Flipping The scRIPT
I’m one of those big thinkers. I think macro, wide and deep. This has both pros and cons.
When people confide their deepest, most abiding dreams to me, I have often enlarged them x100 and then left them, blinking their eyes to adjust to the new possibilities they had never seen before. I like thinking BIG and helping others do the same.
Not only that, but I’m impatient. In my jobs as a waitress, estate agent, and recruiter, this was highly praised. Operating with a “sense of urgency” was a common observation in reviews and feedback from seniors. This is a trait I have from my mum, who is such a whirling dervish of activity that when I went round for lunch the other day, she confessed she’d been so busy that morning that she hadn’t sat down (aged 72)! Speedy and action-orientated have been character traits I’ve been proud of for most of my life.
But just lately, they have felt like a burden, as the two combined come with frustrations. So often I look around and find that things are happening too slowly, and on too small a scale, to satisfy my desire for change. As humans, we tend to overestimate what we can do in a year and underestimate what we can do in a lifetime and I see others and myself failing to reach our potential - which kills me.
When I think about the big, complex, globalised food system, even I shrink away from the size of the mammoth task that changing it might be. The numerous efforts I have been involved with hint at the small dents that have been made over the years, but many in the justice community are getting disheartened, and who can blame them? Racist graffiti garnishing the streets, DEI programs turned over, sustainability now a dirty word in the USA, and programs feeding underprivileged children being disbanded, all under the guise of “making America great again” whilst conflicts ravage whole countries which Western governments fund. Demand for meat is on the rise, some plant-based companies have gone bust, some vegan restaurants closing (or worse - introducing meat dishes - crazy!), and the phrase “ultra-processed” being adopted by omnivores everywhere to assuage their conscience; many are taking stock of their position.
It’s enough for anyone to despair, not to mention those whose empathy has driven them to careers of service for others.
But what if there were straightforward solutions to this big, complex problem?
What if the people could demand better from the food supply and more from the legislation that is supposed to protect them and their rights?
We are seeing consumption movements take shape, reforming patterns of power and giving us a voice. “No Socials in a Genocide” Thursdays, Amazon Blackout Days and “Target Fast” have all impacted corporations, and these methods seem to be rising in popularity. Companies are under pressure to put themselves in the shoes of the consumer and give them what they want, else incur their wrath where it hurts them most - their share price.
And when it comes to food, maybe the answer is simple.
It’s the labelling.
Rather than underscoring the virtues of a product, make it obligatory to be transparent about:
The risks of consumption - if ingredients have been proven to cause harm, they must be stated on the packet, as with alcohol or cigarettes. This could sound the death knell for processed meat, dairy, eggs and fish. Perhaps a QR code with links to all the studies would be effective and fight disinformation online?
Labels. Organic carrots become Carrots, and those grown using pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilisers are “Cide Carrots” or “Treated Carrots”.
Formulations and ingredients: ANY product where animals are sacrificed; use the label “Uses Animals”. This would cover all meat, fish, eggs, dairy, honey, beeswax, pollen, and insects.
Farm animal welfare: Not cage-free, but caged. Not grass-fed, but “shed-kept”. Where the animal product industry currently uses all sorts of positive language to frame their actions, they would instead need to state what is true. Maybe naming the slaughterhouse would be an easy addition? The true cost of using animals as food would be revealed in the supermarket, and gradually, people would feel the weight of those choices and plump for more morally attuned options.
Processing: Where a piece of meat has had cysts cut out of it, prior to sale, then make that known on the label. Where chemicals are used in processes like extraction (where hexane can be used to remove natural botanicals, for example), or where food has been heated in plastic (increasing the absorption of microplastics), this should be made clear.
Presence of heavy metals, pollution, or toxicity should be stated.
Sacrifice: The sex of the baby calf that was taken from the mother and killed in order for us to drink the mother’s milk, would illustrate the origin of the milk and the cost of it for the intended recipient. Maybe blue labels and pink labels would communicate this effectively?
Essentially, the concept shifts the burden of proof away from food producers needing to show they use “cruelty-free”, plant-based ingredients, and instead makes that the baseline.
Making vegan, cruelty-free, animal-free, slaughter-free products the default from which any deviation needs to be recognised on a label, reconstructs the current food system in a way that would be kinder, healthier, fairer and more equitable, whilst signalling what food we want to eat.
It would signal to the industry that people really do care about:
Nature - yes, trees but also oceans, rivers, seas, rainforests, woodlands, temperate forests, wetlands, grasslands and peatlands,
Biodiversity
Animals - all of them.
Their health
The health of future generations
The survival of humanity
And really don’t care about space rockets, IPO’s, efficiency and productivity.
Because we all want to live. Just like the animals do. And the generations that come after us do. And the starving people in the world do.
Don’t we?
This is something that we, the consumers, can demand of the merchants we support, the brands we buy, and the recipients of the money we spend.
If you’re a senior exec at a corporation, keen to grasp the leadership opportunity that this idea presents, get in touch and together, we can bring it to life.
If you believe in this manifesto, add your name in the comments below and let’s see how far we can take this concept. If we can get enough people for a petition, then we can ask the government to legislate for this to bring healthy food back into existence.
We are better together!