Introduction
New Directions
Efficiency
Substitution
Redesign
Financing the transition
Introduction (Halvorson)
Part of the shift to sustainable diets (see Goal 2, Demand Supply Coordination, Substitution) means rethinking what we eat. What we consider edible is deeply cultural, socio-economic, spiritual and ecological. As such, it is linked to issues of race, class, income, religion, food waste, and decolonizing food culture. Spiritual practice has often defined what is edible, rooted in deeply historical and cultural issues of safety, purity, and resource management (though not always effectively given what we now understand about ecology and disease). These restrictions persist even though they are partly disconnected from their historical context. Such restrictions have also historically affected how different groups settled and interacted with each other and their environments (cf. Douglas, 2008; Harris, 2008).
Human diets have consisted of a variety of regionally available and adapted plants and animals. Today, out of an estimated 300,000 edible plants, humans cultivate roughly 200 at scale, 9 of which account for 66% of all crop production, with maize, potatoes, rice, and wheat accounting for half of global energy needs (Figure 1; Lachat et al., 2018; FAO, 2019). Around 40 species of animals make up all of livestock production, with just a subset producing the majority of global meat, milk, and eggs (FAO 2019). The numbers also don’t reflect the ongoing loss of local breeds and genetic diversity in the foods we eat (see Goal 5 Protecting Genetic Diversity). There is a great need to expand our palates and overhaul our agricultural systems, as both human nutrition and the environment benefit from a diversity of species. For example, malnutrition via nutrient deficiencies is best addressed with a diverse diet, and crop and ranch lands are more resilient to threats such as natural disasters and disease when they also function as biodiverse ecosystems (Lachat et al., 2018). Canadians generally are not consuming food optimal for their overall health (See Poor Diet in Problems section for a detailed explanation). This disparity can partially be addressed through Self- and Community- Provisioning, which includes activities like hunting, trapping, gathering, and foraging, as well as community and home gardens.
It is also important to consider is the role of food corporations in shaping what we eat (and don't eat) (see Goal 1 Changing Consumer Information systems). The way corporations have tried to influence protein consumption (IPES-Food, 2022) is emblematic of the narratives, product research and development, and supply chain pressures employed to shift what people think they should be eating. Advertising essentially becomes a process of consumer deskilling. These pressures rarely result in better dietary consumption patterns, since effectively firms must get consumers to overeat whatever they produce to grow market share and profitability. The corporate argument that it's up to consumers to eat what's best for them is so obviously a self-serving cover for the real agenda. It doesn't necessarily serve the interests of food firms, especially retailers, to have more of the plant and animal consumed because we can only eat so much. If we eat less of what we buy, then we have to go back to the store for more. If we optimize the value of every purchase, store sales suffer.
There are many examples of "false" dietary diversification. While globalization of supply chains and restaurant fare has generally expanded consumption compared to say a standard North American diet from the 1950s, unfortunately, some aspects of this globalization have been decidedly negative for biodiversity and local economies, particularly many associated with consumer demand for "superfoods".
All this means that diversifying what we eat has to be carefully considered, so as not to replicate the errors of other dietary transitions (see also Solutions and Goal 2 Demand-supply Coordination).
Efficiency
Influencing the influencers (Halvorson)
As discussed in many parts of this site, Western governments are typically weak on efforts to influence food demand, but clearly market forces alone will not move us strongly in the new directions discussed here. More coherent and aggressive strategies by the state are required.
There is some evidence that a new social norm can result from 10-30% of the population behaving differently (IPCC, 2022). Many commercial and public advertising campaigns have been trying to change behaviour but how to do so to achieve public, social and environmental objectives, at a reasonable expense, is now less clear, particularly in the food arena where multiple players attempt to "create" a wide array of trends. For years, there have been questions about the utility of government campaigns to influence eating habits outlined in the Canada Food Guide in the face of enormous private firm advertising budgets with messages running counter to public ones (see also Goal 1, Changing consumer information systems).
The utility of influencers, particularly food-focused influencers like celebrity chefs and FoodTok presenters, for promoting desirable trends within our current food system is largely uncharacterized, although an emerging field of interest. Can influencers help create a sustainable diet? Social media has created a platform for home cooks and Michelin star chefs alike to share their recipes, culinary techniques, and curate a personal brand, with a wider reach than conventional media. In 2017, Forbes’ top ten food influencers had over 43 million connections combined in the form of followers and subscribers. The numbers are likely higher from the pandemic when many took to TikTok to present their cooking. The extent to which they actually influence the actions of consumers is debated; a study of young adults in the UK found that although celebrity chefs were viewed positively, they were seen as a form of entertainment rather than an authority for desirable food habits (Lane and Fisher, 2015). In contrast, food influencers and trending recipes have had real-world impacts on consumption, even if only temporarily. A baked feta pasta recipe from Finnish food bloggers Jenni Hayrinen and Tiiu Puranen went viral on TikTok in early 2021, and in the following weeks and months some grocers saw demand for feta go up 200%, with some creameries expanding their production (Wharton, 2021). Ocean Spray cran-raspberry juice was cleared off shelves in 2020 by eager customers wanting to recreate Nathan Apodoca’s viral TikTok, where he sips the juice while longboarding to Fleetwood Mac’s “Dream” (Bouchrasmail, 2020; Yahoo Finance, 2020). Whether consumer changes are sustained is unclear, but there is obvious potential for influencers to be used to market public purpose food trends and systems.
Goanta and Ranchordás (2020) characterize modern influencer marketing as a type of word-of mouth advertising, whereby digital influencers are viewed as a trusted authority within their online community to pass on or endorse information. Word-of-mouth advertising is known to be an effective marketing technique because it is built on a “basis of mutual trust and repeated interactions” within a community or network, where the influencer has a “reputational incentive to keep providing correct information” (Goanta & Ranchordás, 2020, pg. 5). As the creators of online spaces of trust, influencers become important actors in shaping what is bought and consumed, reflected in the $3.69 billion that was spent by brands in the US on influencer marketing in 2021 (Goanta & Ranchordás, 2020; Dopson, 2021). The success of influencer marketing may be attributed to how these individuals are perceived; seen as self-made individuals who are more authentic and approachable than conventional celebrities, influencers become peers, para-social friends whom can be trusted for advice (Goanta & Ranchordás, 2020). Most influencers make revenue through monetizing advertisements, where brands pay them as affiliates through clicks or sales, or for endorsement of products. Influencers may also be paid through an exchange of services or goods from the brand (Goanta & Ranchordás, 2020). In the US, every dollar invested in influencer marketing by brands returns $5.20 in product sales and $4.87 in media exposure (Dopson, 2021) – how the return on investment is measured when the influencer is promoting an idea rather than a product is difficult to characterize.
Influencers, however, are not necessarily promoting socially useful dietary diversity, typified in the superfoods story. Superfoods (a type of functional foods) can be broadly defined as having high concentrations of nutrients, including chemical compounds like vitamins, minerals and antioxidants, that are typically associated with certain cultures or traditions and have purported health and illness-preventing benefits (Franco Lucas et al., 2021). Attributing their popularity to an increasingly health-conscious consumer-base, superfood consumers are knowledgeable about nutrition, comfortable with unfamiliar foods, recipes and techniques, and creative in the kitchen (Franco Lucas et al. 2021). Physical or financial factors are not significant barriers to consumers who often shop for superfoods as they are most commonly middle- and high- income earners (Magrach & Sanz, 2020).
Parker et al. (2019, pg. 3) argue that the popularity of superfoods is intimately tied to their marketing promises; not only are superfoods supposedly healthy, ethical, and sustainable products, but through purchasing them, consumers are led to believe that their individual choices “send the ‘right’ market signals to shape food supply chains” and “resist and redress the ravages of unbridled global capitalism”. Parker et al. state that superfoods can succeed from their associations, regardless of validity; superfoods like the acai berry commonly claim to bolster socio-economic development in rural communities or be harvested through sustainable environmental practises, which allows the consumer to feel righteous in their purchase. Superfoods seemingly “address a multitude of food system issues”, and their ability to multi-solve while still contributing to the global economy is attractive in a neoliberal society (Parker et al., 2019, pg. 6).
But the surging demand for superfoods is not without social and environmental consequences; despite claims of sustainability, these foods are likely to repeat past mistakes to meet market demands by increasing crop production through land-clearing and agrochemical use, with boom-and-bust cycles of demand putting extreme pressure on local producers (Magrach & Sanz, 2020). For example, quinoa production, which historically was cultivated in the Andes within a crop rotation system nearby llama and alpaca pastureland (that in turn fertilized the soil), has become dominated by monocultures, conventional fertilizers, and heavy machinery. These changes have led to increased soil erosion and nutrient depletion, as well as introduced pest and diseases. The production of avocados has similarly changed the landscape, with pine forests thinned out or completely cleared in central Mexico to meet market demands. Avocados also require large amounts of water, which can become problematic in ‘water-stressed’ countries like Chile. Superfoods can also have massive socio-economic implications. With cacao, 60 % of Ghana’s agricultural labour force receives 70 – 100 % of their entire income from production of the crop, and international markets and prices are highly unstable. The nature of superfoods also means that they are consumed far from where they naturally grow and outside of their cultural context, with transportation over large distances adding to their overall ecological footprint (Magrach & Sanz, 2020).
In influencing future food trends and promoting a just, healthy food system in Canada, a successful approach may come from partnering with food influencers (from mega to nano-sized reach) already predisposed to these concepts, to endorse sustainable futures of food production and consumption. Transparency, authenticity, fraud and proper implementation of sustainability and health promotion principles are obviously key issues with influencers, and the ability of the state to regulate their activity is constrained by limited legal frameworks for such actions. In the US, there are already efforts to engage influencers in government campaigns related to social responsibility (Goanta & Ranchordás, 2020).
Increased opportunities to try edible insects can be facilitated by influencers and through tasting events, educational workshops, and cookbooks, which are associated with improved consumer awareness and perception of insects as food (Han et al., 2017; Raheem et al., 2018; van Thielen et al., 2019). Powdered insect meal in a range of products is likely more viable in the near to medium term than whole insects given North American hesitations in many demographics. The price of insect protein is currently significantly higher than other sources, so its use is more likely to work in specialty products in the near term (Mosby et al., 2020). What level is feasible and acceptable in the diet remains unknown.
Building on financially modest federal government collaborations with influencers in the domains of safe cannabis use, dementia prevention, sexual health and mental-health resources (Djuric, 2024), governments should run a sustainable food campaign through partnerships/collaboration with food influencers already promoting different eating habits and help finance their efforts. To encourage more genuine and thoughtful projects, a possibility could be to set up a grant system where influencers apply with their plan of how they'll promote a just, healthy, sustainable food system, and then disperse the money based on the best plans. Technically, these would not be government ads and could be more successful since consumers are generally averse to ads and may not be moved by traditional public service announcements.
Changing the regulation of insects as food and feed
Regulatory changes are needed to signal the direction by which the insect rearing industry should evolve. Insects with a long history of safe human consumption are permitted, but novel insects and processing techniques are assessed under the novel foods regulations.
Novel foods according to Division 28 of Part B of the Food and Drug Regulations are:
- "a substance, including a microorganism, that does not have a history of safe use as a food;
- a food that has been manufactured, prepared, preserved or packaged by a process that
- has not been previously applied to that food, and
- causes the food to undergo a major change."
Part 3 of the current regulation relates to genetic engineering (GE) and must ultimately be removed because of how it supports an inadequate regime for GE (see Goal 4, Genetic Engineering).
Regarding insects as feed, the Feeds Act and Regulations make no mention of insects. Given current realities, priority uses should be for whole insects used in poultry, pigs, and aquaculture (poultry, pigs, and fish are insect eaters) and reared on food substrate that qualifies as pre-consumer waste (potentially both plant and some processed animal waste from slaughter plants). Black soldier flies, for example, will eat pretty much any waste material. Such insects serve as replacements in animal and fish diets for human edible foods that are currently extensively fed to chickens and fish, a highly unsustainable practice. However, the design of programs using black soldier fly larva is critical as energy consumption in the rearing system can be excessive and the diet used can be environmentally problematic in a number of ways (cf. Beyers et al., 2023). The European Union has concluded that insects are a viable feeding strategy for non-ruminants (see .
Novel feeds regulations should, thus, be made more specific. Whole insects (fresh, dried, or frozen) would not be novel for poultry, pigs, and fish. They would, however, be so for other animals that do not have insect consumption as part of their normal diet. If used for other animals, they would have to be used as supplements with extensive processing which is undesirable from an energy use perspective.
For each organism, there are different levels of optimal insect consumption but would be, at whatever level, a more sustainable option compared to using current levels of fish protein, and grain and oilseed meal. For example, for some wild salmonids (trout and salmon being dominant Canadian aquaculture fish), insects can be 70% of their diet. Numerous studies have concluded that insect diets are valuable for pigs and chickens, though optimal levels are still being researched (see citations in NWEurope, 2021).
The revised feed regulations must also regulate feed substrate, with no use of human edibles as part of insect rearing. The regulations should specify the types of waste that are permitted, and in a way that does not create more waste in order to provide for this secondary industry (see concepts and waste hierarchies in Goal 5, Reducing Food Waste). The EU regulation does provide some direction on feeding substrates, but these are only partially consistent with the approach taken on this site, so Canadian regulations would need further refinement relative to the EU approach.
Industrial applications for insects are discussed further under Goal 5 Sustainable Bioproducts.
Incentives for plant and animal diversification
The changing demographics of Canada have created new opportunities to diversify the production of plants and animals, but supply-side changes have generally lagged behind demand, especially for animal production. Given the costs of farming, the uncertainties of markets, and the average age of farmers, understandably many producers are reluctant to completely transform their operations to different animals or different crop rotations. Diversification has long been a theme in most regions, with government supports for everything from hog production, new varieties of grapes, aquaculture, transition out of tobacco production, and a wider range of grains, oilseeds, and pulses. The transition in Ontario out of tobacco is particularly interesting because it was partly driven by public health concerns, thus has parallels with the need for dietary diversification. The others were more related to economic diversification. Many of these transitions were driven by a mix of supply and demand-side government instruments, with some more successful than others. Out of this mix of instruments and experiences come sufficient lessons to design key elements for diversifying what we consider edible.
As well, the transition incentive approaches outlined in Goal 2 Demand Supply Coordination and Goal 5 Sustainable Food can also be employed to diversify what is grown and raised. Per acre or per animal unit payments can encourage shifts. Facilities transitions, as discussed under Goal 9 Human-Animal Relations, are also a potentially valuable approach.
Substitution
Organic waste bans in landfill
By changing the waste management environment, individuals and firms are forced to creatively reduce their food waste (see Goal 5 Reducing Food Waste). Rising tipping fees followed by a landfill ban have encouraged innovation in a number of jurisdictions. In many provinces, it is institutional and foodservice actors who are most likely to reduce waste and change menu offerings in response to such actions.
Assessing the negative impact of new foods on dietary diversity
Other than biological hazards, Canada has a generally weak system of post-market food surveillance. Stricter regulations, monitoring, and enforcement on the ability to make environmental, socio-economic, and health claims in product marketing is a necessary step towards more accountable, transparent food systems (Parker et al., 2019; see also Goal 1, Changing consumer information systems). As discussed, new food introductions or expansions can actually reinforce status quo socio-economic realities and impede authentic dietary diversity. The Canadian regulatory system has assiduously avoided analyzing products for their socio-economic impact, the underlying assumption being that markets can determine whether a product is socially desirable and useful. This is clearly a false assumption of market capacity, given the extensive market failure in the food system.
The need for comparative assessment has been highlighted in other sections (see Goal 3 Public Research, Substitution and Goal 4, Genetic Engineering, Substitution). In this case, and with the shift underway to sustainable diets and the transformation of Canada's Food Guide, foods should be assessed for their contributions to the transition to sustainable diets. At this stage, the legislated authority does not exist to prevent the sale and marketing of new foods that impede the transition to more diverse diets, nor do the protocols and expertise. The logical place to house such assessments is the Food Directorate of Health Canada, which already performs safety and nutritional assessments under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act. The Bureau of Food Surveillance and Science Integration would be the most likely unit to undertake assessments. At this stage, these assessments would provide information and analysis, but until mechanisms for full Demand - supply Co-ordination (see Goal 2, Demand-Supply Coordination, Redesign) are in place, the assessments could not be used to block the marketing of new foods. But this work would set the stage for such decisions later.
Redesign
This dietary diversification requires matching supply-side changes to optimize domestic production and distribution. As such, integration with the redesign stage of Goal 2 Demand Supply Coordination is required.
Financing the transition
See Financing the transition, Goal 2, Demand Supply Coordination.
