My academic research has focused on ‘sustainability’ and local food production.
To most people - That’s jargon.
In 2014, I got locked out of my flat in London. In my socks, no shoes, no phone. I didn’t know anyone. A neighbour let me wait in their flat for the locksmith to come. When asked about what brought me to London, I proudly said that I was doing a PhD in sustainability and food. “What’s sustainability, then?” I was asked. I waffled - I didn’t have an answer.
Seven years later, I have LOTS of answers. That doesn’t make it all that much clearer though.
So what is ‘Sustainability’? What does it mean to ‘live sustainably’? To buy a ‘sustainable’ product, to make ‘sustainable’ choices in the context of food, or climate change?
Well - First, some essential points:
The need for sustainability is foremost built on the understanding that we live on a planet that has finite resources. It is a solitary marble in space and what you’ve got, you’ve got and when it’s gone, it’s gone. Period.
There are over 8 Billion of us. (Up from 1.5 Billion just 100 years ago). 8 Billion hungry (mostly) carnivores, needing shelter, food, water, health, sanitation, clothing. Therefore, we’re consuming resources as a massive rate - some of us A LOT more than others (that’s an issue).
A few ways Sustainability has been looked at:
Using up resources too fast: Meeting the present needs of people without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs - This definition was offered at a big global meeting of leaders in 1987 (the World Commission on Economic Development, or WCED) - This report spelled out what governments by this point already knew: that we were consuming beyond the capacity of the planet.
Another way this has been put is the ‘Seventh Generation’ principle attributed to Haudenosaunee First Nations: Your actions today will impact seven generations into the future - the implication being that it is your responsibility as a good ancestor to leave the world as good as or better than you found it for the future.
The WCED definition presented the idea that society, environment and economy are overlapping and impact one another (see figure below). There’s a sweet spot in the middle where everyone wins and things are ‘sustainable’ - Where the environment isn’t exploited to collapse and people can still earn an equitable income to meet their needs, and so are able to meet their basic needs for healthy food, medical care, shelter and overall wellbeing. In reality, these are skewed by different interests and the current structure of the global economy. There are some serious flaws in this model, but let’s save that for the pub.
Many believe that this 3 point approach is too simple, especially when it comes to food (it is). And that it puts the idea of economic growth (often framed as “progress”) first, over the ecological health of the planet that we can’t live without (it does). Colin Tudge, author of ‘The Great Re-think: A 21st Century Renaissance’ offers up a view that places the biosphere at the top and human society within it. He calls for what amounts to a complete shift in mentality about our values as a society and how we operate.
As a concept, sustainability has been described as too vague and general to be useful, too complex to fathom because of its wide system-approach, too easily coopted by those seeking to be ‘economically sustainable’ (ie: growth, growth, growth). It has been discredited as hippy-eco-greenie BS (largely by those who see it as a threat to their economic interests and so seek to use dismissive language to discredit it). Overall, what it represents is change so that we don’t collapse the ecosystem that supports us and all other beings.
But in practical terms:
It’s a process, not an end goal. The idea is momentum toward a better managed planetary system: food, resources, energy: Home economics on a seriously big scale - but it starts with everyday practices and choices at home.
It’s a concept focused on making changes to how we’re currently doing things.
It’s political: Scientists have been warning governments about climate change since the 60s, and resource depletion has been a human preoccupation since we learned how to burn wood for heat. We have an economic system that has made corporations more powerful than governments. What does that mean? We were told 80 years ago that there was smoke in the kitchen, but now the house is on fire. That’s because of inaction on environmental and humanitarian issues for decades by those making policies, in favour of exploitative businesses. But, in the words of the Doors: “They got the guns, but we got the numbers” - fed-up and demanding masses send a clear message.
It’s a framework: That means it’s a way to plan our thinking - about the social, environmental/ecological, economic, ethical, values-driven, governance, taste, joy, cultural (and more) are ways to examine our food and wider consumption choices, industry practices and our government policy approaches to determine if they hold up.
It’s a HUGE field of study: Experts all across the world have been studying this and banging on about it for decades (and banging their heads against walls when governments and companies didn’t -and still don’t- listen). It may be called ‘Transition studies’, ‘the Circular Economy’, or ‘Systems thinking’, but it all says the same thing: use resources less and better.
It’s personal: Largely, it means reducing your impact on the planet now through reducing your consumptions of stuff, of resources to make that stuff… but it’s also about taking action and sending a message to companies and governments that this is NOT what you want.
It’s collective and connected: In the last century we’ve fallen for the wild idea that we’re separate from nature and separate from each other. Individualism is the self-centred ‘me first’ way of greedy thinking that robs us all of a more equitable and balanced world. Think of your actions like a cough in the pandemic - everything you do has the potential to impact someone and something else - even on the other side of the world.
It’s system-focused: Things don’t exist independently beyond the influence of other things. We’re all a part of a global ecosystem with other organisms, we’re part of human society and the cultural quirks and differences that means. Nothing comes from nothing, and waste doesn’t evaporate when it leaves the curbside.
It’s relevant: Remember when I said the house was on fire? Yeah. Get a bucket.
So what is sustainability in the context of food, farming, eating and the food system?
We have to consider things like what is ethical in our consumption of food, our responsibility to distant people and places we can’t see, what our personal and cultural values are (and questioning if these are outdated and need to change), is our leadership ensuring fair access to food? who is even running the food system? We have to think about taste, nutrition, enjoyment, cultural connection to food, and conviviality - these are essential when thinking about food - It’s such a huge part of our lives and means so many different things to each person.
But that’s for next time.