By Kerry Maxwell, communications manager, British Poultry Council
I was challenged by someone who claimed BPC were “bold” for suggesting ‘poultry meat’ and ‘sustainable’ belonged in the same sentence. At a time where we are verging on creating conflicting priorities, I figured it was worth writing up what we discussed.
In a world facing environmental catastrophe and inequalities across the board, it is growing clearer by the day that a sustainable food system, if not society, goes beyond solar panels, resource efficiency, and an undefined ‘green economy.’ Yet, whenever we try to sit down and have these conversations, the role of food is brushed over time and time again. What does it mean for the fabric of UK poultry, and the sustainability of our systems, that food security and climate change lack coherence?
With the social scars of an ongoing cost of production crisis meaning higher costs are baked into the supply chain, and 7.3 million families are without essentials, including sufficient food, if we can afford to do one thing it is to be “bold”. Getting food right is our chance to not only do the right thing in a situation but to change the coordinates of the situation itself, because we all know climate change is underpinned by massive inequalities. 7.3 million families going without does not sound particularly sustainable.
The role of poultry in this space is undeniable. To criticise its legitimacy does a disservice to decades of investment and productivity gains fuelled by an unsubsidised industry, not least a massive lack of understanding of how we operate. BPC members play a vital role in feeding people and tackling inequalities with safe, affordable, nutritious food. Businesses are adapting to a changing climate because its prevalence exacerbates the UK’s existing hunger problem, so BPC members are reducing their inputs and impacts to promote a liveable climate for all. Climate change directly affects our food security, undermining any efforts to promote an affordable and nutritious diet. Then food insecurity undermines any form of climate resilience, and so we see a cycle emerge.
The true cost of tunnel vision thinking is the inhibition of progress. Applying a single lens mindset to the role of British poultry meat, depending on what you care about or specialise in, is only going to dilute poultry’s purpose in the long run, when the whole point of these conversations is to create meaningful change that defines our responsibilities and contributions. We all agree on a lot more than we think. If we lose that then we are only going to end up creating conflicting priorities that keep us stagnant, and then nobody wins.
We might be bold, but I’d rather us be bold than not, because we are never going to move at the pace we need to whilst food security continues to be cast to the peripheries of climate discussion…as this entire interaction proved.