New Zealand may be heading for a two-tier food system where those who can afford it will dine on premium products like beef while those that cannot dine on protein alternatives.
‘‘So the wealthy people obviously have more choices, and I guess as your income decreases, your choices will decrease, and probably some things that we think of as staples now, such as a bit of steak, will become increasingly unaffordable,’’ University of Otago Prof Phil Bremer, New Zealand Food Safety Science Research Centre chief scientist, says.
Scientists have different views on the future of food in New Zealand but agree the country needs to do better than it is at feeding its people.
If New Zealand continues its agricultural system approach, Prof Bremer sees a future where it will maximise value from the products the country produces.
‘‘Milk will be fractionated, we’ll be extracting high-value proteins, selling them in the world market for large or good economic return.
‘‘So we’ll be increasingly doing more with what we’ve got by breaking down its individual components and getting high value.’’
Those high-value products will be sold to premium markets using the country’s ‘‘unique selling properties’’ such as its ‘‘clean, green environment’’, its food safety reputation and indigenous heritage.
‘‘And in this high-tech future there will be no food waste. All parts of the animal or the crop will be utilised due to better knowledge about production processes, more effective processing processes and better waste stream utilisation.’’
But this raises the questions about who can afford these foods if they are being sold for high dollars in premium markets.
The ‘‘trickle down effect’’ is viewed as a way all people benefit from this.
‘‘Rural communities are prosperous because our agricultural products are getting premium value. Food tourism is booming because our products are seen as being desirable.’’
There will also be advances in the development of cheaper sources of protein such as insect protein or crops with enhanced protein levels.
‘‘So we’re getting some of our staples produced more affordable. So we sort of have this two-tier food system where some of the basics are cheaper and the premium products are more expensive.’’
This kind of future relies on New Zealand being part of a global food community where every country and region grows the products its best suited to grow.
‘‘And that food travels freely across boarders without constraints around trade.’’
University of Otago food science head Prof Miranda Mirosa, Food Waste Innovation Research Theme director, questions whether this vision of the future could produce the best outcomes for people and the planet.
‘‘Essentially it’s the same system that we have that is currently making people sick and damaging our planet. Look at the obesity statistics. Look at the food. It is not feeding us food that is nourishing people.’’
However both agree that whatever the future, New Zealand needs to do better with what it produces and makes.
Prof Mirosa said the food waste issue provides a good lens on the broader food system.
‘‘We absolutely have to do better than we are doing because we are wasting up to 40% of all the food that is produced.
‘‘Whether that be through technological innovations, extracting bits and developing new foods from those, or whether it be changing people’s habits.’’
She believes food has become a commodity.
‘‘There’s a real danger in food being just a commodity, because it needs to be more than that, it’s what sustains us, right? And it’s somewhat dangerous to think about it in those terms.’’
Consumers have become detached from food production systems as few have home gardens or access to farms.
‘‘So we don’t sort of value what goes into the food, and then it becomes easier to waste, not to use.’’
Part of the solution is to reverse that trend, to connect people with producers, getting involved in where their food comes from, how it is produced and what resources have gone into producing it.
‘‘If people are more involved in food, they are likely to sort of appreciate everything. All the inputs that have gone into growing and transporting and getting it to table. And I think reconnecting with the food system will have positive benefits.’’
There are small pockets of this happening already — Dunedin has a range of community gardens and pantries for example — but that could be extended.
‘‘There can be real joy in being involved in food production at home, or definitely in food consumption. And food is also a way to bring people together and celebrate. I’d love to see a future that involves that sort of more celebratory aspect of food.’’
Prof Bremer says big business is not the enemy and while the thought that growing locally, eating locally will make us better off, it is not that simple when the country’s biggest export is food and fibre at more than $60 billion.
‘‘I think it is naive to think we can as a country expect to have a standard of living if we’re not exporting food.’’
New Zealand was set up as the food basket of the United Kingdom, designed to send food back to mother country.
‘‘We have some unique abilities to grow grass here, due to our climate and our topography and our science. We’re very good at growing grass and feeding that to cows and producing high quality beef and milk.’’
‘‘That is a choice. And as such, a farmer knows they can make more money with dairy cows than they can with grains. So their choice makes economic sense for them.’’
The only way to get around the economics is to somehow smooth out those ‘‘bumps’’ with government subsidies, he says.
‘‘So the government says, you grow grain, you grow cows, but you’re both going to get paid the same. I don’t know if that would work.’’
Yet the question remains, highlighted by the recent fuel price hikes due to the Iran war, what would happen if free trade collapsed and New Zealand’s meat could not get to market and it could not import grain.
‘‘We’re at risk.’’
There are also risks from animal diseases such as bird flu and mad cow disease arriving and becoming established in New Zealand interrupting supply significantly while they were dealt with.
Prof Mirosa said all these issues need to considered going forward as the country is not feeding its own adequately at present.
‘‘We do need to do a better job of providing food security here in New Zealand. Food poverty is completely unacceptable in a country that’s producing enough food to feed, what is it, 40 million people?’’
It means the future will involve eating a lot less animal protein as the world cannot sustain continually increased consumption.
‘‘The environment around hasn’t changed enough to trigger the demand yet . . . if it becomes unaffordable I would assume there would be more interest in alternatives.’’
People are still not paying the true cost of food production in terms of the environmental impact.
‘‘If we were to pay for those, if those externalities were included in the true price that we pay for our food, then that would significantly change consumer demand.’’
Prof Bremer says created food products have also not “kicked in” the way they were expected to although they are still working on it.
“Cellular agriculture still hasn’t met the price point targets or even the economies of scale or the production scales that were promised.”
“If you look at fast food consumption numbers, we’re putting things into our bodies all the time that are less than optimal nutritionally speaking.”
Food is very personal to people and changes to how food is regulated in New Zealand tend to be unpopular, she says.
“So there are lots of things you can do in terms of removing GST off healthy vegetables or putting sugar taxes or fat taxes. But those sorts of levers, behavioural change levers, tend to be fairly unpopular with the New Zealand public and not something that governments are particularly interested in pulling.”
Despite all the issues, many people enjoy making food, sharing it with others and exploring the cultural diversity food creates.
Prof Bremer believes 50 years from now some people will probably be eating pretty much what they are eating now. But the ability to buy steak will be even more restricted than it is today.
There may be added technologies providing shoppers with more targeted foods based on diets adapted to a person’s needs.
Another issue is the changing climate and more adverse weather events which will mean it will be harder to grow some crops.
“Some crops that we could previously grow or not grow will change, so we’ll probably see an increased range of tropical fruits we can grow here, but there will also be some more of the heat-sensitive crops that, certainly in other parts of the world, we can’t grow.
“This will lead to more drought-resistant species being sought out.
“So I think the environment will dictate what we eat to a certain extent, costs will dictate what we eat to a certain extent. And possibly regulations will dictate what we eat to a certain extent.’’
Prof Mirosa believes it is important to have discussions such as the Nano Fest future of food panel as it will take multiple visions and plans to make them happen to find solutions.
The panel, including Prof Mirosa and Prof Bremer as well as Puketeraki Marae Māra Kai co-ordinator, permaculturist and educator Sue Smith, Opobio Ltd and biotechnology researcher chief executive Dr Olivia Ogilvie and co-chair of Future Farmers and kiwifruit orchardist Daniel Kenna, will be asked “What is your vision for the future of food in NZ?”
Prof Mirosa said New Zealand does not have a national food strategy although there have been calls for one by various organisations such as Eat New Zealand.
“I think there is a place for being a bit more purposeful about the food futures that we want or don’t want and working together more collectively than we do across industry and government and research and community.”
To see
Nano Fest, Future of Food Panel, Te Whare o Rukutia, Dunedin, 6.30pm.
