Food For Good by Michael Heasman

The Impact Of Climate Change On The United States

Often times it is all to easy to take comfort in the thought that climate change will affect someone else or someplace other than our own communities. It is hard to picture our own quality of life changing, especially for the worse. 

Yet an authoritative new study, published last week, challenges any complacency we might have sitting comfortably in the rich world. The new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, says that climate change in already having visible impacts in the United States.  

The report - Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States - warns that climate change impacts are expected to become increasingly severe for more people and places as the amount of warming increases.

The report, first commissioned in 2007, offers an objective scientific consensus about how climate change might further affect the United States and confirms previous evidence that global temperature increases in recent decades have been primarily human-induced. The report shows how climate change in the U.S. is already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health.

So what does the report say about our ability to produce food. Well the experts conclude that U.S. crops and livestock production will be increasingly challenged. While many crops show positive responses to elevated carbon dioxide and low levels of warming, higher levels of warming often negatively affect both growth and yields. There is the potential of increased pests, diseases and extreme weather all impacting agriculture, which means lower yields and some key crops not performing as well in certain regions as they have in the past. Particularly problematic will be the stresses caused by climate change on livestock production.

In addition, impacting both agriculture and livestock production, will be climate change stress on water resources in the United States. While water is an issue in every region of the U.S., it will hit some harder than others, especially in the West (also the heart of the country's horticultural industry).

The report does not set out to offer policy solutions, but to highlight the need for early and what the NOAA calls 'aggressive' action. 

The most striking lesson for me, from reading the section of the report on agriculture, is the urgent need for food business to assess and detail the business 'risks' climate change poses to their operations, particularly in relation to their supply chains, and their exposure to the agricultural and livestock value chains most likely to be impacted by climate change. 

A further area, already undertaken by some food and beverage businesses, is for food businesses to explain the short- and long-term actions being taken or developed to adapt or mitigate against these 'risks'. The sooner the better, if this report is anything to go by.

The Vulnerability of Migrant Workers In UK Food Supply

The UK has a highly concentrated food retail sector and a 'low price' competitive consumer market. As a result the supermarkets are accused of passing cost-savings down their supply chains. One consequence of this is a restructuring of labor markets including the use of migrant workers who are often employed as low-paid, temporary pickers, packers and processors in food and agricultural production.

The vulnerability of migrant workers in food and agricultural business is rarely documented in the context of business policy or CSR practices so a new study by the UK's Ecumenical Council For Corporate Responsibility (ECCR), published last month, is an eye-opening document.

The EECR is a church-based investor coalition working for economic justice, environmental stewardship, and corporate and investor responsibility, and their new report Vulnerable Migrant Workers: The Responsibility of Business, reveals the vulnerability of migrant workers in areas of the UK domestic economy where low-skilled flexible labor is concentrated: care, cleaning, construction, hospitality and catering, and food production, manufacturing and retailing.

The research focuses on the food sector in the UK and Ireland and compares the policies and practices of nine food production, manufacturing, and supermarket companies towards migrant workers, particularly their supply chains. The companies investigated are: Associated British Foods, Greencore Group, Kerry Group, Morrisons, Northern Foods, Premier Foods, Sainsbury's, Tesco and Unilever.

The report finds that few of these food companies are explicit about the potential vulnerability of migrant workers or the additional support they might need. While the report says most recognize some responsibility for workers in their supply chains, few appear to have mainstreamed considerations about labor conditions into their core business practice. 

The study details a wide range of findings, but generally found monitoring of labor conditions throughout the supply chain were weak among the companies and at times there was a failure to translate a company's stated labor policy into practice. In the case of three companies the report finds evidence of exploitation of migrant workers in their supply chains.

The ECCR developed a series of assessment indicators, with a numerical scoring system, as part of their study of the nine companies. A company could score a maximum of 24 using this method. The results and scores were:

Northern Foods: Score 17/24 Rank 1; Sainsbury's: 14/24 Rank 2=; Tesco: 14/24 Rank 2=; Premier Foods: 12.5/24 Rank 4; Kerry Group: 9.5/24 Rank 5; Unilever: 9/24 Rank 6; Greencore Group: 7/24 Rank 7; Associated British Foods: 4/24 Rank 8=; and Morrisons 4/24 Rank 8=.

All the companies in the study were informed of the research and invited to contribute relevant information and to comment on a draft. Five out of the nine companies responded on each occasion.

Among a series of recommendations, the report highlights the need for companies to:

- recognize the potential vulnerability of migrant labor, temporary and agency workers;

- implement effective codes of conduct for suppliers;

- increase awareness of rights among workers; and

- strengthen monitoring and audits.

ECCR researcher Sunniva Taylor said: 

"Many companies' profits benefit from the use of flexible labor in the supply chain. Companies and investors therefore have a moral responsibility to reduce the incidence of vulnerable work throughout their business and supply chain".

The ECCR says it hopes the report will be used as a framework for investors to consider how companies perform with regard to vulnerable migrant workers and by company managements, workforces and trade unions seeking to improve policy and practice. 

The Challenges Facing Local Food Economies

Thinking about my blog post yesterday and the USDA analysis showing the growth of direct-to-consumer food marketing, brought my thoughts back to the problem of the 'local' and local food economies in particular.

To re-instate viable local food economies that have been 'hollowed out' for several decades now, will take monumental policy, business, consumer and world-view shifts. The good news is that there is a new and growing momentum towards this.  

This momentum stems from the broad and philosophic perception that local food economies (LFEs) are seen as part of a process that 're-links' food producers to food consumers through 'short food supply chains' or, as they are also referred to, 'alternative food networks'.

But, and unfortunately, there is no one simple definition for a local food economy and in practice there are many types of LFE activities. Witness recently how Big Food such as Frito-Lay, Unilever's Hellmann's brand and the giant grocery retailers are now hijacking the 'local' as part of their marketing mix.

Recent academic literature on LFEs (which in itself has become a growth industry over the past decade) has been ravaged by contradictory interpretations: some researchers argue LFEs represent authentic Alternative Food Networks while others state that LFEs in its characteristics are no different from 'conventional' (that is 'industrial') food value chains. Another literature suggests that LFEs are somehow a 'hybrid' food system which 'dips in and out' of both industrial and alternative food systems. There is evidence that all these positions might be correct.

In addition the size of the 'thought-gap' between what an authentic LFE might be and the current industrial food system can be easily discerned by reading the work of such commentators as Wendell Berry. His 'local' message developed over the decades rings scarily real these days in a world of growing food insecurity and the destruction of the natural resources all our food relies upon. His plea to rediscover the complexity of 'local adaptation' for farms, farming and food seems more necessary than ever.

But how to do this - the fundamentals these days appear as very challenging. For example, the work of the American Farmland Trust (AFT), which is the United States' leading advocate for farm and ranch land conservation, shows how the infrastructure and farmland capacity to support LFEs is under continuing threat. For example, the AFT points out that most of the food Americans eat is grown on farmland in the nation's most metropolitan counties: the very farmland they point out that is most threatened by urban development and the conversion to non-farm uses.

A study from the AFT published last summer investigated whether a city such as San Francisco - located in the nation's most agriculturally productive state - could feed itself with local food. The study findings were very mixed and the research found it was currently impossible to determine precisely how much locally-grown food is consumed in the City of San Francisco or how much of what is consumed is produced on local farms and ranches (this study defined the 'local' as within a 100 mile radius).

Among the challenges this AFT study found was the need to encourage the traceability of the origin of locally-grown food; educating consumers about eating foods in-season; providing capital, expertise, and infrastructure to enable growers to transition to producing food for local markets; and access to healthy, local food for low-income consumers.

It is my view that rebuilding robust LFEs will be essential for our food future. But the 'local' in and of itself is not necessarily the solution alone. By this I mean when people talk about 'local' they are often making a number of other assumptions as well. For example, just because something is local it does not mean that it is environmentally sustainable or socially responsible - perhaps the 'local' can also learn a lot from Fairtrade practices also discussed yesterday.

Local businesses do not always respect human rights, pay 'living wages' or provide good working conditions (the local can be a site of inequality as in any other economic arena). Consumers will still demand quality, convenience and customer service. Consumer 'trust' in the local is a precious thing and local food producers will need to value this across a range of issues. 

So 'local food' carries a lot of other values in addition to the site of production and consumption. Policy and commerce has to see the local as part of addressing wider economic, social and environmental issues. It also needs to be framed as the complex, innovative and forward-thinking concept it can be and not as it is sometimes portrayed as reactionary and defensive (especially in the face of globalization).

But the growing momentum is a unique chance to reassess our economic, social and environmental 'values' and set in motion a visionary food policy agenda that includes rediscovering the purpose of farms and farmers, the meaning of environmental stewardship and human health at the heart of food supply. 

How Niche is Fairtrade And Direct-To-Consumer Markets?

Two pieces of encouraging news - one out of Europe and the other from the U.S. - for the followers of what are widely seen as indicators of ethical consumer food trends. 

In the first, the London-based Fairtrade Foundation released new research showing that global Fairtrade sales grew by 22% in 2008 as consumers spent an estimated 2.9 billion Euros on Fairtrade products. 

In the second, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its analysis of direct-to-consumer food marketing from farms that showed a more than doubling of sales over the period 1997-2007.

Star performers in global Fairtrade certified products were tea, with sales more than doubling last year (up by 112%), and Fairtrade cotton products (sales up 94%). But the biggest Fairtrade products by volume remain coffee and bananas. 

Fairtrade sales grew more than 50% in seven countries in 2008 (but from small bases in some cases); these included Australia and New Zealand (72%), Canada (67%), Finland (57%), Germany (50%), Norway (73%) and Sweden (75%). The largest Fairtrade market in the world is the UK whose sales of Fairtrade certified products increased 43% to 881 million Euros. Perhaps the disappointing news was from the U.S. which only managed a 10% increase in sales, but still remains the world's second largest market by value with sales of 758 million Euros.

The USDA analysis is based on data collected as part of the 2007 Census of Agriculture and although it shows farm direct-to-consumer sales growing by 104.7% over the decade to 2007 (compared to total agricultural sales only increasing 47.6% over the same period), using a special statistical calculation that takes into account agricultural sales that could not go directly to consumers, the USDA still estimate these direct-to-consumer food marketing sales to be only around 0.8% of total comparable agricultural sales. 

Their analysis also shows marked regional differences across the U.S. in terms of the growth of direct-to-consumer food marketing from farms. The largest market, by value, is California with sales of $163m, followed by New York ($77.5m), then Pennsylvania ($76m). Growth rates over the decade in some states has been dramatic - Oregon, Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, South Dakota, Colorado, and Mississippi all notched up growth rates in directly marketed sales of over 220%.

But as in other types of food markets it's the biggest players who gained the most market share by value. Total direct-to-consumer sales in 2007 added up to around $1.21 billion. But farms with more than $50,000 in direct-to-consumer sales accounted for only 2.8% of the total number of farms which sold directly to consumers yet captured 58.1% of all sales ($703.5m). Farms with annual direct-to-consumer sales below $5,000 accounted for 11.7% of sales ($114m) while representing 77.4% of farms engaged in direct marketing. Put another way, of the 136,817 farms involved in direct-to-consumer food marketing, 105,944 managed total sales of $135.2m while the remaining 30,873 farms took home around $1.08 billion.

While the Fairtrade and direct-to-consumer farm sales demonstrate consumer interest in these marketing practices, they remain stuck in the niche category. For example, the direct-to-market sales is not even close to 0.5% of total U.S. food retail sales. 

These aggregate figures are also frustrating because they raise so many other questions - for example how does the direct-to-consumer farms relate to trends towards local foods; or how do Fairtrade certified products stack up against other labeling systems such as the Rainforest Alliance? Is the ethical Fairtrade consumer also the local consumer who likes to buy from farms directly? And of course the crucial economic questions remain: how far can these niches be scaled up without losing their point of differentiation and as markets grow how can the viability of new entrants and existing businesses be maintained and developed? 

Dunkin' Brands, Inc. Joins Ceres Sustainability Network

Dunkin' Brands, Inc. - the parent company of Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin-Robbins - has made a major new commitment to incorporate sustainability as a central part of its business strategy and to hold itself publicly accountable on its sustainability progress.

By joining the Ceres network this past week - Ceres being the leading North American network of investors, environmental groups, and other public interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges - Dunkin' Brands should follow the Ceres Principles (or adapt their own comparable code) which is a 10-point code of corporate environmental conduct to be publicly endorsed by the company as an environmental mission statement or ethic.

A quick tour of the Dunkin' Brands website shows that the company is in the early stages of its sustainability mission, although it does have a 'responsibility' tag. For example, I could not see that any CSR or Sustainability report has yet been published and sustainability initiatives to date are relatively ad hoc. The company describes these as opening its first LEED certified store in 2008; as responding to consumer interests to healthy food choices with some 'better-for-you' food offerings; and sourcing a line of hot and iced espresso beverages from 100% Fair Trade certified coffee beans.

Dunkin' Brands membership of Ceres, which has around 80 companies signed up, should see the development of some far-reaching changes to the organization with the potential to impact millions of consumers. The company, headquartered in Canton, Massachusetts, has more than 14,800 points of distribution in 44 countries worldwide. At the end of 2008 there were 8,835 Dunkin' Donuts franchised restaurants and 6,013 Baskin-Robbins franchised restaurants and the company had system-wide sales of around $6.9 billion. 

Companies that join Ceres must actively commit to an on-going process of continuous improvement, dialogue and comprehensive, systematic public reporting on their sustainability progress. By joining Ceres companies are in effect formalizing their dedication to environmental awareness and accountability. Ceres, in return, provide help and advice to companies to enable their sustainability activities and strategy.

Dunkin' Brands joins a few other food and beverage companies who have already joined Ceres. These are Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc., Clif Bar & Company, Coca-Cola Company, General Mills, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, McDonald's Corporation, PepsiCo, and State Street Coffee.

Ceres works from an investor perspective to place value on a company's environmental and social performance and to identify bottom-line risks and opportunities. Ceres also pioneers honest sustainability accounting and founded the Global Reporting Initiative that has become the global standard in CSR and sustainability company reporting. Currently Ceres is directing the Network on Climate Risk, a network of 78 institutional investors and financial firms with collective assets totaling nearly $7 trillion, which focuses on the business risks and opportunities from climate change. 

All About Food, Inc.

So Food, Inc, the new (and much hyped) movie that aims to lift the lid on our industrial food system finally opened in U.S. cinemas this past Friday. I can't review it since it is not out where I live, but I enjoyed this interview with the film's director Robert Kenner and Michael Pollan, author of the Omnivore's Dilemma who also appears in the documentary, on Washington Unplugged, part of CBSNews.com. 

You have to get past an ad for Barcardi at the start of the video clip, but it is worth waiting to the end when Michael Pollan makes the crucial point linking the current crisis facing the U.S. healthcare system to the type of food produced by the current food system. As he points out there is a new and increasing demand for more, and different, voices to be heard in deciding the future of our food and farming system. 

As these blog posts on Food For Good demonstrate by commenting on current trends and developments in food business sustainability, many food businesses are already ahead of the curve here, but sadly, far too many are digging in for a continuation of more of the same or worse continuing to perpetuate the destruction of the natural resources our food supply depends upon and furthering a food system that brings both human and environmental ill-health. 

Greenpeace Report On Brazil's Cattle Industry

When we think about the act of eating - if we think about it at all - it is highly individual or something we do with family and friends. It's personal. 

But our modern food system is such a web of interconnections and myriad business transactions our simple daily act of eating is part of a cascading chain of consequences. 

To explain this I would make the new Greenpeace report Slaughtering The Amazon required reading on any food business ethics course I was teaching. The report details the results of a three year investigation into Brazil's booming cattle industry and how this has become the largest source of deforestation in the world, as well as Brazil's main source of C02 emissions.

The report documents the numerous business interconnections that eventually link the Brazilian cattle industry to consumers around the world; it is a case study in how a food system evolves and operates and how as consumers we are part of this. 

Products derived from cattle in Brazil find their way into the supply chains of numerous top brands such as, in food, Tesco, Wal-Mart, Kraft, Unilever, Carrefour, but also through non-food products (such as leather) used in brands like Adidas/Reebok, Timberland, Geox, Eurostar, Honda, Gucci, IKEA and Nike.

We are thus all 'linked' through brands - whether we want to or not - to a cattle industry implicated in the destruction of the Amazon forest, the invasion of indigenous lands, and slavery, according to Greenpeace.

The report says that the cattle industry in Brazil is responsible for 14% of the world's annual deforestation, and 80% of all deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon region (Greenpeace use satellite image analysis to track this). This on-going deforestation is despite the pledge given by the Brazilian government in 2008 to achieve a 72% cut in the rate of deforestation by 2018.

In fact the report suggests that government policy itself is assisting the expansion of the cattle industry in Brazil. The Brazilian government aims to double Brazil's share of global trade in beef products by 2018. The report details how the government has formed strategic alliances with three of Brazil's major beef product exporters - Bertin, JBS, and Marfrig. These companies, in turn, are key players in linking the beef produced in cattle ranches in the Amazon to retailers and manufacturers around the globe. 

The central Greenpeace argument in the report is that these companies (and others), supported by government policy, are producing and exporting products from cattle raised in areas of new deforestation, not just from existing ranches established over many years, and that as the cattle industry expands so will the deforestation.

The expansion of the Brazilian cattle industry is forecast to be dramatic. The Brazilian government is foreseeing a doubling in Brazil's market share of world meat and poultry exports within the next decade. Beef exports are expected to increase 93% giving Brazil a share in world trade of 61%. Already Brazil has the world's largest commercial cattle herd, is the largest beef exporter in the world, and, with China, shares the top market position for tanned leather hides. Exports of beef and veal from Brazil increased six-fold between 1998 and 2008.

Agribusiness is central to Brazil's economy. The sector as a whole accounted for 25% of Brazil's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2008 and agricultural shipments worth $71.8 billion made up 36% of the country's total exports. The government has ambitious plans to expand its agricultural sector. For example, the 2008/2009 Agriculture and Livestock plan makes available $41 billion in credit available to boost production with around 85% of this credit going to corporate agricultural interests, according to Greenpeace. 

The report is not about meat per se, but about protecting forests and the impact of deforestation on climate change. Yet the report shows how the two issues are intricately connected, as are the markets for the other by-products of the cattle industry.

As a result, among a number of actions Greenpeace is calling for is that world leaders at the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen this December should agree on making funding available to end deforestation, in particular to stop deforestation in the Amazon by 2015, and globally by 2020.

Despite this call for action, reading the analysis presented in this report does not make me very optimistic that these sorts of targets in relation to Brazil's cattle industry will be met. The nature and interconnectivity of this particular food system is so interwoven it will take almost a revolution in consumption patterns and eating habits to make substantial changes. This is the scale of the challenge suggested by this Greenpeace investigation of one particular food system.  

Consumers Reward And Punish Brands Based On Social and Environmental Practices

A new consumer report shows how U.S. consumers are using their social and environmental 'values' to make their own purchase decisions, but as importantly are urging others to change their consumption behaviors based on these social and environmental criteria.

According to the 2009 BBMG Conscious Consumer Report: Redefining Value in a New Economy, published this week, three-in-four U.S. consumers (77%) say they "can make a difference by purchasing products from socially or environmentally responsible companies," and 72% say they have "avoided purchasing products from companies whose practices I disagree with". 

The report authors say their research signals that consumers are rewarding brands that align with their values and punishing those who don't.

But this does not stop at the individual consumer. A particularly interesting strand to this research is the way consumers surveyed indicated that company behavior is actively driving word-of-mouth influence. For example, the research found more than half of consumers (55%) say they "often encourage others to buy from companies that are socially and environmentally responsible," and nearly half (48%) say they have "told other people to stop buying products from companies whose practices I disagree with".

One-in-four consumers (28%) say they often post reviews and recommendations of products and companies on blogs, message boards and social networking sites.

This BBMG consumer report also identifies an important 10% of consumers, which it calls the Enlighteneds, who are most likely to align their purchases with their values. While statistically a relatively small group, they are highly influential BBMG says, since this group actively shape the content and conversations that help influence the other 90% of consumers.

Mitch Baranowski, co-founder of BBMG, an agency that integrates branding, sustainability and innovation, said:

"Enlightened consumers are the most ardent and vocal champions for responsible companies and foes to irresponsible ones. Earning their respect and admiration is essential...brands that reach, engage and empower this passionate 10 percent will benefit from enhanced credibility, higher trust and positive word-of-mouth influence".

REVIEW: Safeway Inc. CSR Report

Safeway is a big grocery retailer: its 1,739 stores generated sales of $44.1 billion in 2008. Its new CSR report, published in May, is equally big - on rhetoric, but short on facts and metrics. For example, the report proudly proclaims that "We are one big happy team at Safeway" yet forgets to mention anywhere in the report how many people it actually employs in its team (and how does the company measure 'happy'). 

This is typical of the report: yes, there is so much to be impressed about, but also so much that leaves you scratching your head and wondering.

The report, which does not say whether it follows any reporting guidelines such as the Global Reporting Initiative or provide third party verification, devotes one of its largest sections to the work of the Safeway Foundation, it includes this under its Community heading. And here Safeway is big hearted in its philanthropic activities raising and donating more than $248 million in 2008.

The Safeway Foundation is a major corporate sponsor of breast cancer and prostrate cancer research, and of hunger relief (it gave $175m in food to local food banks). It also provides substantial support for disability organizations.

The report describes it commitment to its people, especially towards diversity and inclusion within its workforce and its leadership here - for example, the company is one of the United States' largest employers of people with disabilities (although, and typical of the report, no numbers or benchmarks are given).

Apart from the impressive work of the Safeway Foundation, the rest of the report contains some of the information you might expect from a major food retailer following consumer and competitor trends - little comes across as CSR game-changing. For example, in the Products section we learn the company has developed a 'healthy eating' range (the Eating Right brand) and a line of organic products - but that's about all we get.

In the Planet section there are some facts and figures relating to environmental impact and while this data is welcome, these are mainly set out as stand alone figures that often appear without any context, metrics, historical data, or future targets. 

Much of the information is vague. For example, on packaging the company says it "reduced the amount of packaging we use on a range of dairy products" - and that's all that is said. 

An exception is Safeway's commitment to buy energy from renewable sources that has allowed the company to offset and reduce its carbon footprint.

This is the first CSR report from Safeway that combines its three reports from previous years (on 'giving', 'environment', and 'social responsibility') into a single document. The report is framed in the language that is increasingly common in food and beverage CSR reporting (and been around for quite a few years now) of helping consumers become "better stewards of the planet" and that the company is on "an ongoing journey".

It is my opinion that corporate philanthropic activities are often overlooked or brushed aside by some commentators and I would like to see a more positive recognition of this aspect of corporate activity, but philanthropy is largely non-strategic from a business perspective. So putting philanthropy aside from the Safeway report, what is left? To be honest not a great deal for such a large organization.

The report, for me at least, failed to demonstrate how sustainability and CSR was holistically integrated within Safeway's corporate culture. There is also a lot of activity that is missing. For example, you will find next to nothing about Safeway's relationship with its supply chains, supply chains are usually where most food business sustainability impacts are to be found. You will never realize Safeway is a food manufacturer and processor in its own right operating 32 facilities in North America because these are not mentioned. You will learn nothing about its transport policy even though the company operates 17 distribution/warehousing centers. You won't know what Safeway is doing about fair trade, 'living wages' or human rights because these topics are not covered. 

In short, this report is poor and fails to give much sense of Safeway's map for its particular sustainability journey. 

World Future Council Explores 'Crimes Against Future Generations'

Here's an interesting legal question that cuts to the heart of the 'sustainability' agenda: How can we prevent and prosecute activities today that severely threaten the living conditions and health of those living in the future?

Such a legal position may not be as far-fetched in the future as it is today: it was the theme at a symposium of 120 international law experts held in Montreal on May 28-29th where the Hamburg-based World Future Council (WFC) presented its pioneering work on 'crimes against future generations' for discussion. 

The WFC is an organization that aims to bring the interests of future generations to the centre of policy-making and consists of 50 'councilors' from around the globe who have already promoted change. The WFC addresses challenges to our common future and provides decision-makers with effective policy solutions.

Clearly such a legal question would be important to the world of food where in the present, let alone for future generations, people across the globe die from a lack of food, suffer from food-related illness and disease, and see their environments threatened by the activities of food production.

The WFC 'crime' concept can be seen as providing legal authority for the classic 1987 Brundtland report definition of sustainability which is: "...development that meets the needs of the present [generation] without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

The symposium, hosted by the Centre for Sustainable Development, noted that the global community has already emphasized the duties of current generations to conserve the environment, to use natural resources with caution and to create a healthy environment for future generations, but the WFC note the legal enforcement of these agreements is still very limited. Examples the WFC highlight where today's actions threaten future generations included the over-fishing of oceans and the destruction of rainforests.

WFC program director Dr Maja Gobel says: 

"We [the WFC] work to raise the consciousness of humankind, so that knowingly destructive acts with damaging consequences on living conditions in the future become taboo".

This is the moral and ethical dimension of food and beverage sustainability that can often appear overshadowed by the 'efficiency gains' and 'cost reductions' of so many sustainability agendas. It seems to me the challenge for food and agri-business - and I don't think this is at all easy - is to confront its sustainability taboos.