What is the climate footprint of therapeutic diets for people with chronic kidney disease? Results from an Australian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immediate action is needed to stabilise the climate. Dietitians require knowledge of how the therapeutic diets they prescribe may contribute to climate change. No previous research has quantified the climate footprint of therapeutic diets. This study sought to quantify and compare the climate footprint of two types of therapeutic diets for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with two reference diets. METHODS: A usual diet for an individual with CKD and a novel plant-based diet for CKD were compared with the current Australian diet and the Australian-adapted EAT Lancet Planetary Health Diet (PHD). The climate footprint of these diets was measured using the Global Warming Potential (GWP*) metric for a reference 71-year-old male. RESULTS: No diets analysed were climate neutral, and therefore, all contribute to climate change. The novel plant-based diet for CKD (1.20 kg carbon dioxide equivalents [CO2 e] per day) produced 35% less CO2 e than the usual renal diet for an individual with CKD (1.83 kg CO2 e per day) and 50% less than the current Australian diet (2.38 kg CO2 e per day). The Australian-adapted EAT Lancet PHD (1.04 kg CO2 e per day) produced the least amount of CO2 e and 56% less than the current Australian diet. The largest contributors to the climate footprint of all four diets were foods from the meats and alternatives, dairy and alternatives and discretionary food groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dietetic advice to reduce the climate footprint of therapeutic diets for CKD should focus on discretionary foods and some animal-based products. Future research is needed on other therapeutic diets.

Political ecology of milk: Contested futures of a lively food.

This article advances thinking on the political ecology of food and agriculture by reviewing research on milk and dairy. As increasingly contested foods, milk and dairy provide a window onto inter-linked social and environmental crises and attempts to solve them through adjustments to food production and consumption. We critically assess three trajectories of change (more milk, better milk, and less milk) that are representative of broader efforts to fix social-environmental crises through food. Arguing that these efforts eschew systemic change, we discuss how ideas from food studies, agrarian political economy, and development studies can be united in a potentially transformative research agenda on the political ecology of milk (as well as other foods).We reflect on how concepts of justice, power, and care might inform a political ecology of food and agriculture that can help envision and enact more democratic food futures.

Palatable disruption: the politics of plant milk.

Plant-based milk alternatives-or mylks-have surged in popularity over the past ten years. We consider the politics and consumer subjectivities fostered by mylks as part of the broader trend towards 'plant-based' food. We demonstrate how mylk companies inherit and strategically deploy positive framings of milk as wholesome and convenient, as well as negative framings of dairy as environmentally damaging and cruel, to position plant-based as the 'better' alternative. By navigating this affective landscape, brands attempt to (re)make mylk as simultaneously palatable and disruptive to the status quo. We examine the politics of mylks through the concept of palatable disruption, where people are encouraged to care about the environment, health, and animal welfare enough to adopt mylks but to ultimately remain consumers of a commodity food. By encouraging consumers to reach for "plant-based" as a way to cope with environmental catastrophe and a life out of balance, mylks promote a neoliberal ethic: they individualize systemic problems and further entrench market mechanisms as solutions, thereby reinforcing the political economy of industrial agriculture. In conclusion, we reflect on the limits of the current plant-based trend for transitioning to more just and sustainable food production and consumption.

Who is resilient in Africa's Green Revolution? Sustainable intensification and Climate Smart Agriculture in Rwanda.

Under the banner of a "New Green Revolution for Africa," agricultural intensification programs aim to make smallholder agriculture more productive as well as "climate smart". As with Green Revolutions in Asia and Mexico, agricultural innovations (hybrid seeds, agronomic engineering, market linkages,and increased use of fertilizer and pesticides) are promoted as essential catalysts of agriculture-led economic growth. Intensification programs are now frequently linked to Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA), which attempts to build resilience and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while increasing crop yields. This article considers who and what is resilient in Africa's Green Revolution. We report on a multi-season study of smallholder food producers' experiences with Rwanda's Crop Intensification Program (CIP) and related policies that aim to commercialize subsistence agriculture while implementing CSA. . We suggest that there are fundamental limits to the climate resilience afforded by CSA and development efforts rooted in Green Revolution thinking. Our findings illustrate that such efforts foreground technology and management adjustments in ways that have reduced smallholder resilience by inhibiting sovereignty over land use, decreasing livelihood flexibility, and constricting resource access. We put forth that rural development policies could better promote climate-resilient livelihoods through: 1) adaptive governance that enables smallholder land use decision-making; 2) support for smallholder food producers' existing agro-ecological strategies of intensification; 3) participatory approaches to visualize and correct for inequalities in local processes of social-ecological resilence Such considerations are paramount for meeting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and building climate-resilient food systems.

Dairy intensification: Drivers, impacts and alternatives.

Dairy production systems have rapidly intensified over the past several decades. Dairy farms in many world regions are larger and concentrated in fewer hands. Higher productivity can increase overall economic gains but also incurs site-specific social and environmental costs. In this paper, we review the drivers and impacts of dairy intensification. We identify in the literature four prominent concerns about dairy intensification: the environment, animal welfare, socioeconomic well-being, and human health. We then critically assess three frameworks-sustainable intensification, multifunctionality, and agroecology-which promise win-win solutions to these concerns. We call for research and policy approaches that can better account for synergies and trade-offs among the multiple dimensions of dairy impacts. Specifically, we suggest the need to (1) consider dairy system transitions within broader processes of social-environmental change and (2) investigate how certain framings and metrics may lead to uneven social-environmental outcomes. Such work can help visualize transformations towards more equitable, ethical, and sustainable food systems.

Smallholders' uneven capacities to adapt to climate change amid Africa's 'green revolution': Case study of Rwanda's crop intensification program.

Development programs and policies can influence smallholder producers' abilities to adapt to climate change. However, gaps remain in understanding how households' adaptive capacities can become uneven. This paper investigates how development transitions-such as the recent adoption of 'green revolution' agricultural policies throughout sub-Saharan Africa-intersect with cross-scale social-environmental processes to unevenly shape smallholders' adaptive capacities and adaptation pathways. Drawing on quantitative and qualitative material from a multi-season study in Rwanda, we investigate smallholder adaptation processes amid a suite of rural development interventions. Our study finds that adaptive capacities arise differentially across livelihood groups in the context of evolving environmental, social, and political economic processes. We show how social institutions play key roles in shaping differential adaptation pathways by enabling and/or constraining opportunities for smallholders to adapt livelihood and land use strategies. Specifically, Rwanda's Crop Intensification Program enables some wealthier households to adapt livelihoods by generating income through commercial agriculture. At the same time, deactivation of local risk management institutions has diminished climate risk management options for most households. To build and employ alternate livelihood practices such as commercial agriculture and planting woodlots for charcoal production, smallholders must negotiate new institutions, a prerequisite for which is access to capitals (land, labor, and nonfarm income). Those without entitlements to these are pulled deeper into poverty with each successive climatic shock. This illustrates that adaptive capacity is not a static, quantifiable entity that exists in households. We argue that reconceptualizing adaptive capacity as a dynamic, social-environmental process that emerges in places can help clarify complex linkages among development policies, livelihoods, and adaptation pathways. To ensure more equitable and climate-resilient agricultural development, we stress the need to reformulate policies with careful attention to how power structures and entrenched social inequalities can lead to smallholders' uneven capacities to adapt to climate change.

Fixing the ecosystem: Conservation, crisis and capital in Rwanda's Gishwati Forest.

Conservation-development projects are increasingly enacted across large expanses of land where human livelihoods hang in the balance. Recent initiatives-often called 'landscape approaches' or 'ecosystem-based' conservation-aim to achieve economic development and conservation goals through managing hybrid spaces. I argue that the landscape/ecosystem approach is a socioecological fix: an effort to resolve social-environmental crises through sinking capital (financial, natural, and social) into an imagined ecosystem. Rwanda's Gishwati Forest has been the locus of diverse crises and fixes over the past 40 years, including an industrial forestry and dairy project, a refugee settlement, a privately managed chimpanzee sanctuary, a carbon sequestration platform, and, most recently, an "integrated silvo-pastoral conservation landscape." This paper considers how these governance schemes have intersected with broader processes of agrarian change to generate crises that subsequent conservation/development projects then attempt to resolve. I demonstrate how visions for ecosystems privilege certain forms of governance around which imagined socioecological histories are mobilized to frame problems and legitimize certain solutions, technologies, and actors. The Gishwati ecosystem and its fixes are repeatedly defined through an imaginary of crisis and degradation that engenders large-scale landscape modification while foreclosing reflection about root causes of crises or how these might be addressed. Thus, even while conservation/development paradigms have shifted over the past 40 years (from separating people and nature to integrating them in conservation landscapes), this crisis-fix metabolism has consistently generated livelihood insecurity for the tens of thousands of people living in and around Gishwati. Imagining and enacting more just and inclusive social-environmental landscapes will require making space for diverse voices to define ecosystem form and function as well as addressing deeply rooted power imbalances that are at the heart of recurrent crises.