Content uploaded by Robert Newell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Newell on May 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
1
Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy: Agricultural land
use futures in the Anthropocene
Lenore Newman1, Robert Newell1, Zsofia Mendly-Zambo1,2, and Lisa Powell3
1 Food and Agriculture Institute, University of the Fraser Valley, 33844 King Road, Abbotsford, BC, Canada
2 School of Health Policy & Management, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, Canada
3 Center for Human and Environmental Sustainability, Sweet Briar College, 134 Chapel Road, Sweet Briar,
VA, United States
Abstract
The global environmental impact of rising consumption of animal products presents significant
challenges to sustainable land use. One alternative to the production of animal products is a set of
technologies for culturing meat and dairy alternatives referred to as ‘cellular agriculture’; in the case of
dairy, cellular dairy. Optimism around the benefits of these technologies is widespread, and they fit
within a larger narrative of land sparing, in which high‐yield farming allows the protection of habitats
and the return of fallow land to ecological uses. However, questions remain as to whether cellular dairy
is truly land sparing because although lab dairy could offer significant ecological benefits, these could
be countered by increases in agricultural activity in other regions for the production of feedstocks. In
addition, considerations around broader impacts to individuals, communities, and the environment are
needed to understand whether/how cellular dairy aligns or conflicts with local, regional, and global
sustainability goals. This paper employs the concept of telecoupling, which refers to socioeconomic and
environmental interactions over distances, to examine the potential cellular dairy may have for
contributing to sustainable food production and consumption. The research uses British Columba,
Canada, as a case study, and explores three policy scenarios: (1) incentives for the growth of a cellular
dairy industry, (2) cellular dairy incentivization with eco‐certification, and (3) cellular dairy
incentivization with local sourcing of feedstock. The work is exploratory rather than predictive, meaning
rather than forecasting outcomes, it stimulates ideas on potential direct and indirect impacts, feedback
processes, and social and institutional changes associated with each scenario. The research demonstrates
that exploring scenarios through a telecoupling lens can be useful for policy‐makers and analysts because
it facilitates comprehensive and multi‐scalar thinking on the ecological, social, economic, and political
factors associated with different policy options.
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
2
1. Introduction
The Anthropocene is a proposed new geological epoch that is marked by the way human activities have
altered environments and profoundly changed the planet, presenting multiple governance challenges for
the sustainability1 of communities, global society, and the biosphere (Biermann et al., 2016). Among the
most critical of these challenges are current practices in and dependence on animal agriculture. Humans
have transgressed the planetary boundaries for climate, biodiversity, and nutrient cycling (Rockström et
al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015), and livestock industries are directly linked to all three of these issues.
Animal agriculture impacts the environment through nitrogen pollution, greenhouse gases (GHGs) from
enteric fermentation, water consumption, energy use, and land-use for fodder and forage (McGregor &
Houston, 2017; Nguyen et al., 2013), and extensive land system change has resulted from livestock
farming and cultivation of feed crops (Adger et al., 2009; Gasparri et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2017).
Sustainable futures in the Anthropocene require rethinking our relationships with these industries and
engaging in planning and policy-making that promote and accelerate the uptake of new practices and
innovations.
McGregor & Houston (2017) discuss different approaches for transitioning toward more
sustainable cattle industries in the Anthropocene, including yield intensification, organic farming,
veganism, and food technologies for producing dairy and meat alternatives. The former two do not
entirely address the planetary boundary issues associated with the industries. Although these approaches
may mitigate the issues, they (for example) do not eliminate cattle-related habitat loss and methane
production (McGregor & Houston, 2017). Conversely, veganism does involve transitions from these
industries and their related environmental issues; however, the veganism movement may be inadequate
as the solitary solution to the animal agriculture problem because albeit veganism has experienced
dramatic increases in recent years (particularly in Western countries), so has meat consumption (Lee,
2019). In addition, dietary trends away from meat-based diets often involve vegetarianism, which still
participates in the dairy industry (McGregor & Houston, 2017).
The final approach suggested by McGregor & Houston (2017) centres on biotechnologies for meat
and dairy alternatives, and this approach could have potential for facilitating transitions to sustainable
food production and consumption. Widespread implementation of these technologies could result in a
decoupling of food systems from livestock-related pollutants and ecological harm, while also providing
consumers with dietary options and substitutes. Advancements in ‘cellular agriculture’ in particular,
such as lab-grown beef and dairy, have garnered interest for their potential to produce cultured animal
products with low environmental footprints (Mattick, 2018). Much of the attention on cellular agriculture
has centred on meat alternatives; however, North American trends in declining milk consumption and
shifting consumer preferences toward dairy alternatives (Aydar et al., 2020; St. Pierre, 2017) suggest
that cellular dairy could present valuable opportunities for transitioning away from intensive and
widespread livestock agriculture. As global trends in vegetarianism rise (Angus & Westbrook, 2019),
strategic policies that incentivizes and spur proliferation of cellular dairy technologies could provide
viable routes for moving away from animal-based diets and toward industries with much smaller
environmental footprints.
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
3
Advancements in cellular dairy technologies could potentially lead to the production of nutritious
foods without requiring extensive landing clearing for pasture and feed (Pandya, 2019); thus, these
technologies may be able to serve as strategies for achieving both agricultural and biodiversity
objectives. This perspective positions cellular dairy within the ‘land sparing’ versus ‘land sharing’
framework, in which land sparing practices increase agricultural intensity and yield per unit land to
reserve space for habitat, and land sharing consists of ecologically-sound practices that reduce impact
and incorporate biodiversity in farmland (Fischer et al., 2014; Green et al., 2005). Cellular dairy
technologies, in this sense, would be considered to be land sparing due to their potential to reduce
livestock-related land-use. However, issues exist with this proposition. Biermann et al. (2016) explain
that effective governance in the Anthropocene requires recognizing the interconnectedness of systems,
activities, and places; accordingly, cellular dairy can only be regarded as land sparing when considering
life cycles and the inputs involved in its production. For example, sugar is used for feedstock in the
cellular dairy production process (Pandya, 2019); thus, its potential as a strategy that balances and
achieves agricultural and biodiversity objectives is (in part) dependent on the land sparing or sharing
approaches used in the sugar crop cultivation. In addition, governance in the Anthropocene requires
holistic framing that integrates environmental, social, and economic imperatives (Biermann et al., 2012);
thus, a broader systems-based understanding of cellular dairy is needed before deeming it as a viable
sustainability solution. For example, shifting demand for agricultural products can have significant
consequences for communities and livelihoods around the globe (see McKay et al., 2015), and it is
important to recognize such socioeconomic impacts in order to achieve socially-just transitions
(McCauley & Heffron, 2018).
Cellular dairy technologies may offer effective land sparing strategies, but policies for
incentivizing/promoting these technologies must recognize interactions and impacts that extend across
regional/national boundaries and environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Thus, there is need
for examining cellular dairy policies using a framework that captures complex, multi-scalar
relationships. ‘Telecoupling’ can provide a means for such analysis; the concept has received increasing
research attention in studies on global patterns and issues, as it focuses on the interconnectedness
between human-environmental systems over distances (Liu et al., 2013; Friis et al., 2016). Telecoupling
analysis has similar potential for elucidating potential global impacts of implementing policies that
accelerate growth and uptake of cellular dairy technologies. Most telecoupling studies examine existent
system connections (Adger et al., 2009; Eakin et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2015), but the concept can also be
used to explore potential outcomes of policies that are expected to result in systems changes (Friis et al.,
2016). Accordingly, this latter application can be used to stimulate thinking on potential outcomes for
different cellular dairy policies and how these may align or conflict with local, regional, and global
sustainability objectives.
This paper employs a telecoupling framework to explore challenges and opportunities for
implementing policies aimed at incentivizing and promoting cellular dairy as an effective land sparing
and conservation strategy. The paper begins with a discussion on the key topics and concepts used in the
research, namely cellular agriculture, the land sparing versus sharing framework, and telecoupling. Then,
a case study is presented, examining the potential of promoting cellular dairy in British Columbia (BC),
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
4
Canada, under three different policy scenarios: (1) incentives for the growth of a cellular dairy industry,
(2) cellular dairy incentivization with eco-certification, and (3) cellular dairy incentivization with
domestic sourcing of production inputs. The paper concludes with a discussion on the value of using
telecoupling as a lens for better understanding the sustainability implications of emerging technologies
and the policies for encouraging the proliferation and uptake of these technologies and innovations.
2. Concepts and context
2.1 Cellular agriculture
Cellular agriculture includes a set of technologies for creating alternatives to animal products (Stephens
et al., 2018). It differs from processes that produce plant-based food alternatives, as it involves culturing
techniques to develop products that are biologically equivalent or near-equivalent to their animal-based
counterparts. The focus of this paper, cellular dairy, is created through a fermentation process that
employs microflora (i.e., bacteria and yeast) and sugar feedstocks to synthesize milk proteins; in turn,
these can be used to create foods with the taste, texture, and nutritional profile of animal dairy products
(Pandya, 2019). To provide an example, Perfect Day is a California-based company that creates
fermentation-based dairy by splicing DNA sequences for creating bovine milk proteins into plasmids,
which are introduced into microorganism such as yeast (Pandya, 2014). The yeast is then used for the
fermentation process, and the resultant dairy proteins are combined with plant-sourced fats, minerals,
sugar, and water to create livestock-free milk (Pandya, 2014).
Few cellular agriculture products are currently commercially available, but a number of start-up
companies are developing alternatives for chicken, pork, beef, egg whites, seafood, and dairy. Because
it has yet to infiltrate the market, society’s relationship with the cellular agriculture industry primarily
exists in promissory narratives around its potential contributions to environmental sustainability and
animal welfare (Mouat & Prince, 2018). Writing on cellular agriculture spans a wide spectrum; for
example, a summary by Jönsson (2016) describes cellular agriculture as a technological ‘holy grail’,
claiming that producing animal-free meat alternatives will improve health benefits, environmental
outcomes, and animal welfare. Newman (2020) argues cellular agriculture could remove the need for
sentient animals within the food chain, a shift whose significance could rival that of the domestication
of animals itself. However, due to the lack of commercially-available products, the current dialogue is
one of potential, and questions remain around the benefits and trade-offs of widespread implementation
of cellular agriculture technologies. How do/will they interact with and operate within complex socio-
ecological systems, and importantly, how do/will they align or conflict with sustainability objectives at
multiple scales?
2.2 Land sparing versus sharing
The land sparing versus sharing framework was defined by Green et al., (2005), and it describes two
agricultural approaches for addressing land use and biodiversity concerns. Land sparing refers to
increasing agricultural intensity to minimize land use, and land sharing refers to implementing ‘wildlife-
friendly’ agricultural practices that accommodate or integrate ecosystems (Fischer et al., 2014). The land
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
5
sparing approach implies that a separation between agriculture and wildlife habitat effectively achieves
conservation objectives, and it consists of strategies involving high-yield practices to reduce agricultural
land use and provide space for ecological reserves (Jiren et al., 2017). In contrast, land sharing involves
agricultural practices that allow farmland to be supportive of biodiversity, such as with agroforestry or
organic farming (Phalan et al., 2011; Law & Wilson, 2015). Both land sparing and sharing aim to balance
trade-offs between agricultural yield and biodiversity conservation, but they approach the challenge
through different strategies and perspectives on how to manage land use.
Agricultural technologies can support land sparing practices, as they increase yield and thus allow
for habitat conservation (Ausubel et al., 2013). Accordingly, cellular dairy presents a potential avenue
for reducing land used by livestock farming. However, when arguing for this strategy, it is important to
consider the complete product life cycles of meat and dairy alternatives, as their sparing potential
depends on the land and resources required by production inputs. For example, plant-based milk
substitutes require land/resources for the cultivation of crops such as soy, cashew, oats, and sesame
(Aydar et al., 2020), and cellular dairy requires sugar crops (Pandya, 2019). In addition, the land sparing
versus sharing framework hasbeen critiqued for its lack of practical application due to valuing land in
terms of only the two variables: agricultural yield and biodiversity (Fischer et al., 2013). Following this
critique, cellular dairy should be considered within a broader constellation of environmental, social, and
economic factors, and the framing of its sharing or sparing context will be dependent on the places and
communities affected by cellular dairy policies and practices.
2.3 Telecoupling
Telecoupling is a concept that captures the way that spatially and/or socio-politically distant human-
environment systems are connected through multi-scalar interactions (Liu et al., 2013). The concept is
similar to teleconnections; however, teleconnections typically refer to environmental and socio-
economic factors or events that drive change in distant places, whereas a telecoupling lens examines
interactions in terms of multi-directional flows and feedbacks (Friis et al., 2016). The concept draws
upon systems thinking and recognizes systems characteristics, such as feedback and non-linear dynamics
(Friis et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2015). As a systems-based concept, telecoupling can provide a useful lens
for comprehensively understanding environmental, social, and economic interactions and consequences
of different industries, activities, and phenomena, and it has been used to examine panda conservation
(Liu et al., 2015), soybean production (Gasparri et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2017), invasive species (Liu et
al., 2013), and coffee production and trade (Adger et al., 2009).
Due to its systems focus, the telecoupling concept provides a useful analytical lens for examining
how potential cellular dairy policies may contribute to or conflict with land sparing and conservation
objectives, as it allows for a comprehensive interrogation of these polices as land sparing strategies while
overcoming limitations of the sparing versus sharing framework. Specifically, it can address the
geographical and contextual problems with the sharing/sparing framework by (1) identify linkages
between local cellular dairy production and distant (and global) land use, and (2) broadening
considerations around cellular dairy to include social and economic trade-offs (i.e., in addition to
biodiversity trade-offs). In this way, telecoupling enables investigations that view cellular dairy
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
6
strategies in terms of being interconnected cellular dairy manufacturing and sugar crop farming
operations with the associated implications for the environment, livelihoods, sociocultural values,
political considerations, etc. Depending on how a cellular dairy industry is developed, it could constitute
multiple land sparing strategies (e.g., sourcing sugar crops grown through intensive agriculture), a mix
of sparing and sharing approaches (e.g., sourcing organic sugar crops), or neither sharing or sparing in
terms of net benefit (e.g., sourcing environmentally destructive sugar croups).
Telecoupling as an analytical framework can be employed using structured or heuristic approaches
(Friis et al., 2016). The structured approach has been used by Liu et al. (2013, 2015), and it involves a
systematic examination of telecoupled systems by focusing on five components: human-environment
systems, flows, agents, causes, and effects. The approach involves a hierarchal examination of these
components in terms of the role in the relationship between sending, receiving, and spillover systems.
The heuristic approach was proposed by Eakin et al. (2014); it is similar to the structured approach in
that it examines components/features of telecoupled systems, but with more analytical flexibility. The
heuristic approach offers multiple points of entry for analysis, and it enables analysis of both existing
and potential changes in systems and relationships (Friis et al., 2016). The approach focuses on five
features of telecouplings: triggers that produce telecouplings, direct impacts that result in initial systems
changes, indirect impacts to distant (but coupled) systems, feedback dynamics in the coupled systems
relationships, and social and institutional change resulting from feedbacks.
Using telecoupling as an analytical lens involves considerations around how to define systems
boundaries, and this can be challenging when exploring the interconnectedness of social, ecological, and
economic systems (Friis et al., 2016). Eakin et al. (2014) offer multiple methods for defining the
boundaries of the system when using the heuristic approach, describing these as ‘entry points’ for
analysis. They discuss place-based entry points, which focus on land systems changes and capture
telecouplings between areas that are experiencing said changes. Alternatively, they also note that a
telecoupling signal produced by a trigger (such as a policy) and/or the major actors in a system can serve
as entry points for analysis.
3. Telecoupling and cellular dairy
This paper employs a telecoupling framework to examine policy options for developing a cellular dairy
industry in ways that support land sparing and conservation objectives. To this end, the paper uses the
province of BC as a case study, and through a telecoupling lens, it explores implications of a designing
and implementing policies for stimulating/building a provincial cellular dairy industry. As cellular dairy
is an emerging technology that has not been widely adopted anywhere in the world, sufficient data do
not exist for examining current cellular dairy telecoupling relationships. Due this lack of data and
information, this research did not involve practitioner/government consultations or focus groups.
Instead, the paper follows the methodology of previous studies that employ literature reviews for
examining a topic or issue through a telecoupling lens (Adger et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2013), and the
discussion on the case study and scenarios describes potential telecoupling relationships based on current
local, regional, and global structures and relationships. Building on the authors’ knowledge of the
agricultural industry in BC2, the research conducts a review of academic and grey literature to describe
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
7
plausible trajectories of a provincial cellular dairy industry and to highlight key considerations for
different policy options. In this way, the research is exploratory rather than predictive, and the findings
demonstrate how the telecoupling framework can be used to stimulate comprehensive thinking and
discussion on the potential outcomes and implications of different agricultural technology policies.
3.1 Case study
BC is the westernmost province in Canada, and it has a population of approximately 5.1 million people,
with over half the population located in the southwest Metro Vancouver Regional District (BC Stats,
2020). Agricultural land is protected in BC through the 1973 Agricultural Land Commission Act that
established the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). The ALR comprises approximately 5% of the
province’s land area; however, the most productive lands are concentrated in particular areas, one being
the Lower Mainland that includes Metro Vancouver and the neighbouring Fraser Valley (Newman et
al., 2017). The dairy industry is the largest primary agriculture sector in the BC, and the province has
the third largest dairy sector in Canada (BC Agriculture and Food, 2019). The BC Dairy Association
(n.d.) notes that the industry employs approximately 11,000 people, and much of the production is
concentrated in the Fraser Valley. For the sake of illustration, Figure 1 provides a map of the ALR in
Fraser Valley, highlighting the proportion of land devoted to cattle forage and fodder.
Figure 1. Map of agricultural land and area used for livestock farming in the Fraser Valley, BC. Base
map sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,
USGS, AeroGRID, and IGN.
Dairy supply management in Canada involves a tariff rate quota system that applies significant
tariffs to over-quota imports in order to control domestic supply and protect the industry from foreign
competition (Findlay, 2012). Supply management is regulated at both federal and provincial levels, with
the former setting production quotas for each province and the latter allocating production among
farmers (Heminthavong, 2015). In Western Canada, an interprovincial body has been established
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
8
through the Western Milk Pooling Agreement to pool fluid milk markets and revenues, as well as
coordinate industry standards and pricing, in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (Larue &
Lambert, 2012; Mussell, 2017).
It is worth noting that Canada’s supply management system specifically controls supply but not
necessarily demand (Findlay, 2012). Fluid milk demand has decreased in Canada in recent years, with
rising preferences toward plant-based substitutes in North America (St. Pierre, 2017)., and milk
consumption per capita is lower in BC than other provinces (Auclair et al., 2019). Such trends indicate
that local consumer acceptance could support the growth of a cellular dairy industry in BC; however,
challenges exist for implementing policies to incentivize this growth. Livestock agriculture supports
many livelihoods in BC, and the dairy lobby is a politically influential force in Canada (Viju & Kerr,
2011; Findlay, 2012). Accordingly, an oppositional movement toward a growing cellular dairy industry
is likely, and lobbyists could sway risk-adverse politicians to oppose policies that could spur or boost
the industry.
3.2 Boundaries of the system
The systems boundaries in this research will in part be defined in accordance with the different policy
options (and relevant actors) explored in this work. In addition, a geographical, place-based approach
will also be used, as this research aims to explore the potential of cellular dairy as a land sparing strategy.
An objective of this work is to stimulate thinking on how cellular agriculture may displace impact (i.e.,
rather than minimizing it) by requiring land for production inputs, and the production of cellular dairy
involves a number of ingredients, including fats, minerals, water, and sugars, with ‘sugars’ ranging in
saccharide type such as sucrose, glucose, mannose, maltose, or fructose (Pandya, 2014). To provide an
appropriate scope for this exploration, the paper will focus on the sugar component of the cellular dairy
recipe, as this is the feedstock for cellular dairy production (Pandya, 2019), and it will specifically
examine sucrose-based sugar crops. The majority of Canada’s sugar crop imports consist of sugarcane
from Central and South America, with the greatest share originating from Brazil (Statistics Canada,
2019a). It is difficult to predict exactly from where increased imports would originate with the rise of a
BC cellular dairy industry, so the examination will focus on sugarcane-based telecouplings between
Canada and Brazil (i.e., the greatest source of cane sugar), thereby allowing for an appropriate place-
based bounding of the system.
3.3 Policy scenarios
The study employs the telecoupling framework, and it treats policies that stimulate the adoption and
prevalence of cellular dairy technologies as the triggers of telecoupling relationships. As this is
exploratory work, a scenario analysis approach (Amer et al., 2013) is used to stimulate thinking on how
different types of policies and their resultant telecoupling relationships may align or conflict with local
and global sustainability objectives. The scenarios are defined with the recognition that cellular dairy
requires sugar crops for production inputs, and each scenario assumes that these crops will be grown
and/or sourced in different ways. Specifically, the scenarios were designed to examine how policy
development can recognize the telecoupling of cellular dairy and sugar crops, and their design draws on
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
9
alternative food systems thinking, which identifies roles for local, organic, and/or fair trade agricultural
products in sustainable food systems (Clay et al., 2020).
The scenarios in this paper are referred to as ‘baseline’, ‘eco-certification’, and ‘localization’.
The application of the telecoupling concept to the policy scenarios followed a heuristic approach to
explore potential (and plausible) trajectories, relationships, and outcomes of the different scenarios. The
scenarios are described in terms the major features of telecoupled systems defined by Eakin et al. (2014),
i.e., triggers, direct impacts, indirect impacts, feedback, and social/institutional changes. Table 1
provides descriptions of the three scenarios and their respective telecoupling features, and Figure 2
illustrates the relationships and dynamics within the telecouplings.
3.3.1 Baseline
The trigger for the baseline scenario consists of policies that provide incentives for the adoption of
cellular dairy technologies, such as direct subsidies, tax breaks, and training support (e.g., Barnes et al.,
2018), as well as increased investment in cellular agriculture research and development (e.g., Heisey &
Fuglie, 2018). The scenario assumes that these incentives are successful in BC, with cellular dairy
production proliferating and effectively infiltrating the market. Direct impacts in the baseline scenario
include a local consumer market that follows current trends of increasing demand for non-animal milk
products (Aydar et al., 2020; St. Pierre, 2017). Due to the similarities of cellular dairy in texture and
flavour to animal milk (Pandya, 2019), the scenario may result in a acceleration of these trends.
If production of cellular dairy achieves mainstream acceptance, the local livestock industry may
be challenged. Because forage and fodder land is protected from development by the ALR, declines in
BC dairy farming would open significant space for new crops and lower-impact plant agriculture (e.g.,
see Figure 1), contributing to provincial food security and (potentially) environmental objectives. Such
trends may increase cultivation of perennial food crops in particular because the ALR uses a
classification system to identify the suitability of agricultural land for different types of crops, and forage
and perennial crops are found within a common class (Agricultural Land Commission, 2013; BC
Ministry of Agriculture and Food & BC Ministry of Environment, 1989). However, as aforementioned,
the dairy industry is a large employer (BC Agriculture and Food, 2019), and socioeconomic impacts
would be associated with dairy farmers unable to successful transition toward cellular dairy, particularly
older demographics who are less likely to adopt new technologies (e.g., Barnes et al., 2018).
In the baseline scenario, indirect impacts are associated with the sugar industry and increased
imports of sugar crops. Historically, sugarcane agricultural has contributed to a number of environmental
issues, such as land clearing leading to loss of species, soil erosion, changes to hydrology, pesticide use,
and water consumption (Cheeseman, 2004). In last decade, sugarcane expansion in Brazil has occurred
mostly in pasture land due to Sugarcane Agroecological Zoning policy (ZAE Cana), which aimed to
enhance sustainability of the industry by reducing land clearing (Granco et al., 2012). Locally,
converting pasture land to sugarcane cropland can enhance ecosystem services, such a temperature
regulation, increased albedo, and evapotranspiration (Loarie et al., 2011). However, it can also displace
the livestock industry, which is not subject to ZAE Cana, ultimately resulting in more land clearing
(Follador et al., 2019).
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
10
Table 1. Policy scenarios for the stimulation and growth of a cellular dairy industry in BC
Scenarios
Characteristic
Baseline
Eco-certification
Localization
Description and
triggers (i.e.,
policies)
Growth of the cellular
dairy industry is
incentivized, with
financial incentives for
producers and
investment in research
and development
Growth of the CD industry
is incentivized, with
complementary eco-
certification policies and
programs toward social and
environmental standards in
sugar crop farming
Growth of the CD industry is
incentivized, with
complementary policies that
incentivize the use of domestic
sugar beet crops
direct impacts
Adoption of cellular
dairy technologies, and
acceleration of consumer
trends toward non-animal
dairy
Slower growth of cellular
dairy industry, with
consumerism increasing
predominately among
demographics attracted to
eco-labels
Slower growth of cellular dairy
industry
indirect impacts
• Socioeconomic impacts
to BC dairy farmers
due to loss in
livelihoods
• Expansion of
sugarcane farming in
Brazil
• Rising sugar demand
inflates land prices in
Brazil
• Organic, fair trade
sugarcane industries grow
in Central and South
America
• Boosts in organic sugar
beet agriculture (and
related socioeconomic
benefits) in rural European
communities
• Growth of Albertan beet sugar
industry
• Increased environmental
pressures in Alberta associated
with sugar beet farming
• Decreases in shares of foreign
products in the Canadian beet
sugar market, and related
socioeconomic impacts to beet
sugar farmers in United States
and Europe
Feedback and
social/institutional
changes
• Western Milk Pool
coordinates and
accommodates the new
cellular dairy market
• Dairy lobby opposes
BC cellular agriculture
• Efforts made in Brazil
to restore/strengthen
environmental policies
around sugar farming
• Market for eco-
certified cellular dairy
emerges in BC
• Eco-certification programs
(and relationships between
industry and certification
agencies) develop
• Environmentally-friendly
beet sugar farming in the
United States grows
• Efforts made in Brazil to
restore/strengthen
environmental policies
around sugar farming
• Politicization of cellular
dairy as a ‘green’ product
• Inter-provincial body forms for
overseeing trade and standards
of cellular dairy and beet sugar
products in Canada
• Domestic support from
agricultural groups grows in
Canada due to the
complementary growth of the
beet sugar industry
• Growth of organic sugar beet
agriculture in Canada
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
11
Figure 2. Telecoupling models for policies designed to stimulate growth of a cellular dairy industry in
BC. The diagrams capture telecouplings for three policy scenarios: (a) baseline, (b) eco‐
certification, and (c) localization. Grey rectangles represent policy triggers, blue ovals pertain
to the target system of policies (i.e., BC), orange hexagons pertain to telecoupled systems, and
brown diamonds represent land conservation objectives. Solid green lines represent positive
relationships (i.e., a factor spurring or augmenting another factor), and dashed red lines
represent negative relationships (i.e., a factor diminishing or ceasing another factor).
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
12
ZAE Cana was recently repealed by the Bolsonaro administration, positioning approximately 1.2
million hectares of forests and natural grasslands at potential risk from sugarcane expansion (de Andrade
Jr. et al., 2020). Therefore, environmental gains achieved in BC could be offset by land clearing due to
the livestock displacement and/or sugarcane expansion in Brazil that would result from increases in
sugar demand. Furthermore, rising sugar demand would increase the industry’s value, thereby inflating
land prices and creating challenges for governments to acquire/allocate land for Indigenous and
marginalized communities (as well as challenges for the communities themselves), as previously seen
in Brazil with the global increased demand for sugarcane-based biofuels (McKay et al., 2015).
Feedback and resulting social/institutional changes would occur on both regional and international
levels. On the regional level, the Western Milk Pool would need to coordinate and accommodate the
new cellular dairy market, potentially spurring the growth of this industry in the other participating
provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. This would result in the environmental and
socioeconomic outcomes in these provinces that were described above as direct impacts in BC.
Socioeconomic impacts could result socio-political conflict in the form of opposition toward the cellular
dairy industry (and related government policies) by dairy lobbyists (Viju & Kerr, 2011), with non-
governmental organizations traditionally associated with animal agriculture (e.g., BC Dairy Association)
helping organize the oppositional movement. This may produce some negative feedback dynamics, as
risk-adverse politicians have traditionally been hesitant to upset the dairy lobby (Findlay, 2012).
On an international level, the growth and expansion of the cellular dairy industry would increase
demand for sugarcane imports, simultaneously increasing the land pressures described above as indirect
impacts. In Brazil, some businesses would take advantage of the repealed ZAE Cana, expediting
sugarcane expansion into forests and natural grasslands. However, the policy repeal is not popular among
all sugarcane industry members (see Hofmeister, 2019), and there is incentive to maintain the reputation
of the industry as being not as environmentally destructive as other agricultural industries, such as
livestock farming (de Andrade Jr. et al., 2020). Therefore, the expedited rates of land clearing may lead
to concerted industry-environmentalist efforts to restore ZAE Cana. Furthermore, it is important to note
that many consumers of plant-based dairy substitutes shifted their consumer choices away from animal
dairy (in part) due to concerns about the environmental impact of the dairy industry (Aydar et al., 2020;
Fuentes & Fuentes, 2017). Thus, this demographic may also demand products that do not detrimentally
contribute to the destruction of Brazilian habitat, creating a market for eco-certified/eco-labelled cellular
dairy products (Laurent & Mallard, 2020).
3.3.2 Eco-certification
The trigger for the eco-certification scenario is a set of policies that incentivize the growth of the cellular
dairy industry; however, unlike the baseline scenario that may naturally result in an eco-labelling market,
this policy scenario would incentivize eco-certified products (e.g., Laurent & Mallard, 2020). It is
important to recognize the problematic aspects of eco-labelling, particularly opportunistic companies
that engage in ‘greenwashing’ by self-declaring their eco-label and miscommunicating the extent to
which they participate in environmental practices (Dekhili & Achabou, 2014). However, critical
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
13
interrogation of eco-labelling is beyond the scope of this research, and for the purposes of this paper,
eco-labelling is considered here in terms of being done via a rigorous, third-party certification process.
In terms of direct impacts, eco-labelled products typically have price premiums; thus, the growth
of the industry likely would be slower than the baseline, with demand generating from specific
demographics, such as older and higher income groups (Dekhili & Achabou, 2014). In addition, cellular
dairy products may be less competitive against plant-based milk substitutes, as some consumers purchase
these products for reasons other than environmental considerations, such health and animal cruelty
concerns (Aydar et al., 2020; Fuentes & Fuentes, 2017). The premium pricing for cellular dairy may
encourage these consumers to primarily remain with their preferred plant-based option. The eco-
certification scenario therefore may result in the same type of environmental and socioeconomic
outcomes in BC as the baseline, but to a much lesser degree and extent.
Indirect impacts of the eco-certification scenario would differ from the baseline, as the eco-
certification systems would encourage different practices and potentially different sources for sugar
crops. Different possibilities exist for telecouplings. One such possibility is that an expansion of organic,
fair trade sugarcane industry could occur in Central and South America, potentially increasing
cooperatives and smallholder operations in these places (e.g., Vásquez-León, 2010). As explained above,
sugarcane demand in the eco-certification scenario may not be as great as in the baseline scenario;
however, the new demand for ‘eco-friendly’ crops would produce some socioeconomic outcomes in
sugarcane producing countries.
Another possibility is the cellular dairy industry shifts its attention to different sugar sources and
crops, perhaps focusing instead on sugar beets. Sugar beet agriculture is not free of environmental impact
(Märländer et al., 2003), but it is generally associated with lower water use (Renouf et al., 2008) and
land clearing (Cheeseman, 2004) than sugarcane agriculture. In addition, sugar beets are valuable break
crops (Tzilivakis et al., 2005), which can decrease disease and improve soil conditions and thusly reduce
pesticide and fertilizer requirements. Currently, Canada’s largest sources of sugar beets are the United
States and Belgium (Statistics Canada, 2019b); however, as the eco-certification demands particular
production standards, telecouplings could form with countries that have long histories and established
methods in organic sugar beet farming, such as the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Sweden, and Germany
(Märländer et al., 2003). Indirect impacts from these telecouplings would include economic
opportunities and growth in certain rural European communities, particularly those that are already
economically reliant on sugar beet farming (e.g., Tzilivakis et al., 2005).
Multiple feedback processes and social/institutional changes would occur in the eco-certification
scenario. Third party certification programs would emerge to support the cellular dairy industry in BC,
and these would facilitate new connections between the industry and actors/agencies that ensure sugar
crop agriculture is following certain standards (e.g., da Silva et al., 2019). In addition, growing demand
for organic sugar crops would make these commodities more competitive, thusly incentivizing spread
and uptake of low environmental impact and high yield farming practices such as interrow loosening for
soil management and weed control (Šarauskis et al., 2018). In terms of sugar beets, farmers in the United
States may adopt these methods to be competitive in the new cellular dairy sugar beet industry, and/or
such methods could be adopted by Canadian farmers (e.g., Morrison, 2008), increasing growth in the
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
14
domestic industry. In terms of sugarcane, proponents of ZAE Cana in Brazil would have a strong
economic argument for reinstating this policy (as well as other policies for organic, fair trade operations)
and restoring the industry’s reputation.
Feedback processes will also lead to regional change, particularly in terms of conflict between the
cellular dairy and livestock dairy industries. Although cellular dairy would appear less ‘threatening’ to
animal agriculture in eco-certification scenario than in the baseline, eco-labelling has the tendency to
politicize products (Laurent & Mallard, 2020). In this case, such politicization could contribute to
conflict between pro-livestock groups and cellular dairy advocates in BC and the other Western Milk
Pool provinces.
3.3.3 Localization
The trigger for the localization scenario consists of complementary policies that incentivize domestic
production of both cellular dairy and sugar crops. The former would be incentivized through similar
policies as in the baseline. The latter would be incentivized through direct financial benefits such as
rebates (e.g., Liang, 2015) for cellular dairy producers that source domestic sugar crops. It is important
to recognize that the term ‘localization’ is used loosely in this BC case study, as conditions for growing
sugar beets are more favourable in the neighbouring province of Alberta (Morrison, 2008). Therefore,
policies in this scenario would require inter-provincial coordination.
Direct impacts in the localization scenario would be similar to the baseline scenario in terms of
environmental and socioeconomic outcomes; however, changes would likely be much slower, as this
approach to developing the cellular dairy industry would require dramatically increasing domestic
production of beet sugar. Indirect impacts would be tightly linked with this growth in the domestic sugar
agriculture industry, and these would include economic opportunities for communities in southern
Alberta, where sugar beet growing conditions are particularly favourable (Morrison, 2008). However, it
is important to recognize that the policies in this scenario do not mandate environmentally-friendly
practices; therefore, indirect impacts would also include increased environmental pressures in Alberta
related to farming (e.g., Märländer et al., 2003) and processing (e.g., Vaccari et al., 2005) the sugar. In
addition, the scenario would result in indirect impacts to spillover systems, specifically socioeconomic
impacts to rural communities in countries that currently serve as major sources of beet sugar (e.g., United
States and Belgium), as domestic products would increase in their share of the Canadian market.
Feedback and social/institutional changes would occur through emergent supply chains that
connect BC-Alberta sugar beet trade. In addition, as the cellular dairy industry grows and becomes more
lucrative, other provinces would likely explore the potential of investing in and developing local sugar
beet agriculture industries. Manitoba in particular may become a major producer and processer of the
crop, as it previously had a sugar beet industry that declined and (more or less) disappeared when access
to American markets were restricted in the late-1990s (Morrison, 2008). The simultaneous expansion of
both sugar and cellular dairy industries in Western Canada could lead to the establishment of a new inter-
provincial body for overseeing trade and standards, and this agency could in turn interface/coordinate
with groups associated with regional dairy interests, such as the Western Milk Pool.
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
15
As with the other scenarios, opposition toward the cellular dairy industry from pro-livestock
groups would be likely, but the scenario could result in much higher domestic support from agricultural
groups due to the simultaneous growth of the sugar beet industry. The industry may also experience
opposition from concerned citizens and groups that do not approve of the domestic sugar beet
agricultural practices, as this scenario does not mandate environmentally-friendly farming. Concerns
have already been voiced by individuals and organizations that disapprove of the use genetically
modified sugar beet crops in Canada (e.g., Sharratt, 2020). Such concerns and opposition would
incentivize the parallel growth of an organic sugar and cellular dairy industry in Canada, thereby
resulting in both ‘conventional’ and eco-labelled consumer products.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
The telecoupling lens employed in this research provided a useful means for critically interrogating the
potential cellular dairy and related policies have for contributing to land sparing objectives. Agricultural
technologies that reduce land requirements per unit yield can serve as valuable land sparing strategies
(Ausubel et al., 2013), and superficially, cellular dairy presents as such a strategy due to its replacement
of dairy livestock farming. However, examining cellular dairy solely through a land sharing and sparing
framework can be problematic, as this framework is often applied with only a local or regional focus
(e.g., Law & Wilson, 2015; Phalan et al., 2011) and thus fails to account for displacement of resource
use and impacts (Fischer et al., 2014). The telecoupling framework in contrast does effectively elucidate
such displacement (e.g., Meyfroidt et al., 2010; Sun et al., 2017), and employing this analytical approach
is useful for gaining a more complete understanding of land sparing and sharing potential of different
policies. For example, the scenario exploration done here indicates that cellular dairy incentivization
policies in BC may not achieve desired ecological benefits on a global scale, if they essentially displace
environmental impacts to sugarcane producing countries (such as Brazil), regardless of the opportunities
they provide for conserving local land and/or shifting current pasture land to more ecologically diverse
land uses (e.g., permaculture, agroforestry, conservation easements, etc.).
The application of the telecoupling framework in this research differs from other studies, as
telecoupling is typically used to examine existent relationships (da Silva et al., 2019; Dou et al., 2020;
Liu et al., 2013, 2015); whereas, this work explores potential relationships and dynamics. It is difficult
to accurately predict the complex interactions that could emerge through potential telecoupled systems
(Eakin et al., 2014), and this work was not intended to be a forecasting experiment. Instead, it was an
exploratory exercise for stimulating comprehensive thinking around critical considerations for designing
and implementing cellular dairy policies. These types of exercises could be valuable for policy-makers
and analysts, as they illuminate where policies could succeed or fail in achieving certain objectives. For
example, governments may craft policies directed toward agricultural technology in a manner that aligns
with climate action objectives, such as incentives for farmers to implement biogas technology as part of
renewable energy policy (e.g., Bangalore et al., 2016). In similar vein, cellular dairy incentivization
policies can align with climate policy; however, their ability to support climate objectives could be
compromised if they (for example) contribute to deforestation in Brazil. In addition, telecoupling
analysis can provide insight on where these policies may fail due to factors outside of government
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
16
control. Once again referring to Brazil, the repeal of ZAE Cana is outside of BC jurisdiction, and it could
affect the climate mitigation effectiveness of cellular dairy policies, without eco-certification and/or
localization complements.
Another useful aspect of employing telecoupling thinking is that it illuminates critical social justice
considerations around policies that promote transitions to new technologies and products. In this
research, BC could experience environmental benefits through the reduction of livestock-related
activities and land use when transitioning to cellular dairy. Depending on the suite of policies
implemented, potential impacts would be displaced to countries experiencing growth and expansion of
sugar crop agriculture (and/or potential local displacement of other agricultural activities such as
livestock farming), and the local communities would be the recipients of these impacts. Telecoupling
analysis can also elucidate social justice considerations related to ‘just transitions’. This is a concept that
refers to the importance of recognizing communities/groups that could be economically and socially
affected by transitions to ‘greener’ technologies (McCauley & Heffron, 2018). Impacts to dairy farmers
are an obvious trade-off involved in transitions to cellular dairy industries, but perhaps less obvious are
the varying opportunities and challenges that would be experienced by sugar beet farmers in different
places around the world, depending on the policy direction taken.
Albeit useful, telecoupling as an analytical approach has limitations. Telecoupling analyses
experience the same challenges as other systems-based studies and methods, that is, challenges around
how to define the systems boundaries (Friis et al., 2016). This paper examined cellular dairy in terms of
its land sharing potential, and it focused on sugar to provide a scope of analysis; however, telecouplings
will also be associated with the other ingredients of the animal-free dairy product, such as plant-sourced
fats and minerals. In addition, a full life cycle analysis of cellular dairy would reveal other important
considerations around the environmental impacts of the industry, such GHG emissions associated with
the construction and operation of cellular dairy facilities. Such considerations have implications for
energy policy; for example, Newell et al. (2021) found that hydroponically-grown fodder can produce
benefits for climate mitigation when implemented in areas with renewable energy grids, but it was found
to be far more GHG-intensive than conventionally-grown fodder in areas with fossil fuel-based grids.
Regardless of the limitations, this paper has demonstrated how telecoupling can provide a useful
lens for examining the complex policy and governance challenges of the Anthropocene, as it provides
an avenue for understanding the local, regional, and global impacts of emergent innovations, trends,
and issues. The Anthropocene has presented critical sustainability challenges such as climate change
and biodiversity loss, which need to be addressed through coordinated global efforts, and the
telecoupling perspective can reveal whether strategies and policies implemented at local, regional, and
national scales truly address these global issues or if they simply displace impacts. In addition, as
evidenced here, telecoupling provides a useful means for brainstorming anticipated potential social,
economic, and environmental challenges with different policy directions, and each of these challenges
could be explored in-depth through further research and consultation/collaboration with groups that
may be particularly affected by the policy options. Ultimately, telecoupling can serve as a strategy for
better understanding the complexities and recognizing the uncertainties around different strategies and
policy options for addressing critical global sustainability issues and navigating the Anthropocene.
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
17
Endnotes:
1. For the purposes of this paper, the term sustainability refers to efforts around recognizing and
reconciling ecological, social, and economic imperatives (Dale, 2001).
2. The first author, Dr. Lenore Newman, is the Director of the Food and Agriculture Institute at the
University of the Fraser Valley, where she holds a Canada Research Chair in Food Security and
Environment, and the co-authors are researchers or affiliated researchers of the Institute. The Food
and Agriculture Institute conducts research on agriculture and food systems policy, and much of
this work has focused on BC case studies; thus, the authors have extensive knowledge on
agricultural policy and challenges in the province. The authors’ knowledge on global sugar trade is
not as extensive; however, this research involved conducting a literature review in this area.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was (in part) provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council through the Canada Research Chairs program.
References
Adger, W., Eakin, H., & Winkels, A. (2009). Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities to
environmental change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(3), 150-157. doi:
10.1890/070148
Agricultural Land Commission (2013) Agricultural capability classification in BC. Author.
Amer, M., Daim, T. U., & Jetter, A. (2013). A review of scenario planning. Futures, 46, 23–40. doi:
10.1016/j.futures.2012.10.003
Angus, A., & Westbrook, G. (2019). Top 10 global consumer trends 2019. Euromonitor International.
http://www.academia.edu/download/62405759/Top10GlobalTrends2019-wpGCT2019-
v0.520200318-92747-j2c1gr.pdf
Auclair, O., Han, Y., & Burgos, S. A. (2019). Consumption of milk and alternatives and their
contribution to nutrient intakes among Canadian adults: Evidence from the 2015 Canadian
Community Health Survey-Nutrition. Nutrients, 11(8), 1–17. doi: 10.3390/nu11081948
Ausubel, J., Wernick, I., & Waggoner, P. (2013). Peak farmland and the prospect for land sparing.
Population and Development Review, 38, 221-242. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4457.2013.00561.x
Aydar, E. F., Tutuncu, S., & Ozcelik, B. (2020). Plant-based milk substitutes: Bioactive compounds,
conventional and novel processes, bioavailability studies, and health effects. Journal of Functional
Foods, 70, 103975. doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2020.103975
Bangalore, M., Hochman, G., & Zilberman, D. (2016). Policy incentives and adoption of agricultural
anaerobic digestion: A survey of Europe and the United States. Renewable Energy, 97, 559–571.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2016.05.062
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
18
Barnes, A., De Soto, I., Eory, V., Beck, B., Balafoutis, A., Sánchez, B., Vangeyte, J., Fountas, S., van
der Wal, T., & Gómez-Barbero, M. (2019). Influencing factors and incentives on the intention to
adopt precision agricultural technologies within arable farming systems. Environmental Science and
Policy, 93, 66–74. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.014
BC Agriculture and Food (2019). 2018 British Columbia agriculture and food year in review.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-
seafood/statistics/industry-and-sector-profiles/year-in-review/bcagrifood_yearinreview_2018.pdf
BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food, & BC Ministry of Environment (1989). Land capability
classification for agriculture in British Columbia (ISBN 0-7719-9245-9). Author
BC Stats, 2020. Municipal and sub-provincial areas population, 2011 to 2019. Government of British
Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/data/statistics/people-population-
community/population/population-estimates
Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M. M., Bulkeley, H.,
Cashore, B., Clapp, J., Folke, C., Gupta, A., Gupta, J., Haas, P. M., Jordan, A., Kanie, N.,
Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Meadowcroft, J., Mitchell, R. B., Newell, P.,
Oberthür, S., Olsson, L., Pattberg, P., Sánchez-Rodríguez, R., Schroeder, H., Underdal, A., Vieira,
S. C., Vogel, C., Young, O. R., Brock, A., R., & Zondervan, R. (2012). Navigating the
Anthropocene: Improving earth system governance. Science, 335(6074), 1306-1307. doi:
10.1126/science.1217255
Biermann, F., Bai, X., Bondre, N., Broadgate, W., Chen, C.-T. A., Dube, O. P., Erisman, J. W.,
Glasser, M., der Hel, S., Lemos, M. C., Seitzinger, S., & Seto, K. (2016). Down to Earth:
Contextualizing the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change, 39, 341-350. doi:
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.004
Changes in Canadians’ preferences for milk and dairy products. Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 21-
004-X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/21-004-x/2017001/article/14786-eng.htm
Cheesman, O. D. (2004). Environmental impacts of sugar production. Surrey, UK: CABI Bioscience
UK Centre.
Clay, N., Sexton, A. E., Garnett, T., & Lorimer, J. (2020). Palatable disruption: the politics of plant
milk. Agriculture and Human Values, 1-18. doi: 10.1007/s10460-020-10022-y
Da Silva, R. F. B., Batistella, M., Palmieri, R., Dou, Y., & Millington, J. (2019). Eco-certification
protocols as mechanisms to foster sustainable environmental practices in telecoupled systems.
Forest Policy and Economics, 105(May), 52-63. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.05.016
De Andrade Junior, M. A., Maxwell, S. L., & Watson, J. E. (2020). Renewed threats to Brazilian
biodiversity from sugarcane. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(4), 178-180. doi:
10.1002/fee.2196
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
19
Dekhili, S., & Achabou, M. (2014). Eco-labelling brand strategy: Independent certification versus self-
declaration. European Business Review, 26(4), 305-329. doi: 10.1108/EBR-06-2013-0090
Dou, Y., da Silva, R. F. B., McCord, P., Zaehringer, J. G., Yang, H., Furumo, P. R., … Liu, J. (2020).
Understanding how smallholders integrated into pericoupled and telecoupled systems.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(4), 1–21. doi: 10.3390/su12041596
Eakin, H., DeFries, R., Kerr, S., Lambin, E. F., Liu, J., Marcotullio, P. J., & Zimmerer, K. (2014).
Significance of telecoupling for exploration of land-use change. In Seto, K. C., & Reenberg, A.
(Eds.), Rethinking Global Land Use in an Urban Era. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Egan, J., & Mortensen, D. (2012). A comparison of land-sharing and land-sparing strategies for plant
richness conservation in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Applications, 22(2), 459-471. doi:
10.1890/11-0206.1
Findlay, M. H. (2012). Supply management: Problems, politics, and possibilities. SPP Research
Papers, 5(19), 1-33.
Fischer, J., Abson, D., Butsic, V., Chappell, M., Ekroos, J., Hanspach, J., Kuemmerle, T., Smith, H.
G., & von Wehrden, H. (2014). Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward. Conservation
Letters, 7(3), 149-157. doi: 10.1111/conl.12084
Follador, M., Philippidis, G., Davis, J., & Soares-Filho, B. (2019). Assessing the impacts of the EU
bioeconomy on third countries: Potential environmental impacts in Brazil of EU biofuel demand to
2030. JRC Science for Policy Report. European Commission.
https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC117364/scienceforpolicy-follador-
final14102019.pdf
Friis, C., Nielsen, J., Otero, I., Haberl, H., Niewöhner, J., & Hostert, P. (2016). From teleconnection to
telecoupling: Taking stock of an emerging framework in land system science. Journal of Land Use
Science, 11(2), 131-153. doi: 10.1080/1747423X.2015.1096423
Fuentes, C., & Fuentes, M. (2017). Making a market for alternatives: marketing devices and the
qualification of a vegan milk substitute. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(7-8), 529-555. doi:
10.1080/0267257X.2017.1328456
Gasparri, N., Kuemmerle, T., Meyfroidt, P., le Polain de Waroux, Y., & Kreft, H. (2016). The
emerging soybean production frontier in Southern Africa: Conservation challenges and the role of
south-south telecouplings. Conservation Letters, 9(1), 21-31. doi: 10.1111/conl.12173
Government of Canada (2020). Skim milk powder and milk protein concentrate export thresholds.
Serial No. 993. https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/controls-controles/notices-
avis/993.aspx?lang=eng
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
20
Granco, G., Caldas, M., Bergtold, J., & Sant’Anna, A. (2017). Exploring the policy and social factors
fueling the expansion and shift of sugarcane production in the Brazilian Cerrado. GeoJournal,
82(1), 63-80. doi: 10.1007/s10708-015-9666-y
Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P., & Balmford, A. (2005). Farming and the fate of wild
nature. Science, 307(5709) 550–556. doi: 10.1126/science.1106049
Heisey, P. W., & Fuglie, K. O. (2018). Agricultural research investment and policy reform in high-
income countries. ERR-249. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/89114/err-249.pdf?v=43244
Heminthavong, K. (2015). Canada’s supply management system. Publication No. 2015-138-E.
Economics, Resources and International Affairs Division.
https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/InBriefs/PDF/2015-138-
e.pdf
Hofmeister, N. (2019, November). In surprise move, Brazil has removed restrictions on Amazon
sugarcane production. Mongabay. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/11/in-a-surprise-move-even-
to-the-sugarcane-industry-president-bolsonaro-has-removed-restrictions-on-sugarcane-production-
in-the-brazilian-amazon-experts-expect-land-speculators-to-benefit/
Jönsson, E. (2016). Benevolent technotopias and hitherto unimaginable meats: Tracing the promises of
in vitro meat. Social Studies of Science, 46(5), 725-748. doi: 10.1177/0306312716658561
Larue, B., & Lambert, R. (2012). A primer on the economics of supply management and food supply
chains. Working Paper No. 2012‐9. Réseau SPAA Network. https://www.spaa-
network.fsaa.ulaval.ca/fileadmin/centre_recherche/SM_report__5_2012c_01.pdf
Laurent, B., & Mallard, A. (2020). Introduction labels in economic and political life: Studying
labelling in contemporary markets. In Laurent, B., & Mallard, A. (Eds.), Labelling the Economy:
Qualities and Values in Contemporary Markets. Labelling the Economy. Singapore: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Law, E., & Wilson, K. (2015, 11 1). Providing Context for the Land-Sharing and Land-Sparing
Debate. Conservation Letters, 8(6), 404-413. doi: 10.1111/conl.12168
Lee, A. (2019). The milkmaid’s tale: Veganism, feminism and dystopian food futures. Windsor Review
of Legal and Social Issues, 40, 27–66.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wrlsi40&div=4
Liang, C. (2015). What policy options seem to make the most sense for local food? Choices: The
Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues, 30(1), 1-5.
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/pdf/cmsarticle_414.pdf
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
21
Liu, J., Hull, V., Batistella, M., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Fu, F., Hertel, T. W., Izaurralde, R. C., Lambin,
E. F., Li, S., Martinelli, L. A., McConnell, W. J., Moran, E. F., Naylor, R., Ouyang, Z., Polenske,
K. R., Reenberg, A., de Miranda Rocha, G., Simmons, C. S., Verburg, P. H., Vitousek, P. M.,
Zhang, F., & Zhu, C. (2013). Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecology and Society,
18(2), 26. doi: 10.5751/ES-05873-180226
Liu, J., Hull, V., Luo, J., Yang, W., Liu, W., Viña, A., Vogt, C., Xu, Z., Yang, H., Zhang, J., An, L.,
Chen, X., Li, S., Ouyang, Z., Xu, W., & Zhang, H. (2015). Multiple telecouplings and their
complex interrelationships. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 44. doi: 10.5751/ES-07868-200344
Loarie, S. R., Lobell, D. B., Asner, G. P., Mu, Q., & Field, C. B. (2011). Direct impacts on local
climate of sugar-cane expansion in Brazil. Nature Climate Change, 1(2), 105–109. doi:
10.1038/nclimate1067
Märländer, B., Hoffmann, C., Koch, H. J., Ladewig, E., Merkes, R., Petersen, J., & Stockfisch, N.
(2003). Environmental situation and yield performance of the sugar beet crop in Germany: Heading
for sustainable development. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 189(4), 201–226. doi:
10.1046/j.1439-037X.2003.00035.x
Mattick, C. S. (2018). Cellular agriculture: The coming revolution in food production. Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, 74(1), 32–35. doi: 10.1080/00963402.2017.1413059
McCauley, D., & Heffron, R. (2018). Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental
justice. Energy Policy, 119, 1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.014
McGregor, A., & Houston, D. (2018). Cattle in the Anthropocene: Four propositions. Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers, 43(1), 3-16. doi: 10.1111/tran.12193
McKay, B., Sauer, S., Richardson, B., & Herre, R. (2016). The political economy of sugarcane flexing:
initial insights from Brazil, Southern Africa and Cambodia. Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(1), 195–
223. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2014.992016
Meyfroidt, P., Rudel, T. K., & Lambin, E. F. (2010). Forest transitions, trade, and the global
displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(49), 20917-20922.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014773107
Morrison, S. (2008). That beet is sweet! Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 96-325-X.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/96-325-x/2007000/article/10576-eng.pdf
Mouat, M. J., & Prince, R. (2018). Cultured meat and cowless milk: On making markets for animal-
free food. Journal of Cultural Economy, 11(4), 315–329. doi: 10.1080/17530350.2018.1452277
Mussell, A. (2017). Recasting a robust vision for supply management: Policy concepts paper. Agri-
Food Economic Systems.
http://www.agrifoodecon.ca/uploads/userfiles/files/recasting%20a%20robust%20vision%20of%20s
m%20may-17.pdf
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
22
Newman, L., Powell, L. J., Nickel, J., Anderson, D., Jovanovic, L., Mendez, E., Mitchell, B., & Kelly-
Freiberg, K. (2017). Farm Stores in agriburbia: The roles of agricultural retail on the rural-urban
fringe. Canadian Food Studies / La revue Canadienne des études sur l’alimentation, 4(1), 4. doi:
10.15353/cfs-rcea.v4i1.211
Newman, L. (2020). The Promise and peril of “cultured meat”. In Katz-Rosene, R. M., & Martin, S. J.
(Eds.). Green Meat?: Sustaining Eaters Animals and the Planet, 169-184. Montreal, Canada:
McGill-Queen's University Press.
Newell, R., Newman, L., Dickson, M., Vanderkooi, B., Fernback, T., & White, C. (2021) Hydroponic
fodder and greenhouse gas emissions: A potential avenue for climate mitigation strategy and policy
development. FACETS, 6(1), 334-357. doi: 10.1139/facets-2020-0066Nguyen, T. T. H., Doreau,
M., Corson, M., Eugène, M., Delaby, L., Chesneau, G., Gallard, Y. & van der Werf, H. M. G.
(2013). Effect of dairy production system, breed and co-product handling methods on
environmental impacts at farm level. Journal of Environmental Management, 120, 127-137. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.028
Pandya, R. (2014). Milk without the moo. New Scientist, 222(2975), 28–29. doi: 10.1016/S0262-
4079(14)61260-4
Pandya, R. (2019) Toward a diversified protein future. In Food Innovations: Innovative Foods and
Ingredients. Institute on Science for Global Policy. http://scienceforglobalpolicy.org/wp-
content/uploads/5ecef6c715c9e-Innovative%20Foods%20and%20Ingredients.pdf
Pandya, R., Gandhi, P., Ji, S., Beauchamp, D., & Hom, L. (2017). Compostitions comprising a casein
and methods of producing the same. United States Patent Application Publication. Publication No.
US 2017/0164.632 A1.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/33/96/93/52cb1ef04e7a14/US20170164632A1.pdf
Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., & Green, R. (2011). Reconciling food production and biodiversity
conservation: Land sharing and land sparing compared. Science, 333(6047), 1289-1291. doi:
10.1126/science.1208742
Renouf, M. A., Wegener, M. K., & Nielsen, L. K. (2008). An environmental life cycle assessment
comparing Australian sugarcane with US corn and UK sugar beet as producers of sugars for
fermentation. Biomass and Bioenergy, 32(12), 1144–1155. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.02.012
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Stuart Chapin III, F., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M.,
Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw,
S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L.,
Corell, R. W., Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., &
Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472-475.
doi:10.1038/461472a
PREPRINT
Newman, L., Newell, R., Mendly-Zambo, Z., & Powell, L. (2021). Bioengineering, telecoupling, and alternative dairy:
Agricultural land use futures in the Anthropocene. The Geographical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12392
23
Šarauskis, E., Romaneckas, K., Kumhála, F., & Kriaučiūnienė, Z. (2018). Energy use and carbon
emission of conventional and organic sugar beet farming. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 428-
438. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.077
Sharratt, L. (2020, April). CBAN’s new public education tool to support the organic solution. Why
Your Food Choices Matter. https://bcorganicgrower.ca/2020/04/why-your-food-choices-matter/
St. Pierre, M. (2017). Changes in Canadians’ preferences for milk and dairy products. Statistics
Canada, Catalogue No. 21-004-X. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/21-004-
x/2017001/article/14786-eng.htm
Statistics Canada (2019a). Imports - Sugars and sugar confectionery. Trade commodity: 170114.
Statistics Canada, Canadian International Merchandise Trade Database, Table No. 990-0017
Statistics Canada (2019b). Imports - Sugars and sugar confectionery. Trade commodity: 170112.
Statistics Canada, Canadian International Merchandise Trade Database, Table No. 990-0017
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R.,
Carpenter, S. R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M.,
Persson, L M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding
human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. doi:
10.1126/science.1259855
Stephens, N., Di Silvio, L., Dunsford, I., Ellis, M., Glencross, A., & Sexton, A. (2018). Bringing
cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular
agriculture. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 78, 155–166. doi:
10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010
Sun, J., Tong, Y., & Liu, J. (2017). Telecoupled land-use changes in distant countries. Journal of
Integrative Agriculture, 16(2), 368-376. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61528-9
Tzilivakis, J., Jaggard, K., Lewis, K. A., May, M., & Warner, D. J. (2005). Environmental impact and
economic assessment for UK sugar beet production systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment, 107(4), 341–358. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2004.12.016
Vaccari, G., Tamburini, E., Sgualdino, G., Urbaniec, K., & Klemeš, J. (2005). Overview of the
environmental problems in beet sugar processing: Possible solutions. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 13, 499-507. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.09.008
Vásquez-León, M. (2010). Free markets and fair trade, collective livelihood struggles, and the
cooperative model: Two case studies from Paraguay. Latin American Perspectives, 37(6), 53–73.
doi: 10.1177/0094582X10382099
Viju, C., & Kerr, W. (2011). Agriculture in the Canada-EU economic and trade agreement.
International Journal, 66(3), 677-694. doi: 10.1177/002070201106600310
