The big business of sustainable food production and consumption: Exploring the transition to alternative proteins.

A widespread sense of the unsustainability of the food system has taken hold in recent years, leading to calls for fundamental change. The role of animal agriculture is central to many of these debates, leading to interest in the possibility of a "protein transition," whereby the production and consumption of animal-derived foods is replaced with plant-based substitutes or "alternative proteins." Despite the potential sustainability implications of this transition, the developmental trajectories and transformative potential of the associated technologies remain underexplored. This article sheds light on these dynamics by addressing two questions: 1) how have alternative protein innovations developed over the past three decades, and 2) what explains their more recent acceleration? To answer these questions, the article makes an empirical analysis of four alternative protein innovations, and the partial destabilization of the animal agriculture system between 1990 and 2021, guided by the multi-level perspective. The analysis highlights an intensification in corporate engagement with alternative protein development and diffusion. This intensification is judged to be consistent with the beginnings of a wider corporate reorientation, occurring alongside a rise in pressures on the animal agriculture system, notably an increasing scientific consensus and societal awareness of the links between climate change and meat-intensive diets. The paper demonstrates how differences in technological maturity across the niche innovations have resulted in potentially transformative pressures, which are consistent with an emerging sustainability transition, manifesting differently in terms of the extent of diffusion of the alternative protein niches.

Food Insecurity: Is Leagility a Potential Remedy?

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Ukraine-Russian conflict, both significant geo-political and socio-economic shocks to the global food system and food insecurity has risen across the world. One potential remedy to reduce the level of food insecurity is to move from a lean just-in-time food system to one where there is more resilience through greater agility both in routine supply operations and also in the event of an emergency situation. The aim of this critical perspectives paper was to firstly reflect on the concepts of lean, agility, and 'leagility'. Then, this study considered the ability of individual organisations and the whole food system to be resilient, adaptive, enable the elimination of waste, reduce inefficiency, and assure the consistent delivery to market requirements in terms of both volume, safety, and quality. Promoting the concept of leagility together with advocating resilient, sustainable practices that embed buffer and adaptive capacity, this paper positions that increasing digitalisation and improving business continuity planning can ensure effective operationalisation of supply chains under both normal and crisis situations, ultimately reducing the risk of food insecurity at personal, household, and community levels.

Social research to understand farmer and agricultural stakeholder attitudes towards bovine tuberculosis vaccination of cattle.

BACKGROUND: This social research study employed a behavioural insights framework, Easy, Attractive, Social, Timely ('EAST'), to identify cues that may influence farmer and stakeholder attitudes towards the deployment of CattleBCG vaccine. METHODS: The EAST framework was employed to develop policy scenarios consisting of several cues likely to affect vaccine uptake. These scenarios consisted of a government-led approach, an individual farmer-led approach, and a third approach, also farmer-led but organised collectively. The government approach was mandatory, while the farmer-led approaches were both voluntary. The scenarios were tested during farmer participatory workshops (n = 8) and stakeholder interviews (n = 35). RESULTS: Overall, the EAST framework provided a useful approach for gathering behavioural insights around attitudes towards cattle vaccination. We found an overall receptiveness towards the idea of vaccinating cattle against bovine tuberculosis, particularly where clear, transparent messaging around the likely efficacy is mobilised, where clarity around potential implications for trading is provided, and where vaccine doses are provided free of charge and administered by veterinarians and veterinary technicians. In general, these factors were a pre-requisite to a mandatory (government-led) national approach, which was the preferred deployment mechanism among farmers and stakeholders. However, these conditions would also likely facilitate a voluntary vaccination programme. LIMITATIONS: Trust in those involved in delivering a vaccine programme and trust in the vaccine itself represent a crucial aspect of farmer and stakeholder attitudes towards cattle vaccination; however, this aspect was not covered by the EAST framework. CONCLUSION: EAST provided a novel framework for examining attitudes towards cattle vaccination with CattleBCG, although we recommend incorporating a 'trust' component in future iterations.

Missed Opportunities? Covid-19, Biosecurity and One Health in the United Kingdom.

Whatever we read about Covid-19, the word unprecedented is not far away: whether in describing policy choices, the daily death tolls, the scale of upheaval, or the challenges that await a readjusting world. This paper takes an alternative view: if not unpredictable, the crisis unfolding in the United Kingdom (UK) is not unprecedented. Rather, it is foretold in accounts of successive animal health crises. Social studies of biosecurity and animal disease management provide an "anticipatory logic" - a mirror to the unfolding human catastrophe of Covid-19, providing few surprises. And yet, these accounts appear to be routinely ignored in the narrative of Covid-19. Do social studies of animal disease really have no value when it comes to guiding and assessing responses to Covid-19? To answer this question, we describe the narrative arc of the UK's approach to managing Covid-19. We then overlay findings from social studies of animal disease to reveal the warnings they provided for a pandemic like Covid-19. We conclude by reflecting on the reasons why these studies have been paid minimal attention and the extent to which the failure to learn from these lessons of animal health management signals a failure of the One Health agenda.

On-farm biosecurity in livestock production: farmer behaviour, cultural identities and practices of care.

Definitions of biosecurity typically include generalised statements about how biosecurity risks on farms should be managed and contained. However, in reality, on-farm biosecurity practices are uneven and transfer differently between social groups, geographical scales and agricultural commodity chains. This paper reviews social science studies that examine on-farm biosecurity for animal health. We first review behavioural and psychosocial models of individual farmer behaviour/decisions. Behavioural approaches are prominent in biosecurity policy but have limitations because of a focus on individual farmer behaviour and intentions. We then review geographical and rural sociological work that emphasises social and cultural structures, contexts and norms that guide disease behaviour. Socio-cultural approaches have the capacity to extend the more commonly applied behavioural approaches and contribute to the better formulation of biosecurity policy and on-farm practice. This includes strengthening our understanding of 'good farming' identity, tacit knowledge, farmer influence networks, and reformulating biosecurity as localised practices of care. Recognising on-farm biosecurity as practices of biosecure farming care offers a new way of engaging, motivating and encouraging farmers to manage and contain diseases on farm. This is critical given government intentions to devolve biosecurity governance to the farming industry.

An assessment of risk compensation and spillover behavioural adaptions associated with the use of vaccines in animal disease management.

This paper analyses farmers' behavioural responses to Government attempts to reduce the risk of disease transmission from badgers to cattle through badger vaccination. Evidence for two opposing behavioural adaptions is examined in response to the vaccination of badgers to reduce the risk of transmission to farmed cattle. Risk compensation theory suggests that interventions that reduce risk, such as vaccination, are counterbalanced by negative behavioural adaptions. By contrast, the spillover effect suggests that interventions can prompt further positive behaviours. The paper uses data from a longitudinal mixed methods study of farmers' attitudes to badger vaccination to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis, their reports of biosecurity practices, and cattle movement data in 5 areas of England, one of which experienced badger vaccination. Analysis finds limited evidence of spillover behaviours following vaccination. Lack of spillover is attributed to farmers' beliefs in the effectiveness of biosecurity and the lack of similarity between badger vaccination and vaccination for other animal diseases. Risk compensation behaviours are associated with farmers' beliefs as to who should manage animal disease. Rather than farmers' belief in vaccine effectiveness, it is more likely that farmers' low sense of being able to do anything to prevent disease influences their apparent risk compensation behaviours. These findings address the gap in the literature relating to farmers' behavioural adaptions to vaccine use in the management of animal disease.

Integrating natural and social science perspectives on plant disease risk, management and policy formulation.

Plant diseases threaten both food security and the botanical diversity of natural ecosystems. Substantial research effort is focused on pathogen detection and control, with detailed risk management available for many plant diseases. Risk can be assessed using analytical techniques that account for disease pressure both spatially and temporally. We suggest that such technical assessments of disease risk may not provide an adequate guide to the strategies undertaken by growers and government to manage plant disease. Instead, risk-management strategies need to account more fully for intuitive and normative responses that act to balance conflicting interests between stakeholder organizations concerned with plant diseases within the managed and natural environments. Modes of effective engagement between policy makers and stakeholders are explored in the paper, together with an assessment of such engagement in two case studies of contemporary non-indigenous diseases in one food and in one non-food sector. Finally, a model is proposed for greater integration of stakeholders in policy decisions.