EFE_2023_part 2_3

10/06/2023
no
ila
Sustainability and interlinkages with the
M
food system
di
di
tu
iS
gl
www.edu-dine.com
Department of Environmental Science and Policy

de
ità
rs
The concept of sustainability

A LONG STORY….
ive
 The consequences of the economic growth in terms of environmental impact started

to be debated by the scientific community in the 1950s
Un
 1972 - Club of Rome: promoted a ‘holistic intertemporal approch’

to safeguard the future of humanity and of the planet
The limits to the growth (importance of considering limited
natural resources and of accounting for future generations)
ht
 1987 - UN Brundtland Commission (Gro Harlem Brundtland)

‘Our Common Future’ report  The report represents the first global notice of what
rig
would be subsequently called ’green-growth’ - first definition of sustainable

development
“Sustainable Development is development that meets the needs of the present without
py
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm
Co
1
10/06/2023
no
The concept of sustainabilty
ila
 The Brundtland commission had a key role in broadening the meaning of
sustaibnability – not just related to the environment but also to economic and
social concerns
M
‘The environment does noxt exist as a sphere separate from human actions,
ambitions and needs….’
di
 Sustainable development has to account for:
di
- INTRA-generational issues
- INTER-generaltional issues
tu
- INTERCONNECTIVITY:
seeing the world as a system
where all parts relate to
iS
each other gl
de
ità
rs

ive
 Since then, the concept of sustainability has evolved over time into a not very well-
defined umbrella term
 In general, however, all definitions include at least three pillars:

Un
– economy (profit) - economic growth

– environment (planet) – environmental protection
– and society (people) – societal equity
ht
 In all cases, SUSTAINABILITY defines a

way to approach problems and
decisions, that calls for a wide,
rig
multidisciplinary and across-

generations vision, and for distrusting
narrow perspectives as they are too
limited and short-sighted
py
Co
2
10/06/2023
no
ila
 Prosperity
– ensure that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that
economic, social
M
– ensure that technological progress occurs in harmony with nature
 People
– end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions
di
– ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality and
in a healthy environment
 Planet
di
– protect the planet from degradation, including through sustainable consumption
and production
tu
– sustainably managing natural resources
– take action on climate change (to support the needs of the present and future
generations)
 Peace
iS
– foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies free from fear and violence
gl
de
ità
rs
INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FOOD SYSTEM

ive
• Food system activities strongly rely on:
- environmental resources (primary inputs, especially related to agriculture)

- environmental services (water, land, soil, seeds, nutrients, biodiversity, fish
Un
stock, energy, pollination, etc.)
• At the same time, food system activities release outputs into the environment
that, in turn, affect environmental sustainability and climate change
ht
Climate
change
rig
• Climate change is expected to affect food

production both in terms of quantity and
quality of products  food security issue Agriculture
py
Environment
Co
3
10/06/2023
no
M ila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

According to FAO (2018) the main challenges ahead for the food system are:
ive
• providing sufficient food and other agricultural products to meet growing and
changing global demands
• eradicating hunger and food insecurity
Un
• preserving and enhancing the productivity and sustainable use of available natural
resources
• adapting to the impacts of climate change
• contributing to climate change mitigation
ht
Constraints and issues:

Resource scarcity and land degradation
rig
• Wellbeing
• Population growth
• Land competition
• Climate Change
py
• Biodiversity conservation
• Change in diets
• Resource distribution
Co
4
10/06/2023
no
RESOURCE scarcity: water
ila
➡W
M
di
di
tu
Two-thirds of
water use
worldwide is
iS
devoted to
irrigation
Agriculture accounts for
70% of total water use
gl
and 93% & Lawrence - JHU, 2013
of water depletion (FAO)
de
ità
rs
LAND DEGRADATION
ive
 “land degradation” indicates a deterioration of the biophysical value of the

environment that can be caused by human-induced or natural processes (e.g.,
desertification, salinization) compaction, or encroachment of invasive species
Un
(Gibbs and Salmon, 2015).
 No globally consistent or georeferenced database on land degradation exists -

uncertainties regarding current land degradation extent and severity:
ht
• estimates varying from less than 1 billion ha to over 6 billion ha (Gibbs and
Salmon, 2015)
rig
• FAO estimates that 33% of the world’s farmland is moderately to highly

degraded
• Other studies (Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2011) estimated that between 1 million
and 2.9 million ha of land per year become unsuitable for cultivation, with high
py
rehabilitation costs
Co
Department of Environmental Science

& Lawrence and
- JHU, Policy
2013
5
10/06/2023
no
LAND DEGRADATION
M ila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
& Lawrence and
- JHU, Policy
2013
de
ità
rs

ive
Land competition
 Agricultural commodities are not only intended to meet demand for food and
animal feed, but also for feedstock in biofuel production – e.g., (ethanol from
Un
sugarcane and maize, biodiesel from vegetable oils such as palm oil)
 Biomass feedstock for biofuels is in direct competition for land and water use
with feed and food production
ht
 Growth in production of animal-sourced food is driving crop utilization for

livestock feed – calorie inefficient!
rig
py
Co
6
10/06/2023
no
ila
RESOURCE USE and DEPLETION: Biocapacity
M
 Biocapacity is
the capacity of
di
ecosystems to
produce useful
biological
di
materials and to
absorb unwanted
materials (e.g.,
tu
carbon emissions)
generated by
humans
iS
gl
& Lawrence - JHU, 2013

de
ità
rs

Population growth
ive
 2017-2050: half of the

world’s population
growth will be
Un
concentrated in just 9
countries:
(India, Nigeria, the Democratic

Republic of the Congo, Pakistan,
Ethiopia, the United Republic of
ht
Tanzania, the United States of

America, Uganda and Indonesia) (UN,
2017)
rig
 FAO estimates that there

is need to produce about
50% more food by 2050
in order to feed the
increasing world
py
population (FAO 2018a)

– projected increased
impact of agricultural
activities
Co
7
10/06/2023
no
ila
Population growth
 Since 1961, food supply per capita has increased more than 30%, accompanied by
M
greater use of nitrogen fertilizers (increase of about 800%) and water resources
for irrigation (increase of more than 100%)
di
 Increased population, income and urbanization will further drive up the demand
for food and change people’s dietary preferences towards more resource-
intensive animal products and processed food
di
Population dynamics will therefore be a critical determinant of future food demand
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Climate change
ive
 Between 1961 and 2016, anthropogenic GHG emissions associated with

agricultural production has grown from 3.1 GtCO2-eq yr–1 to 5.8 GtCO2-eq yr–1
Un
• The increase in emissions is mainly from the livestock sector (enteric

fermentation and manure left on pasture), use of synthetic fertilizer, and
rice cultivation (FAOSTAT 2018)
ht
 Globally, agriculture is the 2ND largest emitting sector, after the energy
sector
rig
py
Co
8
10/06/2023
no
ila
Climate change
M
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
Change in diets
 Rapid income growth in emerging countries has given rise to a global middle
class, with food consumption preferences characterized by a greater demand
for meat, fish and dairy products and other more resource-intensive items
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
9
10/06/2023
no
CHANGE IN DIETS
ila
The unsustainable (m)eat
M
• e.g. Meat production accounts for:
- 70% of all agricultural land
di
- 30% of the planet’s land surface
- 40% of the world’s grain is grown for livestock feed
- 7% of global water use is to grow feed grains for livestock
di
• 70% of herbicide and 37% of insecticide use in US agriculture can be attributed to
the livestock industry
tu
DIFFERENT FOOD PRODUCTS HAVE DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS!
iS
Source: Lawrence R. Johns Hopkins University, 2013
American Scientific, 2013
gl
de
ità
rs
CHANGE IN DIETS
ive
Un
ht
rig
py
OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2017-2026 - © OECD 2017

Co
10
10/06/2023
no
Change in Diets
Good for your health, good for the planet!
M ila
di
di
tu
iS
FAO defines sustainable diets as those diets with low environmental impacts
which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present
and future generations, that are nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while
optimizing natural and human resources
gl
de
ità
rs
Consumer choices can make a

ive
substantial difference!
Ecological Footprint
Un
Calculates the amount of land

and water that is needed to
regenerate the resources used
ht
rig
py
Co
11
10/06/2023
no
RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION – food waste
ila
 FOOD LOSSES vs FOOD WASTE
- Food losses: losses that occur upstream of the food supply chain, mainly
M
during the sowing, cultivation, harvesting, processing, preserving, and first
agricultural transformation stages;
- Food Waste: the waste that takes place during industrial processing,
distribution, and final consumption.
di
 In developing countries, losses are concentrated at the first part of the food
supply chain (limits in the cultivation, harvesting, and preserving techniques, lack
di
of adequate transportation and storage infrastructures
 In industrialized countries, food waste occurs at the final stages of the food
tu
supply chain (household consumption and restaurants and food service
establishments)
iS
 According to FAO (2011) annual global food waste is estimated to be about 1.3
billion tons, equivalent to about a third of the total food production intended for
human consumption - 89 million tons in EU = 180 kg per capita
gl
de
ità
rs
RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION – food waste

ive
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
12
10/06/2023
no
FOOD WASTE
ila
The environmental impact of food waste needs to account for the entire food lifecycle:
Carbon Footprint: GHGs generated during production. In the specific case of the agrifood
sector, GHGs are comprised primarily of CO2 generated through the use of fossil fuels, from
M
methane (CH4) derived from livestock enteric fermentation, and emissions of nitrous oxide
(N2O) caused by the use of nitrogen-based fertilizers
di
 Ecological Footprint: an indicator used to assess the impact of a specific population’s
consumption on the environment - it quantifies the total area of land and water
ecosystems needed to sustainably provide all the resources used and to sustainably
di
absorb all the emissions produced land and water that is needed to regenerate the
resources used
tu
 Water Footprint: indicator of the use of fresh water devised to convey both the actual
quantities of water resources used and the way the water is used - In the case of food
iS
production, the water used in the industrial production
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v
the evapotranspiration of irrigated =IoCVrkcaH6Q
agriculture are accounted for.
gl
de
ità
rs
Sustainability and policy: Global action

ive
 1992: Rio Declaration on environment and

development (1° Earth summit – UN conference
on environment and development)
Un
AGENDA 21 ACTION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE

ht
DEVELOPMENT
NON-BINDING action plan mapping out concrete

rig
actions to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by

organizations of the United Nations System,
Governments, and Major Groups in every area in
py
which human impacts on the environment

Co
13
10/06/2023
no
ila
 2000: Millennium declaration & Millennium Development Goals (for 2015) (World
Summit on Social Development)
M
 The United Nations Millennium Declaration commits world leaders to combat
poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation, and discrimination
against women.
di
 The MDGs are derived from this Declaration: each MDG has targets set for 2015 and
indicators to monitor progress from 1990 levels - Several of these relate directly to
di
health
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
 2012: Agenda 30 action plan: builds on Agenda 21 and sets 17 SDGs to be

reached by 2030 (Rio+20 UN Conference on sustainable development)
'The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental

Un
and environmental needs of present and future generations.'

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163
 The Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to
strengthen universal peace in larger freedom
ht
 Not legally binding but States are expected to take action

rig
py
Co
14
10/06/2023
no
ila
 December 2015: 196 Countries of the UN signed the Paris Climate Agreement
with the goal of limiting warming to below 2°C, and pursuing efforts to limit
warming to 1.5°
M
 Parties are expected to put forward nationally determined contributions
di
 In the PA the relationship of the food system with the environment and climate
change, has become prominent
di
 THE PA IS LEGALLY BINDING!!
tu
iS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiGD0OgK2ug
gl
de
ità
rs
Sustainability and policy: EU action

ive
Timeline of the EU policy actions

2020 Climate
Un
Law
MARCH 2020 +
new Circular presentation of
DECEMBER Economy Action the Farm to Fork
2019 plan. It is one of Strategy
the main blocks of
2018 Presentation of the the European
ht
EU GREEN Green Deal,

new set of DEAL Europe’s new
measures,
agenda for
including:
sustainable growth.
rig
2015 1. the Bioeconomy

Action Plan
first Circular
Economy Action 2. EU Strategy for
Plan containing Plastics
measures that 3. The monitoring
py
cover the entire framework on

product life cycle. progress towards The European Green Deal presents the initial
circular economy ROADMAP of the key policies and measures needed to
economy achieve the “zero net emissions” goal
Co
15
10/06/2023
no
The EU Green Deal
ila
11 december 2020
The Green Deal represents the turning point towards the EU “zero net
M
emissions” goal
di
di
tu
iS
gl
Department of Environmental Science and
Policy
Department and PolicyScience and Policy
of Environmental
de
ità
rs
The EU Green Deal

ive
The EU Green Deal addresses 3 main key points:
1. TRANSFORMING THE EU’S ECONOMY FOR A SUSTAINABLE

FUTURE  sets the roadmap for:
Un
• DESIGNING A SET OF DEEPLY TRANSFORMATIVE POLICIES (INCLUDES

SEVERAL POINTS, OF WHICH..)
→ Mobilizing industry for a clean and circular economy
- New circular economy action plan
ht
→ From ‘Farm to Fork’: designing a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly

food system
rig
- Farm to Fork strategy

→ Preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity
- Bioeconomy action plan + new circular economy action plan
py
• MAINSTREAMING SUSTAINABILITY IN ALL EU POLICIES
2. THE EU AS A GLOBAL LEADER

Co
3. A EUROPEAN CLIMATE PACT

Policy
16
10/06/2023
no
The EU Climate Law
ila
• legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050: The EU Institutions and the Member States are bound to take the necessary measures at EU and national level to meet the target
• Progress will be reviewed every five years, in line with the global exercise under the Paris Agreement  By September 2023, and every five years thereafter, the Commission will assess the consistency of EU and national measures
M
with the climate-neutrality objective and the 2030-2050 trajectory
• The Commission will issue recommendations to Member States whose actions are inconsistent with the climate-neutrality objective, and Member States will be obliged to take due account of these recommendations or to explain
their reasoning if they fail to do so
di
di
tu
iS
gl
Policy
of Environmental
de
ità
rs
The EU Climate Law

ive
Un
ht
rig
py
Co

Policy
of Environmental
17
10/06/2023
no
Circular Economy
M ila
di
di
Reuse what you can
Recycle what cannot be reused,
tu
Repair what is broken
Remanufacture what cannot be repaired…
iS
gl
Policy
de
ità
rs
Introduction to circular economy and

bioeconomy
ive
 The concepts of Circular economy and Bio-ecomomy have an underlying

common rationale, which is:
Un
⋆ to provide an alternative to common

linear economy approaches wich will not
be able to sustain the needs of the
growing word population in the next
ht
decades
rig
 The world population is projected to grow up to 10 billion by 2050 (FAO, 2017)

 Farmers will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 (FAO, 2017), but…
py
• 25% of all farmland is already rated as highly degraded, while another 44%
is moderately or slightly degraded
• unused land to cultivation have become rare
Co
• 80% of global deforestation is driven by agricultural concerns

Policy Department of Environmental Science and Policy – ESP -
18
10/06/2023
no
Introduction to circular economy and bioeconomy
ila
 Global urbanization between now and 2050 could
M
lead to a net addition of 2.4 billion people to towns
and cities
di
As a result, average incomes in some areas will
significantly increase
di
 Prosperity will trigger a surge of demand both larger and in a shorter time
period than the world has ever experienced. In turn, this will imply:
tu
• increasing demand for processed foods as well as animal-source food
• increased environmental impact
iS
 Increasing population and income drive the growth of materials use: according
to the OECD Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060, global primary
materials use is projected to increase from 89 Gt in 2017 to 167 Gt in 2060
gl
(OECD, 2019)
Policy
de
ità
rs
Introduction to circular economy and bioeconomy

ive
Furthermore… there is the issue of RESOURCE CRITICALITY.

Un
 The increased use of materials creates growing risk of supply disruptions. They
can be caused by:
− physical scarcity of a raw material
− short-term shortages caused by rapid demand intensification, political
ht
unrest and instability, natural disasters, etc. (Alonso et al., 2007)
 Supply gaps could create significant price volatility and commodity price
rig
uncertainty (Alonso et al., 2007; Craighead et al., 2007), exposing firms to

considerably higher financial risks
 Beyond severe price volatility, supply shortages can cause production bottle-
py
necks, long lead times, and failure to deliver on-time products
Gaustad et al., 2018

Co

Policy
19
10/06/2023
no
Introduction to Circular Economy and
ila
bioeconomy
M
 A new approach to resources use is needed
to guarantee sustainability for future
generation, not just from the environmental
di
point of view, but also from the economic
and social standpoint
di
 The Circualr and Bio Economy represent
a unique and concrete opportunity to
tu
abandon the current unsustainable «take
– make – dispose» system
iS
gl
Policy
de
ità
rs
Origins of Circular Economy

ive
 The concept of circular economy (CE) traces back to different schools of

thought
Un
 Roots of CE can be found (among others) in:
1. Industrial ecology
2. Performance economy
ht
3. Cradle-to-Cradle
 All these concepts have a nested relation

rig
 CE principles embrace the foundation of all these schools of thought to build

up a broader economic approach based on resource use and waste
minimization
py
 The main difference between CE and the other concepts is that the CE is a
restorative system, while the other concepts are preventive systems
Co
20
10/06/2023
no
ila
Roots of CE
M
1. Industrial ecology (IE)
- Frosch and Gallopoulos (1989) published ‘strategies for manufacturing’, which
stressed the need to transform a regular manufacturing processes into an
di
industrial ecosystem - the industrial system should mimic a biological system
- biological systems do not generate waste, have a complete cyclic flow of material,
di
and are only dependent on solar energy
- IE introduced a different perspective by analysing the industrial system and its
tu
environment as a joint ecosystem characterized by flows of material energy
and information as well as by provision of resources and services from the
iS
Biosphere (Erkman, 1997)
- Basis are: (i) conservation of virgin materials and (ii) appropriate waste
management and its integration into the industrial production as source of
gl
material and energy source (Frosch, 1992)
de
ità
rs

ive
Roots of CE
2. Performance Economy (Walter Staher, 2006): it is based on selling the

Un
performances of goods instead of the goods themselves through rent, lease and share
business models. The manufacturer retains ownership of the product and its
embodied resources and thus carries the responsibility for the costs of risks
and waste. In addition to design and reuse, the performance economy
focuses on solutions instead of products, and makes its profits from
ht
sufficiency, such as waste prevention.

rig
py
Stahel, W. R. The Performance Economy

(Palgrave, 2006).
Co
21
10/06/2023
no
ila
3. Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C)
M
 In their 2002 book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the
Way We Make Things, architect William
McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart
di
 It stands for innovation, quality and beneficial
di
design. Cradle to Cradle® describes the safe and
potentially infinite circulation of materials and
nutrients in cycles. All constituents are chemically
tu
harmless and recyclable. Waste as we know it
today will no longer exist
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
 C2C is based on three principles derived from nature:
1. Everything is a resource for something else

Un
2. In nature, the “waste” of one system becomes food for another

3. Everything can be designed to be disassembled and safely returned to the soil as
biological nutrients or re-utilized as high-quality material for new products as
technical nutrients without contamination.
ht
 C2C introduces the distinction between biological and technical NUTRIENTS

rig
Safely return Used again

to the and again
evironment
py
Co
22
10/06/2023
no
ila
THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY BUILDS ON THE CRADLE-TO-
CRADLE® PRINCIPLES
M
 Ensuring that the resources used can serve as starting materials for new,
pollutant-free products after they have been used. This allows them to circulate
di
continuously in product cycles - instead of "downcycling", the aim is to enable
"upcycling" of products
 Upcycling is possible through qualitative transformation coupled with the
di
closure and deceleration of material cycles
tu
Welcome to the next industrial revolution!!
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Circular Economy
ive
 Building on IE, performance economy, and C2C, the Ellen Macarthur

Foundation (2012) extended and formalized the concept of CE incorporating
other more recent theories such as the regenerative design (i.e., eco-design),
Un
biomimicry, sharing economy, the cascading systems of the blue economy…
 The Ellen Macarthur Foundation proposes the following definition of CE:

ht
An economy that is restorative and regenerative by intention and design, that aims
to maintain the utility of products, components and materials, and retain their value for as long as
possible as well as to minimize waste
rig
 A CE system:
• replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with restoration
• shifts towards the use of renewable energy
py
• eliminates the use of toxic chemicals, which impair reuse

• aims at eliminating waste through the superior design of
materials, products, systems, business models
Co
From min 7:09

https://www.ted.com/talks/dame_ellen_macarthur_the_surprising_thing_i_learned_sailing
_solo_around_the_world?language=it#t-566016
23
10/06/2023
no
Circular Economy
ila
A CIRCULAR ECONOMY IS BASED ON A FEW SIMPLE PRINCIPLES
M
1. Design out waste and pollution: waste and pollution are a consequence of
the design stage – they can be eliminated if products are designed and
optimized for disassembly and reuse  eco-design - This includes the release of
di
greenhouse gases and hazardous substances, the pollution of air, land, and
water, as well as structural waste such as traffic congestion
di
2. Keep products and materials in use: products must remain in the economy
– we should design them so that they can be reused, repaired, remanufactured.
When this is not possible, we should use materials that can safely return to the
tu
environment
3. Regenerate natural systems: in nature there is no waste because everything
iS
becomes food for something else – we should be able to return valuable
nutrients to soil and other ecosystem to enhance natural resources
gl
de
ità
rs
Circular Economy
ive
 The foundation of economic growth is the reuse of vast amounts of

material reclaimed from end-of-life products, rather than the extraction of
resources
Un
ECONOMIC GROWTH IS DECOUPLED FROM RESOURCE

CONSTRAINTS
ht
 A circular economy seeks to rebuild capital, whether this is financial,

manufactured, human, social or natural
rig
 CE would change economic logic because it replaces production with

sufficiency
• A study of seven European nations found that a shift to a circular economy

py
would reduce each nation’s GHG emissions by up to 70% and grow its workforce by
about 4%
Co
24
10/06/2023
no
Circular Economy
ila
Building on the closure and deceleration of material cycles proposed in C2C
the Ellen Macarthur Foundation identifies four sources of value creation:
M
1. The ‘power of the inner circle’  The tighter the circle, (i.e., the less a
product has to be changed in reuse, refurbishment and remanufacturing) and
di
the faster it returns to use, the higher the potential savings of material, labor,
energy, and capital embedded in the product and the associated externalities
(e.g., GHG emissions, water, toxicity)
di
2. The ‘power of circling longer’  maximize the number of consecutive
cycles (be it reuse, remanufacturing, or recycling) and/or the time in each
tu
cycle
3. The ‘power of cascaded use’  diversify reuse across the value chain (e.g.,
cotton clothing - second-hand apparel - fiber-fill in upholstery - stone wool
iS
insulation for construction)
4. The ‘power of pure circles’  uncontaminated materials streams increase
collection and redistribution efficiency while maintaining quality, particularly
gl
of technical materials
de
ità
rs
The «butterfly diagram»

ive
Un
ht
rig
py
Co

Sources: andNo
EEA Report Policy
8/2018
25
10/06/2023
no
Circular Economy
M ila
‘Consumable’ is different from ‘durable’:
di
- consumable products are mainly made of biological materials that are non-
toxic and sometimes beneficial, and can be safely returned to the
biosphere
di
- durable products are made by technical materials, which cannot be
returned to biosphere  these goods need to be designed from the
tu
beginning to be reused
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Circular Economy and labour

ive
How will CE development affect labour markets?
4 main mechanisms:
Un
1. Job creation - expected in the group of ‘green’ sectors and activities that will
be stimulated by CE policies
2. Job substitution – expected in sectors and across sectors where a shift in
economic activity from resource-intensive activities to more circular activities
ht
will occur. Substitution means that some labour activities will be directly
replaced by others (e.g. from landfilling and waste incineration to recycling)
rig
3. Job destruction - expected when labour will be lost without direct

replacement by other activities. Job losses will occur mainly in sectors having
large environmental and material footprints, where these are not directly
replaced with another activities (e.g. banned products or practices)
py
4. Job redefinition – expected in all situations where existing jobs change their
day-to-day skillsets, work methods, and profiles as part of an overall socio-
technological transition towards more resource efficiency and circularity
Co
Department of Environmental Science and Policy (OECD, 2121)
26
10/06/2023
no
ila
M
 Overall Job destruction is mainly expected in primary production sectors and
job creation is mainly expected in services sectors (e.g. repair services, sharing
business models or product service systems)
di
 However
• in 2011 at the global level, the four sectors with the highest materials
footprint (construction, food production, primary-based metal production
di
and electricity) accounted for almost 90% of overall material use, but
employed only 15% of the total workforce
tu
• the largest bulk of materials (in weight) in the economy is used by the
construction sector (46%), which only contributes to 8% of total
iS
employment
 Still uncertainty and lack of data, but the potential total job destructions
from implementing CE might be modest and more than compensated by job
gl
creations in other sectors
de
ità
rs

ive

- The geographic dimension of employment effects -
Un
 CE development is also expected to have asymmetric effects on different

regions:
• Countries at different stages of development and have different

international specialization and sectoral composition
ht
• The presence of natural resources and other local specificities also

rig
contributes to the heterogeneous specializations of economies
• Countries or regions where the local economy is relatively more dominated

by material-intensive sectors may experience larger effects by a shift to a
py
circular economy (e.g. demand changes and necessary shifts in production

modes) than those countries, which economies are less centered around
materials extraction and processing
Co
27
10/06/2023
no
Bioeconomy
M ila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Bioeconomy
ive
What is bioeconomy? There is no agreed definition…
Definining bioeconomy and its boundaries is a difficult task given the number of
Un
interconnections that it embodies, both as a concept and as a sector.
 OECD describes it as “a set of economic activities in which biotechnology contributes centrally to

primary production and industry” (OECD, 2009) where biotechnology is especially applied
to the conversion of biomass into materials, chemicals, fuels. Bioeconomy means
ht
“transforming life science knowledge into new, sustainable, eco-efficient and

competitive products”
rig
 Over the years, the bioeconomy concept has broaden in scope and application:
nowadsys, bioeconomy embeds far-reaching transitions in the transport, energy and
industrial production sectors (OECD, 2017)
py
Co
28
10/06/2023
no
Bioeconomy
ila
What is bioeconomy? There is no agreed definition…
M
 The 2018 Global Bioeconomy Summit defined the bioeconomy as:
“[...] the production, utilization and conservation of biological resources, including related
di
knowledge, science, technology, and innovation, to provide information, products,
processes and services across all economic sectors aiming toward a sustainable economy”
(Global Bioeconomy Summit 2018, p. 2)
di
 FAO (2020) describes bioeconomy as
tu
“The bioeconomy is the production, utilization, conservation, and regeneration of biological
resources, including related knowledge, science, technology, and innovation, to provide
iS
sustainable solutions (information, products, processes and services) within and across all
economic sectors and enable a transformation to a sustainable economy
gl
de
ità
rs
Bioeconomy
ive
WHAT IS BIOECONOMY? There is no agreed definition…
European Commission’s (2018) definition:

Un
“The bioeconomy covers all sectors and systems that rely on biological resources
(animals, plants, micro-organisms and derived biomass, including organic waste), their
functions and principles. It includes and interlinks: land and marine ecosystems and the
services they provide; all primary production sectors that use and produce biological
ht
resources (agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture); and all economic and industrial
sectors that use biological resources and processes to produce food, feed, bio-based
products, energy and services"
rig
https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy/topic/biomass_en
py
Co
29
10/06/2023
no
Bioeconomy
ila
Why bioeconomy?
M
Largely for three main reasons:
di
1. To reduce GHG emissions, in order to mitigate global warming and associated
climate change
2. To minimize the overexploitation of finite reserves of fossil fuels
di
3. To reduce dependency on energy imports by generating sustainable renewable
tu
energy
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Bioeconomy
ive
Main potentialities  towards zero emissions and SDGs achievements
Job creation
Un
The bioeconomy already accounts for 8% of the EU’s workforce. Bio-based

industries could create up to 1 million green jobs by 2030 especially in rural
and coastal areas
Climate mitigation and a carbon-neutral future

ht
The bioeconomy reduces emissions and our dependence on fossil resources
Generating a renewed/strengthened/modernized industrial production

rig
Deploying the bioeconomy across Europe with bio-based innovation will

modernise agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry, and will renew
industries
py
Restoring healthy ecosystems and enhancing biodiversity

The bioeconomy contributes to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and
to the EU target of restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020
Co
30
10/06/2023
no
Bioeconomy
ila
Summarizing, the bioeconomy encompasses three major elements:
M
1. The use of renewable biomass
2. The use and development of technologies, also beyond biotechnology (key is the
combination of digitalisation -precision agriculture- and “biologization”)
di
3. The integration of biotechnology knowledge and applications across sectors
The bioeconomy comprises:
di
• sectors upstream in the value chain, namely the primary sector (as the supplier of
tu
biomass) and other inputs, including technologies sector (R&D), which provides
inputs to production;
• sectors downstream in the value chain, namely the users of biomass including
iS
food and feed, materials (textile and clothing, wood, paper and pulp), chemical,
energy and building sectors.
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
Department of Environmental Science and Policy Source: BioMonitor, 2019
31
10/06/2023
no
Bioeconomy and biomass
ila
 Biomass is "the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from
biological origin from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances),
M
forestry and related industries including fisheries and aquaculture, as well as the
biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste" (source: Renewable
Energy Directive)
di
 No Biomass, no party! If there is no biomass available, there is no base for
developing the bioeconomy
di
 Besides the quantity, also the type and quality of available biomass are
important, because different uses require different types of biomass for optimal
tu
utilization
 Biomass is limited!!
iS
• availability represents the main issue and potentially the main limit to the
growth and development of bioeconomy
• limited availability can potentially lead to competition for biomass between
gl
different biomass-using sectors
de
ità
rs
Bioeconomy: biomass sources

ive
 Biomass production and its potential to produce renewable bioenergy varies

among countries depending upon geography, availability of resources,
biodiversity, technology and economy
Un
 Globally, over the last decade, the average annual growth of renewable energy
production has been around 16% (except in 2018, when it was lower). Leading
contributors are:
ht
• Asia-Pacific region, (40% of global renewable energy generation)

• Europe and North America
rig
• China
• US and Germany
Constraint for further growth of biomass production:

py
- it must be ecologically sustainable

- biomass production for non-food use should not compete with food
production  A large future potential lies in waste biomass, especially agricultural
Co
residues and food waste (van der Hoeven, 2014)

32
10/06/2023
no
Bioeconomy: biomass sources
M ila
di
di
 Biomass sources:
• Agriculture – main contributor of biomass supply
tu
• Forestry
• Waste
• Fisheries, Algae
iS
 Agricultural biomass is sourced as harvested crops, collected crop residues,
grazed biomass and imports of agricultural products (including live plants
and animals, animal- and plant-based food items and other process products
gl
of agricultural origin - e.g. leather products)
de
ità
rs
Bioeconomy: biomass flow (EU-27+UK)

ive
Sankey biomass
diagram
(Latest available data 2017)
Un
htDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy
rig
py
Source:
Co
https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dat
am/mashup/BIOMASS_FLOWS/
index.html Department of Environmental Science and Policy
33
10/06/2023
no
Bioeconomy: biomass flow (EU-27+UK)
ila
Sankey biomass
diagram
M
(Latest available data 2017)
di
di
tu
iS
gl
Source:
https://datam.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dat
am/mashup/BIOMASS_FLOWS/
index.html
de
ità
rs
Bioeconomy: food/feed competition

ive
 In 2017, the share of biomass that was used for the production of
animal-based food (either for domestic consumption or for export)
was 75% of the total biomass for food and feed uses, while the rest
Un
was directly consumed as plant-based food

ht
rig
py
Co
34
10/06/2023
no
Bioeconomy in numbers: trend data
ila
The indicators for the period 2008-2017 show:
 Since the economic downturn in 2009 the EU bioeconomy has constantly grown until 2017
M
 value added is increased by 142 billion since 2008 in all sectors
 64% of the increase in value added is attributable to agriculture and the food/beverage/tobacco
di
sector.
di
tu
iS
gl
DIGITARE NOME CENTRO
de
ità
rs
Bioeconomy in numbers
ive
• The indicators for the period

2008-2017 show:
Un
 a steep rise in value added in

2017 in all sectors, especially in
the pharmaceutical sector (18%)
ht
and in agriculture (12%)
 a slight increase in the number

rig
of people employed, driven

mainly by the restructuring of
the agricultural sector (which
accounts for more than half of
py
the bioeconomy’s employment)

Co
DIGITARE NOME CENTRO

35
10/06/2023
no
Bioeconomy and sustainability
ila
Can we consider bio-economy inherently sustainable?
M
 There is a growing emphasis on the notion that the idea of
bioeconomy alone is not necessarily ensuring improvements in
welfare, and that efforts should be made to target explicitly a concept
di
of sustainable bioeconomy
 Pfau et al. (2014) reviewed 87 journal articles from different academic
di
disciplines analyzing the link between the bio-economy and sustainability:
Mixed visions!
tu
• Overall, “conditional benefits”: bio-economy can contribute to
sustainability only under certain conditions (e.g., sustainable biomass
production, assessment of production chains and impact, assessment
iS
of sustainability, and efficient use of biomass resources)
gl
de
ità
rs
Bioeconomy and sustainability

ive
• Main concerns are:

− over-exploitation of renewable natural resources
− overuse of soil and water resources
Un
− competition between food and energy

− the impact of new crop varieties on soil fertility
− unsustainability of bioenergy production
ht
 The over-exploitation of biomass could result in worsening climate change

(deforestation, soil damage and destruction, water insecurity)
rig
 the amount of biomass that could be grown and harvested sustainably ‒ the
biomass potential ‒ is not known and estimates for the future vary widely
(OECD, 2018a)
py
Co
36
10/06/2023
no
Bio- and circular economy need complementary policy strategies
ila
INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN BIO- AND CIRCULAR ECONOMY
M
 The bioeconomy is based on biomass use for producing renewable energy
 Bioeconomy can use waste for producing energy and bio products
di
 Bioeconomy is circular by nature!
di
 Overall, bioeconomy is essential for achieving the CE transition
• To deliver tangible results, coherence of overarching policy agendas (new CEAP,
tu
Bioeconomy strategy) and the major sectoral policies (waste, energy, transport,
agriculture) is ESSENTIAL – until now coherence between policy packages has been
iS
lacking  The GREEN DEAL represents a concrete step forward in this
regard gl
Sources: andNo
EEA Report Policy
8/2018
de
ità
rs
The EU Green Deal

ive
Both Bio and CE are part of the EU Green Deal – First keypoint:
1. TRANSFORMING THE EU’S ECONOMY FOR A SUSTAINABLE

Un
FUTURE  sets the roadmap for:

• DESIGNING A SET OF DEEPLY TRANSFORMATIVE POLICIES (INCLUDES
SEVERAL POINTS, OF WHICH..)
→ Mobilizing industry for a clean and circular economy
ht
- New circular economy action plan

→ From ‘Farm to Fork’: designing a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly
food system
rig
- Farm to Fork strategy

→ Preserving and restoring ecosystems and biodiversity
- Bioeconomy action plan + new circular economy action plan
py
• MAINSTREAMING SUSTAINABILITY IN ALL EU POLICIES

Co

Policy
37
10/06/2023
no
Inside the new Circular Economy
ila
Action Plan
M
di
di
tu
iS
gl
Policy Department of Environmental Science and Policy – ESP -
de
ità
rs
ive
Un
Economic issues of hunger

ht
rig
py
Co
38
10/06/2023
no
The concept of undernourishment
ila
• The concept of undernourishment  lack of adequate and stable daily
calorie intake, without which an individual cannot live an active life
M
(work, study etc.) (FAO, 2011; Banterle, 2012).
• Undernourishment is not related to short periods but permanent
di
situation  bad effects especially for women and children  physical
and mental development - health
• FAO studies undernourishment analysing:
di
‒ food production, import and export data for each country  calorie
availability;
tu
‒ population characteristics  evaluate food needs;
‒ household surveys --> socio-demographics of each country.
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Undernourishment & Sustainability Development Goals (SDG)

ive
 By 2030, end hunger and

ensure access by all
people, in particular the
poor and people in
Un
vulnerable situations,
including infants, to safe,
nutritious and sufficient
food
 By 2030, end all forms of
ht
malnutrition including
achieving, by 2025, the
internationally agreed
rig
targets on stunting and

wasting in children under
five years of age and
py
address the nutritional

needs of adolescent girls,
pregnant and lactating
women and older persons
Co
39
10/06/2023
no
Undernourishment trend data
Mila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
40
10/06/2023
no
M ila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
How will COVID pandemics affect undernourishment?

ive
Un
ht
rig
py
 The figure shows the results of a quantitative analysis of the potential

consequences in terms of undernourishment as driven by the global economic
prospects
Co
41
10/06/2023
no
How will COVID pandemics affect undernourishment?
ila
 Estimating COVID-19’s effect on food security comes with a high degree of
uncertainty due to lack of data and clarity about what the future of the world
M
economy will look like
• Because COVID-19 is triggering shocks on both the supply and the demand
side of the global economy, the simplest way to gauge its potential effect on
di
the PoU is through its impact on world economic growth.
 Potential scenarios may take different shapes, depending on the kind of policies
di
that will be put in place
 the analysis does not capture the full impact of the economic recession, as it does
tu
not consider possible consequences in terms of inequality in food access within
countries  it may underestimate the total potential impact of COVID-19 on food
insecurity
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Un
ht
Gender differences:
rig
• Globally and in every region,

the prevalence of food
insecurity is slightly higher in
py
women than in men
• the largest differences found

in Latin America
Co
42
10/06/2023
no
Hunger
ila
WHO IS MORE AFFECTED?
Three social groups (FAO, 2011)
M
1. rural area poor people of developing countries, particularly in areas where
there is a low productivity of agriculture for climate and soil conditions or a
di
strong fragmentation of farms  agricultural production is not able to
guarantee enough food for the population  lack of water, energy and
health care assistance
di
2. large urban region poor people slums areas no food production,
tu
widespread unemployment, high level of poverty
3. people in developing contries that have suffered catastrophic events:
iS
drought, floods, earthquakes, conflicts, ethnic persecutions  lack of food for
long periods
gl
de
ità
rs
The causes of hunger

ive
Four main INTERRALETED factors are behind the recent trends affecting
food security and nutrition in multiple ways, challenging people’s access
to food:
Un
1. Conflicts
2. Climate change
3. Economic slowdowns
ht
4. Poverty: in many countries the poorest segments of population do

not have adequate access to food (Segrè, 2008)
- 20% of world population lives with less than a dollar per day
rig
and more than 50% with less than 2 dollars per day
- in 1960 the average per capita income in industrialized
countries was 9 times the income of Sub-Saharian Africa - now it
py
is 18 times  no possibility to afford seeds, raw material, buy or

produce food
Co
43
10/06/2023
no
ila
Brief focus on the impact of conflicts….
M
• In 2016 more than 2 billion people were living in countries affected by conflicts
 the worst affected are generally the poorest and most vulnerable segments
of society
di
• People living in countries affected by conflict are more likely to be food
insecure and undernourished  489 million people suffering from
di
undernourishment over 8 million globally live in countries struggling with
conflicts
tu
• The number of conflicts is increasing and the world is becoming more violent
 The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG) makes an explicit link
iS
between sustainable development and peace and calls for improved
collaboration on conflict prevention, mitigation, resolution and recovery
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
Brief focus in the impact of climate change

The focus on climate variations and extremes is prompted by three
considerations.
Un
1. The number of extreme events, including extreme heat, droughts,

floods and storms, has doubled since the early 1990s, with an average
of 213 of these events occurring every year during the period of 1990–
2016
ht
2. While climate change occurs over a period of decades or centuries,

what people experience in their daily life is climate variability and
rig
climate extremes, regardless of whether or not these are driven by

climate change
3. All dimensions of food security and nutrition, including food
py
availability, access, utilization and stability, are potentially affected

even by climate variability and climate extremes.
Co
44
10/06/2023
no
M ila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
Other contributing factors…
• Food production is high, but concentrated in industrialized countries

Un
• Transfer food is very costly  poorest segments cannot afford

foreign food
• Food aid is not a viable solution  distortions: corruption and no
ht
stimulus to improve (though they are absolutely necessary in case of

emergency)
rig
• Many countries still lack adequate infrastructures to support

agriculture (roads, depots, irrigation canals)  high transport costs,
no storage facilities, unreliable water resources  limit for
agricultural development and food access
py
Co
45
10/06/2023
no
POLICIES
ila
1. Increase food availability by:
• Fostering constant economic growth in developing countries  increase
M
income and food access
• Increasing agricultural productivity with the support of public and private
investments
di
- SUSTAINABLE APPROACH NEEDED! deforestation over-use of resources
are depleating fertility of land Arable land is at risk of erosion and
di
desertification.
- Agricultural growth has shown to be effective if it involves small farmers,
especially women - generates employment for the most vulnerable
tu
• Focusing development on country specificities (natural, physical and
human local-capital)
•
iS
Increasing food preservation and reducing food losses
gl
de
ità
rs
POLICIES
2. ADOPT SOCIAL PROTECTION SCHEMES
ive
• Economic Growth is not always enough. There is need for social

protection schemes.
Un
- For those that cannot benefit from growth: money transfers,

food stamps, health cover
ht
• Increase education  an investment for the future (healthier and more

rig
educated adults)
SOCIAL PROTECTION SCHEMES + ECONOMIC GROWTH AGAINST HUNGER

py
AND MALNITRITION
Co
46
10/06/2023
no
POLICIES
ila
Not only focus on the poor  need to pay attention to nutritional
values  focus not only on quantity but also quality (variety,
M
nutritional values, safety)
di
There is a double problem: 842 million peple suffering from hunger
or stable malnutrition on one side, and obesity and overweight
issues on the other (1,4 million people).
di
tu
Need for integrating
AGRICULTURE-NUTRITION-HEALTH
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
References:
FAO (2022): The state of the food security and nutrition in the world.
Un
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/state-food-security-and-nutrition-world-
2022-repurposing-food-and-agricultural-policies-make-healthy-diets-more-
affordable-enarruzh
Banterle A. (2011). Agricoltura e alimentazione. In Aa. Vv. “Ricomporre Babele.

ht
Educare al cosmopolitismo”. Fondazione Intercultura onlus – Biblioteca della

Fondazione, Siena, pp. 199-206.
rig
www.fondazioneintercultura.org/it/Pubblicazioni-e-documenti/La-Biblioteca-
della-Fondazione/Atti-del-convegno-"Ricomporre-Babele.-Educare-al-
Cosmopolitismo"/
py
Co
47
10/06/2023
no
Economics issues of obesity
Mila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Obesity definition
The most common indicator of body fatness is the Body Mass Index (BMI) calculated as
ive
the weight in kg divided by the square of height in meters

Un
ht
https://www.sleepapnea.org/weight-matters-obesity-and-sleep-apnea
rig
Obesity is frequently subdivided into categories:

• Class 1: BMI of 30 to < 35
• Class 2: BMI of 35 to < 40
py
• Class 3: BMI of 40 or higher (= extreme or severe obesity)
Typically, overweight and obesity conditions are the result of an energy imbalance
between caloric intake and caloric expenditure
Co
48
10/06/2023
no
Obesity in numbers
ila
More than 1 billion
M
people worldwide are
obese – 650 million adults,
340 million adolescents and
39 million children.
di
di
WHO estimates that by
2025, approximately 167
tu
million people – adults and
children – will become less
healthy because they are
iS
overweight or obese.
gl
de
ità
rs
Obesity in numbers
ive
 Overweight and obesity

affect almost 60% of adults and
nearly one in three children (29%
Un
of boys and 27% of girls) in the

WHO European Region.
 since adoption of the NCD

ht
voluntary global targets in 2013

there have been consistent
increases in prevalence of
rig
overweight and obesity; not a

single Member State in the WHO
European Region is on track to
reach the target of halting the rise
py
in obesity and diabetes.

Co
49
10/06/2023
no
Adult obesity trend data in OECD countries
ila
OECD projections assuming that BMI will continue to rise as a linear function of time.
M
di
di
tu
iS
 Over the past decade overweight and obesity rates have grown rapidly in Canada,
France, Mexico, Switzerland and the United States
 Almost Stabilised in England, Italy, Korea and Spain
 There is, however, no clear sign of retrenchment of the epidemic, in any country
gl
de
ità
Prevalence of overweight and obesity among children aged 5–9 years in the WHO
rs
European Region (2016) Childhood obesity and

overweights rates in OECD
countries
ive
 in 2020 overweight
(including obesity) was a
Un
common problem in the WHO

European Region, affecting
4.4 million children under 5
years of age (representing
7.9% of children in this age
ht
group)
 The prevalence of overweight

rig
and obesity increases in the

age group 5–9 years, with one
in eight children (11.6%)
py
living with obesity and nearly

one in three (29.5%) with
overweight (including obesity
Co
50
10/06/2023
no
The double burden of malnutrition
ila
The coexistence of undernutrition with overweight and obesity is commonly
referred to as the “double burden” of malnutrition
M
Rapid demographic, social and economic changes in many low- and middle-income
countries have led to increased urbanization and changes in food systems, lifestyles
di
and eating habits  dietary patterns have shifted toward increased consumption of
processed foods often energy-dense, high in saturated fats, sugars and salt, and low
in fibre.
di
Global nutrition transition…..
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
The Italian situation

ive
Italy has a peculiar situation in terms of

obesity distribution…
 While Italy still boasts one of the lowest adult

Un
obesity rates (11%) in Europe, the situation is

opposite for children
 Italy has one of the highest rates of childhood

obesity in the EU, together with Cyprus in Dualismo nord sud
ht
Greece, Malta, San Marino and Spain, where 1

in 5 boys (approximately 20%) are obese (WHO
Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative –COSI- , 2015-2016)
rig
 These data are alarming, above all when

compared to the much lower prevalence of
childhood obesity (i.e., 5% to 9%) in Denmark,
py
France, Ireland, Latvia, and Norway.

Co
51
10/06/2023
no
Which are the main causes?
ila
Multiple interrelated factors….
• Socio-economic variables
M
 education  scarce nutritionl knowledge  scarce label use  ….
 income  prices  …
 gender
di
• Time preferences
 willingness to delay gratification  importance of taste
di
• Time pressure
 technological change  convenience & price reduction energy dense
food  …
tu
 scarce physical activity …
• Habits/traditions
iS
• Psychological factors/ personality traits/ social context
gl
de
ità
rs
Which are the main consequences?

ive
1. Public health problem

According to WHO (2009) overweight and obesity are responsible for 44%
of the diabetes, 23% of ischemic heart disease and up to 14% of cancer
burdens.
Un
They are also related to other noncommunicable diseases such as

metabolic syndrome, other CVD, etc.
2. Economic problem
ht
Overweight and obesity with their related health consequences

imply significant costs for the sanitary systems
- direct costs: medical care
rig
- indirect costs: scarce productivity at work, increasd investments

 Costs sustained by all taxpayers  negative externality and market
failure (Yach et al., 2006).
py
Obesity ranks among the top 3 human-generated economic burdens in most

developed economies (Dobbs et al., 2014)
23 billion
Co
euros per year

Department of Environmental Science and Policy in Italy
52
10/06/2023
no
How do we face the problem?
ila
Possible policy interventions
M
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Policies supporting more informed choices

ive
• Advertising controls
Un
Foods are advertised heavily on television, especially foods

that are high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS).
Children are a particularly vulnerable target group and existing

ht
regulatory measures across Europe, as well as voluntary

initiatives by major food and beverage companies,
rig
concentrated on restricting the advertising of HFSS foods to

minors (Ofcom 2010; EU Pledge 2013).
py
Co
53
10/06/2023
no
M ila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
Public health information campaigns
Public health information campaigns  media communications and

Un
other social marketing tools

Nutrition education in schools
are the most common type of intervention employed to promote
healthy eating (Capacci et al. 2012a).
ht
Do not impose direct restrictions or direct costs on the food industry

rig
(less intrusive), which may account for their widespread popularity.
An increasing number of campaigns are targeted at specific foods or

py
nutrients, such as fruit and vegetables, seafood or salt (e.g. 5-A-DAY

fruit and vegetable campaigns.
Co
54
10/06/2023
no
ila
 practical suggestion on how to set individual meals
 MyPlate presents, in a single image, the four categories
M
of foods to always keep in mind: fruit, vegetables,
cereals, proteins of different nature (meat, fish, eggs).
In addition to milk and derivatives, which must always
di
be taken into consideration
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
Nutrition education
The main goal of nutrition education is to inform people on what
constitutes a healthy, balanced diet, as well as how to improve their diet
Un
and lifestyle.
Menu labelling
Facilitates healthy dietary decisions
when eating outside the home by
ht
providing relevant information at the

point of choice.
rig
Provision of nutrition information on

menus is recent, with the introduction
of legislation in some parts of the
py
United States and voluntarily in some

food chains in Europe.
Co
55
10/06/2023
no
Policy aimed at changing the market environment
ila
Fiscal measures  2 main types
M
1. Fiscal measures applying to the population at large
taxes or subsidies designed to change the relative prices of foods
di
or nutrients depending on their healthfulness.
2. Fiscal measures targeting disadvantaged consumers
di
measures specifically targeted to consumers with low incomes,
to guarantee food access by means of vouchers for food
tu
purchases or other forms of support
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

FAT TAX
ive
• Rationale for implementation

Overweight and obesity generate negative externalities  the direct and
Un
indirect costs generated are not covered solely by overweight and obese
people  market failure  impact on the society
Higher insurance premiums
Higher taxes to cover public sanitary systems
ht
The idea is based on a foundamental economic principle  when the

price of an item increases, the demand of that item will decrease
rig
Decreased consumption of unhealthy food = decreased risk to incur in

overweight and obesity
py
Fat taxes are primarily aimed at reducing unhealthy consumption,

not primarily at generating revenues for the state  PIGOUVIAN
TAX!
Co
56
10/06/2023
no
ila
FAT TAX
• What is a fat tax?
M
Tax placed upon unhealthy food aimed at discouraging unhealthy diets.
di
Unhealthy food include those containing high fat, saturated fat, sugar, salt
as well as sweet beverages and junk food in general.
di
• Is the FAT TAX an adequate measure?
tu
- Obesity can be in part attributable to a high consumption of
unhealthy foods, however there are other consequences such as
scarce physical activity and sedentary lifestyle  unhealthy food per
iS
se is not the cause of the externality, overweight and obese people
are  maybe better to focus directly on incentivizing people to get
gl
in shape
de
ità
rs

FAT TAX
ive
• Is the FAT TAX an adequate measure?
- Can fat and sugar be considered demerit components?

Un
- Fat is essential for bodily functions  cannot be considered a

demerit component
- Sugar  maybe?!?
ht
• Where in Europe?
rig
- Denmark  sweetened beverages, chocolate, Confictioneries, ice cream,

saturated fats (sweet bev and sat fats abolished in 2014 and 2013)
- Finland  sweetened beverages, chocolate, Confictioneries, ice cream
py
- France  sweetened beverages, energy drinks

- Hungary  sweetened beverages, energy drinks, chocolate, Confictioneries,
salty snaks
Co
57
10/06/2023
no
Mila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

FAT TAX
ive
• Some points to be addressed…..

- All countries have different tax regimes
Un
- Neither the subject nor the amount of the taxation is the same
- The subject of the tax can be a specific component or a product as a
whole
- Also sweetened beverages without sugar can be included
ht
- Products of the same category may be taxed differently based on the

content of the specific component (e.g., Denmark on sugary beverages)
rig
Need for further research in this field……..

py
Co
58
10/06/2023
no
ila
Availability measures for disadvantaged consumers
M
Access to healthy food may be restricted in certain geographic areas or
regions (Ver Ploeg et al. 2009), typically termed as ‘food deserts’.
di
Food deserts are places where it is difficult to access and/or expensive
to purchase healthy food. These are usually deprived urban areas with
few supermarkets and large numbers of consumers without cars.
di
Availability interventions such as ‘Healthy Living Neighborhood Shops’ (in
tu
Scotland)  encourage convenience stores to develop the fresh produce and
healthier products they offer to their local communities, to help improve the
eating habits of people living in Scotland.
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
Food reformulation
Convenience foods can contain high levels of ‘unhealthy’ nutrients such as
salt, Trans and saturated fats and sugar.
Un
Product reformulations to reduce levels of specified nutrients in processed

foods can be achieved through legislation, e.g. the banning of trans fats in
Denmark.
ht
Regulation of school meals

rig
Interventions that regulate catered meals in schools are widely applied,

notably regulation of the nutritional content of school meals, the provision of
free fruit and control of vending machines.
py
Co
59
10/06/2023
no
M ila
References:
di
Thiele S., Roosen J. (2018). Obesity, Fat Taxes and Their Effects on
di
Consumers, in In: Bremmers H.J. and Purnhagen K., Regulating
Food Safety Law in the EU – A Management and Economics
tu
Perspective, Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-77045-1.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-77045-1
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Third part
Food policies
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
60
10/06/2023
no
M ila
Food policies and public intervention
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Market failure
ive
Neoclassical paradigm
economic agents (consumers and entrepreneurs) behave to maximize
their utility and profit, rationally and with complete information
Un
Crucial role of the market in the neoclassical theory

in competition, market plays a crucial role in coordinating consumer
preferences and production through equilibrium price  market is the
tool to coordinate the economic system  competition allows to reach
ht
maximum efficiency  optimal resource allocation  maximum social

welfare
rig
Market failure
in some cases the market does not allow to reach maximum efficiency of
the economic system (e.g., monopolistic system)  price is not the most
py
efficient economic tool  need of public intervention to solve market

failure
Co
61
10/06/2023
no
Main market failures – neo-institutional economics
ila
Asymmetric information
• Bounded rationality and imperfect information  in commercial trade
information can be asymmetric and incomplete  opportunistic behaviour
M
• Information-seeking by consumers about product characteristics  time
consuming and costly  cost and benefit trade-off
Externalities
di
• positive externalities  economic benefits deriving from one’s activity
which implies advantages for people who did not pay the costs
• negative externalities  economic disutility deriving from one’s activity
di
which implies disadvantages for people without any reward
Public goods
tu
• Non-exclusion principle  it is not possible exclude from using a good those
that have not beard the costs  ex. restoration of a monument
• Non-rivalry of consumption principle  if a person befits from a good, this
iS
does not exclude others from doing the same  arts, landscape
Transaction costs
gl
de
ità
rs
Public intervention and welfare economics

ive
Issues related to
• Efficiency
– aim of the Pareto approach  max social welfare in terms of efficiency
Un
– max efficiency in production  optimal resource allocation  inputs

– max efficiency in trade of goods among individuals
– max joint efficiency in production and trade
‒ Pareto optimality  welfare frontier  perfect competition
ht
• Equity  wealth redistribution

• Role of political economy
rig
• To reach the welfare frontier  max efficiency  perfect competition 

crucial role of the market  policies to address market failures  Pareto
efficient interventions
py
• To reach maximum equity in wealth distribution  redistribution policies 

Pareto efficient policies?
Co
62
10/06/2023
no
Food policies classification
ila
– food safety  labelling, standards, HACCP,
traceability
– food quality  designation of origin, organic
M
agriculture, traceability, certification
for food system and chains – food security  increasing food availability and
affordability in developing countries
di
– vertical coordination  chain management, coop
– international trade
food policies – low income measures
di
tu
– agricultural sector  CAP
iS
for single sectors – food industry  antritrust
– retailing  licence
gl
de
ità
rs
Role of public intervention

private standards or public intervention?
ive
Un
ht
rig
Da: M. Garcia Martinez,

py
A. Fearne, J.A. Caswell,

S. Henson “Co-regulation
as a possible model for
food safety governance:
Opportunities for public-
private partnerships”,
Food Polocy 32 (2007).
Co
63
10/06/2023
no
ila
Food safety policy
M
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Different concepts
ive
Food safety  product attribute linked to absence of components that

can create a risk for health  disease
Un
Food security  food availability to face the population needs in terms

of calories and other nutrients  self-sufficient ratio for food
production
ht
Food quality  individual preferences  individual perceptions 

intrinsic (nutritional, sensory, process, etc.) and extrinsic attributes
rig
Nevertheless, UNICEF definition  “food and nutrition security is

achieved when adequate food (quantity, nutritional quality, safety,
socio-cultural acceptability) is available and accessible for and
py
satisfactorily used and utilized by all individuals at all times to live a

healthy and active life”
Co
64
10/06/2023
no
Economic value of food safety
ila
• Market failures of food safety
 asymmetric information
 social costs
M
 difference between perceived risk and real risk
 public good
di
price and other extrinsic product attributes are not an efficient tool for
the coordination and regulation of demand and supply
di
loss of efficiency of economic system  public intervention
 policy measures for food safety
tu
• Ethic issues of food safety  right for consumer  available,
iS
accessible, safe food  public intervention  policy for food safety
and food security
gl
de
ità
rs
Policy measures for food safety

ive
Objectives of public intervention :

 to reduce asymmetric information between producers and consumers
 to guarantee health conditions of food products
Un
information – labelling
product
ht
measures of standards process

public product and process
rig
intervention for
food safety HACCP (hazard analysis
and critical control points)
py
traceability
Co
65
10/06/2023
no
Evolution of EU policy measures for food safety
ila
• Origin of European Community (Treatment of Rome 1957)
– creation of common market  free trade area tariff and non-tariff barriers
– concept of free movement of goods  competition
M
• 60’s and 70’s
– vertical directives  common standards for ingredients and productions
– low effectiveness agreement among all countries, many typology of produc.
di
• 80’s
– Court of Justice 1979 the case of “Cassis de Dijon”
– concept of reciprocal recognition products allowed in a country where they
di
are made must be permitted in the other member states
• 90’s
– horizontal directives
tu
– mad cow crisis (BSE)
• 2000
iS
– the new approach  the white paper
– the general food law  Reg. 178/2002
– a structured and harmonic regulation of the food market
gl
de
ità
rs
General principles of the EU policy for food safety

ive
Legal document
– White paper on food safety (2000)
– Regulation 178/2002
Un
Goals
to guarantee an high level of protection of human health and of interests of
consumers for foods
ht
General principles
– free movements of goods and competition
rig
– principle of precaution
– integrated strategy  systemic approach  look at the entire food system 
from farm to fork  liability of the supply chain agents for food safety 
traceability
py
– risk analysis
– authority for food safety  EFSA
Co
66
10/06/2023
no
Food safety and risk analisys
ila
o Risk assessment
 analysis of information
M
 Food Authority  EFSA
o risk management
di
 precaution principle
 legislation
di
 Commission, Parliament, Council
o risk comunication
tu
 dialog with stakeholders
 information labelling, advertising
iS
 food authority  EFSA gl
de
ità
rs
Framework of EU policy of food safety

Horizontal measures  general food law  Regulation 178/2002 
ive
general food law

– application of White paper
– aim  to guarantee a high level of protection of human health
Un
related to foods
– introduction of risk analysis
– introduction of the Authority for food safety
ht
– introduction of traceability
Vertical or specific measure
rig
– many different measures  labelling, product and process

standards (hygienic standards), additives, residues, preservatives,
HACCP, traceability etc.
py
Co
67
10/06/2023
no
M ila
Labelling of food products
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Food labels
ive
Food labels represent the most direct tool to transfer food-related

information from the producers to the consumers  Informative measure
Importance of food labels

Un
CONSUMERS  Provide the information necessary to know ‘exactly’

what they are eating
 Allow consumers to choose food products that are in

ht
line with their preferences
 Help consumer to make more aware food choices -->

rig
potentially lead consumers towards more healthful

food choices
py
Food labels are regarded as a possible tool to empower consumers

and to facilitate healthier food choices (M. Cecchini and L. Warin, 2016) 
Evidence: positive relationship between label use and diet quality
Co
68
10/06/2023
no
Food labels
ila
Importance of food labels
 Allows producers to communicate the properties of
M
their food products
 Product differentiation:
di
• Intrinsic characteristics (quality attributes)
• Extrinsic characteristics (labels, certifications, etc.)
• Brand PREMIUM PRICE
di
tu
POLICY MAKERS
 Reduce information asymmetry in the market:
iS
• Help prevent opportunistic behaviors and to protect
consumers --> improve the efficiency of the economic
system
gl
de
ità
rs
Information on labels
ive
Which kind of information do consumers find on food labels?

Nutrition
facts panel Ingredients list
Nutrition &
Un
Health
claims
ht
rig
py
But also…. Certifications (e.g., organic, PDO, PGI, carbon footprint, etc.), expiry date…
Co
69
10/06/2023
no
Information on labels: claims
ila
 Claims are any message or representation which is not mandatory under
community or national legislation, including pictorial, graphic or symbolic
M
representation, in any form, which states, suggests or implies that a food
has particular characteristics
di
Nutrition claims Health claims
 Both nutrition and health claims, although voluntary, are strictly regulated at
di
EU level:
tu
- Reg. n. 1924/2006 + 116/2010 for nutrition claims
- Reg. n. 1924/2006 + 432/2012 for health claims
iS
 Authorization to use nutrition and health claims is conditional to the EFSA
evaluation: all claims must be substantiated by robust scientific evidence
gl
de
ità
rs
Information on labels: Nutrition claims

ive
According to Reg. 1924/2006 Nutrition claim (or nutrient content claim) are
defined as any claim which states, suggests or implies that a food has particular
beneficial nutritional properties due to the energy (calorific value) or nutrients it
- provides
- provides at a reduced or increased rate or
Un
- does not provide

ht
rig
py
https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/claims/health_claims_en
Co
70
10/06/2023
no
Regulatory environment: Nutrition claims
ila
EUROPE - Nutrition claims
M
• Regulation No. 1924/2006 on Nutrition and health claims
With regard to nutrition claims:
di
- The list of admitted nutrition claims: energy, fat, saturated fat, sugar,
sodium, fibre, protein, vitamin, light
- Standard claims concerning the improved/reduced content of a nutrient in a
food (e.g., admitted claims are ‘low energy’, ‘energy-reduced’, ‘energy free’)
di
• Regulation No. 116/2010, which modifies Reg. 1924/2006 with regard
tu
to the list of admitted health claims
- New admitted nutrition claims: omega-3 fatty acids,
iS
monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats, and unsaturated fats
gl
de
ità
rs
Information on labels: Health claims

ive
Un
ht
Health claims
rig
py
Co
71
10/06/2023
no
Regulatory environment: Health claims
ila
EUROPE – Health claims
• Regulation No. 1924/2006 on Nutrition and health claims
M
With regard to health claims:
- Forbids any health-related message that has not been previously authorised
di
- Claims need to be based on accepted scientific evidence and approved by
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
- Claims need to be accompanied by additional information (e.g., the
di
importance of a varied and balanced diet, the food-quantity needed to obtain
the beneficial effect)
tu
• Regulation No. 432/2012 on admitted health claims  Introduced a list
of 222 health claims permitted by the EU Commission
iS
- Eg.,  Claims regard especially vitamins and minerals, but include also
omega 3 (with one claim related to cholesterol), beta-glucans (with one
claim related to cholesterol), live cultures, and olive-oil polyphenols
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:136:0001:0040:en:PDF
72
10/06/2023
no
ila
The latest Regulation No. 432/2012 strongly affected
the market
M
95% of health claims present on food products prior to the regulation were
rejected  food products produced after the 14th of December 2012 cannot
di
report claims that are not included in the approved list
di
tu
iS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zNL21gjwuo
gl
de
ità
rs
Information on labels: Nutrition facts panel

ive
 Nutrition facts panel (or nutritional declaration)  label required on

most packaged food in many countries
 A panel on labels with the nutritional values for that item. It lists the
nutrient contents and is typically based on the 2000 calorie diet
Un
ht
rig
py
 The use of NFP is mandatory in all EU countries since the introduction of

the Reg. 1169/2011
Co
73
10/06/2023
no
Regulatory environment: NFP
ila
EUROPE
So late!!
M
Regulation No. 1169/2011  (Most recent EU Regulation on food
di
labelling)  Establishes a new general legal framework for food product
labelling
di
• Nutritional declaration becomes mandatory for all pre-packaged food
• Requirements concerning the nutritional declaration format:
tu
- font size enlarged
- energy value and the amount of nutrients expressed per 100 g or per
iS
100 ml
- mandatory info: fats (and saturated fats), carbohydrates, sugar,
proteins, and salt, list of allergenic compounds
gl
de
ità
rs
NFP in the US….

ive
UNITED STATES
Un
1994  Nutrition Labelling and Education Act (NLEA)
• Nutritional labelling becomes mandatory for most pre-packaged foods,

excluding foods in restaurants
ht
• Detailed requirements about the nutrition facts panel (NFP) format:

rig
- font size
- nutrients separated by bars
- values expressed in terms of serving size
- mandatory info: calories, calories from fats, saturated fats,
py
cholesterol, sodium and potassium (if a claim is present),

carbohydrates, proteins, fiber, vitamins, and minerals
Co
74
10/06/2023
no
NFP in the US….
ila
UNITED STATES
M
NLEA also regulates nutrition and health claims
di
• Nutrition Claims (or Nutrient content claims)
- must have standardized definitions (e.g., low-fat, low-calorie,
light)
di
• Health claims  2 types
tu
- Significant scientific Agreement: scientific evidence meets FDA
requirements to issue an authorizing regulation
iS
- Qualified health claims: scientific evidence is not strong enough
to meet FDA requirements --> the claim must indicate that the
evidence is limited
gl
de
ità
rs
Comparing labels – US vs EU Highly

standardized
format
ive
Nutrition facts panel in the US

The Nutrition Facts label on packaged foods was updated in 2016 to reflect
updated scientific information, including information about the link between
diet and chronic diseases, such as obesity and heart disease.
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
75
10/06/2023
no
Comparing labels – US vs EU
ila
Nutritional declaration in EU
- According to 1169/2011
M
Mandatory information
must be displayed, but
additional voluntary
di
indications are allowed
(e.g., nutritional values
per portion size, daily
di
values)
- The size font is fixed, but
tu
the type font can vary
- Complementary
labeling schemes are
iS
allowed on voluntary
basis (e.g., traffic light
type) – no strict criteria
gl
de
ità
rs
Voluntary labelling schemes

ive
 Reg. 1169/2011 (Art. 35) establishes that mandatory nutritional

information can be complemented by voluntary ‘front-of-pack’ (FOP)
labels  FOP labelling is simplified nutrition information
Un
- FOP should report the main elements of the nutritional declaration

in order to help consumers to see at a glance the essential nutrition
information when purchasing foods (e.g., energy only or energy + fat,
saturated fat. etc.)
ht
- For this repetition, graphical forms or symbols can be used in

addition to those contained in the nutrition declaration (words and
rig
numbers)
 Currently, FOP can be voluntary developed and adopted by food business

operators or recommended by Member States (Member States may
py
recommend to food business operators the use of one or more additional

forms of expression) - In any case, FOP must comply with the law!
Co
76
10/06/2023
no
ila
 FOP must comply with the criteria set out in the Regulation, namely:
M
⋆ they must be based on sound and scientifically valid consumer research, and not
mislead the consumer
⋆ their development should be the result of consultation with a wide range of
di
stakeholder groups
⋆ they must be aimed at facilitating consumer understanding of the contribution or
importance of the food to the energy and nutrient content of a diet
di
⋆ they should be supported by scientific evidence showing that they are understood by
the average consumer
tu
⋆ the forms must be objective and non-discriminatory
⋆ their application must not create obstacles to the free movement of goods
iS
⋆ in the case of other forms of expression, they should be based on harmonized
reference intakes (set out in Annex XIII of the Regulation), or on generally accepted
scientific advice on intakes for energy or nutrients.
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
 FOP have a twofold aim:

- make the healthy choice the easy choice for consumers
- encourage the food industry to reformulate products to be healthier
Un
 Overall, FOP labelling is increasingly seen as a tool to support strategies

for the prevention of obesity and other diet-related non-communicable
diseases
 Member States have already introduced voluntary schemes to help

ht
consumers to identify healthier products. Some examples are:

rig
py
The Keyhole logo The Healthy Choice logo The Healthy Living logo
identifies healthier food products identifies healthier on foods that meet specific
within a product group options within food groups
Co
nutrition criteria
77
10/06/2023
no
ila
Other FOP labelling schemes…
M
 Some FOP schemes developed by firms or proposed by member states do not
fall under Art. 35 since they do not repeat information provided in the
nutrition declaration as such, but provide information on the overall
di
nutritional quality of the food (e.g. through symbols/letters)
 Such schemes are considered as 'voluntary information' under Art. 36.
di
They must:
⋆ not mislead the consumer
tu
⋆ not be ambiguous or confusing for the consumer
⋆ where appropriate, be based on the relevant scientific data
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
Other FOP labelling schemes…
 When such a scheme attributes an overall positive message (for example

Un
through a green color), it also fulfils the legal definition of a ‘nutrition claim’,
as it provides information on the beneficial nutritional quality of a food as defined
in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on nutrition and health claims (‘Claims
Regulation’) made on foods
ht
 FOP schemes falling within the scope of the Claims Regulation can only be used
in the territory of a Member State if they have been adopted by the Member State
in question in accordance with Article 23 of the Claims Regulation
rig
 FOP under Art. 46 are classified as follows:
Nutrient-specific Summary indicators

py
Numerical Color-coded Positive Graded

Co
78
10/06/2023
no
M ila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
1. Nutrient specific label, can be sub-divided into 'colour-coded' and 'numerical' sub-
categories. They include:
Color-coded:
• Traffic Light label (UK, Portugal, Estonia – with soome cross
Un
country differences)
• Evolved Nutrition Label (ENL)  building on the Reference Intakes

labels and adding colours (similar to the UK ‘traffic lights’ scheme),
but expressing nutrition values per portion instead of per 100 g/ml
ht
Numerical:
rig
• Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) scheme, based on the Reference

Intakes label
• Nutri-form Battery (Italia)  based on the Reference Intakes labels,

py
but with an added battery symbol indicating the amounts of energy

and nutrients in a single serving as a percentage of the daily intake.
It uses portion sizes instead of per 100 grams/ml.
Co
79
10/06/2023
no
ila
2. Summary indicator schemes can be sub-divided into 'positive' (can be
applied only on foods complying with certain nutritional criteria) and
M
'graded' providing global graded information on the nutritional quality
of foods (can be applied on all food products)
di
Positive summary indicators include:
• Keyhole Logo (Sweden, Danmark, Lituania)
di
• Living Healthy (Croazia)
tu
• Heart Symbol (Finland, Slovenia, Ungary, Ungheria with some croos-
country differences)
iS
• Healthier choices logo (Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia – Belgium and
the Netherlands also had it, but they now moved to the Nutriscore)
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
3. Graded summary indicators include:
 Nutri-Score scheme (Firstly introduced in Francein 2017, then Spain, Belgium,

Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg)
Un
 The Nutri-Score indicates the overall nutritional

quality of a given food
 The scheme is based on the UK Food Standards
ht
Agency nutrient profiling model

 The calculation system takes into account both
rig
elements to be limited, such as calories,

saturated fat, sugars or salt, and those to be
favoured, such as fibre, protein, nuts, fruit,
legumes and vegetables
py
 The food is assigned a colour and a letter based

on the resulting score, calculated per 100 g or
100 ml.
Co
80
10/06/2023
no
ila
What’s next?
 As part of the Farm to Fork Strategy, published on 20 May 2020, the
M
Commission is proposing actions to empower consumers to make healthy
food choices, including the introduction of a mandatory harmonized
front-of-pack nutrition label by the end of 2022  further and thorough
di
discussion with all stakeholders, and an impact assessment
 The literature indicates that
di
evaluative schemes that use
colour coding, with or without
a graded indicator, appear
tu
most promising for improving
the nutritional quality of food
iS
choices
Yet, the Commission does not
recommend any specific type of
front-of-pack scheme in its report
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
What’s next?
Impact for the food industry:

Un
 FOP labels can be an incentive for companies to reformulate existing

and develop new products in order to obtain a (more) favorable FOP
rating
ht
 Potential risk: reformulation occurs only for

the nutrients that are included in the FOP
rig
scheme
 Attention to substitute ingredients,

so that any reformulation also has the
py
potential to confer a true public health

benefit
Co
81
10/06/2023
no
Food labels – Main Issues
ila
- Information overloading  the cost of information increases  Label
use decreases
M
- Comprehension  Information on the nutrition facts panel are too
complex  the cost of information increases
di
- Claims may be misleading  e.g., It’s light, I can have 2!!!
di
- Voluntary labeling are not univocal  confusion
Is food labeling an efficient tool to guarantee market transparency
tu
and solve information asymmetry?
iS
Market Failure:
Price do not represent the real value of the product  opportunistic
behaviour
gl
de
ità
rs
Determinants of label use

ive
Household Gender
size
Un
Time
constraint Age
LABEL
Health USE
ht
Education
condition
rig
Nutritional
Income knowledge
Present/Future orientation
py
Time preference BMI

Co
82
10/06/2023
no
References
ila
• Cavaliere, A, De Marchi E., Banterle A. (2016). Does consumer health-
orientation affect the use of nutrition facts panel and claims? An
empirical analysis in Italy. Food Quality and Preference, 54, 110–116
M
• Dricoutis, A.C., Nayga, R.M.Jr, Lazaridis, P. (2011). Nutritional Labeling.
In: The Oxford handbook of the economics of food consumption and
policy.
di
• M. Cecchini and L. Warin (2016). Impact of food labelling systems on
food choices and eating behaviours: a systematic review and meta
analysis of randomized studies. Obesity reviews, 17, 201–210.
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
A literature review on Front-of-Pack labels

in Europe
Un
ht
rig
Elisa De Marchi, Alessia Cavaliere, Flavia Pucillo, Rodolfo M. Nayga,

Alessandro Banterle
py
Co
83
10/06/2023
no
ila
Introduction
M
• EU Regulation 1169/2011 on nutritional labels established the nutritional delaclaration mandate and allows
producers to adopt various forms of additional voluntary indications
di
 FOPLs: mostly based on graphic symbols and/or colour coding
 FOPLs aim at:
di
• providing consumers with the most important nutrition information at the point of purchase in a
simplified and time-saving manner  favoring healthy choices!
tu
• triggering a positive response from the food industry (as a side effect)
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
EU FOPL landscape
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
84
10/06/2023
no
ila
Front-of-Pack labels classification
M
Reductive There are several ways to classify FOPL: Evaluative
Nutrient-specific: Summary-indicator:
di
information on overall evaluation of
specific nutrients the nutritional
quality
Numerical Colour- Positive
di
Graded
coded /negativ
e
tu
 FOPL can be:
• Cross category (e.g. for 100 g of product)
iS
• Category-specific (evaluation based on the average nutritional value of a specific category)
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Aim of this review

 This narrative review aims at providing a comprehensive overview of recent literature on FOPLs by taking
into account both the demand-side and supply-side responses to FOPLs
Un
 Focus on the most recent FOPLs adopted in some EU countries which are currently at the core of a
heated scientific and policy debate
 Demand side:
ht
• explore effectiveness of different FOPLs in leading consumers towards healthier choices

• investigate the extent to which different FOPLs affect food purchasing intentions/behaviors
rig
 Supply-side (lack of studies):

• investigate firms’ decision to adopt FOPLs
• explore the extent to which FOPLs can leverage firms’ healthy reformulation of their products
• explore differences in firms’ responses to the use of FOPLs and how these would vary across types of
firms and products
py
Co
85
10/06/2023
no
M ila
Demand side response to FOPLs….
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Demand-side studies
 Effectiveness of FOPL in leading towards healthier food choices has been mainly investigated in terms of:
Un
• Understanding (objective and subjective) – determining if consumer understanding is consistent with the information
that the label aims to communicate
• Acceptability – umbrella term! Includes liking, perception, perceived usefulness…

ht
 Purchasing intentions and behaviors

rig
• Asking consumers which product they would more likely buy under different labeling conditions
• Asking to choose across different products before and after displaying FOPL
• Very few real-world studies

py
Co
86
10/06/2023
no
ila
Demand-side: Results
M
Main Results
 Evaluative FOPLs tend to outperform reductive ones
di
– Results of both survey-based and real-world studies demonstrate that compared to other FOPLs, RI-style
labels are hardly understood by consumers
– high cognitive effort to be processed and are not feasible to be used when consumers are under time
pressure
di
 The studies involving the newly introduced Nutrinform are very few
tu
– Their results are opposite compared to the prevailing evidence on RI-style labels
– Are based on the same methodology (subjective understanding)
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Demand-side results
 The number and the quality of the studies in support of the Warning Labels and the MTL seem
Un
superior compared to those in support of the NutriScore
– Evidence on Warning Labels and the MTL comes from both survey-based consumer studies and real-
world studies
– Studies involving the French NutriScore are almost exclusively based on consumer stated preferences
(there is only one real-world study involving the NutriScore which shows limited effectiveness)
ht
 Many studies on the NutriScore share common samples and experimental designs
rig
 Most studies on the NutriScore used ranking tasks… but the label itself provides the ranking of the products
based on their nutritional characteristics!
py
Co
87
10/06/2023
no
ila
Demand-side results
M
• RI style FOPL
– Least effective in enabling consumers to rank products based on their healthiness (especially under time
pressure)
di
– Low perceived usefulness
– High cognitive effort to be processed
– Do not help identify unhealthy products
di
• Warning Labels
tu
– Effective in helping consumers identify products high in unhealthy nutrients
(compared to other FOPL, 4.5 times more effective than RI)
– Help consumers recognize products as less healthy compared to the same
products carrying RI or MTL
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Demand-side results
• Nutri-score
Un
– Mixed results!!
– Overall effective in leading consumers to assess product healthiness

– Not possible to establish its superiority compared to MTL labels and warning labels
ht
• Nutrinform Battery
rig
– Effective in leading consumers to correctly rank products based on their healthiness

– Superior to the NutriScore
py
Co
88
10/06/2023
no
ila
Demand-side results
M
 Some FOPLs are based on product-specific nutritional values, other FOPLs evaluate the nutritional profile of
foods within the same product category (i.e., “Ice cream X” relative to the average nutritional values of ice-
cream products)…… So which one is best? This is difficult to say!
di
So what’s next??
di
 Need for further real-world and revealed preference studies to obtain behaviourally informed results on the
performances of different labels
tu
 Such studies are essential to ensuring that policy making related to the upcoming harmonization of front-of-
package nutritional information will lead to the expected positive outcomes.
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Un
Supply-side response to FOPLs….

ht
rig
py
Co
89
10/06/2023
no
ila
Supply-side studies
M
 Labels can affect the market structure in different ways:
• Labels represent a tool to differentiate their products on the market - firms can obtain competitive
advantage
di
• They signal the quality of a product creating a distinction between high- and low-quality sub-markets
(especially FOPLs based on logos and/or colour schemes)
di
 Despite their importance there are very few studies exploring firms’ responses to FOPLs
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Supply-side results
 Products’ reformulation
Un
• Evidence suggest that FOPL may encourage firms to reformulate their products to improve their nutritional
quality, but…
- Firms can act strategically to be able to display “positive” FOPL
- Modifying a product’s composition requires R&D, technological competences and financial
ht
investments: not all firms can afford these costs
• Firms reformulate only if they have return on investment

rig
- Some consumers may not be willing to pay price premiums (i.e., healthy is not tasty)
• When firms have an incentive to adopt FOPLs, reformulation is more likely to happen with evaluative-
positive FOPLs (such as the Keyhole) and the green colour of evaluative-graded FOPLs (such as the
NutriScore) because their adoption is conditional on specific nutritional requirements
py
Co
90
10/06/2023
no
ila
Supply-side results
M
 Manufacturers vs retailers’ response to FOPLs
• Retailers tend to be more favorable to FOPL adoption - retailers’ private label products carry evaluative
di
FOPL more than manufacturers’ brand products
• Manufacturers seem to prefer less impactful FOPL (e.g. RI) compared to evaluative FOPL
di
….Why is that ?
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Supply-side results
Because….
Un
Retailers Manufacturers
• Price strategy: retailers have “freedom in • The majority are micro and small firms (low
pricing” and their private label products are financial resources)
ht
usually sold at lower price

• Often own one brand and a limited array of
• Quality strategy: FOPL help increase products
retailers’ private label products’ reputation
rig
• Do not have price discrimination power

• Retailers can strategically take advantage of the
product variety they offer • (Denomination of Origin products’
ingredients’ list cannot change)
py
Co
91
10/06/2023
no
ila
Supply-side results
M
What’s next?
• Need for theoretical and empirical studies exploring the effects of the introduction of FOPL on firms to:
di
- Clarify the role of product reformulation in terms of improved nutritional quality
- Clarify the overall impact of FOPL adoption on big vs small food manufacturers
di
- Small firms may not have innovation and financial capacity to adapt their products to FOPL
- They do not have the same price differentiation strategies as big manufacturers and retailers
- How about Denomination of Origin products??
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Policy for traceability of food products

Un
ht
rig
py
Co
92
10/06/2023
no
Concept of traceability
• Standard ISO 22005
ila
capacity to trace back the product along the chain to the origin, thus
raw materials throght specific documentation;
Other sample  AFNOR V01 020, BSI 85:2000,
M
•
• In the different countries traceability system based on
• private standard (ex. ISO 22005)  voluntary  market incentives
di
• public regulation  mandatory
• Regulation 178/2002 art. 18
‘1. The traceability of food, feed, food-producing animals, and any other
di
substance intended to be, or expected to be, incorporated into a food or
feed shall be established at all stages of production, processing and
distribution.
tu
2. Food and feed business operators shall be able to identify any person
from whom they have been supplied with a food, a feed, a food-
producing animal, or any substance intended to be, or expected to be,
iS
incorporated into a food or feed. To this end, such operators shall have
in place systems and procedures which allow for this information to be
made available to the competent authorities on demand.’
gl
de
ità
rs
Traceability in the EU
ive
2 levels of traceability system

Reg. 178/2002  all
products
Un
• EU policy  mandatory traceability Reg. 1760/2000 etc. 

beef chain
Reg. 1337/2013 
other meat chains
ht
• International private standards  voluntary standards to

rig
trace back the product from consumption to production 

ISO 22005, GlobalGap, BSI, AFNOR, etc.
py
Co
93
10/06/2023
no
Different system of traceability
ila
Different typology of traceability:
• precision  quantity of information registered
• length  sectors or agents vertically involved
M
• breadth  size of batch
1. Chain traceability  mandatory
di
– Reg. 178/2002  traceability registers suppliers and customers along
the supply chain through a specific document  all the agents  one
di
step backward, one step forward
2. Chain and product traceability  management of flows for separated
tu
batches
– mandatory  Reg. 1760/2000 and 1137/2013
iS
– voluntary  traceability at level of agents of the supply chain (supply
chain traceability) and of single firm (product traceability)  trace back
the product  product history  specific agricultural raw materials
gl
de
ità
rs
Supply chain traceability Supply chain and product traceability

ive
Agricultural suppliers Agricultural suppliers

a b c batch a batch b batch c
Un
Food processing
Food processing
ht
rig
batch a batch b batch c
1 2 3 4
py
Retailers
1 2 3 4
Retailers
Co
94
10/06/2023
no
Objectives of tracebility
• mandatory traceability
ila
– improvement of food safety
• increase of information regarding different chains for controls
• favor the liability of the agents
M
• withdraw non-compliance products from market  only for Reg.
1760/2000 in the beef chain
• voluntary traceability
di
– improvement of food safety  reduction of costs of non-compliance 
if an alert occurs it is possible to withdraw from market just non-
compliance batches  better risk management
di
– improvement of product quality
• adoption of specific product and process rules
• specific liabilities
tu
• product differentiation  origin of raw materials
• brand image and premium price
iS
– improvement of supply chain management
– adaptation to retailer requests gl
de
ità
rs
Effects on vertical coordination

• Voluntary traceability impacts the vertical coordination of the food chain
ive
 Management of separate batches and production rules/standards

• System centralization  a single company is the chain leader  choice of the
traceability standards, certifications, responsibility in system application,
Un
management of the information flow, establishment of the production rules,

selection of firms participants, control planning  industrial firms, COOPs and
retailers
• Increase of the bilateral dependency due to changes in the production
ht
processes for the adoption of the traceability standards 

• Supply chain agreement
rig
specific production rules, procedures for the information management,

trades, responsibility attribution in case of non-compliance, control
planning
py
Co
95
10/06/2023
no
Transaction Cost Economics
ila
In the Neo-institutional approach  traceability as an institution (set of rules
and procedures) that changes the organization of transactions in the supply
chian  change of the governance
M
Characteristics of Transaction costs
transactions
- information
- asset specificity
di
- negotiation
- uncertainty
- monitoring
- frequency
di
Traceability and
vertical
tu
coordination
iS
Types of governance
Market, hybrid forms, hierarchies
gl
de
ità
rs
Transaction Cost Economics

ive
• Effects of traceability
– Increase of asset specificity  due to bilateral dependency
– Decrease of uncertainty
Un
– Changes in transaction costs, especially monitoring costs

• Such changes favor the adoption of hybrid forms  governance
based on supply chain agreements
ht
 Improvement of transparency and liability  to reduce the

risk of non-compliance  price incentives and contractual
conditions
rig
py
Co
96
10/06/2023
no
An empirical analysis
In the EU, two levels of traceability  mandatory and voluntary
ila
•
• Voluntary traceability leads to the reorganization of the supply chain 
M
changes in the governance depending on organizational transactions and
previous governance
di
– In supply chains based on verbal agreements formal contracts
– In supply chains based on contracts  einforcement of contracts with
price incentives
di
– In vertical integrated firms (COOP included)  no crucial changes, but
adoption of specific production rules
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
An empirical analysis
ive
• The choice of voluntary traceability systems depends on costs

and benefits  benefits are related to improvements of food
safety, reduction of non-compliances, guarantee of high quality
levels, brand reputation, increased efficiency of transactions
Un
• Traceability is a tool with important value for vertical

coordination within the supply chain  b2b relation
ht
• Currently a technical innovation is the block chain

rig
References:
Banterle, A., Stranieri, S. (2008). The consequences of voluntary
traceability system for supply chain relationships. An application of
py
transaction cost economics. Food Policy, 33 (6), 560-569.

Co
97
10/06/2023
no
ila
Food Quality
M
di
Policy for food quality
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
WHAT IS QUALITY?
ive
‘There is an abundance of ways in which the term quality […] has been
defined. […] There is general agreement that quality has an objective
and a subjective dimension.’
Un
• Objective quality  refers to the physical characteristics built

into the product and is typically dealt with by engineers and
food technologists.
ht
• Subjective quality  is the quality as perceived by consumers

rig
py
Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand

Klaus G. Grunert
European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 32 (3), (2005), pp. 369–391
Co
98
10/06/2023
no
QUALITY
ila
The quality profile of food products (Intrinsic attributes & Extrinsic
attributes ) is aimed at meeting consumers’ preferences  central role of
individual perception
M
Quality differentiation is a choice of the company  competitive position on
the market
di
‘Only when producers can translate consumer wishes into physical
product characteristics, and only when consumers can then infer desired
di
qualities from the way the product has been built, will quality be a
competitive parameter for food producers.’ (Grunert, 2005)
tu
Quality is a private good (is individual)
iS
Market failure due to information asymmetry  opportunistic behaviours
 food policies aimed at increasing transparency  EU agricultural product
quality policy
gl
de
ità
rs
FOOD QUALITY CLASSIFICATION

ive
Mandatory• Labeling based on product

standars (eg. Olive oil, eggs,
Based on EU and national etc.)
food policies
Un
• Geographical designation of
origin (PDO, PGI)
Measures to improve Voluntary
and guarantee food • Organic products
ht
quality
rig
• Product certification
Based on international
• Traceability
standards Voluntary
• Environmental certification
py
(ISO, EMAS, SA, ecc.)

• Ethical certification
Co
99
10/06/2023
no
EU product quality scheme
ila
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012  on quality schemes for agricultural
products and foodstuffs for the protection and promotion of quality
agricultural products as well as traditional products (entered into force in 2013)
M
This Regulation aims to help producers of agricultural products and
di
foodstuffs to communicate the product characteristics and farming
attributes of those products and foodstuffs to buyers and consumers,
ensuring:
di
1. fair competition for farmers and producers of agricultural products
and foodstuffs having value-adding characteristics and attributes
tu
2. the availability to consumers of reliable information pertaining to such
products
iS
3. respect for intellectual property rights
4. the integrity of the internal market.
gl
de
 contributes to guaranteeing quality to consumers and a fair price for

ità
rs

ive
Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012

Un
 This Regulation covers

agricultural products intended for
human consumption listed in
Annex I to the Treaty and other
ht
agricultural products and

foodstuffs listed in Annex I to this
rig
Regulation.
py
Co
Source: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eur118307.pdf
100
10/06/2023
no
M ila
 The rules provided for in this Regulation should apply
without affecting existing Union legislation on wines,
aromatised wines, spirit drinks, product of organic
di
farming, or outermost regions
di
MAIN CONTRIBUTION OF THE REGULTATION: It
achieves a simplified regime for several quality
tu
schemes by putting them under one single legal
instrument
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
GEOGRAPHICAL DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN

ive
The EU product quality schemes relate to agricultural products and

foodstuffs, wines, spirits and aromatized wines, which producers or
producer groups have registered according to the rules
Un
 Mainly GIs regard wines, beers, cheeses, processed meat
A product name identified as a geographical indication (GIs) is one that

is closely linked to a specific production area  Production - Origin of
ht
raw materials - Traditional production process

rig
Types of GIs:
• ‘Protected Designation of Origin’
• ‘Protected Geographical Indication’
py
• ‘Traditional Specialty Guaranteed’
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality_en
Co
101
10/06/2023
no
ila
Protected Designation of Origin (PDO)
M
• Identifies products that are produced, processed and prepared in a
specific geographical area, using the recognized know-how of local
di
producers and ingredients from the region concerned.
• They must adhere to a precise set of specifications
di
tu
Examples: Bordeaux PDO (France, wine), Cava PDO (Spain, wine), Manouri PDO
(Greece, cheese), Tiroler Bergkäse PDO (Austria, cheese), Prés-salés du Mont-
Saint-Michel PDO (France, fresh meat product) or Pistacchio verde di Bronte PDO
iS
(Italy, fruit). gl
de
ità
rs

ive
Protected Geographical Indication (PGI)

Un
• Identifies products whose quality or reputation is linked to the place or

region where it is produced, processed or prepared
• the ingredients used not necessarily come from that geographical area
ht
• must adhere to a precise set of specifications

rig
Examples: Bresaola della Valtellina IGP (Italy, cured meat);

Île-de-France IGP (France, wine); Krasotiri Ko IGP (Greece, cheese).
py
Co
102
10/06/2023
no
ila
Traditional speciality guaranteed (TSG)  not a
M
geographical indication as such, but focuses on tradition
• identifies products of a traditional character, either in the composition
di
or means of production, without a specific link to a particular geographical
area
di
Examples: Latte Fieno TSG (Itlay, milk); Berthoud TSG (Franca, meal based on
cheese).
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Designation of origin products: EU overview

ive
 In 2022 in the EU PDO, PGI and STG products were 3.069, of which:
• 1.463 agro-food products

Un
(635 PDO, 764 PGI, 64 TSG)

• 1.606 wines
(1.170 PDO, 436 PGI)
ht
 In 2022, 31 new products have been registered across 13 Countries

rig
 Geographical differences:
• Northern EU countries: small number of GI products  concentrate on the
economic efficiency of the market  industrialized production
py
• Southern EU countries: Increasing number of GIs products since their

introduction in 1992  culinary cultures  promotion of local tradition and
diversified quality
Co
103
10/06/2023
no
ila
• Italy 845 (PDO, PGI, TSG of food and wine)
M
• France 698
di
• Spain 349
• Greece 261
di
• Portugal 184
tu
 Spain comes first in the EU for the number of new registrations in 2022
(+6), followed by Italy, France, Portugal and Germany (+4); Croatia,
Slovakia, Sweden and Hungary (+2); Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania and Finland
iS
(+1).
Source: Report Ismea-Qualivita, 2022

gl
de
ità
rs

ive
PDO, PGI, TSG products in Europe

Un
ht
rig
py
Co
104
10/06/2023
no
M ila
di
di
tu
iS Source: Report Ismea-Qualivita, 2022
gl
de
ità
rs
Economic value of Italian GIs

ive
 In 2021, the value of production

of Italian DOP IGP and STG
products reached 7,97 billion
euros
Un
 +9,7% with respect to

2020
 Among food products:

ht
- cheeses have the highest

economic value (4,68 billion euros,
rig
corresponding to 59% of the whole

PDO/ PGI Italian food)
- then processed meat products
(1,95 billion euros, = 25% of total
py
value)
- balsamic vinegar (407 milion
euros) Source: Report Ismea-Qualivita, 2022
Co
105
10/06/2023
no
Economic value of Italian GIs
ila
 In 2021 the value of GI exports reached 4.413 billion euros (+12.5% with respect
to 2020)
M
 Exports are mainly directed to US, Germany and France then UK, Spain, Canada
and Netherlands.
di
di
tu
iS
gl
Source: Report Ismea-Qualivita, 2022
de
ità
rs
International rules for the protection of GIs

ive
Within the EU GIs are protected by international agreements  Outside the

EU, the protection of each geographical indication depends on which country
is taken into consideration
Un
 TRIPS (Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement)

- protection against misuse of GIs & avoid consumers confusion
- enhanced level of protection for GIs wines and spirits
ht
 Italian sounding and food fraud still represent a problem to be solved

rig
 important economic implications

py
Co
106
10/06/2023
no
ila
The Common Agricultural
M
Policy (CAP)
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
Common Agricultural Policy

ive
The Common Agricultural Policy is a system of EU subsidies and programs for

agriculture
Un
It initially sought to increase agricultural productivity in the EU, enhance rural

income, and secure food availability, but its objectives have changed over
time….
ht
Today, the main objectives of the CAP are to provide a stable and sustainable
rig
supply of safe food at affordable prices for Europeans, while also ensuring a
decent standard of living for farmers and agricultural workers
py
Co
107
10/06/2023
no
History of EU agricultural policies
ila
Main steps
M
1957 - Treaty of Rome
1962 – The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is born
di
1980s - CAP tackles "food mountains“  Milk Quotas
di
1992 - Mac Sharry reform
1999 – Agenda 2000
tu
2013 – CAP reformfor the first time the entire CAP was reviewed all at
iS
once
2023 – The new CAP reform

gl
de
ità
rs

ive
1957 - Treaty of Rome

• Creates the EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY between six western EU
countries  the first common agricultural policy between the 6 member
states (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands)
Un
• Main principles: free movement of agricultural products, removal of trade

barriers and a common market organization by product and price
1962 – The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is born

ht
• common market organizations for six agricultural products (cereals, pig,

meat, eggs, poultry meat, fruit and vegetables, wine)
• policy based on price support & market support
rig
• protection of common market based on variable duty and export refund

• intervention mechanism to support internal prices  high prices favor
production
py
Co
108
10/06/2023
no
Target price
UE
ila
Entry price
M
Variable Market price UE
duty Export
Intervention
di
Refund
price (variable)
Import
Price World
price
di
(variabile)
(variable)
tu
import export
EU Resources iS
Agricultural expenses
gl
EFAOG
Fonte: Commissione europea
de
ità
rs

ive
1980s - CAP tackles "food mountains"

• The EU had to fight with permanent surpluses of food production ("food
mountains")  cereals and milk powder surpluses were either exported,
or stored or disposed within the EU  high budgetary cost
Un
1984 – Milk quotas

• The EU introduced milk quotas, extending the production quota system
already applied to sugar
ht
1988 - Maximum ceiling

rig
• Introduction of a maximum ceiling for the CAP budget

• Introduction of a limit on the quantities guaranteed to receive support
payments
py
1992-2013 - MAJOR REFORMS PERIOD

Co
109
10/06/2023
no
1992 - Mac Sharry reform
ila
Born from the need to reach agreement with the EU's external trade partners of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT now WTO) with regard to
agricultural subsidies
M
Shift from product support (through prices) to producer support (through income
di
support, direct payments)
Main objectives of the reform
di
• Reduce prices
• Introduce payments per hectares or per head  partially decoupled payments
tu
• Reduced levels of intervention price by 29% for cereals and 15% for beef
• Introduce the set-aside as a measure to control demand
iS
Accompaniment measures: 2078/92, agri-environmental measures 
2079/92, pre-retirement  2080/92, afforestation
gl
de
ità
rs

ive
1999 – Agenda 2000
Introduction of the two 'Pillars': production support and rural development

Un
• The CAP shifts from price support to income support

• Price support for cereals, milk and milk products, beef and veal were further
reduced
• introduction of a single payment scheme  decoupled payments to farmers
ht
Market Common Organization of Market:

rig
policy cereals, oil seeds, milk, meat, wine
CAP
Investments for: young farmers,
py
Rural training, pre-retirement,

development disadvantaged areas, development of
policy rural areas, etc.
Co
110
10/06/2023
no
ila
2013 - for the first time the entire CAP was reviewed all at once
M
• The new CAP maintains the two pillars, but increases the links between
them  more holistic and integrated approach to policy support
di
• Introduces a new architecture of direct payments  better targeted,
more equitable and greener
• Promotes an enhanced safety net and strengthens rural development
di
tu
Aimed at meeting the challenges ahead by being more efficient and
contributing to a more competitive and sustainable EU agriculture
iS
gl
de
ità

rs
CAP reform 2013: From challenges to objectives

ive
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
111
10/06/2023
no
ila
The path of CAP expenditure by calendar year (in current prices)
M
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità

rs
Changes in the Distribution of Direct Payments

ive
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
112
10/06/2023
no
M ila
di
di
tu
The design of direct
payments (and share
iS
of direct payments
gl envelope)

de
ità
rs
THE EU GREEN DEAL

ive
 Installation of the von der Leyen Commission and communication ‘The European
Green Deal’ (December 2019)
 The Green Deal is the EU environmental macro-strategy from now to 2050
Un
 Indicates the road map of 50 obligations to achieve long-term climate and

environmental objectives
 The main goal is climate neutrality by 2050
 In addition to climate action, it proposes a new model of sustainable
ht
development which envisages: the protection of natural resources and

biodiversity, the protection of public health and the circularity of the economy
 Among the first fulfillments: the Farm to Fork strategy  implementation of the
rig
Green Deal in the agri-food sector

py
Co
113
10/06/2023
no
THE EUROPEAN GREEN DEAL
M ila
di
di
tu
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ENVIROMENTAL CONSTRAINTS FOR THE NEW CAP

ive
Green Deal, Farm to Fork, EU Biodiversity Strategy, European Climate

Law… impose constraints on CAP programming, which will need to fully
integrate with EU general environmental goals
Un
To reduce the overall use and

risk of chemical pesticides by To reduce nutrient losses by To reduce overall EU sales of
50% by 2030 at least 50% by 2030 antimicrobials by 50% by 2030
To reduce the use of At least 25% of the EU’s

ht
To reduce the use of more hazardous fertilisers by at least 20% agricultural land under organic
pesticides by 50% by 2030 by 2030 farming by 2030
rig
At least 30% of EU land under

At least 10% of the UAA protected area
classified as a HNV farmland by Reversing the declining trend of
2030 pollinators
3 billions of new trees by 2030
py
Co
114
10/06/2023
no
ila
CAP, EU Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy (post-2022)
M
 Targets on natural resource management
(soil, air, water) The achievement of such
 Targets on circular economy
targets will cause STRONG
di
 Targets on research and Development
 Targets on biodiversity IMPACTS on EU yields
In particular:
di
• -50% use of pesticides by 2030 (!) (yield loss), food
• -50% antibiotics for livestock al 2030
production (will decrease)
tu
• -20% fertilizers by 2030 (!)
• +25% Agricultural area converted to and food import from non-
iS
organic farming by 2030 (!)
gl EU Countries

de
ità
rs
ive
Specific objectives CAP 2023-2027
1) to support viable farm income and resilience of the

Un
agricultural sector in order to enhance long-term food

security and agricultural diversity as well as to ensure the
economic sustainability of agricultural production
2) to enhance market orientation and increase farm
competitiveness, including greater focus on research,
technology and digitalisation
ht
3) to improve the farmers’ position in the value chain

4) to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation
(reducing GHG, enhancing carbon sequestration, promoting
rig
sustainable energy)
5) to foster sustainable development and efficient management
of natural resources such as water, soil and air
py
Co
115
10/06/2023
no
ila
Specific objectives CAP 2023-2027
M
6) to contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, enhance
ecosystem services and preserve habitats and landscapes;
7) to attract and sustain young farmers and new farmers and facilitate
sustainable business development in rural areas
di
8) to promote employment, growth, gender equality, participation of
women in farming, social inclusion and rural development, including
the circular bio-economy and sustainable forestry
9) to improve the response of Union agriculture to societal demands on
food and health, including high-quality, safe and nutritious food
di
produced in a sustainable way, to reduce food waste, as well as to
improve animal welfare and to combat antimicrobial resistance.
10) modernising agriculture and rural areas by fostering and sharing of
knowledge, innovation and digitalisation in agriculture and rural
tu
areas and by encouraging their uptake by farmers, through improved
access to research, innovation, knowledge exchange and training.
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
CAP 2023-2027 Policy instruments
1.Intervention in the form of direct payments

Un
2.Intervention for rural development

3. Sectoral intervention
ht
National approach for direct payments and sectoral

intervention
rig
National approach with regional detailed rules for rural

development
py
Co
116
10/06/2023
no
ila
CAP Green Architecture 2023-2027
M
Agri-environmental–climate • Voluntary farming practices
• Rural Development Measures
payments (II PILLAR)
Environmental requirements
• Defined at MS
• Plurennial commitments
di
• Payments per hectare
Voluntary eco-scheme • Voluntary farming practices beneficial for the climate and the
(I PILLAR) environment
• First Pillar Payment
di
Eco- • Defined at MS
schemes • Annual Commitments
• Payments per hectare
• Mandatory norms
tu
• Condition to receive I Pillar payments
( I PILLAR) (base income support)
Cross compliance • Basic standards to access CAP payments
(SMRs and GAECs)
iS
2022-2027
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
CAP Green Architecture: a comparison

A smarter
agriculture to
More ambitious AEC payments (II PILLAR)
improve
Un Environmental requirements
sustainability
Agri-environmental-climate payments
(II PILLAR)
Eco-scheme in I
Pillar
ht
Eco-scheme
payment
Greening
Direct New enhanced conditionality (I PILLAR)
rig
payments (I PILLAR)
Base income
Cross compliance (SMRs and support
GAECs) (I PILLAR)
2015-2020 2023-2027
py
Co
117
10/06/2023
no
ila
• CAP 2023-2027 DIRECT PAYMENTS
M
• The basic income support for sustainability(decoupled,
mandatory for MS) – average value 167 €/ha 48% of DP funds
• The complementary redistributive income support for
di
sustainability (decoupled, mandatory for MS) – 10% of DP funds
for the first 0-14 ha (max) of farms - average value  81€/ha
• The schemes for the climate, the environment and animal
welfare(eco-schemes) (mandatory for MS, voluntary for farmers)
di
– 25% of DP funds
• The complementary income support for young farmers
tu
(decoupled, not mandatory for MS) 2% of DP funds – average
value  83,5€/ha
• The coupled income support (coupled, not mandatory for MS)
iS
15% of DP funds
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
• The schemes for the climate, the environment

and animal welfare(eco-schemes) )
Un
Eco-scheme 1
Eco-scheme 3
Payment to Eco-scheme 4
Eco-scheme 2 Preservation
reduce Extensive Eco-scheme 5
ht
Grassing in of olive trees

antimicrobials forage Measures for
permanent of special
use and for systems with pollinators
crops landscape
animal rotation
value
welfare
rig
 ADDITIONAL TO THE BASIC INCOME SUPPORT

 VOLUNTARY FOR FARMERS
py
 ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS (while in AEMs they are pluriennial)

Co
118
10/06/2023
no
ila
Rural development intervention
Eight areas for intertention:
M
1. Environmental, climate-related and other management
commitments(SRA)
2. Natural or other area-specific constraints;(SRB)
di
3. Area-specific disadvantages resulting from certain mandatory
requirements (SRC)
4. Investments (SRD)
di
5. Setting-up of young farmers and new farmers and rural
business start-up(SRE)
6. Risk management tools;(SRF)
tu
7. Cooperation (SRG)
8. Knowledge exchange and dissemination of information(SRH)
iS
gl
de
ità
rs
ive
Un
ht
rig
py
Co
119

EFE_2023_part 2_3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EFE_2023_part 2_3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/06/2023

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

The concept of sustainability

 The consequences of the economic growth in terms of environmental impact started

 1972 - Club of Rome: promoted a ‘holistic intertemporal approch’

 1987 - UN Brundtland Commission (Gro Harlem Brundtland)

would be subsequently called ’green-growth’ - first definition of sustainable

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

The concept of sustainabilty

 In general, however, all definitions include at least three pillars:

– economy (profit) - economic growth

 In all cases, SUSTAINABILITY defines a

multidisciplinary and across-

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FOOD SYSTEM

• Food system activities strongly rely on:

- environmental resources (primary inputs, especially related to agriculture)

stock, energy, pollination, etc.)

• Climate change is expected to affect food

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FOOD SYSTEM

Constraints and issues:

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FOOD SYSTEM

 “land degradation” indicates a deterioration of the biophysical value of the

(Gibbs and Salmon, 2015).

 No globally consistent or georeferenced database on land degradation exists -

• FAO estimates that 33% of the world’s farmland is moderately to highly

Department of Environmental Science

INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FOOD SYSTEM

 Growth in production of animal-sourced food is driving crop utilization for

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FOOD SYSTEM

 2017-2050: half of the

(India, Nigeria, the Democratic

Tanzania, the United States of

 FAO estimates that there

population (FAO 2018a)

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FOOD SYSTEM

 Between 1961 and 2016, anthropogenic GHG emissions associated with

• The increase in emissions is mainly from the livestock sector (enteric

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FOOD SYSTEM

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2017-2026 - © OECD 2017

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

Consumer choices can make a

Calculates the amount of land

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION – food waste

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

Sustainability and policy: Global action

 1992: Rio Declaration on environment and

AGENDA 21 ACTION PLAN FOR SUSTAINABLE

NON-BINDING action plan mapping out concrete

actions to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by

which human impacts on the environment

Department of Environmental Science and Policy

Sustainability and policy: Global action

 2012: Agenda 30 action plan: builds on Agenda 21 and sets 17 SDGs to be

'The right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental