Research Center for Global Food Security and Ecosystems (GFE)

Between avocados, health campaigns, taxation and governmental regulations

After the Rethinking Agriculture talk by Prof. Dr. Moya Kneafsey dedicated to the role of collaborative agri-food chains for transforming agriculture, this blog’s team went off into an argument about how to reduce the consumption of the food products touted as environmental time bombs. The avocado became a battle-ground: On the one hand, there is no denying that it is a delicious and healthy food. On the other hand, we increasingly hear the alerts on the damage which its consumption afflicts. Around 9.5 billion litres of water are used daily to produce avocado. Besides unexpected and bizarre consequences, such as local earthquakes in Mexico caused by uncontrolled water extraction, avocado production has even more far-reaching effects: Deforestation, increased greenhouse gas emissions, and droughts are most often named among them. Not to mention the arduous working conditions of agricultural workers caused by low prices for the “green gold” set by powerful supermarket chains. What should be done to balance the consumption of such harmful products? How strict should the action be? Is there a space for interference in the food market? We have failed to find a common ground and decided to bounce our ideas off to the readers as they are.


Cynicism and idealism

The free market is the root of all evil and has started this climate crisis in the first place. It’s the desire for humans to strive for more, for bigger and better, to increase the gross domestic product because the gross domestic product makes us build more things, and bigger things, and better things. And most importantly, it makes us wealthy. Eureka! But it is entirely irrational and ignorant to strive for more economic growth when it is blatantly clear that infinite growth is not possible with finite resources. Why on earth would we want our food market and the climate crisis to be regulated by the same system? Currently, the younger generation has to have faith that the global population will act more responsibly. The free market will regulate everything. As it always has. Sure thing.

One major problem is that we’re having a hard time showing empathy for the problems of future generations. Setting a speed limit in the town center can be understood by virtually everyone. If you drive 80 km/h there, it might happen that you’ll kill a person or two, including yourself. Suggest a nationwide speed limit of 130 km/h on the motorway, and some people will lose their minds. Why? Because the consequences of not enforcing such a speed limit are not immediate, they can only be seen in the more or less distant future. This sentiment easily translates into the food system, where eating avocado and meat seven times a week will not show any serious consequences for the next few years or even decades. Our inability to cut down on our food privileges for the benefit of future generations which we might not even meet is the reason why ecologists still go to work by car and why conservationists keep eating beef and avocados.

I strongly believe that a governmental regulation of food item distribution is the only way we can save our planet. Seriously. People will argue that this restricts their freedom of choice which goes against their fundamental rights. Yeah, well, I really don’t care. Our grandkids will probably not even have a food choice to begin with because we seem to be unable to restrict ourselves voluntarily. The climate crisis is worsening at a frightening pace, so I don’t believe that positive or negative incentives will counteract this crisis at the necessary pace. Again: Our planet is in an alarmingly critical stage. We hear this sentence very often, but even more often, it doesn’t bear any meaning. It’s just an annoying phrase to us that we hear on the news. Except that our planet is in an alarmingly critical stage, and we are still alarmingly ignorant about it. My patience is over. For me and for other people as well. Why does my local farmer’s market sell peppers in December and why do people even buy them? Why do I drink so much coffee despite its harmful environmental impact? We know that what we consume harms our planet. And sometimes we don’t know. In my opinion, when it comes to sustainable food choices, we are still like little children that need a scolding finger and guiding hand, otherwise I wouldn’t have to write this blog post. Drastic problems require drastic solutions. And the most drastic solutions are often the most idealistic ones. We need our government to regulate the food market. And we need it do to it soon.


Conviction and agreement

There is a textbook example of the Finnish government who managed to reduce heart attacks and strokes by 63% within only 15 years primarily by convincing people to slough bad habits and change their lifestyles. In the 1970’s, when Finland experienced an extremely high death rate of cardiovascular diseases, a young and enthusiastic doctor Pekka Puska convinced the government to adopt a program of behavioural shift. Getting on board authoritative local christian communities and hunting clubs, they persuaded citizens to reduce smoking, consume less products containing high amounts of saturated fats, and increase the share of fruits and vegetables in their diet. While the government was banning tobacco advertisements and cutting subsidies for butter producers in favour of berry farms, doctors, pop stars and politicians appeared on prime-time TV advocating for a new, healthier lifestyle. Less saturated fats, less salt and sugar, less alcohol. More heart-healthy alimentary and physical activities. It worked.

Tik Tok jetsetters and Instagram celebrities have bigger public credit and influence than doctor Pekka Puska (whether you like it or not). Thus, they have powerful tools to stop the meteoric rise of healthy but ecologically questionable avocados as a typical hype product in the last decade and make it out-of-vogue again. Why don't we just kindly ask them to change their drive? Imagine: Supermodel Kendall Jenner stops posting on her Instagram how to cook avocado guacamole in a teeny-tiny bikini. Instead, she enthusiastically denounces avocados and shares her recipe for cottage cheese in sandwiches and pumpkin seeds in salads. Same health benefits, more benefits for the forests in South America.

Besides the power of habitual change, the taxation of unsustainable goods when being overconsumed is another effective method to influence the food market for the better. A bright example of excise tax effectiveness is given by the U.S. There, states can independently impose tax regulations, which allows us to see if there is a correlation between taxation and the behavior of smokers. Scientists of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center found out that an additional taxation of $0.25 per-pack was associated with an estimated 0.6% reduction in smoking prevalence. This is especially the case for young adults who showed a 1.5% reduction in smoking in response to the new taxation. This demonstrates just how sensitive to changes the consumer’s wallet is. Cigarettes are highly addictive, so wouldn’t it be reasonable to suggest that with non-addictive goods - like avocados - such taxations will at least show equal effectiveness? Yes, a comparison of cigarettes with the superfood avocado may look ridiculous. But unlike cigarettes, its production causes far-reaching adverse effects on a global scale which might last for generations. Looked at from this perspective, is the concept of making non-essential but detrimental products less affordable such a nonsense idea as it appears at first glance?

Here you may find:

Authors: Thomas Köhler, Maria Kunle