https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Downloaded from Proceedings of the Nutrition Society h uhr21 is ulse nie2 oebr2013 November 21 online published First 2013 Author The © ie)adi en osdrda ato utial eating web- sustainable of magazines, part as guidelines food considered being is chefs, and media sites) celebrity through (e.g. non- promoted by campaigns advocated organisations, being message governmental popular a become has orsodn author: Corresponding Abbreviations: changes dietary diet the sustainable of more one a the achieve is of particularly to food, impact vegetables, proposed local environmental and and the seasonal fruit more high Eating the diet. patterns reduce consumption dietary sustainable to stimu- current more been shift to towards has how intakes food about debates seasonal recent more by lated eating of issue The Society Nutrition the of Proceedings a odas a nipratrl nreconnecting in role important an has also food nal esnlt n itr eurmns iletn esnlfo contribute food seasonal eating will requirements: dietary and Seasonality on etn ewe h ega urto oit,TeNtiinSceyadScééFaçied urto a eda the at held was Nutrition de Française Société and Society Nutrition The Society, Nutrition Belgian the between meeting Joint https://www.cambridge.org/core ulcHat urto eerhGop oetIsiueo urto n elh nvriyo Aberdeen, of University Health, and Nutrition of Institute Rowett Group, Research Nutrition Health Public ( 2 – 4 ) HE rehuegsemissions. gas greenhouse GHGE, oebleeta h rmto fseaso- of promotion the that believe Some . .I adamd a 4 24482,[email protected] email 438629, 1224 +44 fax Macdiarmid, I. J. hywl edt aeit con oenlfsye,clua n oilepcain in expectations social and cultural lifestyles, realistic modern be to account environment. diets into food sustainable take current for to the guidelines need future will For dif bene they consumption). health sustainable more and meat potentially a environmental or the greater of than sumption have of element used could some one that system overshadow change only production necessarily to not the is not should on however, are and more food, loss food depends diet seasonal en- with it seasonal more high change as Eating globally a use locally transportation. have of land produced can stress, food emissions water turn than gas (e.g. in higher Greenhouse production that of foods biodiversity). country for of the demand in increases cost this vironmental but round, year produce lt a h urtoa bene nutritional the has ality etl elh cnmcadscea matvre ytede the by varies environ- The impact produced zone). societal (i.e. climatic same and seasonal the economic locally within health, or consumed and mental, world) season the production natural in the anywhere in environ- on consumed the food but just seasonal de season not eating be production society), of economics, can implications health, the Seasonality the (i.e. consider of ment. sustainability to impact of is environmental elements paper the different present reduce consump- the the could sustainable of it more aim that towards The assumption moving diet. the for on proposal based one patterns, is tion food seasonal more Eating ypsu :Goa hlegsrltdt utial diet sustainable to related challenges Global 1: Symposium . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003753 ofrneon Conference ohat n niomna sustainability? environmental and health to . IPaddress: owrhBidn .7,Frtril brenA2 Z,UK 2ZD, AB25 Aberdeen Forsterhill, 1.073, Building Polwarth esnlt:Hat:Evrnet utial it odculture Food diet: Sustainable Environment: Health: Seasonality: (2014), 170.106.202.8 aut eMdcn il n28 on Lille Médecine de Faculté 73 368 , fi , on fi e sete lblysaoa ie rdcdi h natural the in produced (i.e. seasonal globally either as ned ‘ fpoiigamr aidadcnitn upyo fresh of supply consistent and varied more a providing of t eneI Macdiarmid I. Jennie utial itadfo security food and diet Sustainable – ( 29 Sep2021 at05:54:34 1 7 doi:10.1017/S0029665113003753 375 , 2 ) This . osbetruhteintensi the through possible a otwt ihreeg sg,mr aduechange use land more coun- usage, energy many environmen- higher high in a with diet at cost come varied tal has more demand possible. global a this not given tries, a was devel- has many this created this in previously While has foods where of markets variety countries, wide oped food a with global culture trade. food of international production expansion increased natural and The seasons extending growing technologies, and new of use etrudrtnigo aua rwn n pro- and growing natural food of provides of and seasons understanding eat duction they food better the of a origins the with people , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at errudspl ffehpouehsbe made been has produce fresh of supply year-round A – 9My2013 May 29 fi iinue.Goa season- Global used. nition fi s(..rdcn overcon- reducing (e.g. ts fi utdeaybehaviours dietary cult ( 5 ) . fi aino giutr,the agriculture, of cation ’ https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Downloaded from Proceedings of the Nutrition Society hycngttnldu ntedtis ubr & Sumberg details. the in up tangled get can they ino storage. or tion de other which by associate but in example food, for context produced consumers the locally Many with and vary seasonal used. it being can using is food is it who seasonal on of depending interpretation The appears. iinlgenos a msin (GHGE). ad- creating emissions not gas thereby greenhouse energy, ditional additional with- of season use de natural the their out in important these outdoors most produced or both The grown seasonality. of local as aspect to referred be odta spoue n osmdi h aecli- same the modi in climate for consumed use high-energy not and without zone produced need seasonality): matic is (local It season produced. that in is produced. Food consumed it is and where Produced to produced it 2. the locally consumed where or for be region necessarily period grown or growing/production outdoor natural country is the sea- pro- that during (global is season it Food in where Produced on sonality): 1. second consumed: the and and duced produced, is food the proposed (DEFRA) de affairs two rural seasonal? and still food later environment, months sea- 6 growing eaten natural the and in stored or locally then seasonal, grown son UK is that the food in a consumed coun- is and another imported in then season growing try natural the in de only produced to foods pro- trying seasonal animals are when or what emerges crops of complexity other The and to duction. fruit linked with not food. associated but seasonal is for vegetables seasonality criterion people necessary many a For not is local tions the diets sustainable of aspects other many de with As be would the it explore practical to and population. realistic is the sea- how for eating paper and of food considered. impact present sonal health be the possible to and of needs environmental system and purpose food economic The whole the health, ations, environmental, bene real social the stand od hc pn nte eaeaotwa distance what about debate local another constitutes seasonal same opens locally the which as the interpreted food, within in often is consumed season This zone. and production climatic produced or be de growing to based natural food consumption the and requires production spring The the de in this nal. Europe by in place out- eaten summer naturally same and and season Zealand the in New grown in in apples doors consumed grown; necessarily was it not sea- that is is production food or but growing the son natural seasonality, the global during as produced to referred sometimes oso pce n rpdvriydet nincreased an to due diversity a agriculture crop in and monocultures and of biodiversity) use species environmental of of loss loss in (resulting fi hl hs de these While eetsuycmisoe yteDprmn for Department the by commissioned study recent A iino esnlt snta ipea it as simple as not is seasonality of nition https://www.cambridge.org/core fi iin fsaoa od the food, seasonal of nitions fi so aigsaoa rdc,adtelimit- the and produce, seasonal eating of ts ( ( 7 8 ) ) fi o h rdcinbsdde production-based the For . u ntepeetppri ilsimply will it paper present the in but , De iin at nitions . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003753 fi igseasonality ning fi iinwudb lblyseaso- globally be would nition fi fi iin sta h odis food the that is nitions ei.Freape safood a is example, For it. ne . IPaddress: fi s perstraightforward appear rst ( 6 ) oee,t under- to However, . fi 170.106.202.8 s ae nwhere on based rst esnlt n itr eurmns369 requirements dietary and Seasonality , on fi 29 Sep2021 at05:54:34 fi nition, nition fi fi fi ca- ni- rst esnlb osmr hnohrsal od uhas such bread foods or staple as other cereals viewed than commonly meat, consumers more by are vegetables seasonal it and studies fruit many and In system. dif food is sustainable more a arily oa esnlfo o oecnuescnhv an have can consumers some for and and idealistic food issue associated emotive food seasonal an is is food local it Food events. some quality cultural for annual better and asso- with choice food, often food is produced limited food or locally Seasonal with food. seasonal ciated encouraged be more to eat are seaso- consumers to if of important are understanding food and nal awareness perception, The diet. qual- the nutritional of maximising minimising ity and security, cost are food environmental from trade-offs future the emissions of ensuring the types for than these important higher Balancing throwing be food. then will preserving food uneaten The away producing waste. it food with increasing for associated also implications GHGE but has availability means, just ever not which by food, storing Sharpe te tde epesyte ol ewligt pay to willing be would they say people studies other essgetta osmr ol a more pay would sur- consumers Some inconclusive. that is suggest food seasonal veys for more pay to aypout ilcag ihpeitdclimatic of predicted season with growing natural change clear the will less changes as become products to people likely many and is when many season identifying in for future, be are the foods sea- In season where growing included?). natural the growing be extend sons to bred natural then crops would greenhouses the (e.g. the heated and in excluded?) in outdoors or produced started outdoors grown constitute seedlings being tunnels plastic should unheated to do (e.g. relating particularly a od hs ecie areshv enfudt be to found groups in been socio-economic have seaso- food across only barriers similar of of perceived purchase these variety the food; time inhibit the nal would limits more which diet, and convenient, the source less to expensive, often consuming also more is fresher it as However, tastier, season. produce viewed of imported out as produced equivalent those the described or than often quality better are and vegetables and o h niomna,hat,eooi n social and and de different economic seasonality with health, vary of could environmental, understanding consequences the our cloud how can that ihteDFAde DEFRA the with hte ti reig ann,dyn odo storing energy, or food additional drying require canning, modi can freezing, in is this pre- it and but whether storing by food in overcome seasons. serving been especially production has year, and this availability the growing Historically the limited throughout with food reducing countries of for variety implications and have could , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at h vdneaotwehrpol r oewilling more are people whether about evidence The ntrso urto n elh oa seasonality local health, and nutrition of terms In fi utt ietnl esnlfo rmlclfood local from food seasonal disentangle to cult ( 9 ( ) 10 fi damshrs n hrfr a con may therefore and atmospheres, ed ) usindspeci questioned hshglgt oeo h complexities the of some highlights This . ‘ ecpino esnlfood seasonal of Perception romanticised ‘ aua rwn/rdcinseason growing/production natural fi iino oa esnlt.Not seasonality. local of nition ( 11 , 12 fi ) ’ set ftede the of aspects c oa n esnlfruit seasonal and Local . mg u ti o necess- not is it but image ( 13 ) . fi nitions. ‘ outdoors ( fi 14 nitions, , 15 ) ;in fl ict ’ ’ https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Downloaded from Proceedings of the Nutrition Society elh cnmcadsca bene environmental, true social often the and diet, but sustainable being economic food, a is health, local of as food element interpreted one seasonal detail as Eating in advocated studied consequences. unin- are potential tended or sustainability one implications wider only of considering where without elements problem, the two reductionist to or a taken diets often sustainable is approach of complexity the Given vrl h odsse consfr20 for UK accounts the and in system disposal GHGE food total waste the and dis- overall consumption the processing, to to retail, throughout production relation from tribution, produced product in a are GHGE of lifecycle GHGE on that sea- change. focused to studies climate relation have few in most together very issues sonality, change are these all There explored climate have pollution. degra- soil and for biodiversity, use, dation multi- land use, implications is water GHGE), system (i.e. food with the of dimensional, impact environmental The ueta hwta h oa HEo oefood some of GHGE total the that natural show the litera- the of that in studies out case ture crops many are produce There does season. to growing arti it needed from because lighting input GHGE or high-energy reduces the it require that not is food seasonal uigmr oa od oee,i o lasse as seen always not con- is aspiration of however, bene idea food, common local The more more classes. a suming as socio-economic be viewed higher to often within food, tends seasonal eating, and ethical local more eating in etlssanblt,teemyb eaiecon- unclear negative was but inequalities stability be social economics on and impact may health the public there environ- for on sequences impact sustainability, positive a have evidence mental the could whilst it that that reported suggests vegetables eating and holis- of fruit more question nal a the took to that approach review tic recent supply A year-round produce. a fresh providing of with compared be to need clearly be to need will food pro- seasonal de to more messages eating public mote food seasonal of interpretations hp nya eti ie fteya a ieteper- in the at give abundant food can seasonal are year eggs being the that of chocolate of times Christmas ception certain as at at only turkey such shops pro- or or Foods growing Easter natural seasons. the than duction rather speci events at cultural eaten items land- food workers the of on community. impact have local social the can the into some it or coming impact production, polytunnels) visual (e.g. food the scape like local not supported did people many ob oecmo iwhl yodradhge in- higher and older by held tends view this groups common but come food, more seasonal a not be but to food local for more 370 mlctoso esnlt o utial consumption sustainable for seasonality of Implications fi ial,saoa od r oeie soitdwith associated sometimes are foods seasonal Finally, ned. fi https://www.cambridge.org/core il Hospido cial. ( 16 ) niomna implications Environmental atrsadfo security food and patterns Johnston . . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003753 ( 18 ) ( on htwiei principle in while that found 1 ) fi n ftebene the of One . tal et . IPaddress: ie fteya ikdto linked year the of times c . ( ( 17 19 ) ) ie h different the Given . 170.106.202.8 ru hta interest an that argue fi sadlimitations and ts fi l rw seaso- grown eld – fi fi 0 fthe of 30% , on ilheating cial ( so eating of ts 2 ) . 29 Sep2021 at05:54:34 .I Macdiarmid I. J. h aefo nteU eg ar rmNew from dairy (e.g. UK producing the than GHGE in total UK food lower the Zealand same a to have transportation the can including when they even used, otn odfo h rdcrt h retailers the to producer the trans- from from is food 4% only porting miles, food GHGE-associated of od h emfo ie,hwvr a entaken was been it has a which seasonal for however, and context as miles, original local the used food eating of out term being for fuelled The has arguments miles which food. the labelling, food of food in many to and sus- tool led environmental marketing of has indicator pseudo a tainability as use and cept ae hr oeef more where cases eiefcie opti nocnet ee & Weber context, into it to put likely is To GHGE on reduce Matthews ineffective. to only food focusing local be <0 that and illustrate miles for food studies account These vegetables GHGE. and fruit h oeo rnprain hc a aevr differ- very about have distinction can any which emissions ent transportation, make of not mode do the miles food Finally, was miles food term The eciewyi sapo rx o environmental for proxy poor a is studies it Recent sustainability evidence. why the by seaso- describe supported local, not than higher is GHGE a food of have nal terms always in will cost world environmental the across distance long oeta afcm rmcnuesdiigt and to which driving of consumers UK, from shops the come food within 82% from half occur that miles than found food study more total recent the a pro- Second, of and food. production of from cessing coming emissions of majority n h S nyacutfraot10 about system food for the account within only GHGE total USA the and o osmto u fsao eg plsfrom apples (e.g. stored season and UK of GHGE the total out in Zealand lower New produced consumption have food can for same UK the and the than associated abroad grown emissions to products the transported tomatoes) Some than (e.g. transportation. GHGE and season with higher of heating have out for products can needed grow to GHGE) lighting (therefore use energy rmrdma n ar rdcswt chicken, with products dairy and meat red from o bodadtasotdt h UK the to sea- transported in naturally and glasshouses grown abroad heated product in son same the UK than the higher in are season of out produced odtaes aeoeo h raetenvironmental greatest the diet of the of one question terms in into have impacts that brings travels) UK view food the popular to the transported are foods n eniaporaeyue o abnaccounting carbon for used inappropriately been and esr fteevrnetlimpact as environmental not from, the comes of food measure their a where recon- with and and food people about social necting thinking more our a to re-injecting dimension of cultural aim the with 1990s early rm pino uigol oal ore od(i.e. food sourced locally only miles). delivery a buying zero in of result option would treme week each day signi one vegetables or eggs , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at ept h ntntv iwta rnprigfood transporting that view instinctive the Despite bevn htGG a elwree hnsome when even lower be can GHGE that Observing fi atygetrrdcini HEta h ex- the than GHGE in reduction greater cantly ( 23 ( ) 28 ). ) ( ( ( 27 23 21 eosrtdta elcn h energy the replacing that demonstrated ) , ) 26 n tsol entdta air-freighted that noted be should it and , ( , rrsbrisfo Spain from raspberries or 26 27 ) ) iial nteUA fte11% the of USA, the in Similarly . is,fo ie nbt h UK the both in miles food First, . fi in rdcinmtosare methods production cient ‘ fi odmiles food s ondb i agi the in Lang Tim by coined rst ( 12 , 24 ) t ouaiya con- a as popularity Its . ’ ( 26 ie h distance the (i.e. , · ( 28 %o h UK the of 1% ( 5 18 ) ) . , 20 ( ihtevast the with – 22 ) fi 1 fthe of 11% h high- The . ) s devised rst .I other In ). fi ( ( 28 25 sh, ) ) . . https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Downloaded from Proceedings of the Nutrition Society er hsovosydpnso viaiiyadthis and to availability the possible on throughout depends is health obviously it for This if year. requirements second, nutrient and meet intakes reduce would eec u h ae tespae ntecutywas country the on placed stress and dif- water signi Spain little the was and there but GHGE UK ference of terms the in in that demonstrated produced raspberries pared aiu hnete ol emr iln oadopt to willing more be would they change haviour eore ntewrd uha ae,ln n miner- and land water, as such world, als the in resources nysaoa ri n eealsare vegetables and fruit eating about seasonal concerns only related health and dietary Possible erltvl io oprdwt aigother making to with likely are compared gains willing minor be behaviours environmental pro-environmental would relatively the they it but say be and they make, consumers change to many behaviour with a is resonates crop. food the of seasonal composition extremes, nutrient climatic the by alter affected also only be can not it is can but It that chain. yield food crop whole the the avail- across the food limits of and ability prices food increases which perature, iomna rtraJungbluth criteria vironmental in edt etknit con.Foster account. considera- into taken environmental be other to need these tions but driver, major aigol esnlfutadvgtbe aeagreater a have vegetables the and bene have environmental fruit to seasonal found only and was eating food) food bene seasonal seasonal eating eating smallest these diet, all organic balanced of food, more local a eating food, obesity, reducing reducing waste, vegetarian, becoming food (e.g. scenarios dietary ent oefeun ihgoa amn n climate and warming global become to with world predicted the change ex- are frequent and of which adverse more to events, regions system weather food single treme the from in resilience or reduces food produced rmattlo nyaot10co species coming crop plants 100 from about derived only of now 90% total is about a that supply from estimated food is cul- It our dense diet. of the nutrient in important monocul- plants of and of loss species tivars the crop to intakes few leading a nutritional have tures only where by model will dominated production are a which to led require, biodiversity. intensi has environmental agricultural will of of loss Historically it because for year-round effects land increasing food knock-on against fresh increased of made countries. the supply be scarce global could water the argument already similar in create A could stress it cons- demands water major meet have greater to but not GHGE may for supplies equences food to approach ity h urn n rdce uuedmn o odi put- is food highlighted for have signi demand others future ting predicted As and choices. current food the our of impact enrsligfo xrm ete vns uhas such events, weather extreme from droughts, resulting seen tde aecnitnl hw htteie feating of idea the that shown consistently have Studies ovrey eoighaiydpneto locally on dependent heavily becoming Conversely, HEaeol n ieso fteenvironmental the of dimension one only are GHGE ( 29 fi , 30 atyhge nSan dpigagoa seasonal- global a Adopting Spain. in higher cantly https://www.cambridge.org/core ) ( 10 ntrso esnlt HEmyntb a be not may GHGE seasonality of terms In . ) fi nraigy ao rpfiue r being are failures crop major Increasingly, . fl atpesr nmn fthe of many on pressure cant urtoa n elhimplications health and Nutritional oigadunpredictable and ooding fi .I otat consumer contrast, In t. fi . hnetn esmeat less eating than t https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003753 . IPaddress: ( 4 tal et ) obnn eea en- several Combining . fi ainadexpansion and cation ( 32 170.106.202.8 fl ) cutosi tem- in uctuations oprddiffer- compared fi ’ s,wehrit whether rst, eiv that believe s esnlt n itr eurmns371 requirements dietary and Seasonality ( tal. et fi 33 ( 31 ienatural nite ) ) n be- a and , , on . ( 22 29 Sep2021 at05:54:34 ) com- ( 34 ) . h ieelpoet(..me itr eurmnsand for popu- requirements developed the dietary methodology meet of GHGE of (i.e. minimising most the project type to using Livewell the unacceptable the study but be A to possible lation. likely theoretically is is diet it that strates %o hlrn(gd11 19 (aged (aged recommended children adults of of 31% 9% only that the reports during produce very of not be variety months. perhaps limited would winter but to it food due zone), seasonal appealing only climatic eat same to the (produced possible UK in the in consumed seasonality and and local world of the case the in Taking live you de where which on depending vary will h Ki eebr(sn a Seasonably Eat (using December in in available UK vegetables and the fruit including only of criteria n eylmtdrneo vegetables of foods range of number limited small very very nutri- a and and on have energy based meet scenarios requirements to ent possible dietary is it different that demonstrated modelling win- food in Studies the particularly foods, if ter. seasonal met only to be restricted could was requirements nutrient whether up. weighed be be- to trade-offs need preserving environment but the and and energy, health additional tween storing uses produce perspective fresh environmental an r oeboaalbeta nfehtomatoes nutrients fresh example in than for bio-available all. more product; and are at lycopene a them as the of such eating increase actually quality not com- can when nutrient preservation of of health alternative methods of Some the terms in with minimal pared are losses these hsdoto esnee huhte a efudin found pur- be few can occur they very sales though with of even season supermarkets months, majority of vast summer out the chased the that of raspberries during show out and only UK consumed strawberries to the commonly for important in are data however, fruit Purchase all is, season. not and It that fruit further. note of less intakes even there possibly reducing and UK vegetables risk fewer could vegetables. the to of items in range vegetables appealing limited and winter very fruit a the and Limiting fruit during no and be would season vegetables and in fruit when are showing charts produced have tions) sal ievreyo rs rdc.Eat produce. fresh of is variety there where wide environment food Seasonably a a within usually is this and eeals uha noso oaosta eetaken basic were some as that well tomatoes dried as or (e.g. diet, onions the preserved as to or such added apples) vegetables, be to (e.g. had oranges), UK achieve fruit) (e.g. the abroad To season using in winter. in only stored fruit the menu by using in 7-d seen acceptable realistic vegetables be a as and would UK fruit that the diet seasonal in a people create to most possible not was rnpraincnb soitdwt h oso some and produce of storage of loss compounds While the bioactive available. with and associated is micronutrient be food can that transportation period the , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at h otrcn ainlDe n urto Survey Nutrition and Diet National recent most The h eodpsil urtoa ocr eae to relates concern nutritional possible second The o etre rs rdc a ensoe oextend to stored been has produce fresh centuries For ( 41 ) lhuhntin eurmnswr e it met were requirements nutrient Although . fi iino esnlt o s;lclo global. or local use; you seasonality of nition ( 3 ) Kgvrmn upre initiative, supported government UK a , ( 22 ‘ 5-a-day , 36 ) . ( 40 ) a eetdwt h additional the with repeated was ) ’ β naefrfutadvegetables and fruit for intake crtn npoesdtomatoes processed in -carotene – 8yas nteU etthe meet UK the in years) 18 ( 39 ) hsdemon- This . – 4yas and years) 64 ( 38 ( 3 ) ) From . de fi ( 37 ( ni- 35 ) ) , https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Downloaded from Proceedings of the Nutrition Society rdcdi qautr,ayntrlseasonal natural any aquaculture, in produced n h re fteaia ahrta n natural any than rather seasonal, be animal can the which of effects feed, where seasonal breed of cattle, more the varies type farmed and today the for meat to the similar according of is composition It nutrient the season. of by composition than acid fatty of the the because amount minimal are signi increasing tions a an have with recommendations to Also, dietary unlikely diet. with is compared and when the small perspective, nutritional oiino h ito oa people local of diet com- the micronutrient which the of yields, on food, maximise impacts position the detrimental of to crops had composition changed has where nutrient been countries the have neglecting in cultivars relevant composition. and particularly micronutrient the conditions is growing optimise This the to within than yields maximise disease rather to to selected be resistance to and tend plants and crops of osmto atrsaet eraitc ntereport the In realistic. sustainable Table be the towards to Setting moves are if patterns consumption environment as important and as are health implications economic and social The tal. et fdfeetvreiso rp n on ht for that, 6 found and crops of the varieties example different of raiaina urto-estv prahto approach Agriculture nutrition-sensitive and Food a the considered; by agriculture as to is referred is composition Organization being it nutrient but is conditions the this changing to the that major need to will essential a adapt breeds to and become selected sought changes, be could and be climatic will this With demands cultivars health. different yields and dietary nutrition on for global concern only greater based meet are intensi to are systems further agricultural If between populations. difference many the yields for on de potential focusing micronutrient the and has energy) cultivars (i.e. different of properties n ieo ervre o ifrn species different for varies year of time and to fi selected The plants conditions. of of growing levels cultivar different the in by yields optimise and society. season seasonal modern by in only vary range unacceptable eat be limited to the to likely requirements, is possible foods dietary be of meet illustrated would and study it food The used. while items that tinned or storage from tn ntblt nepomn.As,rligsll on solely relying Also, cre- employment. and in requirements instability labour ating of in- seasonality by stability the economic creasing for consequences negative have seasonal more 372 n iial h rncneto iecnvr rm0 from vary can rice of content iron the similarly and <1 · haesann n h antd ftechange the of magnitude the and spawning are sh m/0gb utvr goigtemicronutrient the Ignoring cultivar. by 4mg/100g h uretcmoiino lnsadaiascan animals and plants of composition nutrient The giutrlintensi Agricultural μ fi /0gfrsm utvr o8500 to cultivars some for g/100g https://www.cambridge.org/core ( hi otoldb h opsto ffe rather feed of composition the by controlled is sh 45 ) eiwdtevrain nntin composition nutrient in variations the reviewed fi ( hi h id o xml,dces when decrease example, for wild, the in sh 46 oiladeooi implications economic and Social ) β . crtn otn fbnnsvre from varies bananas of content -carotene ( 43 fi fi l-rw ri n eealscould vegetables and fruit eld-grown ) ( inyadmcouretaeuc in adequacy micronutrient and ciency . 2 . ) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003753 h uhr ocue hteating that concluded authors the , fi ainhsmatta h cultivar the that meant has cation . IPaddress: fl cuto srelatively is uctuation fi 170.106.202.8 atipc nthe on impact cant μ /0gfrothers, for g/100g ( 44 ) Burlingame . ( , on 42 fi ) 29 Sep2021 at05:54:34 rma From . hbeing sh fl uctua- .I Macdiarmid I. J. · 7to fi ω ed -3 aigcmae ihaotaqatro h respon- important were the brand of and quarter price decision said a respon- their who about in of dents factor with 2% a compared only was making that seasonality that showed said survey dents recent a sions; eie bu afo Kcnuesas consumers UK or of half about terised h attodcdst mrv h ito h popu- the of over diet failure the and improve obesity to in Nutritionists decades trends lation. only two the we last at underestimated; the be look magni- not to The necess- should need pleasurable. task not people this may being of many that with tude direction associated For a be signi in waste. arily a and food change require consume dietary over will reduce to changes not to these products, or dairy to and food, energy seasonal meat eat to less en- is to eat it is whether challenge population, greatest the The gage norms. social change and o h rpsdcagscould changes understand proposed to the is how patterns consumption sustainable more hl ouainbcueetn sas bu pleasure, the about environment of also culture. patterns is and the dietary expectations eating the because and change population to whole health unlikely are future alone about Concerns down low very in be that to how- priorities tends reality, the food In in marketing local companies. seasonal a has and buying the as retailers ever, food used support larger often seasonal to by is tool and and desire farmers, local a and economy in through interest generated been the of Much fcagsaet erealistic be recommendations to dietary are in considered changes perceived be or if to Real patterns. need dietary they changing grati to instant barriers for dietary desire and to related concerns environmental choices. the how hectoring about describes as He across comes food. or with eating people healthy some priorities in interested different not have are people many im- that in failures population the the to proving contributing factor one perhaps that lsi n fetv oiysltosaet efound be to are re- solutions if policy ignored at effective be of and change cannot aspect alistic expectations cultural to environ- societal different nor and needs healthy the eating neither but system currently sustainable is food mentally Whatever it the as convenience. level cause every of modern main created, expectations the have and argue might lifestyles some to, responded ag ato oendes Buckley diets; modern of part large a niomna cetssi slmtn h environmental Winkler the limiting is impact. it scientists environmental hs con o nyatn rcino amsales farm of fraction tiny a reality only in for but communities account of to way these food a as seasonal seen local farming often getting are current markets Farmers of markets. lot port a rely for which viable practices, may economically markets local be both only not Supplying for climate. vul- strategy the is to high-risk production nerable crop a because consumers is and food producers seasonal and local , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at rbbytems motn ati oigtowards moving in part important most the Probably nmdr utrstm rsue optn priorities competing pressure, time cultures modern In ‘ ovnec-ekn grazers convenience-seeking ‘ r eeldb elmaigavc that advice well-meaning by repelled are ( 49 ) ’ oee,rcnl one out pointed recently however, , fi ou ed ob elh hl for while health, be to tends focus acal nlre oesal ex- stable more larger on nancially ’ fl ithsbe eas eforget we because been has diet s ec peoples uence ’ h aecudb argued be could same The . fi ( ainaealprevdas perceived all are cation 50 ) ’ ovnec od are foods Convenience . h odidsr has industry food The . fi fi atbhvorand behaviour cant ntoday in t ’ ‘ ucaigdeci- purchasing tal et ice evaders kitchen . ( 51 ’ ) society s ( 48 charac- ) . ( ( 52 47 ) ) ’ . . https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Downloaded from Proceedings of the Nutrition Society h ieDe nScotland including in diet, Diet the Fife of food the impact seasonal environmental and the local set reduce of been to have consumption that encourage projects to of up examples several are There n eeals ihna10ml aiso Vancouver of radius mile fruit 100 just year not a city 1 foods within over all vegetables, possible food, was produced and it locally by if only started only see eat was eat to to diet wanted to mile who year couple 100 1 a The for locally. attempting produced by food extreme an to diets hswr n ierColyfrhrassatwt the with assistant her for to review. Crowley contribution literature Éimear her and for Kyle work Janet this Dr thanks author The made. are choices and food which expectations in social environment food and consider the to cultural fu- need lifestyles, will behaviour, diets modern dietary sustainable for changing guidelines of ture have chance from To system realistic consumers. food any to whole government the retailers, across producers, action com- and require will mitment patterns consumption sustainable more eddcneune.Etn oesaoa odhas unin- food to seasonal lead more to Eating likely bene is consequences. sustainable sustainability individ- tended of on of only issue elements focusing the ual approach address reductionist A minimise to diets. requires approach and which holistic quality intakes, dietary a dietary of Trade-offs cost maximise only environmental production. the to of food system needed seasonal food are locally a or advocating market. advantage global for clear food no disadvantage is global there however, or evidence the current could, the within on It Based economic resilience less for diet. and implications be seasonal stability with could trade globally international biodiversity a limit and water for change on than use impacts vegetable land environmental and stress, the fruit but reduce sea- could consumption, local could on year-round Relying what food concept. simple of sonal eating a complexity as seen of the be initially consequences highlights society food environment, seasonal and the economics of evidence health, current together Drawing be to need approach. that intense barriers less it a the with but of even eating some considered seasonal highlight and to local serves to approach obviously extreme is This evenan months. winter challenging, for and was foods varied preserving year the with a the often achieving throughout was and diet job food balanced part-time prepare a and to acquire equivalent to needed time n h odcdiet Nordic the and eaiust hneta r ieyt aegetrben- greater have dif over- to likely more not are e should potentially that change it the to change behaviours of dietary some of terms shadow in and diet fi s(..oeetn rma osmto) oachieve To consumption). meat or overeating (e.g. ts ( 54 fi ) sbti sol n ml seto sustainable a of aspect small one only is it but ts https://www.cambridge.org/core hl hyddaheei,te ecie the described they it, achieve did they While . h rciaiisadraiyo nyeating only of reality and practicalities The Acknowledgements . ( https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003753 55 esnlfood seasonal Conclusions ) oepol aetknthese taken have people Some . ( 53 ) 0 iede nCanada in diet mile 100 , . IPaddress: 170.106.202.8 esnlt n itr eurmns373 requirements dietary and Seasonality fi utdietary cult , on 29 Sep2021 at05:54:34 ( 54 ) 5 hrtnA(2009) A Thornton 15. giving food, of future The (2013) Report Consumer Which? 14. 3 hmesS obA ulrL Butler A, Lobb S, Chambers 13. 1 ikn ,BwihE&SblJ(02 osmrpercep- Consumer (2002) J Sobal & E Bowdish J, Wilkins last the 11. in changes season Growing (2006) HW Linderholm 10. 2 rosM otrC omsM Holmes C, Foster M, Brooks 12. hr a ospeci no was There niomn cec n nltclSrie research Services and Analytical Rural programme. and Government Science Scottish the Environment through author funded The ily manuscript. this of aration None. .SmegJ&SapL(09 si osbeto possible it Is (2009) L Sharp & J Sumberg 9. .EwrsJnsG(00 osetn oa odrdc the reduce food local eating Does (2010) G Edwards-Jones 8. impacts environmental the Understanding (2012) DEFRA 7. .Ln (2006). T Lang 5. Affairs Rural and Food Environment, for Department www.eatseasonably.co.uk (2013) 4. Seasonably Eat 3. (2008) T Garnett 1. .DCak 21)Hresn idvriy rmde to diet from biodiversity: Harnessing (2013) F DeClarke 6. .SsanbeDvlpetCmiso 20)Stigthe Setting (2009) Commission Development Sustainable 2. , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at oad h niomn rce uvy eotto Environment DEFRA. Report TNS, A for Affairs, Survey: Rural Department Tracker - the Environment the Towards osmr a.http://press.which.co.uk/wp-content/ say. uploads/2013/04/Future-of-Food-Report-2013_Final.pdf a consumers study. qualitative a foods: imported and nflde ingful eetresearch. recent in fsaoa n oa od:asuyi ..com- U.S. a in study a foods: local and munity. seasonal of tions century. Food pdf1: sustainweb.org/pdf2/NEF_What_is_seasonal_food_2009. n esnlfosbene foods seasonal ing enhance and production food health? of consumer impact environmental season. in http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx? locally Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16390 produced FO0412. are editors]. that Project foods Mattei consuming of F and Borelli T Routledge. UK: Hunter, Oxon, D Franzo, [J report.pdf http://archive.defra.gov.uk/ at Behaviours. evidence/social/behaviour/ available Pro-environmental HMSO; for London: Framework A (2008) adcps In landscapes. 16-02-06.pdf data/assets/pdf_ tl) 9My20,p 94 p. 2006, May 19 Italy), of Elements Priority on fi http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/ Government Diets. to Sustainable Advice Climate Table: Network, Changing Research Strategy. Climate Environmental Our Food for Centre Surrey, and of University Emissions Gas les/publications/Setting_the_Table.pdf clFo Nutr Food Ecol gi oetMeteorol Forest Agric fi iino h term the of nition fi u Bull Nut iesfigFo n Diet and Food Diversifying Con le/0007/167893/Slow-Food-fd-miles- fi ‘ iaca support Financial odMiles Food rcNt Soc Nutr Proc okn paSom od Greenhouse Food, Storm: a Up Cooking udn soitdwt h prep- the with associated funding c fl References c fInterest of ict ulcAttdsadBehaviours and Attitudes Public fi 41 h niomn?Isgt from Insights environment? the t 36 415 , documents/behaviours-jan08- 449 , – ‘ 7 http://www.city.ac.uk/__ 97. ’ esnlfood seasonal lwFo Ba Cuneo (Bra, Food Slow . tal et 137 – tal et – 439. 69 453. odn odand Food London: . ,1 20)Lcl national Local, (2007) . 582 , 21)De consum- Does (2011) . – ’ Appetite 14. oki primar- is work s – 591. ’ http://www. ? p 17 pp. , fi damean- a nd 49 Surrey: . 208 , fi – nal- – 13. 34 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Downloaded from Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 374 2 uglt ,ItnR coiS(02 Environmental (2012) S Schori R, Itten N, Jungbluth 32. biodiversity agricultural of Overview (2013) VH Heywood Final 31. Farming and Food of Future The (2011) Foresight 30. 9 edntnJ(2009) J Beddington 29. rela- the and miles Food (2008) HS Matthews & CL Weber 28. bana- No Have We Yes, (2008) H Shimizu P, Desrochers 25. con- do How (2011) M Siegrist VHM, Visschers C, Tobler 24. cycle life footprints, Carbon (2008) A Barber & C Saunders 23. J Wiltshire M, Holmes C, Foster 22. 1 aasM,Cwl J i S Sim SJ, Cowell Mi, Canals 21. 8 opd ,Cnl M&MLrnS(02 h oeof role The (2012) S McLaren & LM Canals A, Hospido 18. good food, Good (2011) A Rodney & M Szabo J, Johnston 17. 6 mt ,WtisP wdl G Tweddle P, Watkiss A, Smith 26. 7 oe A oadM itrM(01 odmls time miles: Food (2011) M Winter M, Howard DA, Coley 27. E Hope AG, Williams J, Webb 20. What (2012) C Gough & E Dawkins A, Bows 19. 6 rol ,Lb Tif & A Lobb M, Arnoult 16. 20Food%202012%20-%20ISBN.pdf t n.Cn.LAi h giFo etr p 104 pp. Sector, Agri-Food the fckeditor/ in LCA https://://colloque4.inra potentials. 109. Conf. reduction its Int. and 8th consumption food of Routledge. impacts UK: Oxon, editors] Mattei F and In health. Diet and and nutrition Food to contribution it Of and Government The London: Science. Report. Project bis.gov.uk/assets/goscience/docs/p/perfect-storm-paper.pdf ieciaeipc odcocsi h ntdStates. United the in choices food Technol Sci o Environ impact climate tive the of Critique A nas: vegetables? of Behav friendliness Environ environmental the assess sumers issues. market and trends Sci trade Polit global miles: food analysis, 202012%20-%20ISBN.pdf https:// study. 620. case Sector, fi Agri-Food a the purchase: in ://colloque4.inra.fr/var/lcafood2012/storage/fckeditor/ LCA food Conf. seasonal Int. 8th of effects mental efc tr fGoa Events Global of Storm Of Government Perfect A Res Pollut estic UK? the within produced Assess foods Cycle impact same environmental greater the a than have UK the into imported etladsca aspects. social environ- of and study case mental a consumption: lettuce in seasonality eat- ethical of repertoire ing. cultural the understanding people: oiySre,Plc rmr8 http://mercatus.org/sites/ Critique_of_the_Food_Mile_Perspective.pdf 8. Primer default/ Policy Series, Policy o re-think? a for ments/foodmile.pdf http://archive. ED50254. report defra.gov.uk/evidence/economi Development: DEFRA Sustainable report. of Indicator Final an as Miles Food of System, Food http://www.sci.manchester.ac.uk/uploads/ UK the sci-whats-cooking-july-13-2012-.pdf Institute in Manchester. Consumption Mitigation Sustainable & Adaptation 381 o motdadsaoa od:AU survey. UK A foods: Market seasonal Agribusiness and Food imported for https://www.cambridge.org/core le/Proceedings/Proceedings%20-%20LCA%20Food% – osmCult Consum J 391. versus fi les/publication/Yes_We_Have_No_Bananas__A_ 60 fi 14 motdape:afcso nryuse. energy on focus a apples: imported ,73 le/Proceedings/Proceedings%20-%20LCA% 18 338 , p 35 pp. , 43 rtFo J Food Brit – 1325 , fi . 88. efrSine vial t http://www. at: Available Science. for ce https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003753 591 , – 344. 11 42 od nry ae n h Climate: the and Water Energy, Food, – – – 293 , 1343. ‘ 3508 , 7[ rno utr Borelli T Hunter, D Franzo, [J 67 611. Food-Miles . IPaddress: . fi 113 – 22 21)Wligest pay to Willingness (2010) A n 318. tal et n ieCceAssess Cycle Life J Int – .fr/var/lcafood2012/storage/ 234 , 3513. 919 , cs/foodfarm/reports/docu tal et 20)Cmaigdom- Comparing (2007) . tal et – tal et 170.106.202.8 ’ – h nvriyof University The , 251. esetv.Mercatus Perspective. 934. 20)TeValidity The (2005) . 21)Teenviron- The (2012) . 21)D foods Do (2013) . odn UK: London, ? , on Diversifying ’ Cooking? s 29 Sep2021 at05:54:34 n Life J Int fi n Sci Env efor ce Int J .I Macdiarmid I. J. 14 – , 0 rwsJ&Jc 20)Psigsed h marketing The speed? Pushing (2005) G Jack & J Brewis food. on 50. pragmatism Brutal (2013) JT Winkler 49. DK Holdsworth A, Insch K, Kemp 48. http://www.foodand (2009) Canada Farming and Food 47. 6 hmsnB&AoooL(2011) L Amoroso & B Thompson 46. Food (2009) B Mouille R, Charrondiere B, Burlingame 45. Horticulture, (2010) J Crews B, Burlingame N, Lutaladio 44. 3 ae A botA ol PS Doyle A, Abbott CA, Daley 43. X Gellynck EJ, Loo Van F, Vanhonacker 34. green. Eating (2011) M Siegrist VHM, Visschers C, Tobler 33. 2 oo oznduM(02 esnlcagsi com- in changes Seasonal (2012) M Vouzanidou & A Zotos 42. A Prentice A, Lennox B, Bates 35. 1 yeJ yeC ognGW Horgan C, Fyfe J, Kyle 41. G Horgan J, Kyle JI, Macdiarmid 40. PE Bowen M, Stacewicz-Sapuntzakis E-S, Hwang 38. of effect The (2008) K Peltola C, Macevilly G, Goldberg 37. B Kupiec-Teahan P, Leat C, Revoredo-Giha 36. 9 adamdJ,Kl ,Hra GW Horgan J, Kyle JI, Macdiarmid 39. , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at ie:d Kcnuesatal care? actually consumers UK do miles: ffs n ovnec food. convenience and Culture fast of 3728. 504 ment.pdf Approach_to_Nutrition_sens http://www.fao.org/ Development Agricultural Nutrition-Sensitive nboiest o odadnutrition. and food initiative Anal cross-cutting for the biodiversity to on fundamental is composition nutrition. 481 and biodiversity beef. grain-fed and at cdpro acid fatty sustainable more towards attitudes choices. food consumer Flemish behaviors. tion Consumers oiin at cd hlseo n iea otn fsix Int of Technol content commercial mineral and highly cholesterol acid, fatty position, http://assets.wwf.org.uk/down- WWF-UK. loads/livewell_xmas_lists.pdf Christmas. aac fHatyadSsanbeFo Choices. Food Sustainable and port_jan11.pdf Healthy http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/livewell_re of WWF-UK. Balance A diet? healthy Nutr a reduc- eating Clin to by emissions contribute gas we greenhouse can ing future: the for diets Sustainable and carotenoid the on tomato. treatment of heat composition tocopherol of The Force. Effects Health: Task (2012) and Foundation Diet Nutrition Foundation. Nutrition British Plants: British a London: In of bioactive food. on Report cooking in and substances processing storage, agronomy, http:// Giha_leat_teahan_lamprinopoulou.pdf Eco- at: fruit Available Agricultural soft University. ageconsearch.umn.edu/bits Conference of Warwick Annual consumption Society, nomics the 85th is scotland? seasonal in and 2008/09 local Programme How 2 Rolling 1, the Years of from (Combined) 2010/11 Results 3 Headline and Survey: Nutrition and 1114. o10ml-it acse oebr2013). November (accessed to-100-mile-diet/ farmingcanada.com/2009/10/30/canadas-farms-not-suited- – – 513. 485. 22 odn eateto Health. of Department London: . 361 , 8 ,49 96 ’ . ilnns oaoteooia odconsump- food ecological adopt to willingness 632 , – 18 – 365. Appetite 67. fi 139 , Appetite e n nixdn otn ngrass-fed in content antioxidant and les – 639. urJ Nutr fi – leadmin/user_upl 49. fi hseiso Greece. of species sh 62 57 ,7 9 674 , – tream/108775/2/85Revoredo- 10. , 16. odCmotAnal Compost Food J itive_agricultural_develop – tal et 682. tal et tal et osmto Markets Consumption tal et (2011) . odSci Food J 21)Arve of review A (2010) . FAO oad/agn/pdf/FAO_ tal et 21)Livewell (2011) . 21)Livewell: (2011) . odCompost Food J odPolicy Food ’ prahto Approach s 21)Food (2010) . tal et ainlDiet National oe FAO. Rome: tal et tal et BMJ odSci Food 77 (2012) . (2013) . (2011) . 1109 , mJ Am 346 35 23 – – , , , https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms Downloaded from Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2 efn 20)CnuigVle n Contested and Values Consuming (2004) G Seyfang 52. 1 uke ,CwnC catyM(07 h con- The (2007) M McCarthy C, Cowan M, Buckley 51. 338. utrs rtclaayi fteU taeyfrsustain- for production. Strategy and UK consumption the of able analysis critical a Cultures: einefo akti ra rti:cneinefood convenience Britain: segments. Great (CFL) in lifestyle market food venience https://www.cambridge.org/core . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665113003753 Appetite . IPaddress: 49 e o Econ Soc Rev 170.106.202.8 600 , – esnlt n itr eurmns375 requirements dietary and Seasonality 17. , on 29 Sep2021 at05:54:34 62 323 , – 5 h odcDe.http://foodo Diet. Nordic The 55. The Dinner: Deconstructing (2009) media Public Global 54. 3 ieDe 21)FifeDietinScotland.http://www. (2013) Diet Fife 53. , subjectto theCambridgeCore termsofuse,available at odcde/ai_n acse oebr2013). November (accessed nordic_diet/basis_nnd ei.o/rncit/5 acse oebr3013). http://old.globalpublic- November strategies. (accessed food media.com/transcripts/858 local diet 100-mile 2013). November (accessed uk/ fl ife.dk/opus/english/wp/ fi fediet.co.