Chapter 2

The International Dimensions of Development Project

The Post-War (the period after the Second World War, after 1945) saw several international
development projects. The overall aim of these projects the reconstruction and transformation of
the world economy that was affected by the war. The Marshall Plan, for example, was the first
post-war success story in international development cooperation: it assisted in the socioeconomic
transformation of countries of Western Europe.
The Marshall Plan (known officially as the European Recovery Program) was a United States
initiative designed to assist countries in Western Europe in their post-war reconstruction efforts.
The Plan is considered to be an example of successful development cooperation through which
international aid assisted in the socioeconomic transformation of countries in line with their own
development strategy.

Among many international dimensions of development programs, the Food for Aid Program
(FAP), the Green Revolution (GR) and the Alliance for Progress (AFP) are some projects
concerned with agricultural development program. From the Marshall Plan through the Third
World Green Revolution, the US encouraged international agribusiness program with export
credits and counterpart funds designed to universalise the American farming and dietary models.

The Concept of ‘Food Régime’ or ‘Food Order’

The concept of food régimes (orders) draws on regulation theory by recognition of three similar
historical periods in international agricultural development (i.e. pre-World War I; from the
1940s to the 1970s; and from the 1980s to the present), each régime being characterised by
particular farm products, food trade structures linking production with consumption, and
regulations governing capitalist accumulation.
Features of Food Regimes
According to Friedmann (1982, 1987) and McMichael (1992, 1994), the main features of the
food régimes concept include:
 A reading of the recent history of agriculture that privileges relations between a
system of independent, liberal nation states in explaining the trajectory of
 economic change.
 The development of the industrialization of agriculture to permit the sustained
international expansion of capitalist agricultural accumulation.
 The changing relationship between capital formations and regulatory modes, both
national and international, to determine the speed and characteristics of the
globalizing tendencies of agri-food capital.
 The integration of the farm sector into external economic processes of food
production (i.e. circuits of capital based on new agri-technologies in chemicals,
machinery, animal feed and food processing).
  The role of the state in mediating the circulation of capital, cultural norms and
environmental values so as to influence the development of agriculture.
Food First(pre-World War II) Second(1950s-1970s) Tradition to Third (1980s-1990s)
Regime
Principal Culmination of colonialism Extension of state system to former Contradictions between productive
Tendencies Rise of nation-state system colonies forces and consumption trends,
Transnational restructuring of Disintegration of national agro-food
agricultural sectors by agro-food capitals capitals
Governing Acceptability of alien rule Respect for free international markets Multi-polarity of power(eg. US, EC,
Premises Propriety of accumulation domain and free enterprise Japan), Global transmission of
Importance of balancing power National observation of adjustment adjustments, Rise of new
Legitimacy of neo-mercantilism imposed by international markets protectionism,Retreat from distributional
Non-interference in others’ Qualified acceptance of extra market issues, Restricted flow of technological
colonial administration channels of food distribution information, Renewed interest in
Avoidance of starvation national self-reliance
Free flow of scientific and crop
information
Low priority for national self-reliance
National soveriegnity
Low concern about chronic hunger
Main Centered on European imports of Based on strong state protection and Crises in world agricultural trade,
Historical wheat and meat from settler states organization of world food economy featuring price instability, breakdown in
Features bewtween 1910 and 1914 and under US hegemony after 1945 multilateral agreements, increased
imports by settler states of competition in export markets and
European manufactured goods, limited imposition of structural
labour and capital adjustment policies.
Main Imperial preference, with vertical Bretton Woods Agreement, GATT, Attempts to resolve world agricultural
Internation hierarchical relations Post-war reonstruction programs, trade issues through GATT framework
al Policy multilateralism
Nondiscrimination and legal approach to
regulation
Commodity agreements and convections
US management of international
agricultural trade system via agenda
setting in international negotiations
Main Assistance for land settlement and Cheap food policies, Credit expansion, Opposing trends of further protection
National infrastructure Production control mechanisms, Market and deregulation of agricultural sector
Policy creation via concessionary export sales
Features: and food aid

Thus, for Aglietta (1979), the concept of food régimes ‘links international relations of food
production and consumption to forms of accumulation in broadly distinguishing periods of
capitalist transformation since 1870’; while,
For Friedmann (1993, 300), it is a ‘rule-governed structure of production and
consumption of food on a world scale’.
Le Heron (1993, 73) has elaborated on these rather abstract notions using the more
concrete constructs of principle tendencies, governing premises, main historical features,
main international policy features and main national policy features(See the following table) .
The Characteristics of the Three Food Regimes (Le Heron, 1993)
 2.1 The Postwar Food Order
The first food régime(Pre1914) was based on an extensive form of capitalist production
relations under which agricultural exports from white ‘settler’ countries, in Africa, South
America and Australasia, supplied unprocessed and semi-processed foods and materials to
metropolitan states in North America and Western Europe.
The régime was geared to industrial capitalism so that European imports of wheat and
meat (‘wage-foods’) were exchanged for exported European manufactured goods,
labour and capital.

The Second Food Régime (1947-1970s), i.e The Postwar Food Regime (Order)
The second food régime is a period characterised by an intensive form of capitalist
production relations and involving the modernisation and industrialisation of farming.
This account of the régime incorporates the following key processes:
• The restructuring of agricultural sectors by agro-food capitals to supply mass markets.
• The development of durable food and intensive meat commodity complexes.
• Extension of the state system to former colonies (decolonization).
• Organization of the world economy under U.S. geopolitical hegemony.
• Strong state protection for agriculture.
Starting with agri-food capitals, they are implicated in the restructuring of agriculture
within the metropolitan states. Agri-inputs (chemicals and farm machinery) and
food processing capitals instigated an ‘industrialization’ of agriculture.

Capital replaced land and labour as the primary factor of production and almost all food
reaching the consumer became subjected to some form of ‘value added’ processing. The
results for the farm sector included a rapid increase in average farm size, rural depopulation
and fewer people employed on the land.
Friedmann and McMichael (1989, 103) observe that such restructuring blurred the
distinction between sectors in national economies as large industrial capitals began to
dominate both ends of the agri-food chain and farm products became inputs to
manufactured foods rather than as final use.
Agri-industrial capitals were also implicated in the growing incorporation of former colonies
into the global agri-food system.
Turning to ‘commodity complexes’, the following account follows Friedmann (1994) in
recognising the development of wheat, durable foods and livestock complexes.
The wheat complex drew its strength from national regulation, such as the farm price support
programmes of America and the E.U., with surpluses disposed of by food aid programmes and
commercial trading. Newly independent states either received U.S. wheat in the form of
foreign aid or purchased wheat imports at the expense of domestically grown grains. For
example, the share of world wheat imports by developing countries grew from 19 per cent in
the late 1950s to 66 per cent in the late 1960s (Friedmann 1994).
The livestock complex expanded greatly after World War II as income growth allowed
northern consumers to eat meat and dairy products. Production intensified on pig, poultry and
beef feed lot farms, a trend facilitated by the international trade in cheap U.S. maize and
soy-based feedstuffs. European agricultural protection against wheat imports, under the
C.A.P., was accepted by the United States in return for the exclusion of soybeans and soy meal
from import duties; this facilitated U.S. exports of animal feed to the E.U. through the
operations of North American grain corporations, such as Continental and Cargill.
The durable food complex increased in step with the rising proportion of processed and
manufactured ingredients in the diets of consumers in northern countries; indeed the
mass consumption and mass production of standardised products underpinned the complex in
the 1950s and 1960s. Under agro-industrialization, farm producers were faced by increasingly
oligopolistic relations with corporate buyers rather than local markets.
These economic developments in food production and consumption were interrelated with
global political developments, particularly the extension of the state system to former
colonies (decolonization) and the organization of the world economy under U.S.
geopolitical hegemony. For example, decolonization broke up the colonial trading blocs and
enabled the new states to import food, including food aid, to facilitate their industrialization.
This development led to the displacement of traditional foods and the borrowing of
capital to finance food imports, with consequences for the growing foreign debt burden
of most developing countries.
At the time, the U.S.A. was searching for new markets for its surplus wheat, including the
use of grain exports/food aid to politically stabilize state systems in former colonial
dependencies. Thus the spread of the state system diffused a dependence on wheat exports
from the United States, although European states protected their agricultures against this
development.
As regards state intervention, the second food régime developed under two international
agreements:
A) The 1945 Bretton Woods Agreement governing the stability of exchange rates
between national currencies (based on the dollar/gold standard); and
B) The 1947 G.A.T.T. rules on international trade.
The former underpinned the international diffusion of the national model of economic
growth; the latter excluded agriculture from more liberal trading practices and instead
facilitated the further development of national systems of state protection for
agriculture.
In the metropolitan states, such protection had its origins in the economic depression of the
1930s and the food production exigencies of the Second World War. National import controls
and export subsidies first fostered and then regulated the international disposal of food
surpluses from developed countries, initially to the advantage of U.S. economic hegemony
through the export of grain and other commodities.
The states of the E.U. were subsequently drawn into subsidised food exports as their own
surpluses began to emerge in the 1970s. The rapid expansion of agribusiness corporations
during the second food régime facilitated these developments in food trade, as supported
by state protection and the subsidy of national agricultures.

The Third Food Régime (1980s-present): The crisis of capitalist accumulation that ended the
second food régime can be traced to the oil and food crises of the early 1970s (Friedmann
1994), comprising global recession, the collapse of Bretton Woods, soaring grain prices, the
excessive costs of national farm support programmes, and the antagonism between the
national regulation of agriculture and the growing commercial power of globally organized
corporations. Goodman and Redclift (1989), Goodman (1991) and Friedmann (1994) account
for the ending of the second food régime in these terms:
 The E.U. began to take on the status of an equivalent power bloc to the U.S.,
resulting in a decline in the geopolitical hegemony of America.
 Agricultural export competition under subsidies between the U.S. and the E.U.
threatened a trade war.
 As traditional patterns of trade with developing countries were disrupted, a crisis point
was reached in 1973 with U.S.- U.S.S.R. grain deals eliminating the American
wheat surplus from the international market.
 The increasing commercial power of agro-food corporations amplified the tension
between nationally organized economies and transnational capital.
 The contradictions of institutionalised food surpluses, especially the economic cost of
farm subsidies, emerged in the early 1980s to underpin the political desire amongst
states to wind down state support for agriculture.
The final form of the third food régime, which has been emerging from the international
farm crisis of the 1970s, is still far from certain but a number of often contradictory
structures and processes have been identified. Le Heron (1993) usefully summarises such
transitional features under five headings:
1) Increased global trading of food;
2) Consolidation of capital in food manufacturing;
3) New biotechnology;
4) Consumer fragmentation and dietary change; and
5) Declining farm subsidies (deregulation).
 2.2 Food dependency and the green revolution
A) Food Dependency
Dependency can be defined as an explanation of the economic development of a state in terms of
the external influences--political, economic, and cultural--on national development policies
(Osvaldo Sunkel, 1969, p. 23).
Theotonio Dos Santos emphasizes the historical dimension of the dependency relationships in his
definition:
[Dependency is]...an historical condition which shapes a certain structure of the
world economy such that it favors some countries to the detriment of others and
limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economics...a situation in
which the economy of a certain group of countries is conditioned by the development
and expansion of another economy, to which their own is subjected. (Theotonio Dos
Santos, 1971, p. 226)

The Concept of Food Dependency can be defined based on the above definitions given to
economic dependency of certain group of countries. Food Dependency refers to reliance of a
country or countries in food for national consumption on other dominant countries. This food
dependency is a situation in which the food production and national food supply of a certain
group of countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another food production.

Certain groups of countries mainly depend on food produced elsewhere in more developed
countries. They import food commodities either in the form of trade or food aid.

Import dependency grew most among the world’s poorest regions, particularly the 48 Least
Developed Countries (LDCs) and the 70 Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDC). 35
LIFDCs have a very high cereal import dependency, relying on imports for more than 30 per
cent of their cereal consumption.

In more than 20 LIFDCs, the import/consumption ratio even surpasses 50 per cent, like, for
instance, in Congo, Mauritania, Liberia, Somalia, Ivory Coast, Yemen, Georgia, Iraq, Papua
New Guinea, Haiti and Honduras.

Development of Food dependency

It might be helpful to recall briefly how this situation has developed over the last three decades.
While food production per capita in Latin America especially by the large producers and in
some Asian countries like India, Thailand or Vietnam went up considerably, it dropped in most
African countries.

One of the reasons for this is the so-called Green Revolution with its technology package of
 new high yielding varieties of maize, wheat and rice,
 irrigation facilities and agrochemicals that occurred mainly in Asia and Latin America.
In countries like India, this was supported by
 • extension services,
• input subsidies,
• guaranteed prices for farmers and
• import restrictions for food imports.
At the same time the farmers in Europe and the US, pampered by subsidies and other kinds of
State support like guaranteed prices, increased production too. These improvements in
agricultural production were accompanied by a trade regime of progressive liberalisation, the
Agreement on Agriculture implemented under the supervision of the World Trade Organisation
WTO. Too, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the dumping of European food
products on world markets contributed to this development, exacerbating food insecurity in
many parts of the world.

In the following years, huge surpluses, often made even more competitive by further subsidies,
flooded the world markets (“dumping”), presented as a contribution to global food security.
Global trade in cereals is highly concentrated in a handful of a few countries and companies. The
EU has been one of the leading powers in agricultural trade, but now is desperately struggling to
maintain its position in the face of strong competition from other countries, for example Brazil in
chicken exports to Africa.

Food imports on the other hand became more attractive for many governments to feed growing
urban populations than investments into agriculture except for cash crop cultivation for exports.
This policy (food importing) was supported by many influential development institutions like the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and structural adjustment programmes.
Consequently, this has eliminated government support for agriculture and poor farmers. This
brought about ever higher import dependency:
 Neglect of domestic food production,
 changing dietary patters favouring the consumption of wheat derived products
(at the expense of locally grown crops like cassava, sorghum or millet), and
 forcing local farmers out of the market,
(because they could not compete with the subsidised imports).

Since the 1980s, many countries turned from net agricultural exporters to importers. Today, two
thirds of the developing countries suffer from
 trade deficits and
 growing expenses for cereals, dairy products and vegetable oils.
Due to stagnating demand and declining prices for coffee, cocoa, tea or bananas, the equation of
paying for food imports with exports of cash crops became more and more negative. Internally
too, the neglect of agriculture and the competition by cheap imports marginalized peasant
agriculture and cemented food insecurity for millions of family farmers, who became net food
buyers.
 B) Green Revolution
1. Concepts of Green Revolution
Throughout history there have been many revolutions that have occurred and changed human
lives, such as the American Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. In the mid- and late-20th
century a revolution occurred that dramatically changed the field of agriculture, and this
revolution was known as the Green Revolution.

Precisely, Green revolution refers to the introduction of High yielding variety (HYV) of seeds
and increased use of fertilizer and irrigation methods. It took place during the 1960s especially
1965 onwards.

The term Green Revolution can also simply refers to the renovation of agricultural practices
beginning in Mexico in the 1940s. Because of its success in producing more agricultural
products there, Green Revolution technologies spread worldwide in the 1950s and 1960s,
significantly increasing the amount of calories produced per acre of agriculture.

How did the Green Revolution start?

Intensive plan of the 1960s to increase crop yields in developing countries by introducing higher-
yielding strains of plants and new fertilizers. The scheme began in Mexico in the 1940s, and was
successfully introduced in parts of India, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America.
Who started green revolution in world?
The "father" of the Green Revolution is considered to be Norman Borlaug, an American
agricultural scientist who in 1970 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for breeding higher-
yielding varieties of wheat at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico.

2. The Theoretical Framework of Green Revolution

The Green Revolution was the notable increase in cereal-grains production in

Mexico, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and other developing countries in the 1960s and 1970s.
This trend resulted from the introduction of hybrid strains of wheat, rice, and corn (maize) and
the adoption of modern agricultural technologies, including irrigation and heavy doses of
chemical fertilizer. The Green Revolution was launched by research establishments in Mexico
and the Philippines that were funded by the governments of those nations, international donor
organizations, and the U.S. government. Similar work is still being carried out by a network of
institutes around the world.

The Green Revolution was a period when the productivity of global agriculture increased

drastically as a result of new advances. During this time period, new chemical fertilizers and
synthetic herbicides and pesticides were created. The chemical fertilizers made it possible to
supply crops with extra nutrients and, therefore, increase yield. The newly developed synthetic
herbicides and pesticides controlled weeds, deterred or kill insects, and prevented diseases,
which also resulted in higher productivity.
In addition to the chemical advances utilized during this time period, high-yield crops were also
developed and introduced. High-yield crops are crops that are specifically designed to produce
more overall yield. A method known as multiple cropping was also implemented during the
Green Revolution and lead to higher productivity. Multiple cropping is when a field is used to
grow two or more crops throughout the year, so that the field constantly has something growing
on it. These new farming techniques and advances in agricultural technology were utilized by
farmers all over the world, and when combined, intensified the results of the Green Revolution.

3. History and Development of the Green Revolution

The beginnings of the Green Revolution are often attributed to Norman Borlaug, an American
scientist interested in agriculture. In the 1940s, he began conducting research in Mexico and
developed new disease resistance high-yield varieties of wheat. By combining Borlaug's wheat
varieties with new mechanized agricultural technologies, Mexico was able to produce more
wheat than was needed by its own citizens, leading to its becoming an exporter of wheat by the
1960s. Prior to the use of these varieties, the country was importing almost half of its wheat
supply.

Due to the success of the Green Revolution in Mexico, its technologies spread worldwide in the
1950s and 1960s. The United States for instance, imported about half of its wheat in the 1940s
but after using Green Revolution technologies, it became self-sufficient in the 1950s and became
an exporter by the 1960s.

In order to continue using Green Revolution technologies to produce more food for agrowing
population worldwide, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation, as well as many
government agencies around the world funded increased research. In 1963 with the help of this
funding, Mexico formed an international research institution called The International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center.

Countries all over the world in turn benefited from the Green Revolution work conducted by
Borlaug and this research institution. India for example was on the brink of mass famine in the
early 1960s because of its rapidly growing population. Borlaug and the Ford Foundation then
implemented research there and they developed a new variety of rice that produced more grain
per plant when grown with irrigation and fertilizers. Today, India is one of the world's leading
rice producers and IR8 rice usage spread throughout Asia in the decades following the rice's
development in India.

4. Benefits of the Green Revolution

As a result of the Green Revolution and the introduction of chemical fertilizers, synthetic
herbicides and pesticides, high-yield crops, and the method of multiple cropping, the agricultural
industry was able to produce much larger quantities of food. This increase in productivity made
it possible to feed the growing human population.
One person who is famous for his involvement in the Green Revolution is the scientist Norman
Borlaug. In the 1940s, Norman Borlaug developed a strain of wheat that could resist diseases,
was short, which reduced damage by wind, and could produce large seed heads and high yields.
He introduced this variety of wheat in Mexico and within twenty years the production of wheat
had tripled. This allowed for the production of more food for people in Mexico and also made it
possible for Mexico to export their wheat and sell it in other countries. Norman Borlaug helped
introduce this high-yield variety of wheat to other countries in need of increased food
production, and he eventually won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work with developing high-yield
crops and for helping prevent starvation in many developing countries.
In addition to producing larger quantities of food, the Green Revolution was also beneficial
because it made it possible to grow more crops on roughly the same amount of land with a
similar amount of effort. This reduced production costs and also resulted in cheaper prices for
food in the market.
The ability to grow more food on the same amount of land was also beneficial to the
environment because it meant that less forest or natural land needed to be converted to farmland
to produce more food. This is demonstrated by the fact that from 1961 to 2008, as the human
population increased by 100% and the production of food rose by 150%, the amount of forests
and natural land converted to farm only increased by 10%. The natural land that is currently not
needed for agricultural land is safe for the time being, and can be utilized by animals and plants
for their natural habitat.

5. Impacts of the Green Revolution

Since fertilizers are largely what made the Green Revolution possible, they forever changed
agricultural practices because the high yield varieties developed during this time cannot grow
successfully without the help of fertilizers.

Irrigation also played a large role in the Green Revolution and this forever changed the areas
where various crops can be grown. For instance before the Green Revolution, agriculture was
severely limited to areas with a significant amount of rainfall, but by using irrigation, water can
be stored and sent to drier areas, putting more land into agricultural production - thus increasing
nationwide crop yields.

In addition, the development of high yield varieties meant that only a few species of say, rice
started being grown. In India for example there were about 30,000 rice varieties prior to the
Green Revolution, today there are around ten - all the most productive types. By having this
increased crop homogeneity though the types were more prone to disease and pests because there
were not enough varieties to fight them off. In order to protect these few varieties then, pesticide
use grew as well.

Finally, the use of Green Revolution technologies exponentially increased the amount of food
production worldwide. Places like India and China that once feared famine have not experienced
it since implementing the use of IR8 rice and other food varieties.

6. Criticism of the Green Revolution

Along with the benefits gained from the Green Revolution, there have been several criticisms.
The first is that the increased amount of food production has led to overpopulation worldwide.

The second major criticism is that places like Africa have not significantly benefited from the
Green Revolution. The major problems surrounding the use of these technologies here though
are a lack of infrastructure, governmental corruption, and insecurity in nations.

Despite these criticisms though, the Green Revolution has forever changed the way agriculture is
conducted worldwide, benefiting the people of many nations in need of increased food
production.

The advantages of green revolution were that it helped in increasing the production of the crops.
Because of greens revolution there was a remarkable increase in crops especially wheat (in states
of Punjab and Haryana) and rice (in UP and Punjab). It ensured surplus wheat for the farmers.

7. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Green Revolution

Today, a lot of farmers are practicing modern farming methods under the Green Revolution,
which is an alternative solution pushed by the government to replace traditional ways to grow
crops. Its main objectives include making cultivation and harvesting more efficient, as well as
eliminating hunger all over the world. But due to its methods, this technology has become a
subject of heated debates on whether it can really do good than bad for the society. To come up
with a well-informed answer to this, it is best to look at its main advantages and disadvantages.

7.1 Advantages of Green Revolution

1. It allows agricultural operations on a large scale.

The Green Revolution has brought farming to a massive scale. Looking at the previous
agricultural sector, crops that were grown in huge volumes are only those that required extensive
human intervention to grow healthy, which means that it was not that easy. But now, we have
made things easier, where most crops are being grown on an industrial scale even by the smaller
farming community.

2. It has the potential to be able to grow any crop anywhere.

This innovative farming process has made it possible for agriculture to be done almost
everywhere. Though you still cannot grow potatoes on a beach, you will be able to utilize most
types of terrain or land to grow crops with it. This means that farmers do not have to be at the
most fertile lands to be able to do their thing, as the Green Revolution has made it possible for
agriculture to be more doable everywhere.

3. It eliminates the need to fallow lands.

This agricultural method has allowed farmers to re-plant similar crops without fallowing their
lands, which is known to be a costly process. Though there are some crops on which soil still
needing to be fallowed, the Green Revolution has certainly made farming cost-efficient.

7.2 Disadvantages of Green Revolution

1. It can cause pests and weeds to develop hazards.

This modern method of farming is believed to cause the emergence of poisonous weeds and
pests that are difficult to control. Aside from this, there is also the concern of cross pollination
between genetically modified organisms and traditional plants that could result in invasive
species.
2. It employs mono-culturing

One of the biggest arguments against this modern technology is that it uses mono-culturing. This
practice is known to require large tracts of land, which are not often available, intensive amounts
of fertilizers and large volumes of water, bring about difficulties to farmers.

3. It would have difficulties with varied soil type by location.

As the Green Revolution does not take into consideration the type of soil for farming, only
considering the area and doing what it needs for crop cultivation, it does not do anything to
ensure soil fertility is replenished or retained.
Chapter 3
What are Food Systems?
Food systems are social–ecological systems, formed of biophysical and social
factors linked through feedback mechanisms (Berkes et al., 2003; Ericksen,
2008b). They comprise, at a minimum, the activities involved in food
production, processing and packaging, distribution and retail, and
consumption (Ericksen, 2008a). These activities encompass social,
economic, political, institutional and environmental processes and
dimensions, referred to as scales.
A food system is defined as a system that embraces all the elements (environment, people,
inputs, processes, infrastructure, institutions, markets and trade) and activities that relate to the
production, processing, distribution and marketing, preparation and consumption of food and the
outputs of these activities, including socio-economic and environmental outcomes.
What are Food system approaches? Food system approaches are
increasingly seen as a way to improve food systems' outcomes and
sustainability, in order to deal with competing priorities, and address the
complex relationships that exist between components of food systems
(Ericksen et al., 2010; Ingram et al., 2010; Garnett et al., 2013).
Levels of the Food System

Food systems function at the individual, household, local, regional, national, and global levels
(See Figure below). The levels, or scales, in this hierarchy are often operational at the same time,
and they interact. For example, consider coffee. More than half of American adults (individuals)
choose to begin their day with a cup of coffee. Some coffee drinkers prefer free-trade organic
coffee and they are willing and able to pay more for it. They might buy coffee at a local café
which buys its beans from a regional distributor. That distributor may in turn buy from regional
grower cooperatives in Latin America and Africa. For other coffee drinkers, their household
budget might limit spending on coffee, so they buy inexpensive national brands of coffee at a
supermarket owned by a global corporation. Those brands contain beans purchased as a
commodity traded on the international market. Decisions made about a morning ‘cup of Joe’
have the potential to affect one’s individual condition, a household budget, the revenues of local,
regional and national companies selling coffee, and the livelihoods of coffee producers and their
communities on different continents. The same is true for most everything we eat and drink.

The food system has a hierarchy of levels, or scales, and each reflects and responds to social,
cultural, political, economic, health and environmental conditions, whether in a household
kitchen or through a nation’s food policies.
Iv
d
h
s
u
H
c
L
g
e
R
in
t
N
a
b
lo
G Levels of the food system
Individual food systems. This level of the food system is focused on personal decisions about
food, which include how to acquire, prepare, serve, give away, eat, store and clean it. These
decisions and resulting behaviors are influenced by many factors including life experience;
cultural and social factors; and the need to balance different values such as affordability and
quality. The decisions a person makes about food can differ depending on the situation, and they
can change over time. For example, people often follow a different diet when they eat out
compared to cooking at home, and few people eat the same way they did as a teenager once they
reach middle-age.

There are many ways to categorize people’s eating habits and interactions with the food system.
For example, some people consider themselves to be vegetarians, and some say they are vegans.
Household food systems. Most households are groups of people, often related, that live together
and function as a unit. In terms of food, they may eat together, share a household food budget,
and affect one another’s eating behaviors, especially through parental influence on children. The
household food system can be described by a variety of measures. For example, about 15% of
U.S. households are food insecure some time during the year, and nearly 6% percent have very
low food security, meaning that their food intake is disrupted at times because they lack money
or other resources for food. Twenty percent of households with children are food insecure.
Local food systems. Although there is a lot of interest in local food, there are many different
definitions of it. With no universally accepted definition of a local food system, local foods are
often based on a geographical concept related to the distance between food producer and
consumers. In addition to geographic proximity of producer and consumer, local food may also
be considered to include certain social and production characteristics, such as fair treatment of
workers and sustainable production methods.
Local food systems are frequently associated with direct marketing from the farm to the
consumer or to retailers and institutions in the same geographic location as the farm. Direct-to-
consumer markets include farm stands, farmers’ markets, and community supported agriculture,
while direct-to-retailer sales include convenience markets, supermarkets and restaurants.
Institutions include colleges, hospitals, prisons, schools and senior centers.
Regional food systems are place-based, as are local food systems, but ‘place’ is conceived more
broadly. There is no bright line, no distinct boundary between local and regional food systems.
Local is often thought to mean a city, town or a few counties--but to some it is a state.
Regional may also mean a cluster of counties, or a cluster of states. In general, regional food
systems aggregate smaller local communities in order to accommodate larger scales of
production and economic activity. In a regional food system, direct marketing is not paramount;
rather, regional identity has value in the food marketplace to consumers and producers.

“An ideal regional food system describes a system in which as much food as possible to
meet the population’s food needs is produced, processed, distributed, and purchased at
multiple levels and scales within the region, resulting in maximum resilience, minimum
importation, and significant economic and social return to all stakeholders in the
region. This is known as ‘self-reliance’—as opposed to ‘self-sufficiency’ wherein
everything eaten is supplied within the target area…local is a necessary but not
sufficient component of a regional food system. Regional is larger geographically and
in terms of functions—volume/supply, food needs, variety, supply chains, markets, land
use, and policy. A regional food system includes multiple “locals” within a state, and
those that cross state boundaries.”
Regional food systems can be delineated and measured in many ways, one of which is the nature
of their agricultural production. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
identified nine ‘resource regions’ of the country that share patterns of farming, financial
performance of farms and economic well-being of farm households. Together, regional food
systems within the United States make up the national food system.
National food systems. The food system of a country is in easier to define than a local or
regional food system because the geographic boundaries are clear. In addition, many features of
the food sy
stem as a whole are set up on a national basis, such as most food policies and regulations.
Characteristics of national food systems can be described and compared by their agriculture,
dietary intake and much more. For example about half the land in China, Mexico and the U.S. is
in agriculture, while in Canada, Egypt and Sweden less than 10% of the land is arable. The U.S.,
Austria and Greece lead the world in caloric intake per capita at over 3,500 calories per person,
while people in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea and Burundi consume the fewest
calories, fewer than 2,000 per day. All nations combined make up the global food system.

The global food system. Food at this level of the system can be measured by overall production,
its movement around the planet, and food security of the world’s population. For example, total
world production of corn is about 900 million metric tons (MMT) annually; wheat production is
about 700 MMT, etc.
Globally, well over 800 million people, or 12% of the world’s population, do not have a diet that
meets their metabolic energy requirements. The vast majority of hungry people live in
developing regions.
Even in the days when all food systems were primarily local, hundreds of years ago, efforts were
made to import spices and exotic foods that were not available nearby. The list of imported foods
has of course greatly expanded to include many high-value imported products such as coffee
beans, cocoa/chocolate, oils, seafood, fruits, and vegetables.
Clearly, just about everyone is a participant in the global food system and it has significant
influence on the diets, economies, environmental quality, and policies of national food systems
as well as on the smaller levels of the food system within each nation.
Why Study Food Systems?
The food system has been studied because it has led to diet-related health problems, food-borne
disease, hunger and agricultural pollution. The range of food system issues having significant
economic, environmental and social consequences for society is staggering, with both positive
and negative outcomes. New approaches are needed that use systems thinking to re-design major
components of the food system in order to avoid undesirable side effects. Part of this thinking
involves accounting for and placing value on externalities not captured by the current market
value of food.
Working to Improve the Food System

The food system is an enormous, complicated entity. It can be thought of and analyzed from
many perspectives. Co-mingling these perspectives to understand the interactions and
connections among different components requires systems thinking. The food system also
includes a wide range of scales, from individual people and their households, to local and
regional communities, to nations and global trade.

What is Sustainability of Food Systems?

A sustainable food system is a food system that delivers food and nutrition security for all in
such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and
nutrition for future generations are not compromised.

A sustainable food system is a dynamic process in which achieving food and nutrition security
today should also contribute to food and nutrition security for future generations.

The definition demonstrates the importance of seeking sustainability in three dimensions —

environmental, economic and social — at every stage of a food system, from agricultural
production, processing, and retailing, to consumption. For example, agriculture not only suffers
from the impacts of climate change, it but together with land use changes account for about a
quarter of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).
A food system's sustainability is influenced by natural and human factors. These factors interact
with each other within a food system. For example, the availability of water and land for food
production is influenced by human actions, while human choices are influenced by
environmental conditions.

Creating the enabling conditions for the shift to more sustainable food systems requires systems-
based approaches that can consider the range and complexity of interactions prevalent in the
production, distribution and consumption of food. These links between food production,
distribution, consumption, and nutritional health and the underlying social-economic, biophysical
and institutional elements, ultimately affect the quantity, quality and affordability of food, as
well as health and wellbeing.

Key determinants of a sustainable food system

Natural System Agriculture Human
(Environmental services) (Agricultural activities) (Economic)
Climate, nutrient cycling, Production (crops, livestock, Processing for nutritious and
biodiversity, water cycles, and forestry, fisheries, and healthy food, economic
coastal protection aquaculture) and inputs development, inclusive and
outputs (food, feed, plant- efficient markets, enabling
based or animal-based policies and infrastructure
commodities/materials,
biofuels, etc.)
Natural resources Social services and
conditions
Land, oceans, water, genetic Demographic changes, health,
resources, forest resources, nutrition, urbanization, etc.
aquatic systems, nutrients, and
energy.

Community Food Systems

A community food system is a food system in which food production, processing, distribution
and consumption are integrated to enhance the environmental, economic, social and nutritional
health of a particular place. A community food system can refer to a relatively small area, such
as a neighborhood, or progressively larger areas – towns, cities, counties, regions, or bioregions.

The concept of community food systems is sometimes used interchangeably with "local" or
"regional" food systems, but by including the word "community" there is an emphasis on
strengthening existing (or developing new) relationships between all components of the food
system. This reflects a prescriptive approach to building a food system, one that holds
sustainability – economic, environmental and social – as a long-term goal toward which a
community strives.

Four aspects distinguish community food systems from the globalized food system that typifies
the source of most food eaten: food security, proximity, self-reliance and sustainability.
•  Food security is a key goal of community food systems. While food security traditionally
focuses on individual and household food needs, community food security addresses food access
within a community context, especially for low-income households. It has a simultaneous goal
of developing local food systems.
• Proximity refers to the distance between various components of the food system. In
community food systems such distances are generally shorter than those in the dominant or
global food system. This proximity increases the likelihood that enduring relationships will form
between different stakeholders in the food system – farmers, processors, retailers, restaurateurs,
consumers, etc.
• Self-reliance refers to the degree to which a community meets its own food needs. While the
aim of community food systems is not total self-sufficiency (where all food is produced,
processed, marketed and consumed within a defined boundary), increasing the degree of self-
reliance for food, to be determined by a community partnership, is an important aspect of a
community food system.
• Sustainability refers to following agricultural and food system practices that do not
compromise the ability of future generations to meet their food needs. Sustainability includes
environmental protection, profitability, ethical treatment of food system workers, and community
development. Sustainability of the food and agriculture system is increased when a diversified
agriculture exists near strong and thriving markets, when non-renewable inputs required for
every step in the food system are reduced, when farming systems rely less on agri-chemical
fertilization and pest control, and when citizen participation in food system decision-making is
enhanced.
Goals of Community Food Systems
Building a community food system requires comprehensive or holistic approaches to meeting the
food needs of people living in a particular place. Efforts to develop community food systems
address multiple goals simultaneously:
• Optimized health, reduced risk of diet-related chronic diseases, and increased enjoyment of
food among community members.
• Dietary change that complements the seasonal availability of foods produced and processed
by the local food and agriculture system.
• Improved access for all community members to an adequate, affordable, nutritious diet.
• A stable (or in some cases, expanding) base of family farms that use integrated production
practices to enhance environmental quality,
• Marketing channels and processing facilities that create more direct links between farmers
and consumers, and, by shortening the distance between these partners, conserve resources
needed for transporting food.
• Food and agriculture-related businesses, resulting in stronger community economies through
job creation, and re-circulating financial capital in the community. Such businesses could include
food processing, or value-adding processing to expand opportunities for locally produced food to
be consumed locally.
• Increased public participation in food and agriculture policies that promote local food
production, access to local retail and processing markets, and institutional procurement of local
agricultural commodities.
Elements of Community Food Systems
There are several well-recognized elements of a community food system:
• Farmers’ markets provide the opportunity for eaters to meet and talk directly with the people
who grow the food they are buying. By the same token, farmers can learn more, in a direct way,
about what their customers want and need to know about the food from their farms. By
decreasing the amount of fuel used to move food around, this proximity to food sources increases
the environmental sustainability of the system.
• Community and school gardens are recognized as an important source of fresh produce,
particularly for underserved populations in low-income neighborhoods, thereby increasing
dietary quality and food security. They provide spaces for community interaction, decision-
making, problem-solving, creativity and celebration.
Community gardens also provide opportunities to learn about food production, develop job
skills, increase agriculture literacy, generate food-related businesses, and create links to nearby
restaurants and soup kitchens.
• Community supported agriculture (CSA) farms are arrangements whereby a group of people
buy shares into the eventual harvest of a farm before the crops are planted. In exchange for their
investment into the farm, shareholders receive fresh fruits and vegetables (and sometimes, other
products such as local cheeses, fresh flowers, eggs and meats), on a weekly basis throughout the
harvest season. By making this investment, CSA members accept part of the financial risks
associated with farming. Further, the farmer receives a portion of the cost of production at a time
when it is most needed. Many CSA farmers also market through local farmers' markets, which
can increase farm profitability and stability.
• U-Pick operations and roadside farm stands provide access to fresh produce direct from the
farmer who grew it. Through a U-Pick, the price paid to the farmer is reduced substantially in
exchange for harvest labor. In the process, eaters come in contact with farmers, experience
another aspect of the food system, and increase their intake of fresh and processed local produce
(if some of what they harvest is preserved through freezing or canning, for example).
• Community kitchens are facilities where locally produced, gleaned or recovered foods can be
further processed or preserved for members of a community. Food product development often
takes place at these facilities, thereby creating income generating opportunities and products with
local identity.
• Small-scale food processing and decentralized root cellars provide infrastructure and
technical expertise necessary to launch new food-based businesses. Much of the food we eat is
processed in some way and in areas with relatively short growing seasons, such as the Northeast.
The use of canned, frozen and stored fruits and vegetables when produce is "out of season" is
another way to develop community food systems.
Strategies to Build Community Food Security (or Food Systems)
As individuals, consumers can do a lot to support and collectively strengthen community food
systems:
• choose a diet rich in locally grown and processed foods. Regional food guides provide
guidelines to help consumers choose healthful local and seasonal diets.
• ask food stores to buy from local growers and processors.
• ask where items on restaurant menus came from and express interest in eating locally
produced and processed foods.
• Shop at farmers' markets and food co-ops (which are more likely to offer local, in season, and
often organic choices).
• buy a share in a CSA farm or sponsor someone else's share.
• participate in a community or school garden or start a home vegetable garden and share
excess with neighbors, a community kitchen or local soup kitchen.
• cook from scratch.
• support policies that favor local farms and other elements of community food systems, join or
create a food policy council to assess community assets with respect to the local food system,
identify areas of need, and develop strategies collectively to meet those needs.

In order to support local community food systems in their food choices, consumers need:
• access to local foods,
• ways to identify local alternatives,
• ways to learn meal planning and preparation skills,
• an understanding of seasonal variation,
• knowledge of the local food and agriculture system, and
• an appreciation of the benefits of eating seasonally and locally.
Nutrition practitioners can do a lot through their professions to support community food systems
as well, such as:
• include considerations about seasonal availability of locally produced foods when providing
dietary advice to clients,
• substitute non-local foods in meal plans with foods that are nutritionally equivalent and are
produced locally,
• create seasonally varied institutional food service menus that reflect local agricultural
production. This might include, for example, the use of root vegetables in the winter in northern
climates,
• shift procurement strategies in food service operations toward local food sources, and include
information about the sources of foods at the point of purchase.

Conclusion
We all can benefit from learning more about our own food system, and participating in its
development. Community food systems offer an alternative to our current approach to meeting
our daily food and nutrition needs and promises several social, environmental and economic
benefits. As individual stakeholders, we all have a role to play in shaping the future of our
community food systems.