New report and awareness-raising feast bring local focus to global poverty

Between the soup course and the main dish of rice and vegetables, dozens of people who gathered for a feast heard about hunger months in South Sudan and the plight of banana farmers striving to earn a living wage while growing “the world’s favorite fruit.”

The resounding message of the evening was, “Yes, it is possible to do something” locally about food challenges people face globally.

Photographer: Beth Huckstep

The 170 or so people gathered on 16^th November at St. Paul’s Church were already taking a stand against food waste and poverty by breaking bread at the 4^th Liberated Feast. The celebration, which included a three-course vegan meal made from surplus food that would have otherwise gone to waste, provided a fitting backdrop for the launch of the 2014 Cambridge International Development Report, which focused on the future of the world’s food.

The Humanitarian Centre is a network organisation that connects NGOs, university students and lecturers, businesses, policy-makers, and anyone interested in international development.

Guests received hard copies of the newly published report, “Our common dream: a food secure future for all”, and saw real world examples of food insecurity come to life in presentations by report contributors, like Ian Sanderson, Founding CEO of Afrinspire. The local NGO is an Humanitarian Centre member organisation whose work focuses on developing initiatives led by local people in East Africa. The annual predicament of villagers in Lajora, South Sudan who previously had to face being hungry from June to September each year, was one such example.

“Now they are producing enough to sell,” Sanderson said.

He talked about various sustainable farming projects underway in Tanzania, Uganda and Sudan, some started with as little as 1000£ of seed money. These local initiatives allow farmers to learn new techniques and mothers to dream of better futures for their children.

“They are ready to produce their own food instead of relying on imported food,” Sanderson said, of the smallholder farmers he has met. He showed an image of a large family, of at least 8 or 9 children, which now grows pineapples.

“Once you have pineapples, you are food secure.” Sanderson said. “You can raise money. You can send your children to school.”

Photographer: Beth Huckstep

Speakers at the evening feast focused on efforts here at home as well. Sue Bentley, a national Fairtrade campaigner representing East England, reminded the audience of simple actions that people can take that are less taxing on the environment and on our natural resources, such as eating less meat or implementing Meat-Free Mondays at home.

Individual as well as government intervention is important if large supermarket chains are to change their marketing strategies. For instance, the practice by supermarkets of using low cost bananas to attract customers into stores hurts farmers’ bottom line most of all.

“The terrible irony is that the banana is the world’s favorite fruit but the farmers are getting poorer and poorer,” she said.

Bentley emphasised the importance supporting food producers and challenging the control corporations have over our eating habits. She highlighted taking personal responsibility for the food we waste as well as educational campaigns in schools aimed at addressing the food habits of future generations.

She said events like the report launch and feast serve as a reminder and connector to the wider world.

“We need to find ways to build these connections,” Bentley said. “Organizations like The Humanitarian Centre are absolutely wonderful for doing that.”

Many in attendance, including roommates Emily Kell, 21, and Jayni Gudka, 26, said they too appreciated the reminder about food waste and poverty as well as the opportunity to “meet people who are as socially aware and concerned about the same global issues.”

For Jamie Rycroft, an editor of the report, the feast and its “communal” atmosphere was a perfect illustration of what can happen when people make “conscious choices” and are “shown alternatives.”

While Andy Churchard, 34, and his partner, Sonia Kaupe, 31, were attracted to the vegan meal because of their vegetarian lifestyle, they agreed the issues addressed were already concerning to them.

“I don’t know if it will change the way we shop, but it’s interesting to at least be aware,” Kaupe said.

Photographer: Axel Minet

During the chocolate cake dessert course, Jon Halls, a local musician and activist, wrapped up the evening by thanking the crowd and singing the praises of his partner and Liberated Feast organiser, Jennie Debenham.

Halls said the significance of the event for him was that it was about “chatting, sharing food, and nutrition.”

“It’s an obvious way to get the information embedded into people,” he said.

Keeping in the spirit and to avoid food going to waste, Halls’ final message to the crowd before everyone dispersed into the soggy night: “Take some food home.”

To see more pictures from the event, please visit our facebook page.

Have a look inside too see how we have developed our concepts for dealing with food insecurity. Please get involved, all content is there to be engaged with, critiqued, and built on.

For any comments or questions, please look on our twitter account. Be part of the debate.

Prof Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice Chancellor, University of Cambridge; Dr Nim Njuguna, Chair of Nakuru Environmental and Conservation Trust; Prof Richard Andrews, Deputy Vice Chancellor Anglia Ruskin University (CC) The Humanitarian Centre

Extending the reach of Cambridge’s impact in the global community was the theme of the Launch of the Humanitarian Centre’s Ambassadors group on October 27. The event was hosted by Lord Richard Wilson, the Humanitarian Centre’s Patron, in the Gardner Room of Emmanuel College.

In his opening remarks Prof. Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, urged participation in, and support for, the Centre’s efforts. Initiatives like the formation of the Ambassadors group provide the opportunity to champion the Humanitarian Centre’s important messages and activities. The VC said that the Humanitarian Centre has a special role to play in facilitating collaborations with both universities in the city, as well as with civil society and business.

The lively evening, described by one participant as being “full of buzz”, was well attended by a mix of leading academics, business leaders, member organisations, trustees, staff and volunteers.

Incoming chairman of the Board of Trustees, Dominic Vergine, highlighted some of the collaborative projects that have already had worldwide impact, including the award-winning SimPrints initiative that enables healthcare workers in developing countries to access patient information using their fingerprints as identification. “This”, said Dominic, “has the potential to transform global health care.”

In her brief remarks, the Centre’s new director, Dr. Lara Allen, spoke of her long held concern with global knowledge inequality and the challenge of creating enabling environments in which knowledge and capacity can be shared between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ in a respectful, mutually beneficial and effective way. It was the opportunity to address this question from a base in Cambridge that led her to take up her new position. “We – people in this city – have a truly remarkable opportunity to make a real difference. I’m looking forward to working on making the very best of this opportunity,” she said.

To see more pictures from the event, please visit our facebook page.

By Willem Stoop

Scaling, mechanisation and intensification have been key issues inmodern agriculture, that being the post-Second World War period. Concerns about the sustainability and resilience of agricultural production systems, especially in light of climate change and environmental degradation, have been dominating debates about global food security.

Sophisticated research by universities and international institutes – including complex modelling efforts – has brought about major breakthroughs like the Green Revolution. Its results, in terms of new crop varieties and the use of chemical products like mineral fertilisers and crop protection, have been widely introduced, supported by government policies and promoted by extension services.  This modernisation of farming has largely been a top-down effort aimed at increasing the productivity of agriculture throughout the world.

Figure 1

By contrast, SRI has been more of a grassroots and bottom-up development that has evolved rather spectacularly over the last twenty years, particularly in Asia, through the direct involvement of local farming communities. The method is based on a set of six simple agronomic practices that are partly interdependent (Stoop et al, 2002). These are – the selection of high quality seeds or (very) young seedlings in case of transplanting, as with rice; seedlings being transplanted singly per hill; the relatively wide spacing of seedlings in a grid; an alternately wet and dry soil moisture regime; the use of compost; regular mechanical weeding. These are very general principles that obviously require some fine-tuning and adaptation in response to local conditions, be they biological, physical (the weather/climate and soils), technical, economic and/or socio-cultural. The sophisticated mechanical transplanting machine being used for SRI in Tamil Nadu has obviously little relevance to the conditions of the irregularly shaped plots of terraced rice farming in the hills of Uttarakhand (figure 1). Yet the principles remain valid and indeed often guide the adaptations which local farmers introduce.

Field observations on farmers’ plots, alongside some supporting research has now revealed that most farmers – both in the North and the South – use excessive seed rates, largely due to tradition. As a result the crop becomes vulnerable to lodging – i.e. the plants fall over – an effect that becomes even worse when liberal rates of mineral fertilisers, nitrogen in particular, are applied as recommended by modern standards of intensified agriculture. Farmers are quite familiar with these above-ground features. In response, scientists have bred short-straw varieties of crops, based on the dwarfing gene in modern rice and wheat varieties. These new varieties are presumably resistant to lodging, even when planted densely and heavily fertilised with nitrogen. However, this solution overlooks what happens in the soil beneath the crop, in terms of root growth, soil health,soil biota and the interactions between these factors.

Recent research has shown that the high density of plants densities routinely used by farmers, both traditional and modern, leads to seriously stunted root growth, and consequently the premature death of crops, which unavoidably leads to serious yield losses (Stoop, 2011;  Thakur, et al. 2013). Moreover, restricted root systems of individual plants are responsible for inefficient moisture and nutrient uptake from the soil, which leading to symptoms of drought and nitrogen deficiency.  In essence, plant density is proving to be the most important factor in crop growth, explaining the positive effects of SRI and, for that matter, of many other crops grown throughout the world, in agricultural systems of widely different levels of technological sophistication.

However, drastically reducing seed rates– to anywhere between one fifth and one tenth of those recommended – has many implications for other routine agronomic practices like seedbed preparation, weeding, water management, fertilisation and manuring. All of these practices will have to be readjusted by farmers. At the same time, researchers will have to develop practical guidelines that can steer what should otherwise be a farmer-led adaptation process. As SRI practices tend to be counter to traditional practices, as well as those that have been formally recommended for years by extension and development services, one will have to deal with an extensive learning exercise for farmers (as well as scientists and development personnel). It follows that to be most effective such learning process should be anchored at the level of the farmer/village community and should be based largely on farmer-to-farmer communication supported by practical experimentation and testing in order to illustrate the effects convincingly –for instance, in farmer field schools.

More information about SRI, its history, spread and relevance for other crops, as well as associated research, reports and publications,) can be found on the Cornell website: http://sririce.org

Some references:

Stoop, W.A., Uphoff, N. and Kassam, A., 2002. A review of agricultural research issues raised by the system of rice intensification (SRI) from Madagascar: opportunities for improving farming systems for resource-poor farmers. Agricultural Systems 71, 249-274.

Stoop, W.A., 2011. The scientific case for system of rice intensification and its relevance for sustainable crop intensification. Intern. J. Agric. Sust., 9(3), 443-455.

Thakur, A.K., Rath, S., Mandal, K.G., 2013. Differential responses of system of rice intensification (SRI) and conventional flooded-rice management methods to applications of nitrogen fertilizer. Plant and Soil, 370, 59-71.

By Brian Sims

When talking about conservation agriculture (CA), it is usually best to be sure that common ground is being discussed.  To that end, let’s start with a description of CA.  There are three basic principles which need to be adhered to:

• Using only the minimum tillage necessary to place the seed and fertilizer at the correct depth in the soil.  In practice this will usually mean notillage
• Maintaining permanent organic soil cover.  This requires leaving, as far as possible, crop residues in place and will often include the use of cover crops between the main, or cash, crops
• The inclusion of crop rotations and associations to increase biodiversity in the system.  The use of legumes is often crucial to this process

It could be said that these CA principles are universal, but at the same time their application to local situations is site-specific.  It is for this reason that local experimentation and adaptation ─ by farmers for farmers ─ is an essential ingredient to the implementation of CA.  Maize and soya growers in the mid-west of the US will naturally have different types of suitable cover crops to those for wheat farmers in Kazakhstan.

Conservation agriculture includes direct planting, permanent soil cover and crop rotations and associations.  Here a Zambian farmer uses a maize, cow-pea rotation in her direct-sown crops (using an animal-drawn no-till planter) where all crop residues are left in place.

Many of the crop rotations and associations developed by Brazilian smallholder farmers have some relevance to the situation in many sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries.  African farmers can benefit from the success of their Brazilian counterparts and avoid some of the time-consuming practice of on-farm experimentation. Changing from conventional (plough or hoe-based) agriculture to CA can often be a lonely business for the pioneers of a region or community. The formation of CA farmer clubs – also known as farmer fieldschools (FFS) – can greatly help to bolster confidence and solve mutual problems.  FFS for CA have been particularly successful in SSA, where knowledgeable experts are asked by farmers to explain any obscure or difficult aspects, and to suggest possible solutions for further farmer experimentation. Large-scale farmers have a well-functioning industry to provide them with their CA equipment needs.  This is especially true of no-till planters which are available worldwide.  However, the same is not true of sub-Saharan African and south-east Asian smallholder communities, who sometimes do not yet have locally available and locally adapted machinery to allow them to practise CA. Whilst local machinery manufacturers are beginning to satisfy this need, a more long-term solution is to equip and train local entrepreneurs (in technical and business skills) so that they can offer quality CA services (especially planting and spraying) to a number of paying smallholder clients.  This is the model currently being promoted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Further information on all aspects of CA can be found at www.fao.org/ag/ca.

Lara Allen, Director, The Humanitarian Centre

The Board of Trustees is delighted to announce the appointment of Dr Lara Allen as our new director. Lara has worked extensively in international development and has the ideal mix of skills to lead the Humanitarian Centre during its 2014-15 year on Empowered Voices and into the future.  Lara has a PhD from the University of Cambridge and was Associate Professor and Research Fellow at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa.  In 2007, she co-founded the Tshulu Trust, which links rural communities in the Venda region of South Africa with universities. The Trust aims to improve livelihoods by sharing knowledge and building the capacity of developing communities. Lara ran the organisation for eight years. Since 2012, Lara has been head of monitoring and evaluation, research, capacity building and communications at Misean Cara, an Irish NGO, which supports development projects worldwide.

Lara will take up her appointment on 6^th October.

We are very grateful to current director, Sonia Roschnik for all the work she has done for the Humanitarian Centre. She has developed a new vision for the organisation, streamlined our objectives and ways of working, and strengthened our links with communities in the South. Her work provides a strong foundation for us to build on in the years ahead. Sonia will be moving to a senior position in the National Health Service in mid-September. We wish her every success in her new post.

See more about this and other transitions at the Humanitarian Centre here.

See more about Lara and the rest of the team here.

“Food Security, Biotechnology & Genetic Modification- a mature conversation“ by Humcentre on Mixcloud

As part of the 2014 ‘Festival of Plants’ in Cambridge and The Humanitarian Centre’s Global Food Futures Year, we partnered with the Sainsbury Laboratory, the Conservation Research Institute, and the Cambridge Conservation Initiative for a “mature conversation” about “Food Security, Biotechnology & Genetic Modification”.

The fantastic Susan Watts (previous Science Editor for Newsnight) chaired the discussion, and her esteemed panelists included:

-Dr Emmanuel Okogbenin, of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation
-Dr Andrew Stirling, of the University of Sussex
-and Professor Ottoline Leyser, of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

The panelists offered a range of views on the topic, and responded to questions in the audience, to try to progress from ‘To GM or not to GM?; that is the question’ to a more holistic and dynamic understanding of the range of innovations available to farmers, and the reasons those farmers may or may not use them.

Learning from this event and others in the Global Food Futures Year will also be shared through our 2014 Cambridge International Development Report, which launches on Sunday 16 November, at the Liberated Feast. Get your tickets today!

Sonia Roschnik, our Director, who has done a fantastic job for us over the past months, is moving in September to an unmissable opportunity with the Sustainable Development Unit for the health sector, where she will be working internationally with development agencies such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). We are sure she will be very successful there, and are sorry to see her leave her post as Director.

We’re not losing her entirely though, as she will continue to support the Humanitarian Centre as an advisor to the Board of Trustees. She has made a significant impact to the Humanitarian Centre, helping in particular with our strategic focus and streamlining our operations, and has put us into a very strong position for the future.

We’re delighted that Lara Allen will be taking over from Sonia as Director on 6th October 2014, consolidating the work that Sonia has done in the role and taking the Humanitarian Centre to new strengths.

Steve Jones, our Chair of Trustees and a highly-experienced international development consultant, will take the role of Interim Director while we work to recruit our next Director. At the same time, Dominic Vergine, who was a founding member of the Humanitarian Centre, will take over as Chair of Trustees, and Shelley Gregory-Jones, an experienced charity Development Director, will move into the role of Vice-Chair of Trustees.

In addition, Anne Radl, our Programmes Manager who ran our Global Health and Global Food Futures Themed Years, has had a beautiful baby girl, and we wish her all the best on maternity leave from August 2014. (Thanks to everyone who came out and let her say goodbye to you at the Blue Dot Pub Quiz  on Monday the 28th of July).

We have a wonderful programme of events planned for next year, starting in October.  We’re transitioning from a successful year focusing on Global Food Futures (with a finale event on 16^th November and launch of the fifth Cambridge International Development Report on Global Food Futures) into what promises to be a thought-provoking and dynamic year on the theme of human rights and poverty; Empowered Voices: action for a world without poverty. The year launches on the 4^th of November at the Cambridge Africa Film Festival!

Please get in touch with us if you have any questions or would like any more information about any of these transitions. To find out more about Lara, Steve, Dominic and Shelley, see our Humanitarian Centre “People” page.

On 12 May, The Humanitarian Centre hosted a seminar on Sustainable Agriculture Development, led by the TAA (Tropical Agriculture Association), as part of the Global Food Futures Year. The following is a report on the seminar, written by the TAA. This report can also be downloaded here.

The  Sustainable Agriculture Development Seminar was led by the TAA (Tropical Agriculture Association), with enthusiastic support from the Cambridge University’s Strategic Initiative in ‘Global Food Security’ (GFS), the Cambridge Conservation Forum (CCF), and the Humanitarian Centre. There was an amazing turn out of some 50 people from a wide range of institutions and individuals from Cambridge and beyond.

Following brief descriptions of the Partner Organisations by their representatives, Keith Virgo, of TAA, introduced the topics of the seminar. He recalled how, since the mid-1980s, people have lost interest in “soil”, there are now few people who can call themselves soil scientists. Likewise, donor interest in agriculture itself waned from the 1990s onwards and largely disappeared from the funding agencies’ radars. He expressed satisfaction that two new approaches to agriculture have emerged over the last 15 to 20 years, both of which recognized the crucial importance of “soil” and the need to ensure environmentally sustainable methods of food production.

These were the subjects of this seminar

• System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
• Conservation Agriculture (CA)

These methods enable producers to raise production with lower cost, less dependence on agro-chemical inputs and lower energy and water requirements. Moreover, they optimise conditions for crop growth, both above and below ground.

Presentations were made by two TAA members, which outlined the principles of these agro-ecological concepts and practices, with evidence that the approaches can reorientate agriculture in developed and less-developed countries to achieve greater productivity with sustainability.

Presentation 1. From field observation to agricultural science: the case of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI), by Willem A. Stoop. Willem was trained as an agronomist/soil scientist at Wageningen and the University of Hawaii. He had a career with the international agricultural research centres. Since 1998, when doing research at WARDA, he became increasingly involved in rice research and particularly SRI (System of Rice Intensification). He was co-author with Norman Uphoff of the first formal / peer reviewed publication on SRI in 2002. Presently, he is involved in advising three Indian PhD candidates doing their research on socio-economic aspects of SRI in India.

Willem traced the post-WWII emphasis on high-input–high yield cropping but noted the missing elements of soils, root systems, organic matter and soil biota. The empirical nature of SRI (labelled as an agro-ecological method) developed progressively on the basis of field practices (bottom-up orientation). This compared with the scientific theory and/or fundamental research (top-down orientation).

He outlined the SRI package of practices as compared with conventional, best practices: very low seed rates, very young transplants (8 to 15 days old), single transplants/hill, wide spacing (20×20 to 50×50 cm), no flooding, moist soil, use of compost, thorough weed control with 3 to 4 passes by manually-pushed rotary hoe. Figures in Table 1 showed a potential for doubling yields under SRI, with fewer inputs.

Most crop varieties (local and improved) respond positively to SRI practices. This is accompanied by drastically reduced (1/5th to 1/10th) seed rates that lead to more efficient phenotypes, because the expanded root development per plant will permit an increased efficiency in moisture and nutrient uptake from the soil. Willem supported this by numerous illustrations of SRI cropping from around the world.

In conclusion he cited the overall effects as increased yields and reduced costs (savings on seeds; on chemicals: mineral fertilisers/ plant protection and on labour). Conventional (science-steered) intensification has seriously overshot its target thereby even endangering sustainability!

Key points were noted that Diversity and variability in production systems and in socio-economic conditions require flexible implementation strategies. SRI is not a fixed blueprint package. It involves a grassroots learning exercise: adaptation and timing are essential requirements. Grassroots farmer organisations and local development agencies need to guide integration into actual systems.

Presentation 2. Conservation Agriculture: sustainable production with environmental protection, by Brian Sims. Brian has agriculture and engineering degrees from Reading University and the National College of Agricultural Engineering in the UK and a Diploma in Tropical Agriculture from the University of the West Indies. He was leader of the International Development Group at Silsoe Research Institute (SRI) in the UK. He is now an independent consultant working in tropical agriculture and agricultural engineering, focusing on the development of small holder farming-systems with an emphasis on farm mechanisation. More recently, he has focused on the mechanization of conservation agriculture principally for FAO.

Brian introduced CA as a key component of Sustainable Crop Production Intensification as promoted by FAO. The aim is to strengthen natural processes to underpin increased production and boost ecosystem services and to avoid losses, by only using the inputs that the system can utilize. The basic features of CA were explained as:

• Minimum movement of soil (no-till or direct sowing ─ every season)
• Permanent soil cover, with crops, cover crops, crop residues or mulch
• Rotations and/or associations of crops, through crop sequences, associations, relay crops and mixed cropping

He described the ways that CA works in practice, especially in encouraging better soil health, higher soil fertility, improved infiltration and soil water availability. The benefits were cited as reductions in:

• Fertilizer requirements (30-50%)
• Water requirements (30%)
• Fuel consumption (60%)
• Pesticide applications (20%)

Reduction in these production costs is the key to improved profitability under CA. He cited figures to show that, globally, CA farmed areas increased from about 2-5 million ha from 1974 to 1990 and then expanded to 125 million ha by 2010. Globally, the area under CA is increasing by 6 million ha per year.

He concluded with a comprehensive description and illustrations of mechanisation systems appropriate to CA under small-scale and large-scale farming. Overall, the principals of CA are universal, the applications are local. We have the technology already developed. What is now needed are supportive policies and mutual support groups.

Following the formal presentations there were many relevant questions and valuable discussion. These included:

• Lack of recognition of SRI as a viable husbandry system by international agencies, such as IRRI, and the difficulties in scientific comparison between conventional and SRI results.
• SRI provides a set of flexible techniques that can be adapted and used to suit local needs.
• SRI is beneficial in areas where arsenic toxicity is a risk (like Bangladesh) because arsenic is less prone to uptake in the predominantly aerobic soil conditions under SRI.
• CA was seen as a micro-scale change for macro-scale impact.
• Integrating CA with free-grazing livestock in semi-arid areas was seen as a big challenge in terms of maintaining year-round soil cover.
• Conversion to CA from conventional tillage farming may involve an initial down-turn in yields and high initial costs of new equipment but input costs are far lower.
• CA can sequester carbon in the soil at rates of up to 0.5 ton/ha/year. One Lincolnshire farmer has increased SOC from 2 to 6 percent over a 10-year period.

If anyone would like copies of the presentations, please email Keith Virgo eastanglia_convenor@taa.org. Feedback from the participants was enthusiastic and many requested copies of the presentations. Selected comments from the participants included:

• It was incredibly insightful.
• The seminar was really interesting and inspiring.
• The seminar was very well organised. 
• I thought everything was excellent!
• It was a really excellent seminar after which I felt quite inspired! 
• It was very worthwhile.
• I certainly think that the exploration of rice intensification and sustainable agriculture should continue and look forward to future developments.

KJV. 14.5.14

© Talking Naturally

The Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) states that around one third of all food is wasted or lost annually. Being able to utilise a greater percentage of the food we produce, in order to feed a greater number of people, sounds like a no brainer. In developing countries food is wasted at the early stages of the food production cycle. Inadequate harvest techniques, poor post harvest management (e.g. Storage), lack of suitable infrastructure (e.g. Distribution) and poor market facilities are all areas where food can be lost or wasted. Not surprisingly, very little food is wasted at consumer level. In developed countries however, the majority of food waste is from supermarkets or consumers.

In the UK alone, 18 million tonnes of food ends up in a landfill each year. This waste is from producers, retail and households. Although most food produced in the UK reaches retailers and consumers, some is still lost during transport, storage and processing. Waste at retail and consumer level are areas we have much more control over. Crucially, we are able to take action in our own lives to make a difference.

Supermarkets follow specific appearance standards of foods, often rejecting entire batches of fruit and vegetables because they have the wrong physical characteristics. Up to 30% of the UK’s vegetable crop is never harvested as a result of this practice. Supermarkets buy produce in bulk so are able to offer the cheapest prices to consumers in response to competition. These marketing practices are encouraging consumers to buy excessively. There is always a wide range of product choice/large quantities on display whilst 2 for 1 and Buy One Get One Free (BOGOF) deals force people to buy more to save more. But why wouldn’t you buy two broccolis for £1 when one would cost you 80p? A recent report by the House of Lords European Union Committee has called on supermarkets to end BOGOF deals to cut the “morally repugnant” amount of food being thrown away by shoppers. Perhaps limiting these offers to less perishable produce would be a more realistic step in the right direction.

Another trivial change with maximum effect would be to revise the appearance of best before dates on packaging. It is acceptable to have a use by date to ensure food safety and allow consumers to track the life span of the produce. Yet, best before dates consider the decline in taste of the product, which unfortunately leads to a negative response from the consumer, creating unnecessary waste. In fact many food products are perfectly edible once they have passed their expiry date. Such that in early next year, a Boston supermarket and restaurant will open that will only use produce that has passed its sell-by date. To put this into perspective, in the UK, it is estimated that 360,000 tonnes of milk is wasted each year. However it is widely argued that if stored and maintained correctly, the life of the milk can be extended by up to a week after the sell-by date.

© WRAP

Although we are slowly wasting less food as a nation, the average UK family still throws away the equivalent of six meals a week. Equally as shocking, we throw away 24 million slices of bread every day in the UK and also over a year the equivalent of 86 million chickens. An area the size of Wales would be needed to grow the amount of food we waste in our homes each year. So what is being done? In the UK, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is helping to raise awareness of the vast problems associated with waste. Love Food Hate Waste, a branch of WRAP, demonstrates by making slight changes to everyday routines in the house, we can make considerable reductions to the waste we produce. Love Food Hate Waste encourages us to know our labels, not to get caught out by ‘best before’ and ‘display until dates’ and to smartly freeze foods if the ‘use by date’ is imminent. They also highlight good planning to effectively use what you buy, pointing out the financial savings of better planning and the importance of storing different foods correctly.

Many people find it difficult to use up leftovers, be it from a cooked meal or simply a small amount in a packet or tin. This might be due to bad planning and/or a lack of knowledge about how to use the leftovers in a creative way. The Love Food Hate Waste website has a ‘Perfect Portion Planner’ to guide you when choosing how much of each food type is needed when cooking for a certain number of people. Similarly, they have put together a useful tool that allows you to find the perfect recipe to help you utilise food more effectively. This is achieved by simply entering the type of recipe, the food type and the ingredients. Searching for a ‘great for freezing’ recipe, ‘meat and fish’ as the food type and ‘bread’ as the ingredient springs up a range of recipe ideas. Or for example why not choose a ‘cook once, eat twice’ recipe using those leftover mushrooms to create a delicious mushroom stroganoff. The wide range of options helps to remove barriers and makes the process of reducing waste more accessible to all.

Reducing waste is something we are all able to do. It is the most moral action to take when millions find themselves struggling to find their next meal. Families would save money but crucially food would be freed up for others. Groups such as WRAP are available to assist these actions and we need to start now.

Oliver is an MSc in Food and Water Security. He is an intern at the Humanitarian Centre, with a focus on Food Security.

The ideas and opinions reflected in this piece are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the Humanitarian Centre as an organisation or network.