What would a national food database achieve across the environment, food security and health?

From a controversial tax on sugar and salt to providing fresh fruit & veg to low-income families and extra cash to farmers to help convert farmland, the report was packed with all sorts of headline-grabbing ideas to shake up the UK food system. But it’s an arguably more innocuous recommendation that, according to author Henry Dimbleby, is perhaps its most urgent: the creation of a National Food System data programme (Recommendation 12).

“If I could only do one of my 14 recommendations, then this is the one I would do first,” the Leon co-founder told The Grocer in July. “People in government find it hard to understand, but unless you have this system of data in place you will never achieve the changes required.”

So, what exactly does he mean by a National Food System data programme? And how might it work in practice to make gains across the environment, health and food security, as Dimbleby claims it would?

According to the NFS, the programme would act as a tool to collect and share data, to enable businesses and other organisations to track progress toward targets.

The data would fall into two main camps: the first, the use of land, its agricultural productivity and how much carbon it sequesters; the second, post-farmgate data, spanning food production, distribution and retail. This would include levels of food waste, total HFSS products sold and the carbon footprint of groceries.

Developing and managing the database would be a multi-stakeholder team combining government scientific advisors, Defra, the Department for Health, the FSA and specialist civil servants, at a predicted cost of around £3.5m per year. 

The idea of gathering data across many of these areas isn’t a new one for the food and drink industry, with many such programmes in full swing. The Courtauld Commitment managed by Wrap, for instance, has been collating progress on food waste for more than 15 years, while the National Diet & Nutrition Survey already monitors consumption of HFSS foods. But in many areas progress is hampered by a lack of standardised, consistent datasets, all in one place.

This is particularly true when calculating the carbon footprint of foods. Use of different data sources, definitions and methodologies is already causing challenges around work on carbon labelling, says Emma Piercy, head of climate change and energy policy at the FDF. “If you don’t have standardised data, how can you compare claims between companies? How do you measure progress towards reducing carbon footprint or impact on the environment without that same methodology and data sources?”

Work to tackle this issue is already going on behind the scenes. A Supply Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) Working Group set up by Wrap, with retailer, supplier and foodservice representatives, is looking to create an agreed set of values and definitions for Scope 3 emissions. These are indirect emissions, such as travel, transport and end use of products. But this sort of work is currently limited, points out Wrap special advisor Karen Fisher.

“What is needed is a forward path for more systematic ways of collating representative, consistent data along the supply chain – enabling data collection, comparison, verification, etc.,” she says.

That’s “where a National Food System data programme could really help and be a game changer – as the industry has been clear that it’s not something the market can solve on its own. Government intervention is needed to level the playing field.”

As well as creating standardisation, a national data programme would also ensure access to and use of this data is simpler, quicker and more inclusive, adds Tom MacMillan, professor of rural policy and strategy at the Royal Agricultural University and policy advisor to Henry Dimbleby. “It’s simpler, because you’re standardising the way people are dealing with, collecting and sharing data,” he says. “It’s quicker, because you’re adding more resources and giving it a bit of a boost with government support and leadership. Plus, you’re able to do it more inclusively.”

In other words, while major retailers or suppliers may already have extensive, often digitised datasets on their supply chain and environmental impact, this won’t be true for SMEs and start-ups, putting them at a real disadvantage when it comes to progress.

Again, greenhouse gas emissions serve to illustrate the point. “Part of the benefit of government stepping in and taking a lead on this is to make sure that the standard impact factors you might use when working out emissions are readily available to all businesses for free or very cheaply, even if they don’t have the resources to go and measure everything directly through their own supply chains,” says MacMillan.

There will also be a clear benefit when designing relevant policy, adds Louise Manning, a professor of agri-food and supply chain security at Royal Agricultural University and director of The Knowledge Exchange. “Food sits across a range of different government departments,” she points out. “So one of the benefits for government if they’ve got a national food system database and data programme across all departments is to be able to share data more easily. In terms of developing policy, that will be of great benefit.” That could include the creation of science-backed targets on net zero, reformulation of HFSS products or access to fresh produce.