A Controversial Post about Vegetables

First published on www.libdemvoice.org (updated)

It may not seem a risky topic, but the rate at which we are wasting food is nothing less than scandalous. Our grossly wasteful attitude to food in parts of the world, set against starvation and periodic famine in others, has made food waste the quiet scandal of the decade.

A recent BBC article reported that up to half of the food we produce is simply thrown away. Worldwide. The waste of North Americans and Europeans, says another report, could feed the world's hungry several times over.

This makes for uncomfortable reading on all sides. Those on the political right are naturally suspicious of criticisms of the free market. Those on the left may find the implications of these studies unpalatable.

The numbers are breathtaking - not least the emotive juxtaposition of a billion underfed people with a billion suffering from 'over-nutrition'. On paper it looks intensely inefficient, seems morally repugnant and is adding unnecessarily to our already out-of-control emissions. So, what can we do about it? This depends, of course, on where the waste occurs.

The first 'wave' of wastage is during production. "In-situ culls" of crops occur in the field and involve rejection of produce that doesn't look very nice. 

If market prices shift drastically - as oft they do - it can even be cheaper for farmers to let entire crops rot rather than harvest them. This 'pre-harvest shrink' is an unfortunate feature of the free market. In the US, volunteers pick some produce and distribute it to food banks - but this is near-impossible to institutionalise.

And this all occurs before industrial processing. For an average person's daily 2,000 kcal, an additional 600kcal gets wasted here. If crops are used to produce animal feed for meat or dairy, that figure doubles to 1,200 kcal.

A second 'wave' of waste happens in-store. Here, says campaigner Tristam Stewart, is where activism really kicks in. Consumer pressure can change supermarket behaviour. M&S reduced their food waste by a whopping 40% over a three-year period after being persuaded to discount near-expiry stock.

Organisations such as Foodcycle and Stewart's own group, Feeding the 5,000, are another way to get involved in campaigning. The transparent reporting of waste at this stage is a crucial campaign goal, says Stewart.

The final 'wave' of wastage happens at home. Huge quantities of food are bought and them simply thrown away. Incredibly, over half - 4.4m tonnes annually - is still perfectly edible. Vegetables, especially salad, are often thrown out unnecessarily. Much of this 'excess food' could be saved simply by using common sense, adjusting cooking habits and employing a bit of imagination. 

So, to ask the question again: what can we do about it? The picture is very different in other parts of the world, but here in the West, there are inefficiencies at every stage of the production line.

During harvest, stock is wasted due to aesthetics or market prices. This quite simply needs government regulation at national (or supranational) level. That, in turn, must be supported - indeed, demanded - by the public.

At the point of sale, we need businesses to take a lead. Supermarkets can reduce waste by reducing prices close to sell-by dates; charities can take stock that would be otherwise disposed of and distribute it. Our role, as consumers, is to tell businesses this matters to us. One need only look at Fairtrade to see the impact consumer demand makes. We need to keep the pressure on.

Finally, we need to become more conscientious about how we buy, store and cook our food. The humble shopping list can make a remarkable difference. Imaginative cooking saves money and produces delicious meals. Sensible storage can stop bread, fruit and vegetables from going off.

In short, shocking as the scale of waste is, it's a scandal that really does start at home. It's a scandal that we can combat through the daily choices we make. It's also an issue which we - and only we - can really push up the political and corporate agenda.

The scandal may be global, but overcoming it really is our responsibility as individuals - and we might even save money and have some fun in the process.

Dangerous, Dave

The Prime Minister's speech tomorrow morning will, by definition, be important. As is current government tradition, we've been give a peek the night before, courtesy of the BBC.

So far, so formulaic. Labour have already responded with some drivel about how Cameron is "weak" or "not acting in the national interest", or something. I wasn't really listening. The key significance of tomorrow's speech - from a party-political point of view, at least - will be Cameron's move 'to the right' regarding the EU.

Miliband is unapologetically pro-EU. Thus Cameron's promise (ah, we love a good promise in politics) may attempt to shift the focus of the next General Election onto Europe: Labour are pro-EU, the Lib Dems even more so, and the public - Cameron hopes - rather more hostile.

Thus the promise of a referendum on condition that the Conservatives win in 2015 (it will be interesting to see if he mentions an outright majority) is something of a gamble. If the public take his promise seriously (ah, we love a good 'if' in politics) then it may seriously lessen the chance of another Conservative-Lib Dem coalition.

And that would see 2015 as a more polarised election, the Conservatives' right-wing credentials renewed. This leaves the centre-ground to Labour and the Liberal Democrats. And that, in this modern era of the political centre-ground, could be a very dangerous move for Dave.

A Short Class on the Art of Making Friends

Dear reader, if you are having trouble making friends despite your most fervid attempts, this post is for you. It's a delicate art, this conversational tightrope between the terror of being dull on the one side, invidious on the other. I bring good news: help is at hand.

In practicing the art of making friends, it is imperative to find common ground. The sharing of a large proportion of one's DNA with the target friend will not suffice: try to identify some specifics. Avoid the esoteric. "Look - we both have brown hair!" is a little too general. "So, apparently we both slept with the same person" is a tad over the line in the other direction.

If you have an interest or passion, you may wish to share it. If your target friend seems disinterested, however - this is important - it is advisable to change topic. Try something else. Eschew the temptation to talk about weather.

Body language is another thing. Don't shout across the room; similarly don't lean in. Your target friend may have lice. Be sure to maintain a smile and a certain amount of eye contact. Nod to denote that you're listening and give at least half a toss about what your target friend is saying. A certain munificence in this regard is the basis for most enduring friendships.

These tips should serve as a reliable guidebook for those wishing to embark upon the (precarious) business of friendship. It's really not that hard: a nice smile, some reasonably exaggerated compliments and a factitious interest in whatever rubbish the other person is enthusiastically spouting - and you're well on your way to a long and happy friendship.

Pyrotechnic Alchemy

I stood in a crowd of a quarter of a million people, cheering as 2012 ended and 2013 was heralded in. London's South Bank heaved with excited faces - all the world's cultures, age groups and hairstyles, down by the Thames for the fireworks.

We had walked from Tower Bridge - where I took a few quick photos on my phone - to join the growing throng until it thickened to an impasse. There we cheered as midnight chimed from the newly-named Elizabeth Tower, a BBC helicopter flickered in and out of clouds and the pyrotechnic alchemy started.

And it was some alchemy - the crowd loved the feel-good 'well done Britain' messages and the well-chosen music mix. The interruption of 'Mind the Gap' and a few words from the PM, Mayor and even Her Majesty must have absolutely delighted tourists. On reflection, though, I couldn't help thinking: could we have spent more?

It's an odd suggestion, given that it was a great display and that the economy is still in intensive care. My logic's simple: it was great - but was it great enough to catch the world's attention? The bill for the event was huge, but advertising bills often are. A truly spectacular New Year display gets your advertisement on every major news site in the world. Not a bad return.

Sydney's waterfall of sparks, Dubai's spectacular display from the Burj Khalifa and Copacabana's annual extravaganza will be talked about the world over. Will London? One hopes so, but it is possible to imagine a better show. As government keeps telling us, we're competing with an entire planet. We shouldn't be satisfied, to continue the metaphor, with any less than gold.

In times when money's tight, the competition gets all the more stiff - so, when setting budgets, we shouldn't shy away from paying a high premium for making sure it's Britain being talked about.