Food in the Anthropocene: Challenges & solutions + What’s to drink on campus? Environmental & health impacts

human impact = nct

- n = human population size

- c = consumption per capita (per person)

- t = types of stuff we produce and consume, the tech we use in its life cycle

what empirically based assumption does Kate Raworth make

assuming that the earth has a limit, and that technology can increase that limit

what value based assumption is Kate Raworth making about equity

- inequality is inevitable, because people have different skills

- policy that tries to increase equity is BAD, because it goes against fundamental fact

- we will always inequity in society

Biological Evolution and the Human Diet

Evolution occurs through natural selection, favoring traits adapted to current environmental pressures. It is limiting, not optimizing, and non-teleological, meaning it cannot predict or plan for future conditions.

Policy Based on Assumptions

Policy combines empirical assumptions (scientific evidence) and value-based assumptions (ethical judgments) to create rules and actions aimed at achieving specific societal goals.

The Anthropocene

The Anthropocene is the era of rapidly increasing human impact on Earth’s climate, ecosystems, and societies, creating a global sustainability crisis that endangers both the planet and human well-being.

The Doughnut (Kate Raworth)

The Doughnut, created by economist Kate Raworth, is a framework for sustainable development that defines a safe space for humanity between a social foundation (meeting human needs) and an ecological ceiling (protecting the planet). To achieve equity, resources must be redistributed so that overconsumption is reduced and social shortfalls are met sustainably.

Changing the Food System to a Negative Feedback Loop

This can be achieved through decoupling, which separates economic growth from environmental harm.

• Relative decoupling: GDP grows while environmental impacts grow more slowly.

• Absolute decoupling: GDP grows while environmental impacts decrease.
  The decoupling rate measures how much environmental impact decreases per unit of growth.

Healthy Beverage Initiatives (HBI)

UCSF’s HBI, led by Laura Schmidt, banned sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) on campus to reduce chronic disease risks from excessive sugar consumption.

Added Sugars

Added sugars are sugars incorporated into foods and beverages. The USDA recommends ≤10% of daily calories from added sugar, as exceeding this increases risk of non-communicable diseases (NCDs).

calorie

A calorie (small calorie) is the heat needed to raise 1 g of water by 1°C; a kilocalorie (Kcal/Calorie) raises 1 kg of water by 1°C. Nutritional context matters: whole foods like apples release sugar slowly, while added sugars in beverages spike blood glucose, risking insulin resistance and diabetes

UCSF SSB Sales Ban (2015) and UC HBI

The 2015 UCSF ban on sugar-sweetened beverages reduced consumption, improved insulin resistance, and showed health benefits after one year. Sales revenue stayed stable as students shifted to diet drinks and water, though the environmental impact of bottled drinks remained.

Healthy Beverage Initiative (HBI) – UCSB

UCSB’s HBI combines SSB reduction with water filling stations to improve student, staff, and faculty health, lower healthcare costs, increase tap water use in reusable bottles, and reduce environmental impact.

Pouring Rights Contracts (PRC)

Pouring Rights Contracts are agreements between universities and beverage companies (e.g., PepsiCo at UCSD), creating brand loyalty and boosting consumption. While they generate some revenue, they can increase disease risk and environmental impact, though the funds are usually a small portion of university budgets.

Healthy Beverage Initiatives (HBIs): Environmental Impacts

HBIs can be evaluated for environmental impact using hypotheses based on data. At UCSB, 12 months of dining purchase data (940,773 liters) helped assess how reducing SSBs and promoting water affects resource use and sustainability.

Environmental Impacts of HBI Scenarios

HBI scenario #2.1 showed no direct benefit from eliminating sugar, while #5.1 reduced plastic pollution but not climate or water impact. Most packaging, like aluminum cans lined with plastic, contributes micro- and nano-plastics, which accumulate in the body. Actual health effects are costly to measure, so proxies are often used, and much packaging is not recycled, ending in landfills, incinerators, or the environment.

Health and Health Care Climate Impact

Added sugar from SSBs raises NCD risk and associated healthcare costs, estimated at $393K/year, nearly 1.7× the PRC revenue. Universities pursue PRCs for revenue, but the health costs of sugar-related diseases can outweigh the financial gains.