4

Resilience of the Food System

Session 2 of the workshop, moderated by Kristie Ebi, University of Washington, focused on the resiliency of the food system. Presentations during this session addressed resiliency within complex dynamic systems, resilient properties of the current food system, and resiliency for the future.

RECAP OF THE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: NEW EXPECTATIONS FOR THE FOOD SYSTEM

Patrick Stover, Texas A&M University, began the session with a brief recap of his remarks from Session 1 (see Chapter 2). He emphasized that the food system, people, the environment, and the economy are interconnected and interdependent and must be considered with a systems thinking approach. He reiterated that the workshop was building on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC) report A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System (IOM and NRC, 2015).

Stover restated that expectations for the U.S. food system have changed over the years. Beginning after World War II, he elaborated, the system was designed to produce sufficient food to feed society and fuel economic growth; today, the system is also expected to address such goals as environmental sustainability.

Stover again referred to the framework from the 2015 IOM and NRC report, shown in Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2, which he said can serve as a decision-making tool for policy and practice related to food and agriculture. The framework highlights four primary outcomes of any effects on

the food system: human health, environmental health, social health, and economic health. Stover emphasized as well how the framework points to the importance of considering the entire food chain, understanding that it is a complex, adaptive system and that such disruptions as climate change, weather effects, and pandemics will have impacts throughout the system. The report further stresses the need for measures and standards of evidence that allow for science-informed decisions and understanding of the tradeoffs across the above four outcome areas.

In closing, Stover shared key issues highlighted in each of the presentations in the prior session: issues related to climate change and agriculture (Rozenzweig), social inequities across the agricultural chain from production to consumption (Salvador), and food as a public good and the role regional food systems could play in increasing diversity and resiliency within the food system (Daniels).

RESILIENCY WITHIN COMPLEX DYNAMIC SYSTEMS

John R. Porter, Fondation Agropolis Montpellier, France; University of Copenhagen, Denmark; and University of Greenwich, United Kingdom, spoke about resiliency within complex dynamic systems. He began by stating that robustness,¹ resilience, and efficiency are important elements of a 21st-century food system. He asserted that climate change is the challenge that will define the future, noting that reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions requires changes in both production and consumption. He suggested that, in addition to improving the efficiency of fossil fuel production, a goal for consumption should be to shift from wanting “more from less” to wanting “enough from less.” Increasing efficiency in production increases both overall production and emissions, he observed, while improving efficiency and limiting consumption provides “enough from less” and limits emissions. He argued that economies should be designed for supportive robustness and resilience, rather than simple increases in efficiency.

System Redundancies and Efficiencies

Porter shared four hypotheses related to system redundancy and resilience: (1) more from less does not lead to increased robustness; (2) system redundancy is a good thing; (3) increased complexity can lead to increased robustness and resilience, but it can also hinder resilience; and (4) decreased robustness leads to decreased efficiencies, while increased robustness leads

___________________

¹ “Robustness” refers to the ability of food systems to minimize the variability of specific agricultural outputs, such as crop yield, despite the occurrence of perturbations (Urruty et al., 2016).

to increased efficiencies. To illustrate these hypotheses, he used different countries’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. With respect to the third hypothesis, Porter clarified that increased complexity sometimes leads to increased robustness and resilience and sometimes does not. When systems become more complex and duplicative, he elaborated, they become more robust and resilient, but when they become too complex, some of the robustness and resilience is lost.

Porter showed a graph defining production efficiencies for the economic and energy sectors based on GHG emissions per unit of energy, energy per gross domestic product (GDP), and GDP per population (the so-called Kaya identity). He noted that in many Western economies, GHG emissions from oil have increased relative to those from other sources of fuel with higher heat content values, and energy per GDP has decreased. However, he said, since World War II, GDP per population has approximately doubled as other production efficiencies have decreased.

Applying the above principles to the agricultural sector, Porter then presented a diagram (see Figure 4-1) showing how emissions from the food system can be calculated on a per area and per product basis using the Kaya-Porter identity. He pointed to the equation shown in Figure 4-1, according to which GHG equals yield over area times energy over yield times GHG emissions over that energy times the area of production. He noted that land use change, soil emissions, carbon intensity, efficiency of energy use, productivity, and the cultivated area can all affect the amount of GHG emissions from a crop. Since 1970, GHG emissions from soil and

total GHG emissions per produced crop have declined. However, Porter asserted, this is because production has been increasing and not because GHG emissions have declined, as total GHG emissions from crops have increased over this same period.

Porter next described three resource use efficiencies: (1) radiation efficiency, or how much dry matter is produced for a given amount of radiation; (2) water use efficiency, or production per water used; and (3) nutrient use efficiency. He noted that these efficiencies are often considered separately but stressed that they interact, and he shared a framework that can be used to explore the trade-offs among the three resource use efficiencies. The evidence for this framework derives from research in New Zealand showing how efficiency of nutrient use interacts with efficiency of water use, and the interaction is different for irrigated versus nonirrigated crops. Porter explained further that there are trade-offs among wealth, health, consumption, and GHG emissions, and that the Kaya and Kaya-Porter identities can be joined to provide a multidimensional picture of food production and consumption and health.

In response to a question from Ebi following his presentation about where increased redundancy is needed in the food system to increase resilience, Porter highlighted the importance of increasing the diversity of food production, distribution, and consumption.

Linear and Circular Food Systems

Porter next described the difference between linear and circular food systems. He explained that with a linear food system, about 50 percent of the expected production is lost to waste at various points in the system, whereas with a circular food system, losses are minimized and recycled back into the system. Porter shared several principles of circular food systems:

• Plant biomass is the basic building block of food and should be used by humans first.
• Food and resource losses should be minimized, and by-products of food production, processing, and consumption should be recycled back into the system.
• Animals should be used for providing protein and nutrition.

Porter added that research on circular food systems lags far behind that of linear food systems.

Final Remarks

Porter ended his presentation by returning to the four hypotheses he had proposed at the beginning of his talk. He emphasized that the food system cannot be changed unless the economic system on which it is based also changes. He argued that consumers should consider whether they have enough and how they can use less. He concluded by asserting that change begins when people begin to feel uncomfortable.

RESILIENT PROPERTIES OF THE CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM

Cynthia Daley, California State University, Chico, spoke about resilient properties of the current food system from the perspective of the farmer.

Impact of COVID-19

Daley began by stating that farmers are in a time of crisis as a result of climate change, trade wars, and declines in commodity prices. She noted the dichotomy that COVID-19 has had a positive effect on some components of the food system and a negative effect on others. To illustrate this point, she observed that the grocery and packaged food industries are doing well, while meatpackers and institutional food suppliers are not. Daley pointed out that producers of perishable commodities lacking diversity in their production and distribution channels have been the most adversely affected by COVID-19 because they have been unable to switch to alternative markets. These producers are not resilient, she added, because they are price takers, unable to control input costs, and locked into inflexible contracts. She noted that as a result, farm debt and bankruptcies due to COVID-19 have increased, as have suicide rates among farmers, which are above the national average.

On a positive note, Daley observed that local food systems are particularly resilient, and as a result of COVID-19, demand for local food is higher than ever. She shared the example of the Sloot Farm in Minnesota, which prior to COVID-19 sold hogs as a commodity to Tyson Foods. In response to the pandemic, she continued, the farm adapted quickly and began processing the meat locally and selling it online, finding that demand through the regional food system outpaced supply. As another successful example, Daley cited White Oak Pastures in Georgia, which is vertically integrated, does direct marketing, has diverse products and practices, operates at scale, and is well managed by a farmer who utilizes systems thinking.

Resilient Food Systems

Daley suggested that a resilient food production system should reward farmers for exercising good stewardship and staying out of debt, value soil health and ecological systems, promote diverse markets and competitive pricing, and support local and rural economies. She lamented that the current system is resulting in a loss of soil, nutrients, institutional knowledge, farmers, and species diversity, while GHG emissions are increasing.

Referencing the report On True Cost Accounting and the Future of Food (Global Alliance for the Future of Food, 2019), Daley noted the need for better accounting of the true cost of the nation’s cheap food policy, which is efficient but not resilient. She suggested that regenerative agriculture² could help increase resiliency by increasing soil conservation and reducing emissions, pesticide use, runoff, and nutrient loss.

Daley highlighted several programs that she said can help farmers increase resiliency, move toward regenerative agriculture, and reduce GHG emissions. She noted that several of these programs are facing potential budget cuts due to the budget deficit resulting from the pandemic, citing the example of the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Conservation Programs, which are designed to help consumers and producers move toward a system based on regenerative agriculture. She suggested that these programs need to be more accessible. As another example, she pointed to the Healthy Soils Program within the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which invested $22 million last year in regenerative farming practices impacting 30,000 acres, reducing GHG emissions by an estimated 37,000 tons.

According to Daley, research has shown that regenerative agriculture can have a significant effect on reducing emissions and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. She shared photos illustrating regenerative farming practices, such as crop rotation, use of compost and animal manure, no-till and low-disturbance till, and managed grazing, and stressed the importance of systems thinking in implementing these practices.

Daley closed with a quote from The Ohio State University soil scientist Rattan Lal about the potential for addressing climate change by increasing the carbon content of the soil. She argued further that the food system should become more farmer-centric and better support farmers and ranchers in a paradigm shift toward increased resiliency and regenerative farming practices.

___________________

² According to the Center for Regenerative Agriculture and Resilient Systems at California State University, Chico, regenerative agriculture practices are “those that have the potential to move landscapes in the direction of increased functionality by adhering to one or more of the principles of soil health, along with enhancing the synergies of ecosystem processes” (CRARS, 2020).

Responding to a question about farm workforce issues after her presentation, Daley responded that many large farms depend heavily on seasonal labor, and the downward pressure on commodity prices has created downward pressure on worker pay. She also addressed a question about the effect of grazing on regenerative agriculture and carbon sequestration, noting that animals are effective at converting crop residue into high-quality protein for humans, and can provide ecological benefits when managed appropriately.

RESILIENCY IN THE FUTURE

The final speaker of the session, Rosamond Naylor, Stanford University, spoke about resiliency for the future and blue foods, which she defined as foods produced in freshwater and ocean aquatic systems.

Resilient Food Systems

Naylor defined a resilient food or agriculture system as one that can quickly rebound in response to a stress or shock. She cited climate change effects, such as droughts, floods, and temperature fluctuations, and market shocks, such as the 2008 Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, as common stressors. She suggested that with respect to resiliency, it is important to ask the questions resilient to what, in what, and for whom.

With respect to COVID-19, Naylor suggested that hunger may kill more people than the virus itself, both globally and within the United States, adding that more than 1 million people in the United States visited a food bank for the first time as a result of the pandemic. She also noted that COVID-19 has adversely affected meatpacking workers, who are primarily people of color (see the summary of Salvador’s presentation in Chapter 3), and people with diet-related diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, who are more likely to die from the virus.

Naylor posited that a resilient food system produces more variety and not just more calories. She noted that China was able to achieve a significant reduction in global hunger through its green revolution and production of such staple crops as rice. However, the high-starch, low-protein diet did not provide people with the proper nutrition to learn and be productive.

Aquatic Food Systems

Naylor suggested that aquatic foods can provide nutrients and protein affordably, stating that “fish are rich food for poor people” and for all people. She pointed out that one in five people depend on aquatic foods as their main source of protein. Although experts in global food security,

terrestrial agriculture, and ocean conservation are often siloed, she continued, these systems are connected through climate change, technology, natural resources, and policy.

Considering resilience within the context of an interconnected global food system, Naylor observed that growth in population and in incomes drives demand for food, animal protein, and animal feed, along with biofuel for transportation, and that these demands are then met with terrestrial livestock and aquaculture. She asserted that more substitution options in the production and consumption of protein foods, such as fish, chicken, and legumes, could help reduce price variations. Citing a 2014 paper finding less volatility in prices for aquaculture and fisheries than for cereals and oils, she suggested that greater diversity of aquatic foods relative to terrestrial crops and livestock makes aquaculture more resilient (Troell et al., 2014).

Naylor explained that she is engaged in an assessment aimed at incorporating blue foods into international discussions about the global food system and evaluating the role of these foods in nutritious, sustainable, and equitable diets. Ebi asked a question about how climate change will be incorporated into the blue foods assessment, given the impact of rising ocean temperatures and acidification. In response, Naylor stated that the assessment will address climate vulnerability given that climate change can impact fish physiology, pests, and pathogens, and that storms and floods are risky for aquaculture as for all food production systems.

Naylor reported that global capture fish production has remained relatively constant in recent decades, and that there has been more than a threefold increase in aquaculture production in the past 20 years. More than half of capture fish production comes from small-scale fisheries, she observed, and more than two-thirds of farmed aquatic foods come from small-scale systems. She shared a graph showing that growth in aquaculture since 1900 has exceeded that for other terrestrial crop and livestock commodities.

Naylor next discussed aquaculture feeds as a major sustainability issue in aquaculture. The ratio of fish feed to fish produced through aquaculture has dropped substantially in the past 20 years, she elaborated, from about 2:1 to 0.28:1. To address this issue, a substantial portion of the feed now comes from fish processing waste, livestock waste, grains, and even algae and insects in some places, she added, replacing fish oil and fish meal that were used historically and perpetuating a circular system.

Naylor closed her presentation by highlighting three key takeaways: (1) blue foods have the potential to provide protein and micronutrients for people around the world; (2) interest in the environmental and social sustainability of blue food systems has increased; and (3) connections between land and sea are growing. She stated that dietary intake of fish continues to rise in the United States (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2020), and fish feeds are increasingly including plant-based materials.

In response to a question about ensuring food safety in aquaculture when waste is used as feed, Naylor explained that waste from one species is not used as feed for the same (or a similar) species, and feed companies test the feed to ensure its safety. She noted that food safety is a more significant issue in low-income countries, where human and other wastes are often dumped into aquaculture ponds. She also acknowledged concerns about the possibility that plants used for feed potentially have pesticide residues.

PANEL DISCUSSION

After the presentations, Ebi facilitated a discussion among Porter, Daley, and Naylor.

Thoughts on Research Needs

Ebi began by asking about the key research needs to increase understanding of the resiliency of complex adaptive systems. Porter responded that much work has been done on the consumption side of food security, but more research is needed on the production side and the integration of production and consumption. Naylor described the need for more research on improving nutrition; on food safety; and on the environmental effect of aquaculture involving lower-value fish around the world, as most research investment to date has focused on such high-value commodities as salmon, shrimp, tuna, and other marine fish that are commonly eaten in the United States. She also pointed to the need for more research on the contribution of antibiotic use in aquaculture to antibiotic resistance.

Daley added that there is a need for more socioeconomic research on how to implement the changes that are needed, including adoption of more sustainable practices by farmers and a systems-based approach. She mentioned a farmer peer network in Iowa that leverages social connections to make change. In addition, she pointed to a need for more research on what public policy changes are needed to drive global shifts in the food production system.

Consumer Incentives

Ebi asked about incentives for consumption that could help transition the food system more quickly. Daley responded that increasing consumer interest in the impact of production practices on animal welfare, nutrient density, GHG emissions, and human health could help change consumption behavior. She noted that several brands are leveraging this messaging, as consumers are willing to pay more for food that they perceive to be more nutritious, organic, or otherwise produced in a superior way. However,

Daley pointed out that producers are incentivized by the quantity of what they produce, not its nutrient density, emphasizing the need for public policy change in this area. Porter suggested that nutrition labels can also inform consumption decisions.

With respect to aquaculture, Naylor added that a segment of consumers concerned about antibiotic use and sustainability is driving some change in global markets. While some large retailers, such as Costco and Walmart, have begun to market and sell sustainable seafood, he observed, this still amounts to less than 2 percent of total aquatic food products, primarily high-value commodities. Ebi stated that consumers do not fully understand the difference between sustainability and resilience.

Porter and Daley suggested that successes in changing social norms around tobacco use could serve as a model for changing norms in the food system. Daley noted that media and film, in particular, played a key role in the antitobacco campaign. Ebi added that a key message in tobacco control is that secondhand smoke kills nonusers, and suggested that a similar point could be made about the harms of the agricultural system.

Ebi and Naylor highlighted the need for greater understanding of motivations for consumer behavior and increased reliance on social science research, including the field of behavioral economics. They also suggested that having leadership model positive behaviors, such as healthy eating, could be influential, particularly for children. This leadership could come from a range of sources at various levels, including former First Lady Michelle Obama, celebrities, or a school chef. Ebi observed that education and resources also influence behavior, highlighting the adverse impact of food deserts. She highlighted a comment from an audience member who suggested that referring to consumers as citizens could help them assume greater responsibility around sustainability.

Production Incentives

Porter recommended addressing climate change through macroeconomic changes, such as the development of a carbon standard that values the economy on the basis of carbon stocks. He expressed the view that soil preservation should be a societal goal.

Daley recommended incentivizing the shift to a perennial farming system, noting that in the current system, farmers with fixed costs want to produce as much of a single crop as possible. However, she said, switching to a perennial crop system would require investments in new equipment and infrastructure. She also suggested modeling the impact of this shift on economic outcomes for farmers. In addition, she pointed to nutrient labeling regulations that prohibit identifying the superior nutrient density of foods produced in certain ways as a disincentive for changing production

methods. As an example, she cited labeling regulations that prohibit specifying that grass-fed beef is higher than traditional beef in certain nutrients.

Naylor added that aquaculture has adopted many technologies and practices from agriculture and livestock farming, and the farming of only a small number of high-value aquatic species is having an adverse ecological impact. She argued for increased redundancy and incentives to adopt more sustainable approaches. She also pointed out that farmers often use the easiest and most profitable production methods and often lack access to complete information about all potential options.

Naylor, an economist by training, went on to suggest that economics is often the “invisible hand” that spurs change for both producers and consumers. The current economic system is top-down, she elaborated, giving the example discussed previously by Salvador (see Chapter 3) of the large meatpacking companies that mandated that their employees work during the COVID-19 pandemic when an alternative would have been for people to eat less meat. As an example of a process that could change the current economic system, she cited the recent protests over racial equity and social justice as a bottom-up approach. Finally, she pointed to the question of who can afford to eat clean, safe food as a global social justice issue, with some populations being forced to put having access to safe food second to having access to food at all.

Sustainable Solutions in Low-Income Countries and Communities

Ebi asked the panelists about how increased sustainability and resiliency can be facilitated in low- and middle-income countries and communities that lack education, knowledge, technology, and resources. Daley responded that several U.S. Department of Agriculture initiatives, including improvements to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and increased access to farmers’ markets in food deserts, are working toward these goals.

Naylor observed that food is cultural and that solutions vary in different parts of the world depending on such factors as economic, political, and transportation systems. She cited the example of South Asia, where small and medium-sized businesses have been established by entrepreneurs looking to meet demand for protein and local or regional foods. However, she continued, a different solution may be needed in parts of Africa, for example, where transportation networks are not as good. She asserted that solutions should both provide incentives for making food system changes and eliminate policies that perpetuate the status quo, noting that supply chain disruptions caused by COVID-19 have led the Indian government, for example, to rethink its agricultural subsidies.

In response to another audience member’s question, Daley suggested that local gardens at schools and in low-income housing areas could help

provide access to fresh fruits and vegetables and improve health and wellness among people in those settings. Porter pointed out that both government and philanthropic funders are interested in addressing food security, and in particular the link between food security and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Food Safety

Ebi asked the panelists a set of questions from audience members about how to ensure food safety and reduce contamination, including microplastics in the ocean and lead in the soil. Daley suggested the use of remediation measures to remove heavy metals from foods from contaminated soils, noting that some work has been done on bioengineering of biological tools to make them useful for this purpose. However, some soil is still too contaminated to be used. Porter added that certain trees can be used to extract heavy metals from the soil, which can then be harvested and used to create energy. He mentioned some of his prior research focused on establishing an agricultural production system that is fossil fuel energy neutral. In this research, he reported, while about 10 percent of the land was used to produce energy crops, the yield per hectare was more than 10 percent greater, more than offsetting the extra land used for biomass. He suggested that the use of fast-growing trees is an innovative way to provide an energy source, help remediate some of the heavy metals in the soil, and improve the land use ratio. Naylor lamented that toxins are also a concern with aquaculture, particularly in lower-income countries.

Thoughts on Next Steps

In closing, Ebi asked for recommendations about where researchers can obtain funding and how practitioners can get started on implementing the priorities identified. Ebi and Daley both noted the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. Naylor pointed to the importance of regional funders and thinking creatively about how to solve problems locally, such as connecting food banks with farmers during COVID-19.