on Earth by 2050, it is difficult to envisage how today’s

global food system will address the externalities imposed on the environment, while ensuring food security for present and future generations. Meeting future nutritional needs in a sustainable and resilient way will specifically require lowering the environmental and socioeconomic impact of meat. Since livestock production is currently responsible for fifteen percent of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the growing demand for animal products will inevitably mean even greater health problems and severe global warming.

Addressing such a complex problem, rooted in personal and cultural values, is a route that few actors in industry, government, media, and civil society, have been willing to take. A multidisciplinary and holistic approach is required to address this ‘cycle of inertia’. This study aims to propose intervention strategies that can effectively reduce the impact of meat through a systems thinking approach. Critical literature reviews and interviews with experts from different fields are conducted to understand the underlying structure of the meat system. This helps identify who, where and how to intervene effectively to drive change within the system.

(5)

iv

Impact Statement

The United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development supports the transition towards an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable food system (Macmillan and Durrant, 2009). The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) specifically target pressing issues such as food security, to ensure present and future nutritional needs are met. With projections from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of a 60% food demand increase by 2050, food production will accelerate, and so will its environmental and socioeconomic impact (Aiking and de Boer, 2018). Thus, this dissertation addresses one of the most important contributors to this impact: meat.

This study builds on scientific evidence to provide effective intervention strategies that can reduce the impact of meat production and consumption; considering the following sustainability principles:

• Dealing with complexity: reducing the impact of meat is a complex problem that involves a wide variety of stakeholders, dimensions, and personal values.

• Living within earth’s finite limits and resources: meat production requires significant amounts of resources, such as water, land and energy – affecting the achievement of SDGs 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), 14 (Life Under Water) and 15 (Life on Land).

• Achieving an acceptable quality of life: overconsumption of meat leads to human health issues and its production causes social problems such as the displacement of communities and social breakdown – preventing the achievement of SDGs 1 (No Poverty), and 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

• Acting as stewards of the environment: meat production is responsible for large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, it contributes to climate change and challenges food security – influencing the achievement of SDGs 2 (Zero Hunger) and 13 (Climate Action).

(6)

v

1. Introduction

In the face of climate change, current world food system must overcome a tremendous challenge: meeting the nutritional needs of 10 billion people by 2050 in a sustainable and resilient way. As populations grow, urbanise and become more affluent, the pressure on land

and resources will continue increasing (Garnett et al., 2015). Thus, more scientific studies are

now focusing on the role of food in the sustainability debate (Dagevos and Voordouw, 2013).

According to the World Resources Institute (2019), achieving a sustainable food system that feeds the population by 2050, requires closing three ‘gaps’:

The food gap of 56% - which represents the difference between the amount of food produced in 2010, and the amount needed to feed the global population by 2050.

The land gap of 593 million hectares, which represents the difference between the amount of agricultural land area in 2010, and the amount required by 2050.

The greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation gap of 11 gigaton, which represents the level of annual emissions that come from agriculture and land use change, and the amount needed to keep global warming below 2°C.

Many solutions have been proposed to achieve these targets. However, strategies focus on efficiency improvements, technological advancements, and food waste management, and these alone will be insufficient, as this study will illustrate. Actors should not only aim to increase the level of food supply, but also to reduce the demand of products which have a high socioeconomic and environmental impact, such as meat (Dibb and Fitzpatrick, 2014).

1.1 Problem

(9)

2

According to Graça, Calheiros and Oliveira (2015), “meat's central place in the menu is

increasingly challenged on sustainability grounds” for three main reasons. First, people are

consuming more protein than they need, and this consumption level is growing (World Resources Institute, 2019). The average global consumption of animal-based food has almost doubled in the last 50 years (Dibb and Fitzpatrick, 2014), and it is expected to increase by 80% from 2006 to 2050 as developing countries and emerging economies grow (World Resources Institute, 2016a). Figure 1 shows the amount of protein consumed per day in different regions of the world. Even though all the regions consume more protein than the average daily requirement of 50 grams, there is an unequal distribution of meat consumption – in wealthy regions more than half the protein is animal-based, while in poorer regions such as North Africa, daily protein requirements are met just with plant-based protein.

Figure 1. Protein consumption levels per region (World Resources Institute, 2016a)

Second, meat is a resource-intensive and unsustainable commodity. The World Resources

Institute (2019) states that meat requires “20 times more land and emits 20 times more GHGs

per gram than plant proteins”, making it the major source of food-system GHGs (Godfray et

al., 2018). Furthermore, overconsumption of meat has been proven to be associated with

(10)

3 (2018), which states that through food, specifically meat, human health and environmental sustainability can be optimised (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Diet-environment-health connection (EAT-Lancet Commission, 2018)

Third, tackling the environmental and health impact of meat-based diets is a route few actors

have been willing to take (Wellesley et al., 2015). Since it is rooted in personal values and

decisions, and involves multiple stakeholders, a strong cycle of inertia exists (Figure 3). This cycle perpetuates inaction due to low public awareness and low policy priority given to reducing the impact of meat. In fact, there is a degree of contradictory thinking, in which the public and industry expect governments to act, while on the other hand, governments are reluctant to act in absence of societal pressure. Thus, such a complex and ‘messy’ problem may require a systemic and multidisciplinary approach that considers the trade-offs involved, and encourages changes which can break this cycle of inertia.

(11)

4

1.2 Research Questions

The aim of this research is to identify effective interventions that can reduce the impact of meat through a systems thinking approach. The following four questions are addressed:

1. What are the drivers and impacts of meat production and consumption?

2. How do these variables connect to each other?

3. Who are the actors that can drive change, and at which leverage points can they

intervene?

4. What are effective intervention strategies to reduce the impact of meat?

1.3 Structure

This dissertation consists of five chapters. In Chapter 2, the Literature Review provides an

insight into the impacts and drivers of meat production and consumption, and discusses the different approaches authors have taken to understand the complexity of current food systems.

In Chapter 3, the Methodology describes the steps followed in this study to answer the four

research questions. In Chapter 4, the Results present the key findings obtained from each of the

stages of this dissertation. In Chapter 5, the Discussion explains the contribution of the results,

and how these findings can be applied and adapted by key actors in different contexts. In

Chapter 6, the Conclusion summarises the key findings and limitations of this study, and

(12)

5

2. Literature Review

Understanding the impacts and drivers of meat production and consumption is the first step towards driving change in the system. According to Ehrlich and Holdren's (1971) ‘IPAT’ equation (Equation 1), impact is driven by the number of people being served and their affluence (demand), and the technology used to provide the product (supply).

Impact = (is a function of) Population × Affluence × Technology (1)

In this section, the applicability of this concept is analysed by looking at the impact of meat production and consumption, and the wide range of drivers discussed in the literature. Studies which look at the underlying connections between these factors are also discussed.

2.1 Impact of meat

Since studies draw on published data to examine the impact of meat within a sustainability context, in this section the impacts are explored through the environmental and socioeconomic lens.

2.1.1 Environmental sustainability

When describing the environmental impact of meat, authors generally discuss five of the nine ‘planetary boundaries’ proposed by the Stockholm Resilience Centre (2009). These are

explained below.

Climate change

Agriculture is accountable for 30-35% of global GHG emissions, mainly because of the deforestation of tropical areas (Stoll-Kleemann and O’Riordan, 2015). Specifically, livestock is responsible for 15% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions, as it accounts for 2,840 million

tons of CO2 equivalent (McMichael et al., 2007). Important sources include cultivation and

fertilisation of feed crops and pasture, manure, land-use changes, and production of inputs such

as fertilisers (Westhoek et al., 2011). In comparison with other food products, meat is the

(13)

6

Figure 4. GHG emissions per food product (World Resources Institute, 2016b)

Land-use change

Approximately 80% of agricultural land is used for animal production, including feed

production and grazing (Westhoek et al., 2011). While the amount of arable land will expand

(14)

7

Biodiversity loss

Depending on the level of intensity of livestock production, specific practices, species used, and the local conditions, the impact of meat production on biodiversity can be either positive (through the adaptation of species) or negative (FAO, 2016). Meat production affects biodiversity negatively due to deforestation and the spread of diseases such as bovine

tuberculosis (Godfray et al., 2018). In fact, the highest rate of deforestation associated with

meat industry occurs in Latin America, where 70% of the Amazon forest is now being used to

graze animals (Joyce et al., 2012).

Freshwater use

Agriculture accounts for 92% of the world’s freshwater footprint, and one third relates to

animal products, which are also responsible for 29% of water pollution (Stoll-Kleemann and O’Riordan, 2015). In 2010 specifically, while vegetables and fruits had a footprint of less than

1000 litres per kg (Figure 5), bovine meat required more than 15,000 l/kg (Water Footprint Network, 2010).

Figure 5. Litres of water per kilogram of food product (global average) (Thornton, 2019)

Chemical pollution

Intensive cattle farming and feeding is responsible for excessive discharges of ammonia, phosphorus and nitrous oxides which deteriorate water quality; harming aquatic ecosystems and human health. The biggest pollutants are animal wastes, and chemicals from fertilisers, pesticides, antibiotics and hormones, tanneries, and sediments from eroded pastures (Godfray

(15)

8

Animal welfare

An increasing number of studies have investigated the effects of meat business practices. These show that an increase in animal welfare can actually reduce the dependency on antibiotics (which affect human health) and the generation of diseases between animals, while increasing productivity and meat quality (Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, 2016).

2.1.2 Socio-economic sustainability

When describing the socioeconomic impact of meat, studies normally discuss three of the eleven goals that Oxfam uses to define the inner ‘social foundation’ (Raworth, 2012). These are explained below.

Income

Trade, processing and retailing of livestock products are substantial economic sectors in most

countries (Godfray et al., 2018). The livestock sector is responsible for 40% of agricultural

gross domestic product (GDP), creates livelihoods for 1 billion for the world’s poor, and

employs 1.3 billion people (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Figure 6 shows this reciprocity between

(16)

9

(17)

10 Meat production on the other hand, can be socioeconomically harmful to local communities, specifically in developing countries (Stoll-Kleemann and O’Riordan, 2015). The expansion of animal feed in South American rainforested areas has led to the disruption of property rights and the expulsion of small-scale farmers from their land. This displacement of communities leads to a loss of local incomes, widespread poverty, and social breakdown. Furthermore, the trade of cheap meat is responsible for the destruction of local markets in African countries, as local producers cannot compete with the prices of imported products (ibid.).

Food security

Meat products are responsible for one-third of humanity’s protein intake, they provide essential nutrients, and supply food for people of low-income countries with restricted diets (Steinfeld

et al., 2006). In fact, on lands which are not suitable for harvest, communities depend on grazing animals for income, food security, and soil quality (via the nutrient cycle) (Tilman and Clark, 2014).

However, current levels of meat consumption are aggravating the problem of hunger. Worldwide, agricultural land is mostly used to produce fodder, and 44% of the global grain harvest is used in meat production (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). Furthermore, producing meat is an inefficient process, in which 1 kg of animal protein requires 6 kg of plant protein. This ‘diet gap’, in which plants that could be used for human consumption are fed to

animals, has also led to social conflicts due to competition for land. According to West et al.

(2014):

“If current crop production used for animal feed was targeted for direct human production, 70% more calories would become available, potentially providing enough calories to feed an additional 4 billion people”.

Healthcare

The perception of the impact of meat on health may vary between regions (Godfray et al.,

2018). While in high-income countries, consuming less meat may be a sign of a conscious and healthy lifestyle, in low-income countries, low meat consumption is related to poverty. In the latter specifically, since there is limited access to alternative nutrient-dense foods, diets low in meat impact health negatively.

(18)

11 to problems such as obesity, coronary heart diseases, diabetes, and cancer. Figure 7 is an example of the correlation between high intakes of meat and colorectal cancer (A), and cardiovascular death (B). Finally, meat is also a potential source of foodborne infections (it acts as reservoirs for pathogens which infect humans) and a cause of antibiotics resistance (due to chemicals transferred through veterinary medicines and growth promoters).

Figure 7. Health risk due to processed meat intake (Godfray et al., 2018)

2.2 Drivers of meat

Regarding the ‘IPAT’ equation, opportunities to reduce the impacts previously discussed lie in challenging the demand, and changing the technology used to gain more socioeconomic service benefit (Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971). This concept is supported by Bowles, Alexander and Hadjikakou (2019), who discuss that the impact of meat-based diets are problematic mainly

because of “the scale of demandin line with the increasing affluence and urbanisation trends,

and the absence of successful mitigation strategies”. Other studies challenge this concept. De

Bakker and Dagevos (2012), for example, argue that a ‘technological fix’ will not suffice to alleviate the impact of meat. Godfray et al. (2018) discuss that the current infrastructure of consumption and production is influenced by a wide variety of other interlinked factors, besides just health, income and productivity.

(19)

12 multiple actors involved: policymakers, governments, NGOs, industry, academia, farmers, and consumers (Vinnari and Vinnari, 2014).

Social

Average global consumption of meat has been increasing rapidly in the last 50 years. This trend is reflected in Figure 8, which also shows the consumption growth in different regions of the world. While in developed regions meat consumption has remained somewhat stable in the last decade, global consumption is still rising due to developing countries like China; where

populations are increasing (Godfray et al., 2018).

Figure 8. Total consumption of meat globally and per region (Godfray et al., 2018)

These levels of consumption strongly depend on social variables such as gender, health and education. Rothgerber (2013) confirms that men eat significantly more meat per capita in comparison to women due to the symbolic tie of this type of food to ‘power’, ‘status’ and

‘dominance’. On the contrary, Milford et al. (2019) argue that equal participation in workforce

can lead to higher meat consumption due to the preference given to easy-to-prepare convenience food. Health is also key in shaping food choices due to meat’s perceived nutritional value. According to Godfray et al. (2018), the desire for energy-dense and nutrient-rich food, added to the level of satiety meat provides, once promoted survival when food scarcity was a risk; and this is still the case for some low-income countries.

(20)

13 in their study through a survey conducted online, in which participants from different countries

rank meat as the 7th_{contributor to climate change from a list of 7 sectors in total, when it is}

actually the 4th largest contributor (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Perceived versus actual contribution to climate change (Bailey, Froggatt and Wellesley, 2014)

Stubbs, Scott and Duarte (2018) refer to this lack of knowledge as ‘benign ignorance’, and they discuss that the more frequently people consume meat, the less they perceive the benefit of reducing its consumption. Brown (2019) explains that this lack of awareness may be due to scepticism towards scientific evidence, and argues that since funding comes from industry priorities, agribusiness funds research aligned with their interests.

Vinnari and Vinnari (2014) explain instead that even if consumers are knowledgeable about the impact of meat, they frequently do not behave in relation to their knowledge (‘cognitive dissonance’ according to psychologists). Other authors such as Godfray et al. (2018) state that

meat consumption is highly influenced by consumer’s knowledge on the preparation of alternative meals, taste, and nutrition; and how important convenience, time, and recommended serving size are for them.

Economic

(21)

14 of health-conscious lifestyles. From these perspectives, the ‘IPAT’ equation can therefore be challenged, as wealth may not necessarily be a key driver of meat demand. Instead, affluence may be correlated to meat demand due to other underlying factors which influence the system.

Other studies which have focused on the effect of economic development, explain that food prices, growth of corporations, and trade liberalisation are important factors. Overall, development leads to technological advancements, innovation, and competitiveness which increase efficiency of the industry, and the degree of specialisation of supply chains. This leads to lower prices for consumers and safety of meat in the market (Richardson, Shepherd and Elliman, 1993). Furthermore, with globalisation, there has been a rapid increase of the retail industry (especially fast-food and supermarket chains), and an expansion of global mass media (Royal Society for Public Health, 2011). These changes lead to a greater influence of ‘Western’ culture on diets, and a worldwide and year-round availability of food supply, which standardises food options. This standardisation is sometimes referred to as ‘cultural convergence’, in which diets are characterised for having more fat and animal products, and

more sugar and processed foods (Duchin, 2005). Additionally, since openness to trade enables foreign investment, the power of agribusiness has increased in both developed and developing

countries, supported by governmental subsidies (Vranken et al., 2014). However, limits to trade

such as political instability and rigorous policies on food security, can affect the supply and choices of meat products.

Value chain

This dimension refers to the value chain infrastructure that supports the meat industry, as well as the attributes of meat products offered. While for de Bakker and Dagevos (2012) the physical layout of shops and its product assortment affects customers (e.g. location on shelves, availability, variety), for Stubbs, Scott and Duarte (2018), the influencing factors are related to the attractiveness of the products (e.g. nutrition labels, packaging, brand, transparency of information, taste, price). Furthermore, drivers such as marketing and media (e.g. magazines and commercials) and public catering (e.g. frequency, type of food served, portion sizes, menu design) may also influence food choices (Cohen and Babey, 2012).

(22)

15 farmers (e.g. carbon sequestration techniques), addressing barriers in rural infrastructure, and

in implementing structural supply chain changes (Freibauer et al., 2011). Better infrastructure

has a profound effect on the meat industry as it attracts large supermarkets controlled by multinational corporations, and results in better transportation systems that improve access to suppliers. These changes pave the way for globalisation and rapid urbanisation, which increase employment. In these scenarios, diets with higher calorific intake and which are easy to prepare, are preferred (Royal Society for Public Health, 2011).

Even though the meat industry has become more efficient and resilient over time, continuous mass production will not be the only solution. Estimates show that transitioning all livestock farming to the least emissions-intensive production practices could offer emissions reductions of 32%, which is not enough to offset the impacts of the rising demand (Bailey, Froggatt and Wellesley, 2014). Thus, a ‘technological fix’ will not suffice to reduce the impact of meat.

Institutional

Changing current production and consumption behaviours represents a challenge for governments, institutions, corporations and policy makers (D’Silva and Webster, 2017). For Dagevos and Voordouw (2013), it is surprising how these actors have demonstrated low interest in strategies to reduce the impact of meat, and to encourage more sustainable eating practices.

Reasons behind the lack of political and corporate interventions are explained by different

authors. Stoll-Kleemann and O’Riordan (2015) state that “the power of animal agribusiness is

such that the industry has become intertwined with the government, blurring the boundary between private interests and public service”. This lobbying from the meat industry is a main

(23)

16

Cultural

Culture is also an important factor affecting the patterns of meat consumption. Social pressures and norms, deep-rooted habits and beliefs, ideological concerns and personal identity, are powerful determinants of meat eating behaviour, and have an integral role in preserving cultural values (Graça, Calheiros and Oliveira, 2015).

Cultural drivers of meat consumption vary among authors. Thus, Piazza et al. (2015)

summarise these through their 4N’s framework, in which eating meat is rationalised as being

natural (intrinsic to human’s biology and evolution), necessary (required for survival and a

healthy lifestyle), nice (derived from the appreciation of taste) and normal (expected from

society). Graça, Calheiros and Oliveira (2015) and to Vinnari and Vinnari (2014) explain that

since humans are meat-eating animals, feeling morally disengaged is natural as it is a

self-protection mechanism encouraged by the corporate ‘silencing of the slaughter’ and the ‘deanimalisation’ of meat products. This disengagement is also driven by Western thinking,

currently dominated by anthropocentricism. Similarly, they explain that meat is perceived as

necessary and nice as it is an irreplaceable ‘source of vitality’ and ‘sensory appreciation’.

Furthermore, they state that eating meat is normal due to the central role it occupies in many

cultures, derived from values such as power (e.g. food chain hierarchy, meat as a symbol of wealth), masculinity, security, social bonding; and from religion and fate/destiny justifications (e.g. ‘our ancestors used to eat meat’).

(24)

17

Figure 10. Heuristic model on the impact of meat traditions (Leroy and Praet, 2015)

2.3 Meat as a complex system

2.3.1 Food systems

(25)

18

Figure 11. Generic food system map (Mathijs, Bonjean and Brzezina, 2018)

A systems approach is also a useful perspective when studying the resilience of food production systems and its capacity to absorb shocks, such as climate change. The sustainable use of resources in relation to the growing demand for food, is important to understand where changes can be made for food production to become less vulnerable to these shocks. Thus, an integrated approach can lead to an optimum use of existing feedback mechanisms, multiplier effects, and large-scale solutions to guarantee food security (Berkum, Dengerink and Ruben, 2018).

2.3.2 Meat systems

(26)

19

Figure 12. Causal diagram of meat consumption effects (Westhoek et al., 2011)

(27)

20

Figure 13. Dimensional definition of sustainable consumption (Vinnari and Vinnari, 2014)

(28)

21

2.3.3 Summary

In summary, a gap of knowledge still exists on how to specifically tackle the impact of meat through a systems approach. Few studies have looked at the drivers and impacts of meat production and consumption discussed in sections 2.1 and 2.2 through a systems perspective

in which the interconnections are investigated (Friel et al., 2017). Most of the authors have

studied these factors individually or combined into clusters, or have analysed the food system in general.

From the literature reviewed, there are multiple indications that reducing the impact of meat is

a complex problem which requires a systems approach. According to Lee et al. (2017) and

Aronson (1996), these include the global scope of the problem, the interconnection between the different drivers and impacts, the multiple actors involved, and most importantly, that not a single solution to the problem has been identified or proven to be successful.

(29)

22

3. Methodology

To answer the research questions of this study, a systems thinking (ST) methodology is employed. This form of analysis varies from the traditional reductionist approach where a problem is broken down into individual pieces. It looks instead at the whole picture to

understand what drives dynamic behaviour (Sedlacko et al., 2012).

This methodology provides a ‘new way of thinking’ to manage complex problems in a local or

global context (Bosch et al., 2007). The iceberg model illustrates how the underlying systemic

structures of reality are sometimes difficult to see because of the two levels of perspective which attract more attention: events and patterns (Figure 15). While events refer to the

occurrences encountered daily, patterns are the “accumulated memories of events” that reveal

recurring trends. Since human language is rooted at the level of events, or ‘tip of the iceberg’, it is important to dive more deeply and understand what is actually driving the events and patterns people see (Kim, 2016).

Figure 15. The iceberg (Kim, 2016)

Even though a ST approach limits the understanding of specific variables, behaviours, and relationships, there are multiple benefits associated with using it. First, this methodology helps find opportunities that address the root cause of the problem rather than ‘band-aids’ which may

not entirely provide a solution over time (Lee et al., 2017). Second, it facilitates the

understanding of the unintended consequences of a solution, especially when dealing with a problem that has wide-ranging impacts over time. Third, it leads to the identification of leverage points and the prioritisation of effective intervention strategies.

(30)

23

Figure 16. Steps followed to answer research questions

3.1 System variables

The first step towards mapping the meat system model is defining the variables involved

(Butland et al., 2007). These variables are identified in this research as the main impacts and

drivers of meat production and consumption, obtained from the studies, reports, articles and documents discussed in the literature review. These are then categorised into subsystems or dimensions according to the nature of their behaviour (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2013).

Boundaries that set the scope of the system are also defined (Lee et al., 2017). These are

conceptual rather than merely physical, as they condition which components are included or excluded from the system. This step is critical as it can result in problem shifting if a narrow boundary is chosen, causing further problems somewhere else in space, community or time

(Meadows et al., 1972).

3.2 Meat system

To create the connections between the identified variables, causal loop diagrams (CLD) are used to design the meat system. This is a visualisation tool often referred to as ‘the language

of ST’ (Sedlacko et al., 2012). It is through CLDs that the links are drawn between the impacts

and drivers of meat production and consumption, by using the literature and logical reasoning. While some of the relationships can be measurable (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions), other variables are more difficult to quantify (e.g. cultural and personal values). Thus, a qualitative approach is taken to define the connections.

The key elements of CLDs are the variables previously defined. Their interdependencies are represented by arrows (Figure 17), where the variable at the origin has a causal effect on the

variable at the arrow tip (Butland et al., 2007). Relationships can be either positive (1) or

(31)

24 (e.g. both variables increase), while a negative relationship implies that variables change in the opposite direction (e.g. an increase leads to a decrease). If a time delay exists which affects the rate of change, this is depicted by a double slash sign over the arrow (3) (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2013).

Figure 17. Representation of causal relationships (1) Positive (2) Negative (3) Positive with delay

Central to CLDs are feedback loops or circular causalities which are important when

understanding the behaviour of the system (Butland et al., 2007). Two types of feedback loops

exist: reinforcing (R), which encapsulate exponential growth or destruction, or balancing (B),

which are known as the process that leads the system towards equilibrium. Depending on the nature of the loops and the variables involved, certain arrangements can be referred to as the

‘engine’ or ‘core’ of the system (Sedlacko et al., 2012). These can affect other interacting

dimensions, which are normally independent clusters of variables interacting between themselves (Berkum, Dengerink and Ruben, 2018).

3.3 Leverage points

Once the system is mapped, the leverage points are identified. These represent the places “where a small change can lead to a large shift in the system” (Meadows, 1999). Pareto’s

principle is used to define the places where it is the most effective to intervene, by selecting the variables that act as ‘the vital few’. Since it would be impractical to intervene in every point, the law is applied by identifying the set of key nodes responsible for controlling the behaviour of the system, according to their number of outward connections.

(32)

25 with a high number of arrows but repeated connections, are not included as duplicates of the top variables.

The level of effectiveness to induce change of these key variables are then analysed through Donella Meadows’ model (1999), which defines 12 places where to intervene in a system (Figure 18). This method helps prioritise the leverage points according to their degree of effectiveness and feasibility. Generally, the points which are more effective may be the less feasible, as they are harder to implement.

Figure 18. The 12 leverage points (Meadows, 1999) (Fischer, 2014)

3.4 Intervention strategies

The next step after identifying the leverage points is defining how to intervene at these points. Thus, the methods used to identify the intervention strategies involve both literature review and expert interviews. Normally referred to as ‘triangulation’, this approach of using more than one data source increases confidence through the corroboration of research findings (Heale and Forbes, 2013).

First, a literature review is carried out with preference given to sources within the last 20 years,

since it helps identify trends and patterns of behaviour (Garnett et al., 2015). Studies considered

(33)

26 production and consumption; literature which carried out systematic literature reviews on interventions in food systems; and good ideas worth exploring, but for which there is currently no evidence. Furthermore, other informal sources such as news articles are explored to complement the review. From these sources, identified measures are listed and then grouped into categories.

Second, interviews are carried out to complement the review. These are one-hour long to encourage in-depth conversations, and semi-structured to allow participants to speak freely while not losing focus on the objectives. They are recorded and transcribed, with prior ethical approval granted based on the anonymity of the participants. Open-ended questions covered four main topics: the interviewee’s experience, impacts and drivers of meat production and consumption through the lens of their organisation, current intervention strategies carried out in their field, and potential interventions that could be effective in the future.

Experts were selected based on their level of representation of the actors who can intervene in the system (see Table 1). Due to the availability of participants and time constraints, contributions from different fields are explored, but findings are not representative of all the actors involved (e.g. consumers, farmers). Ultimately, seven experts were interviewed:

Table 1. Interview’s participants details

Interview Actor Gender Type of organisation Role

1 Health Public

Body Female

Cambridge University Hospitals

NHS Clinical Scientist

2 Government Male UK Department for Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs Former Policy Analyst

3 Government Male Faculty of Law, Cambridge University

Lecturer of Human and Animal Rights Law

4 Meat Industry Female Private global meat company

Corporate Social Responsibility and Investment Coordinator

5 Meat Industry Male Meat packaging industry Engineer in Meat Packaging Research

6 Meat Substitutes

Industry Female

Cellular agriculture and clean meat

organisation Co-Founder

7 NGO Female Animal welfare international

(34)

27 The results are analysed qualitatively through inductive coding (Leech and Onwuegbuzie, 2007). This method allows to identify intervention strategies and group them into commonly observed themes, according to their relationship with the leverage points. For example, ‘reducing meat portion sizes’, ‘repositioning meat products’, ‘adjusting restaurant menus’ were

gathered under the code of ‘choice architectures’, affecting four of the identified leverage points.

(35)

28

(36)

29

4. Results

In order to answer the research questions, in this section the findings for each of the four steps described previously are presented.

4.1 System variables

The variables selected from the literature review represent both the impacts and drivers of meat production and consumption. The scope of their selection is limited by the system boundaries, which are defined as following:

• Differences between meat products are not included in the system.

• Variations between population segments are not taken into account.

• Both meat production and consumption are analysed at a global scale. Local conditions,

contexts, and cultures from specific countries are excluded.

• The time horizon considered is 2000-2050 to facilitate the identification of trends and

patterns of behaviour.

(37)

30

4.2 Meat system

Once the variables are defined, connections between them are drawn to build the meat system. The complete map, depicted in Figure 20, shows the relationships between the 96 variables, and the 4 main stages of the meat value chain: animal feed agriculture, meat production, retail and consumer demand. These connections, represented by 208 arrows, highlight the degree of complexity, interconnectedness and feedback within the system (Nguyen and Nguyen, 2013). Furthermore, Figure 21 shows the variables clustered into 6 main dimensions: cultural, social, institutional, economic, value chain and environmental. Within these there are 26 reinforcing loops and 14 balancing loops in total.

(38)

31

(39)

32

(40)

33

(41)

34

4.2.1 Cultural – central ‘engine’

The core of the system map is the cultural dimension (Figure 22). It is formed by 18 variables and a set of 8 interconnected reinforcing loops which are influenced by factors from the social, economic, value chain and institutional dimension. This ‘engine’ explains the key rationalisations people use to consume meat; reflecting both the cultural and personal values that drive the last stage of the meat value system: consumer demand.

As mentioned in section 2.2, authors such as Piazza et al. (2015) suggest that the belief that

meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice, are the most common justifications behind

consumption. These are depicted in the system as four personal variables respectively: ‘perceived naturalness of eating meat’, ‘sociocultural valuation of meat’, ‘perceived nutritional

value of meat’, and ‘perceived tastiness of meat products’ respectively. These four nodal variables are the anchoring points around which the core dimension revolves. They stand as the origin of the underlying interest of consumers who create a meat demand; triggering the other stages of the value chain from production to retail.

The 8 reinforcing loops demonstrate how these variables lead to an exponential growth of meat demand:

R1, R2 and R3 (Figures 23, 24, 25) originate from the ‘sociocultural valuation of meat’

(42)

35

Figure 23. R1

Figure 24. R2

(43)

36

R4 and R5 (Figures 26, 27) originate from the ‘perceived naturalness of eating meat’, which

represents the perception that meat is what human species evolved to eat. R4 affects the level of anthropocentrism in society, and it is influenced by the position of meat in traditional cuisines. Since these recipes are normally passed from one generation to another, meat is perceived as natural due to its relation to ancestors’ meals and family traditions. R5 then explains how the level of anthropocentrism strengthens the association of meat to power, which influences the high status of this product in society and increases the desire of people to consume it.

(44)

37

Figure 27. R5

R6 and R7 (Figures 28, 29) originate from the ‘perceived nutritional value of meat’ and

‘perceived tastiness of meat products’ respectively, which explain the perception that eating

(45)

38

Figure 28. R6

(46)

39

R8 (Figure 30) is the reinforcing loop which connects the cultural factors to the value chain

dimension. It explains how the higher the sociocultural value of meat is, the higher the probability that it is offered in public spaces. An increased supply at the same time strengthens back the popularity of meat products and its sociocultural value.

Figure 30. R8

(47)

40

(48)

41

4.2.2 Social

This dimension (Figure 31) addresses the well-being of the population; touching on both the social demographic drivers of meat consumption, such as population growth, level of education, and gender equality; and the impacts on people’s quality of life discussed in the literature review. It is connected to factors from the other 5 dimensions, and it links to the central engine through the ‘level of education’, ‘gender inequality’, ‘consumer awareness’, and ‘rate of meat consumption’ variables. Furthermore, it is formed by 17 variables, and a set of 2

interconnected reinforcing loops which affect meat demand, and 5 balancing loops which represent the social impact of meat production and consumption:

B1, B2, B3 (Figures 32, 33, 34) reflect the long-term impact meat consumption has on people’s

health due to a higher exposure to foodborne infections, and an increase in the level of antibiotic resistance and the risk of diseases, respectively. These balancing loops limit population growth through an increase in mortality rates. The existing delay between meat consumption and health damage is key, as it influences people’s awareness on the consequences of overconsuming meat; affecting the rate of change of the system.

(49)

42

Figure 33. B2

(50)

43

R9 and B4 (Figures 35, 36) explain the positive and negative impact meat production has on

food security, respectively. While on one hand meat provides essential nutrients, improving people’s health; on the other hand, it aggravates the problem of hunger due to the unsustainable

use of agricultural land. Since the negative impact meat production has on food security is not immediate either (there is a delay), the problem is not perceived as urgent, and therefore action is not taken.

Figure 35. R9

(51)

44

R10 and B5 (Figures 37, 38) both explain how the expansion of animal feed and meat

production impacts local incomes due to the displacement of communities. Especially in developing countries, this paves the way to social breakdown and poverty, which can either decrease meat demand as a result of lower purchasing power (B5) or increase it due to lower levels of education and consumer awareness (R10).

(52)

45

(53)

46

(54)

47

4.2.3 Institutional

This dimension (Figure 39) addresses the institutional influence from the meat industry, governments, NGOs, and the media on the different stages of the meat value chain. It is connected to factors from the social, economic and environmental dimensions, and it links to the engine through the ‘meat advertising and marketing’ variable. Moreover, it is formed by 15

variables, and a set of 6 interconnected reinforcing loops that originate from the political influence and lobbying of the animal agribusinesses:

R11, R12 and R13 (Figures 40, 41, 42) reflect how an increase in meat demand leads to the

continuous income growth of the animal agribusiness, which make big food companies more powerful and increase their political capital and influence on media. While more political power means further financial support from governments (e.g. through subsidies), power over media paves the way to more advertising and marketing of meat products that influence demand.

(55)

48

Figure 41. R12

(56)

49

R14 and R15 (Figures 43, 44) capture how power over political decisions from the animal

agribusiness enables them to control the level of consumer’s exposure to meat production processes, and mobilises resistance and opposition from interest groups, respectively. This resistance blocks further regulation of their industry and the support of animal rights laws (Jowit, 2010). On the other hand, less transparency on how meat is produced means lower consumer awareness, which once again influences the level of empowerment and political influence from the industry.

Figure 43. R14

(57)

50

R16 (Figure 45) explains how political influence and lobbying can also block rigorous trade

policies on food security. With weak trade regulations, cheap meat imports increase; distancing consumers from the industry’s supply chain processes and limiting their awareness on the

underlying business interests and practices, and the current architecture of power.

(58)

51

(59)

52

4.2.4 Economic

This dimension (Figure 46) addresses the economic drivers and impacts of the different stages of the meat value chain, including economic development, globalisation and trade, urbanisation, and employment. It is connected to variables from the social, institutional and meat value chain dimensions, and it links to the central engine through the ‘influence of Western diets’ variable. Moreover, it is formed by 13 variables, and a set of 1 balancing and 6

interconnected reinforcing loops:

R17, R18 and R19 (Figures 47, 48, 49) explain the key role that ‘meat prices’ play in driving

demand. Low prices for meat increase consumers’ affordability of the products offered, which boosts demand. Prices may be low due to an increase in the efficiency of the meat production system within a country, and/or as a result of a rise in the level of cheap imports.

Figure 47. R17

(60)

53

Figure 49. R19

R20, R21 and R22 (Figures 50, 51, 52) capture how an increase in the animal feed agriculture

and meat production industry leads to more employment, which boosts economic development and increases the level of affluence of the population; enabling them to have more purchasing power to buy meat products.

Figure 50. R20

(61)

54

Figure 52. R22

B6 (Figure 53) shows the impact that cheap meat imports have on people’s level of affluence,

as a result of the disruption of local markets and the loss of jobs. Especially in developing countries, local producers cannot compete with the low costs of imported meat products, thus, unemployment increases and consumers’ affordability decreases; balancing this economic dimension.

(62)

55

(63)

56

4.2.5 Value Chain

This dimension (Figure 54) addresses the value chain infrastructure and processes that enable and support the meat industry. This material environment refers to the supply chain improvements, investments in infrastructure and transportation systems, production and food technology advancements, and differentiation of products offered. It is connected to variables from the social, institutional, and economic dimensions, and it links to the central engine through the ‘availability of meat substitutes’ variable. Moreover, it is formed by 17 variables,

and a set of 4 interconnected reinforcing and 2 balancing loops:

R23, R24 and R25 (Figures 55, 56, 57) capture the exponential growth of meat demand due to

product differentiation. Since an increase in meat demand pressures the industry to respond faster to consumer’s requirements, companies focus on becoming more efficient and standardising their processes. However, this also creates a need to differentiate their product offerings to prevent losing competitiveness. Thus, the product assortment (R23), layout (R24), and presentation (R25) of these products improve, positively influencing meat demand.

(64)

57

Figure 56. R24

(65)

58

B7 and B8 (Figures 58, 59) explain how a higher demand pushes the industry to respond faster

to consumer’s nutrition requirements. This leads to the technological development of

alternatives which have the same characteristics as meat (e.g. texture, taste), but which replace traditional products (B7) and influence consumer’s health conscious lifestyle (B8); decreasing the demand of traditional meat products and therefore balancing the system.

Figure 58. B7

(66)

59

R26 (Figure 60) illustrates the strong relationship between demand and the amount of meat

offered in public catering. Since offering more meat at public spaces increases its sociocultural value, public catering services are pressured back to continue supplying these products.

(67)

60

(68)

61

4.2.6 Environmental

This dimension (Figure 61) addresses the environmental impact of meat analysed in the literature review, according to the five ‘Earth-system boundaries’. Since these negative impacts are not immediate (there is a delay), the problem is not perceived as urgent, and therefore action is not taken. It is not linked to the engine, as it represents the impacts at the initial stages of the meat value chain, while the cultural dimension explains the drivers at the consumer end. However, it is connected to variables from the value chain and social dimensions. Furthermore, it is formed by 16 variables and a set of 6 interconnected balancing loops with delays:

B9 and B10 (Figures 62, 63) explain how producing more animals for food result in higher

levels of animal manure (B9) and an increase in the use of antibiotics (B10) due to poor animal welfare standards, which pollute the clean water required for producing more animals.

(69)

62

Figure 63. B10

B11 and B12 (Figures 64, 65) capture how an increase in the level of agriculture and meat

production lead to the degradation of land and desertification (B11), which at the same time increase the use of fertilisers and pesticides (B12) that pollute the clean water used for animal production.

(70)

63

Figure 65. B12

B13 and B14 (Figures 66, 67) illustrate how an increase in meat production contributes to the

(71)

64

Figure 66. B13

(72)

65

4.2.7 Dynamics of the meat system as a whole

The aim of the current system is to increase meat production and consumption, at the expense of the environment and socioeconomic factors. The meat system consists of a core set of loops or ‘system engine’ which encapsulates the basic cultural dynamic behind consuming meat, and

a periphery of interconnected variables from 5 other dimensions that influence the system’s engine directly and/or indirectly.

The different dimensions within the meat system affect the activities along every stage of the value chain. While the 8 reinforcing loops within the cultural dimension drive consumer demand, the other 18 reinforcing loops provide the infrastructure and support for the operation of the engine, and the initial stages of the value chain that supply that demand. The continuous increase in power of the animal agribusiness, the rise in affluence and marketing, and the efficiency improvements which drive prices down and differentiate meat products, are responsible for the rapid growth of demand.

The system also illustrates the trade-offs between the environmental and socioeconomic dimensions. The balancing loops capture how an increase in meat production can lead to food security, but at the same time put more pressure on the environment and cause unequal socioeconomic outcomes such as the displacement of communities, health consequences, and the disruption of local markets which increase unemployment. While the environmental impacts exist at the agricultural and animal production level, activities throughout the value chain influence the use of natural resources in the primary part of the chain, and are also responsible for the different socioeconomic impacts along the chain (Berkum, Dengerink and Ruben, 2018).

(73)

66

4.3 Leverage points

The meat system map facilitates the identification of leverage points. According to the number of outward connections, 23 key variables offer points for potential effective interventions (Table 2). These are present in the different dimensions of the system, and 6 are directly linked to the engine of the system.

Table 2. Key variables

Dimension Key variables Number of

connections

Connected to

the engine

Economic Economic Development 8 No

Institutional Meat Advertising & Marketing 6 Yes

Value Chain Efficiency 6 No

Cultural Sociocultural Valuation of Meat 5 Yes

Institutional Political Influence & Lobbying from

Animal Agribusiness 5

No

Social Rate of Meat Consumption 5 Yes

Economic Level of Cheap Imports 4 No

Economic Level of Employment 4 No

Institutional Market Influence 4 No

Institutional NGO Involvement 4 No

Social Consumer Awareness 4 Yes

Economic Urbanisation 3 No

Environmental Animal Welfare Standards 3 No

Environmental Land-use 3 No

Environmental Disease Transmission Between Animals 3 No

Cultural Cognitive Re-framing & Self-Exoneration 2 Yes

Environmental Land Degradation 2 No

Environmental GHG Emissions 2 No

Institutional Income for Animal Agribusiness 2 No

Social Gender Inequality 2 Yes

Economic Globalisation 2 No

Economic Rise in the Number of Purveyors (e.g.

Supermarkets) 2

No

(74)

67 These key variables are prioritised according to their level of effectiveness using Donella Meadow’s (1999) model. Table 3 summarises the results in increasing order of effectiveness,

and the rationalisation used to assign the points.

Table 3. Leverage Points prioritised according to their level of effectiveness (Meadows, 1999)

Place of Intervention Leverage Points Rationalisation

12 Constants, parameters, numbers

Land-use; Deforestation; GHG emissions

Environmental standards help address the sustainable use of land for agriculture and animal production, the rate of land conversion, and the amount of GHG emissions.

11 Sizes of buffers and other stabilizing stocks

Political influence and lobbying

Political influence and lobbying facilitate the provision of government financial support to

livestock farming (e.g. through subsidies), which acts as a buffer that makes the meat system more stable.

10 Structure of material stocks and flows

Urbanisation; Rise in the number of purveyors;

Market influence

Structure of cities, and number and type of purveyors such as restaurants and supermarkets, can influence the market, and control how animal-source foods flow through the meat value chain.

9 Lengths of delays Rate of meat consumption;

Level of employment; Animal welfare standards;

Disease transmission between animals

The rate of meat consumption determines how much time it takes to see impacts on health and the environment. Furthermore, the level of employment in the meat industry and current animal welfare standards indirectly impact the health of workers and consumers (through the use of antibiotics and shared diseases) in the long-run.

These overlong delays represent a ‘danger point’ where irreversible damage can occur.

8 Strength of negative feedback loops

Rate of meat consumption; Land-use; Deforestation; Land degradation; GHG emissions

Health and environmental damage that result from the increasing rate of meat consumption, represent a long-term self-correcting mechanism within the meat system.

7 Gain around

driving feedback loops

Political influence and lobbying;

Meat advertising and marketing;

Income for animal agribusiness

(75)

68

Place of Intervention Leverage Points Rationalisation

6 Structure of information flows

Consumer awareness; Gender inequality; Globalisation; NGO involvement

The way information is transmitted and how it is perceived by different actors in the system, influence behaviour. The association of meat to masculinity and ‘Western’ diets have increased demand. However, this perception is currently targeted by NGOs.

5 Rules of the system

Economic development;

Level of cheap imports

Economic measures define the scope, boundaries and degrees of freedom in the system. Particularly prices from imports and locally sourced products can influence the levels of production and consumption of meat.

4 Power to self-organise the system structure

Market influence A new market on meat alternatives can influence a structural transformation and evolution of meat, which differentiates meat products and influences consumer preferences and production processes.

3 Goals of the system

Efficiency The level of efficiency defines the goals of the meat value chain, and can help transform the leverage points above.

2 Mindset or paradigm

Cognitive re-framing & self-exoneration

Psychological technique which defends the shared idea in the minds of society that meat should be consumed – the big unstated assumptions which represent the core of the system.

1 Power to

transcend the paradigm

Sociocultural valuation of meat

(76)

69

4.4 Intervention strategies

From the literature review and interviews carried out, 17 intervention strategies are defined after the triangulation stage. Table 4 lists these strategies according to the key actors involved, leverage points tackled, place of intervention regarding Meadow’s level of effectiveness, and the sources from which these were obtained. Table 5 describes each strategy in detail, including the actions required, aims, and barriers.

Table 4. Intervention strategies according to leverage points

Intervention

Strategy

Key

Actors Leverage Points

Place of

Intervention Source

A. Set strict environmental standards on animal feed and livestock production Government, Farmers Land-use, Deforestation, Land degradation, GHG emissions

12, 8 References:

[43],[97],[126] Interviews: 2,3,5

B. Change subsidies schemes

Government Political influence and lobbying, Income for animal agribusiness

[4],[18],[25], [127] Interviews: 2,3,5

C. Alter choice architectures Meat Industry (Retail), Public catering Market influence, Urbanisation, Rise in the number of purveyors,

Rate of meat consumption

[4],[7],[12],[15], [31],[34],[38], [76],[108], [124],[127] Interviews: 1,5 D. Increase

convenience of meat substitutes Public catering Market influence, Urbanisation, Cognitive re-framing and self-exoneration, Sociocultural valuation of meat

Engineering Interventions to Reduce the Impact of Meat A Systems Thinking Approach