Sustainable Food systems, CO2 and food security.

Soils are one of the planet’s largest carbon sinks. The Earth’s soils collectively contain about 2,500 gigatons of carbon – more than three times the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and over four times that stored in all living plants and animals . This soil carbon exists primarily as soil organic matter (the decayed plant and animal material in the ground), and in some regions as peat or permafrost. Healthy, carbon-rich soil is dark, fertile, and crucial for food production as well as climate regulation. However, centuries of conventional agriculture have greatly depleted this natural carbon stock. It’s estimated that soils have lost 50–70% of the carbon they once held due to human activities like farming and land conversion . When land is cleared of native vegetation and plowed for crops or pasture, a lot of the soil’s stored carbon gets released into the air as CO₂. In fact, historical soil carbon losses from agriculture and deforestation have contributed roughly a quarter of all anthropogenic GHG emissions since the industrial era  – a major driver of climate change.

What causes soil carbon to escape? A key mechanism is disturbance of the soil through practices such as ploughing (tillage). Ploughing, which involves turning over the topsoil, exposes buried organic matter to oxygen, accelerating its decomposition. This oxidation of soil organic matter releases carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere . Intensive tillage, especially when combined with removal of crop residues and periods of bare soil, leads to a steady loss of soil carbon. Other factors that cause CO₂ release from soils include overgrazing (which reduces plant inputs to soil and can cause erosion) and the draining of carbon-rich wetlands or peatlands for agriculture (causing peat to dry and decompose rapidly). Industrial farming practices over the last century – heavy plowing, short crop rotations or monocultures, excessive use of chemical fertilizers without returning organic matter to the soil – have tended to deplete soil organic carbon. In contrast, practices that minimize soil disturbance and maintain cover can help retain or even build soil carbon.

Toward a Sustainable and Healthy Food System

Building a sustainable, climate-friendly food system goes hand in hand with promoting public health and nutrition. Both consumers and food industry professionals have crucial roles to play in this transformation. Research and expert committees have converged on several high-impact strategies:

For consumers, key steps include:

For food industry professionals and policymakers:

Pollinators, Agriculture, and Food Security

The good news is that soils have the potential not only to stop emitting carbon but to sequester additional carbon from the atmosphere if managed wisely. This is where regenerative agriculture and organic farming practices come in. These approaches focus on restoring soil health through methods like reduced or no tillage, cover cropping, diverse crop rotations, agroforestry (integrating trees), applying organic amendments (compost or manure), and managed grazing. Research shows these methods can significantly increase soil carbon stocks over time. For example, organically managed soils often show higher organic carbon levels than conventionally managed soils in the same region. A nationwide study in the US found that soil from organic farms had 44% higher levels of humic acids (a stable form of soil carbon) compared to soils from conventional farms  – indicating greater long-term carbon sequestration in organic systems. This aligns with other studies suggesting organic farming leads to more carbon-rich soil and even lower net nitrous oxide emissions, due in part to better soil structure and biology .

Real-world farming trials have demonstrated the carbon-capturing power of regenerative techniques. One striking example comes from a large-scale regenerative ranch in the southeastern US: by combining holistic planned grazing of cattle with perennial forages and diverse cover crops, the farm achieved dramatic increases in soil carbon. Over years, the carbon gains in the soil were so high that they offset the methane and other emissions from the cattle, resulting in an overall carbon footprint that was 66% lower than that of conventional feedlot beef operations . In fact, a life-cycle analysis showed the ranch was net carbon-negative for beef production – storing more greenhouse gases in soil than its cattle and activities emitted . While this is just one case, it highlights the promise of regenerative agriculture in turning farms into carbon sinks. Even on croplands, practices like no-till farming combined with cover crops can significantly cut CO₂ emissions from soil . However, it’s important to note that soil carbon rebuilding is a gradual process and can saturate; still, experts estimate that better land management globally could sequester on the order of a billion or more tons of carbon per year in soils , buying us valuable time in the fight against climate change.

• Shift towards plant-rich diets: Reducing consumption of high-emission animal products (especially red meat and dairy) and eating more plant-based foods is one of the most effective ways to shrink your food carbon footprint. Animal products supply a minority of our calories but are responsible for the majority of food-related emissions . For example, beef and lamb can emit dozens of kilograms of CO₂-equivalent per serving, whereas plant proteins like beans, peas, or tofu emit a fraction of that. Adopting a healthy flexitarian or vegetarian diet can cut food emissions significantly – a comprehensive analysis suggests that a global move to entirely plant-based diets could reduce food GHG emissions by about 49% , though you don’t have to go 100% vegan to make a difference. Even modest reductions in meat intake (like having more meat-free days) and choosing poultry or plant proteins over beef/lamb yields substantial climate benefits. Importantly, diets higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and plant proteins are also linked to better health outcomes (lower rates of heart disease, obesity, etc.), illustrating a win-win for health and environment.

• Buy from sustainable and organic producers: Consumers can support farmers who use regenerative, organic, or other eco-friendly practices. Products certified by schemes like organic (Soil Association in the UK, EU Organic, etc.) generally are made with fewer synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, which means a lighter environmental footprint and often better soil and biodiversity outcomes. Similarly, choosing seasonal, local produce when possible can reduce transportation emissions and encourage regional food security (though transport is usually a smaller part of food’s footprint than production methods ). Look for labels indicating higher animal welfare or pasture-raised livestock, as these often coincide with more sustainable grazing practices. Supporting such products sends a market signal for sustainability. However, note that imported out-of-season produce (e.g. air-freighted fruits) or highly processed foods can carry hidden emissions costs – eating with the seasons and favoring minimally processed whole foods can help.

• Reduce food waste at home: Wasting less food is a simple but powerful action. Astonishingly, around one-third of food produced globally is lost or wasted, and this rotting waste accounts for about 8–10% of global GHG emissions . When food is thrown out, all the emissions from growing, transporting, and cooking it have been in vain – plus, decomposing food in landfills produces methane. Consumers can make a big impact by planning meals, storing food properly, using leftovers, and composting organic scraps. In the UK, household food waste alone is responsible for ~5% of the nation’s GHG emissions . By shopping smart (not overbuying) and understanding “use by” vs “best before” dates, we can keep edible food out of the bin. Wasting less food also saves money and resources. In short, buy what you need, eat what you buy, and you’ll lighten your carbon footprint.

• Sustainable sourcing and farming: Food businesses can prioritize sourcing ingredients from producers using sustainable practices. This might mean procuring organic or regenerative certified ingredients, supporting farmers to transition away from intensive industrial methods. Companies can work with their supply chains to reduce fertilizer use (thereby cutting N₂O emissions), improve manure management, and stop sourcing from areas of deforestation. For instance, ensuring soy for animal feed or palm oil in products is from deforestation-free, ethical sources helps curb the largest food-related CO₂ emissions. Retailers and brands can also invest in programs that help farmers adopt agroecological methods, which not only cut emissions but often improve resilience and soil health (a long-term benefit for supply stability). Additionally, relocalizing some supply chains and diversifying suppliers can reduce transport emissions and vulnerability to climate impacts abroad.

• Reducing emissions in processing and transport: Food manufacturers should look at their facilities and logistics to reduce energy use and switch to renewable energy where possible. This includes improving refrigeration efficiency (to cut down HFC refrigerant emissions), optimizing transportation (larger shipments, efficient routing, shifting to electric vehicles or rail where feasible), and minimizing packaging or using low-carbon packaging materials. While agriculture is the biggest slice of food emissions, processing, packaging, and distribution still contribute a notable share  – and these are areas where the industry can innovate. For example, food companies can reduce the need for energy-intensive cold storage by shortening supply chains or using thermal energy storage, etc. Supermarkets can cut food miles and packaging by sourcing more locally and offering produce free of single-use plastic packaging.

• Product innovation and menu shifts: The food industry (from manufacturers to restaurants) can help consumers adopt sustainable diets by making climate-friendly options appealing, accessible, and affordable. This includes developing tasty plant-based alternatives and reformulating menus or products to include more vegetables, legumes, and pulses in place of meat. Many food service companies are now adding plant-based meals and actively promoting them. Food companies can also perform product carbon footprinting and provide clear labels, so consumers are informed of the environmental impact of their choices. By nudging customer choices (for instance, putting plant-based dishes in prominent menu positions, or marketing the flavor and value of meatless options), the industry can shift demand in a climate-positive direction. There is evidence that when given attractive choices, people are open to diet change – and younger generations in particular are embracing vegetarian and vegan options more than ever.

• Policy and collaboration: Finally, industry leaders should collaborate with policymakers to create systemic change. This includes supporting government policies that incentivize low-carbon agriculture (such as subsidies for cover cropping or organic farming, or methane reduction programs in dairy farms), and policies that disincentivize environmentally harmful practices (like maybe a pricing mechanism on fertilizer emissions or stronger regulations on deforestation-linked imports). The UK’s Climate Change Committee, for instance, has recommended implementing measures to reduce meat consumption by 20-35% and halve food waste by 2050   as part of meeting climate targets. Achieving this will likely require government action (public education campaigns, farm support schemes, food waste laws, etc.) in concert with industry efforts. Food businesses can be proactive by setting their own science-based emissions targets and transparently reporting progress. In summary, a sustainable, nutritious food system will require changes from farm to fork – but these changes also offer co-benefits like improved public health, better animal welfare, and a more resilient food supply chain.

A honeybee pollinating a flower. Insect pollinators like bees are crucial for many crops – their decline poses a serious risk to global food security.

Pollinators – which include bees (honeybees and wild bees), butterflies, moths, bats, birds, and other animals – are essential for food production. About 75% of the world’s flowering plants and roughly 35% of global crop production depend on animal pollinators to some degree . Many of our most nutritious and economically important crops are pollinator-dependent. Fruits like apples, berries, and citrus; vegetables like squash, cucumbers, and tomatoes; nuts like almonds; and oilseeds like sunflower and rapeseed (canola) all rely on pollinators to fertilize their flowers and set fruit. In practical terms, this means that about one in every three bites of food we eat exists thanks to pollinators. The annual global value of crop pollination is estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Beyond yields, pollination often affects the quality of produce (size, shape, and nutritional content of fruits can improve with adequate pollination). Thus, a decline in pollinator populations can lead to lower agricultural yields, reduced farm incomes, and higher food prices. Certain regions or crops could face supply problems – for instance, without enough pollinators, crops like almonds in California or coffee in the tropics would suffer. In short, pollinator health is directly tied to food security and nutrition for humanity.

Alarmingly, there is strong evidence that many pollinator species have been in decline in recent decades. Beekeepers have reported high honeybee colony losses, and scientists have observed reductions in wild insect pollinators in North America, Europe, and elsewhere. This decline is attributed to multiple, often interacting factors. Pesticide use is one major driver – in particular, a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids (widely used on crops) has been found to be highly toxic to bees and other beneficial insects. Studies led to the European Union banning outdoor use of three neonicotinoid pesticides in 2018 after concluding they posed an unacceptable risk to bees . (The UK initially followed EU restrictions, although there have been some temporary exceptions for sugar beet; overall, the direction is toward tighter pesticide regulation to protect pollinators.) Habitat loss is another key factor: modern intensive agriculture often creates large monocultures and removes hedgerows, flower strips, and wild areas, leaving little forage or nesting habitat for pollinators. Bees need a diverse diet of pollen and nectar throughout the seasons, which is best provided by wildflowers and diverse crops – but monocropping and urban sprawl have drastically reduced wildflower-rich habitats. Diseases and parasites also play a role; for example, the Varroa mite has devastated honeybee colonies worldwide, and pathogens like viruses can spread between commercial bees and wild pollinators. Climate change adds further stress by shifting flowering times and geographic ranges, potentially disrupting the synchronization between pollinators and plants. All these pressures have led to what some call an “insect apocalypse,” with butterflies and bees disappearing at alarming rates in certain areas.

Protecting pollinators is therefore a critical part of creating a sustainable food system. There are several strategies to halt and reverse pollinator decline:

• Reduce and regulate harmful pesticides: Tightening the use of insecticides and herbicides that harm pollinators is imperative. Many countries have banned or restricted neonicotinoids, but other chemicals can also be problematic. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approaches – using biological pest controls, crop rotation, and targeted spraying only when necessary – can minimize chemical use. Governments can incentivize farmers to adopt pollinator-friendly pest management. For example, the EU has assessed risks and confirmed that most uses of neonics are a threat to bees , prompting regulatory action. Ensuring any new pesticides are thoroughly tested for pollinator safety (including sublethal and chronic effects) is also important.

• Habitat restoration and biodiversity on farms: Farmers can dedicate portions of their land to support pollinators. Planting wildflower strips along field edges, maintaining hedgerows, leaving some areas fallow or in natural vegetation, and diversifying the farm landscape all provide food and shelter for pollinating insects. Even small actions like sowing flower cover crops (e.g. clover, phacelia) in between main crops or after harvest can feed bees and butterflies. Urban and suburban areas can help too – planting pollinator gardens, reducing lawn mowing to allow clover and dandelions to bloom, and creating “bee highways” of flowering plants in city parks all contribute to a network of habitats. Essentially, we need to reintroduce flowers and variety into landscapes dominated by intensive agriculture.

• Support organic and agroecological farming: Organic farming generally forbids the most harmful pesticides and emphasizes ecological balance, which benefits pollinators. Studies find that organic farms host significantly higher biodiversity – on average 34% more species of plants and animals than conventional farms, including about 50% more species of pollinating insects like bees  . By not using synthetic insecticides and providing more diverse crop rotations, organic fields often have more wildflowers and weeds that feed pollinators, as well as buffer habitats. Even non-organic farmers can adopt agroecological practices (like mixed cropping, agroforestry, or low-chemical input farming) that favor pollinators. Beekeeping itself can be integrated into farms, but care is needed to ensure honeybees don’t outcompete wild bees – a diversity of pollinators is ideal. Governments and organizations can encourage these practices through subsidies (for maintaining hedgerows or flower margins) and technical support. The UK, for instance, has Environmental Land Management schemes that reward farmers for actions benefiting biodiversity, including pollinators.

• Address disease and climate resilience: Beekeepers are working on breeding disease-resistant bee strains and better management of parasites like Varroa (e.g., through selective breeding or novel biocontrols). Maintaining genetic diversity in pollinator species is key to resilience. Additionally, monitoring and research into wild pollinator populations can identify early warning signs of decline and areas to target conservation efforts. Climate change mitigation (by reducing GHG emissions as discussed) is also crucial for pollinators in the long run, as it will reduce the extreme weather events and shifts that can disrupt ecosystems.

In summary, pollinator decline is a serious threat to global food security, but by changing how we farm and how we manage landscapes, we can protect and even boost pollinator populations. This means farming in harmony with nature – reducing chemicals, fostering biodiversity – rather than relentlessly against it. The co-benefits are not just ecological; farms that support pollinators often have better soil health and pest control (since many beneficial insects also control pests), and they ensure the resilience of crop yields. What’s good for bees tends to be good for farmers and consumers in the long run.

Organic Honey: An Indicator of Ecosystem Health

One fascinating (and concerning) indicator of the state of agriculture and ecosystems, especially in the UK, is organic honey – or rather, the lack thereof. To be certified organic, honey must be produced by bees largely foraging in organic crops or wild vegetation, without exposure to synthetic pesticides. Organic standards (such as those set by the Soil Association in Britain or EU organic regulations) typically require that beehives be placed in an environment with a radius of around 3–4 miles of organic land or well-managed wild habitat, free from contamination sources like intensive conventional farms or industrial sites . Bees have a foraging range of up to 3 miles (5 km) or more, so if there are pesticide-treated fields within that range, it’s nearly impossible to guarantee the honey is truly organic.

In the UK, these conditions are virtually impossible to meet at the moment. The landscape of Britain is a patchwork of small farms, towns, and conventional agricultural land – there are no large contiguous areas of fully organic agriculture or wildflower-rich wilderness that meet the 3–4 mile radius requirement. As a result, you cannot buy certified organic honey that is sourced from the UK . Any honey labeled “organic” in UK shops is typically imported from places like Spain, Hungary or New Zealand, where beekeepers have access to vast organic estates or remote wild areas. The Soil Association confirms that the fragmented nature of UK land use and pervasive presence of non-organic farming make it infeasible for British beekeepers to gain organic certification . In other words, the fact that the UK cannot produce organic honey in practice is a red flag about how limited our pesticide-free, flower-rich areas are.

This has broader implications. Honeybees are a sort of “canary in the coal mine” for the countryside – if they cannot find sufficient clean forage, it means the environment is saturated with intensive agriculture and lacks enough natural habitat. The organic honey issue highlights the pervasiveness of agro-chemicals in UK agriculture and the lack of safe havens for pollinators. It underscores the urgency to transition to more sustainable farming. To enable organic honey (and, more importantly, healthy pollinators), the UK would need to drastically increase the extent of organic farming or similar approaches (like pesticide-free regenerative farming) and reconnect natural habitats so that bees have large territories free of toxins. Until that happens, the inability to produce organic honey stands as a stark indicator that UK agriculture has not yet reconciled with nature.

From a food security standpoint, this is worrisome. If current farming practices leave no room for bees to thrive, it jeopardizes the pollination of crops and the ecological services we depend on. The future of food security in the UK (and elsewhere) will require that we redesign our agricultural landscapes to be more ecologically sound – farms where wildflowers, hedgerows, and healthy soils with thriving microorganisms are part of the system, not obstacles to be removed. By doing so, we not only could produce things like organic honey at home, but we would ensure that our food system remains productive and resilient in the face of environmental challenges. In essence, achieving the conditions for organic honey production in the UK would be a sign that we have moved toward an agriculture that supports biodiversity rather than suppresses it. That shift will be critical for sustaining our food supply and restoring balance with the natural world in the years to come.

Conclusion

The connections between our food system, climate change, and ecosystem health are profound. The way we grow, process, and consume food today is a major driver of planetary challenges – from greenhouse emissions heating the climate to the silent crisis of biodiversity loss exemplified by vanishing pollinators. However, this also means the food system holds tremendous potential for solutions. By reimagining agriculture (toward regenerative and organic practices that store carbon and foster life in the soil), rebalancing diets (for lower emissions and better health), cutting waste, and protecting the tiny pollinators that make food production possible, we can transform food from a climate problem to a climate solution. Organizations like the Soil Association, research bodies, and forward-thinking farmers are already pioneering this path. The data and case studies show that change is possible – soils can be rebuilt, farm emissions can drop, and biodiversity can rebound if we make the right choices. Ensuring a sustainable, nutritious food system is ultimately about feeding ourselves without biting the hand that feeds us – working with nature’s cycles instead of against them. It’s a challenge we must meet to secure the future of food security, public health, and a stable climate for generations to come.

Sources:

1. Crippa et al., Nature Food via Carbon Brief – Food systems responsible for one-third of global GHG emissions

2. Food Foundation – Climate change & UK diet briefing (2023)   

3. UK Parliament POSTnote (2015) – Agriculture emissions and soil carbon

4. AHDB – UK agricultural GHG breakdown (2019 data)

5. NASA Climate – Methane potency and sources

6. Columbia Climate School – Soil carbon stock and loss estimates

7. Innovate Eco – How ploughing releases soil carbon (oxidation on exposure)

8. Northeastern University study – Organic soils vs conventional (humic substances +44%)

9. White Oak Pastures study – Regenerative ranch carbon footprint (net-negative beef)

10. Poore & Nemecek (2018) – Global animal vs plant emissions, land use (Science)

11. UNFCCC / FAO – Food waste contributes ~8–10% of global GHG emissions

12. EFSA (2018) – Neonicotinoid pesticides pose high risk to bees

13. Oxford Univ. (2014) – Organic farms have 50% more bee species, 34% more biodiversity

14. Ethical Consumer – UK cannot produce certified organic honey (foraging radius, land use)