Food sovereignty in the U.S.
by Diederik van Duuren, Floris Veloo, Huub Saris & Isa Mulder
13-12-2015
Introduction
The United States of America has one of the largest economies of the world (Bajpai, 2015). Therefore, it is also one of the richest countries in the world, measured in GDP per capita (Pasquali, 2015). However, 14 percent of US citizens are food insecure (Coleman-Jensen, Nord & 1 Singh, 2013). In contrast to the lack of sufficient food there are also problems with overconsumption and the presence of an unhealthy Western diet. More than two out of three adults are considered to be overweight or obese in the US according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2012). Furthermore, almost 70 percent of all deaths in the US are caused by diet related diseases (US Census Bureau, 2013), such as (colon)cancer, cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.
The food consumption is not only affecting the health of people, but also other elements in the food system such as the environment. The US food system is a part of a global food system where food production appropriates major shares of freshwater (70 percent) and energy (20 percent) production (Aiking et al., 2006). The impacts of food production on the environment include impact on climate change (Stehfest et al., 2009), biodiversity (Nierenberg, 2006), land degradation and pollution (McMichael et al., 2007).
Moreover, the average American citizen has little to nothing to say in the food system. Those employed in the food system and consumers of the food system often have few rights, especially those of lower socioeconomic layers.
These issues described above show a system that is far from sovereign. Food sovereignty was defined, at the forum for food sovereignty in Mali in 2007, in part as: “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems…” (International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty, 2007). This can be summarized by three pillars: sustainability, health, and rights.
In recent times, the process from field to plate has become highly complex. Just as before, there is a dependence on the natural environment (soil, water and organisms) but nowadays there is also a more significant influence of different actors, such as corporations and organizations. Ranging from interconnected markets that function at different levels (local, national, and global), public interventions in those markets, and the varying needs, perceptions, and values among all actors (Malden et al., 2015). In turn activities in the food system affect human health, rights (equity), and the natural environment (sustainability) both positively and negatively. The current US food system can be seen as a dynamic, multi-layered and multi-purposes food system (ibid.). Or in other words; a complex system.
1 The World Food Summit (1996) defined food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”.
The main question of this study is as follows: to what extent is the current US food system a sovereign system and what elements in the system prevent it to be more sovereign? The goal of this paper is to describe the elements of the complex food system that have an effect, link, or causal relation with the three pillars of a sovereign food system. This study could help a broad target group, ranging from policy makers, scientists and engaged citizens, to understand the complex system and the underlying concepts. The outcomes of the study will not be all inclusive but could form a basis where others can expand on. We have developed the Storyline Method (SM) to visualize the complexity of the food system, which we named after the phrase of farmer and author Joel Salatin (2012):
“This magical, marvellous food on our plate, this substance we absorb, has a story to tell. It has a journey. It leaves a footprint. It leaves a legacy. To eat with reckless abandon, without conscience,
without knowledge; folks, this ain’t normal.”
1.
Theoretical Framework
To date, most studies that address changes within the food system have taken a relatively narrow approach with limited consideration of the system’s complexity (Malden et al., 2015). Those studies focused mainly on the food supply chain[1] as the core of the US food system (Kinsey, 2001; Kinsey, 2013; Oskam et al., 2010). While these more economic food systems can be defined by all cycles and activities that are involved in the production, transformation and processing, distribution, access and consumption, and waste and resources recovery of foods (American Planning Association, 2010), they operate within a broader biophysical and social/institutional context (Malden et al., 2015) that should be taken into account as well.
The coupling of human and natural systems that are integrated in one complex system where people interact with natural components has not been well understood (Berks et al., 2003; Liu et al., 2007). According to Rosa and Dietz (1998) this is largely due to the traditional separation of ecological and social sciences. A more theoretical basis is set by Levin (1999), Gunderson and Holling (2002), and Malden et al (2015) but a framework that can be used by policymakers, health advocates, researchers, business owners and otherwise engaged citizens is yet not been established. Or as the Bloomberg School of Public Health (2015) describes the essence of such a framework:
“When the relationships in a system are not taken into account, unpredicted and undesired outcomes often result
… Harms arising from activities in the food system might be prevented or
reduced by better accounting for the numerous and complex connections between food, health, society and the environment”.
According to Malden et al. (2015) this framework should include the following domains:
Biophysical Environment (1), such as the soil, water, climate, plants, animals, and nutrients; Markets (2), such as food preferences, market structures, global trade, wages, and working
conditions;Policies (3), such as farm, food and nutrition, labour and trade, environment, health, and safety;Science and Technology (4), such as farm inputs, food processing, food preparation, transport, storage, and medical technologies; andSocial Organizations (5), such as education, media, household structure, social movements, and health care systems.
These domains include different scientific disciplines. Therefor, an interdisciplinary approach is essential for studying the linkages in the US food system. This has also been done by others, such as Foran et al. (2014).
The US food system cannot be marked out at the borders, the opposite is true since the US food system is integrated in a larger global food system. Changes in the atmosphere and the hydrosphere occur in a global context and externalities cross borders easily. While at the same time policies, trades, and markets influence prices which will result in system changes. Complex systems are characterized by an open system. Food sovereignty will act as a kind of framework to study the US food system, as mentioned in the introduction. Sovereignty is not a reality but can be seen as a goal, a more utopian goal.
The theory of complex systems will be described in the following paragraph. In the second paragraph the term food sovereignty will be discussed in more detail.
2.1 Complexity
A complex system is a system that as a whole describes certain features that cannot be understood by the sum of the features of all different elements apart. This is a rather new approach to science according to Bar-Yam (2002) that studies relationships between parts that give rise to collective behaviours of a system and how the system interacts and forms relationships with its environment. Simply put, it is a system wherein a reciprocity between different components exists. Figure 1 (A) represents the old scientific approach where all phenomena where studied apart such as Liu et al. (2007) mentioned. While B (figure 1) represents the chaos theory, which formed the basis of the complexity theory, where all phenomena are linked to each other. Hayles (1991) describes this theory as extremely complicated information. Nevertheless, this system remains deterministic, every relation is a cause and effect relation, and therefore one could theoretically make perfect predictions about the future (Ibid.) if all variables and effects where known.
This is not the case in the complexity theory. Prigogine (1997) mentioned that complexity is not deterministic, meaning that precise prediction on the basis of a complex system is not possible. However, the study of complex systems is a more descriptive way of analysing. To understand the system and finding possible positive interventions makes it effective, not only for science but for society as well. The main difference with the chaos theory is that not all components are linked in a direct or indirect way and therefor research is extremely difficult.
Complex systems can be separated in several elements, relations, and environments. We will discuss them briefly.
The food system contains a variety of individual and composite actors[2]. The interaction between these actors is often a key driver of system behaviour (Malden et al., 2015). The adaptation of individuals and composite actors differs throughout time, location, and speed (Ibid.). Other elements of the system are for instance, soil and water. These elements and actors often differ from each other and could influence the food system in several ways, such as soil texture or actors that have different goals, norms, and backgrounds. Malden et al. (2015) describes this as the heterogeneity of elements.
Changes in one part of the system can have an affect on another element, which could affect the original element again. These are called feedback systems (Ford, 2010). They may differ in scale, for instance a person and the air, but the effects run in both directions which makes analysing difficult but nevertheless necessary (Ostrom & Murray, 2010). On the other hand, there are also elements that depend on each other, such as the need for food of human beings (social), plants that grow (ecology) due to their demand (market) by humans but need water, nutrients, and sun (environment).
The spatial environment influences the dynamics of the system within. Whether this is the natural or built environment. Besides these physical environments networks could also have spatial affects on actors, elements, heterogeneity, and relations.
2.2 Sovereignty
Food sovereignty is defined by the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty as: ‘The
right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their
right to define their own food and agriculture systems’
(2007)[3].
A sovereign food system describes a reality in which all people of at all time have healthy, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food. Therefore, this includes the definition of food security[4]. Security does not give the right to people to produce, distribute, and consume. It only assures that all people have at all time adequate and healthy food. So meaning that it is entirely possible for people to be food secure in prison or under dictatorship (Patel, 2009). While food sovereignty advocates highlight the importance of being able to make decisions, take control, and (if desired) produce one’s own food (Hodgson, 2012).
The element of rights is the main feature of food sovereignty in the food discussion. This is the most essential part where sovereignty differs from food security.This element of rights for all people makes the term sovereignty a more utopian goal rather than an actual target goal such as food security. It has not only to do with ensuring enough food, throughout efficient production and distribution, but also describing a fair and equal society
wherein people are empowered. It is probably a more debatable term, nevertheless it is at the same time a more inclusive term for the food system since it describes all elements in the system.
In our opinion it is a good description of how a perfect food system would look like. Therefore, it seems interesting to use sovereignty as a kind of framework for studying the US food system. To see to what extent the food system of one of the richest countries in the world fits this utopian (food) society.
The principle of food sovereignty can be simplified by transforming the definition into three main pillars: sustainability, health, and rights as highlighted in the definition above. Focusing on these three elements apart makes it more researchable.
2.
Methodology
Analysing a complex (food) system has mostly been done in a more theoretical context, as been described in the previous chapter, rather than a practical context. The focus of this study is to create a method (framework) that serves practical needs. The target group is broader than scientists alone. It includes: policy makers, health advocates, planners, researchers from several disciplines, business owners and engaged citizens.
Two existing methods that describe different parts of a complex system will be integrated with a more general in-depth method. In the following paragraph the first method, System Analysis (SA), will presented with a link to complexity. In the following paragraph, the second method, Causal Loop Diagram (CLD), will be presented. In the last paragraph the integration of these methods above will be presented in the so called Storyline Method (SM) where the authors included an in-depth layer analysis.
3.1 System Analysis
System analysis is rooted in the system thinking theory. Capra (1996) argued that the only way to fully understand why a problem or element occurs and persists is to understand the parts in relation to the whole. Thus, system thinking is a process of understanding how elements influence one another within a system (Meadows, 2008). It speaks for itself that system thinking can also be used for complex systems. Visualisations are often used to show the actual relations and effects of the different components in the system (Ibid.).
We have chosen the simplest form of a system analysis. Where aspects (elements, components, and actors) and variables are interlinked. The effects that a change can have on a variable is not quantifiable in this model. Since complex systems are non-linear, and only the slightest change could have an immense impact. The system analysis that will be integrated in the SM will be presented in a similar fashion as figure 2.
One of the main difficulties of complex systems are so called feedback loops, as been described in the theoretic framework. These causal relations and feedbacks can be presented with a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD). This method is also a certain kind of system analysis. Nevertheless, it describes the dynamics of certain elements in the system in more detail. Where the SA, discussed in the previous paragraph, shows a more overall context.
This method helps us to visualize positive and negative relations (Figure 3). In normal CLD closed cycles are called reinforcing and balancing loops. We have chosen not to include these elements since they make the final framework to difficult to read for some of the target group. The essence is that it can be understood rather easily.
3.3 Storyline Method
In the methods described above we missed different levels of analysis in two different directions. In a more in-depth way (1), what theories lay behind certain aspects and causes, and what is the discourse where these theories are imbedded in. Secondly, a level of understanding (2), what is the defined problem and what are causes and aspects that influence the system. This last point is especially important for the target group of this research.
System thinking is commonly used as an approach for problem solving. The problem is part of the system. But for a start, it is necessary to define the problem and analyse it in a separate layer. This first layer is a general explanation that serves as an introduction (figure 4). In the next layer of analysis direct links, causes, are presented. This is still relatively general which makes it still understandable for layman. We advise to use the same type of direct links (same disciplines) for all the problems in this second layer. The system underneath these direct links will be presented in the third layer. Here indirect links, feedback loops, and causal relations will be presented. This is the layer where all disciplines are integrated in a mix of SA and CLD. Some of the elements of this third layer can selected (numbered) and used in the following layer. In the fourth layer the more general theories, from different scientific schools, will be discussed. This level is highly interesting for researchers. At this level they could find common ground or conflict situations between different disciplines. This last layer can be translated into different discourse in society and science. This is a generalization method, which makes it arguable but nevertheless important. When a system is dominated by a particular discourse, a change in such a paradigm or discourse could disrupt the entire system in a positive or negative direction. Understanding these principles is important for an overall view of the system itself.
F
i
g
u
r
e
3
Foran et al. (2014) mentioned that such cross-framework interactions enhance the understanding of how sectorial and macro-economic development strategies impact on livelihoods, availability, and access of foods. And since the development of sustainable food systems involves an ‘invisible web’ of very different dimensions and activities. A holistic approach for these complex food systems is necessary according to Feenstra (2002). The difficulties with describing complex systems that there will always be elements, links or effects that are not mentioned. Concluding, to by inclusive when describing a complex system is an impossible task. But the focus should be a holistic point of view.
The method can be used by others in the following ways: Getting to know and understanding different links and relations between different elements and disciplines (1); extending the current framework in depth (2), by extending on parts of the system, or in width (3), by extending the problems and direct links; zooming in to different elements of the system to understand parts of it (4); and lastly putting it eventually in en global context (6). So de model is a growing system that has no end point and serves multiple purposes. Besides this model a written description of the elements of the system will be present as well. The idea is that there are several links (lines) that can be followed throughout the different layers. They all tell different stories but are all a presentation of some reality in the system.
2.3
Sovereignty
For this study we will use the storyline method to study the US food system. The information of the study will be derived from literature and public data. The three pillars of food sovereignty (sustainability, rights, and health) will be analysed with the SM independently. At last, in the discussion of the research they will be linked to each other. Here the focus will be more on the direct linkages and the theories and discourses. To see if there are similarities between these pillars. We will end with a brief conclusion, where we answer the questions: to what extent the US food system is a sovereign system; and what elements play an essential role in preventing it to be a sovereign system.
[1]
Food supply chain: A description of the process wherein edible food products that are consumed by end-users are derived from the production of raw materials and other inputs (Oskam et al., 2010).[2] According to Scharpf (1997) composite actors are a group of individual actors that act as a group, throughout a common agency or identity. Such as organizations, companies, governments, and environmental movements. [3] The extensive definition of food sovereignty introduced by Via Campesina (2007) is as follows: “Food
sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It puts those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. It defends the interests and inclusion of the next generation. It offers a strategy to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime, and directions for food, farming, pastoral and fisheries systems determined by local producers. Food sovereignty prioritises local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal fishing, pastoralist- led grazing, and food production, distribution and consumption based on environ- mental, social and economic sustainability. Food sovereignty promotes transparent trade that guarantees just income to all peoples and the rights of consumers to control their food and nutrition. It ensures that the rights to use and manage our lands, territories, waters, seeds, livestock and biodiversity are in the hands of those of us who produce food. Food sovereignty implies new social relations free of oppression and inequality between men and women, peoples, racial groups, social classes and generations.”
[4] The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”
Health
4.1 Health
The pillar “Health” is probably the domain with the most directly visible issues in the US. While sustainability issues often result in externalities that other countries in the world face or only become visible after a while, and rights issues don’t affect everyone, health issues are prevalent in everyday life of all American citizens. Health issues related to food vary between diseases, malnutrition, hunger, and obesity. The main goal of this chapter is to find causal relations and linkages between the US food system and health problems. Meaning, what factors in the system causes these severe health issues?
At first, it is necessary to discuss the problems themselves and see the scale of the separate issues. Secondly, the diet that is the main driver of several of these food related issues will be discussed in more detail. After this extensive introduction an interdisciplinary analysis will be done on which domains have an impact on the health issues.
4.1.1 Health problems
The consumption of foods is one of the main necessities for survival of humankind. Food provides energy and nutrients for individuals but at the same time it can lead to several issues (McMichael, Powles, Butler & Uauy, 2007). The absence of (particular) foods can result in hunger, malnutrition, food insecurity, and obesity. The overconsumption of (particular) foods can also result in issues such as; diseases, low quality of life, and again obesity. The following paragraphs will present the main food related health issues in the US.
By far the two most common types of diseases leading to death in the US are heart- and vascular diseases, and malignant neoplasms (cancers) (US Census Bureau, 2013). These diseases are nowadays linked to the fact that they are caused by particular diets. Bernstein et al. (2010 & 2012), Pan et al. (2012), and Fung et al. (2009) described diets as the leading causes of heart- and vascular diseases. The number one killer in the US with more than 30 percent of total death in 2013 (US Census Bureau, 2013). Furthermore, the World Cancer Research Fund (2007), Farvid et al. (2014), and Pan et al. (2012) described the link of nutrition and malignant neoplasms. The link between colon cancer and food is probably the most established one of this latter (Farvid et al., 2014). These two types of diseases account for more than 50 percent of total deaths in the US in 2013 (US Census Bureau, 2013). Let alone if we would include other diseases that are also linked to dietary intake percentages could raise up to more than 70 percent. While accidents, suicides, and murders combined are negligible in comparison to diet related deaths. The lack of nutritious food and the over-intake of unhealthy foods are the two main drivers of these diet related diseases. Several studies at Harvard shown that red (and processed) meat consumption are increasing the risks of cardiovascular diseases (Pan et al., 2012).
Even while America is wasting 30 to 40% of their food supply (United Nations Environmental Programme, 2014), more than 14% of households in the U.S. are food insecure,
meaning that they do not know where their next meal will come from (Coleman-Jensen, Nord & Singh, 2013). The World Food Summit (1996) defined food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”. Regional differences are significant. In the Southern states, such as Mississippi, food insecurity numbers of 18 percent are common. While in the North, states such as North Dakota, have food insecurity rates of less than 7 percent (Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program, 2008). Households with children (21 percent) and households that live below the poverty line (42 percent) are more susceptible for being food insecure.
More than two out of the three adults are considered to be overweight or obese in the US according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2012). Overweight and obesity result from an energy imbalance. The body needs a certain amount of energy (calories) from food to keep up basic life functions. Many factors can lead to energy imbalance and weight gain. They include genes, eating habits, how and where people live, attitudes and emotions, life habits, and income (National Institutes of Health, 1998).
There is also a contradictory relation between food insecurity and obesity. Although a variety of environmental, social, behavioural, and physiologic mechanisms could cause both problems independently, there is evidence that hunger is causing obesity (Dietz, 1995). Firstly, episodic food consumption is one of the main reasons for obesity (Dietz 1995). When people are insecure of food availability during the month their regularity of eating will decrease. Therefor they will be more vulnerable for obesity. Secondly, there are striking behavioural parallels between obese individuals and hungry individuals, suggesting that many obese individuals are actually in a chronic state of energy deficit and are genuinely hungry. This could be, because they attempt to hold their weight below its biologically dictated "set point” (Nisbett, 1972). Thirdly, rates of food insecurity were substantially higher than the national average for households with incomes near or below the Federal poverty line (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2013). Additionally, since the price of fresh food has risen by 24% since the ‘80s while the prices of sugar-sweetened soft drinks has dropped by 27% (McMillan, 2014), resulting in the fact that hungry people can’t afford a healthy diet. A high intake of these energy-dense, micronutrient-poor foods, and non-alcoholic sweetened beverages contribute to obesity (Swinburn, Caterson, Seidell, & James, 2004).
4.1.2 American Diet
The average American diet is one of the main causes of death in the US, as described above. Nevertheless, this was not always the case. Therefor it seems interesting to study the American diet throughout the history. In this paragraph the trends, patterns, and changes in the US diet throughout time will be presented and discussed. The reasons why the diet changed in this particular way will be discussed in following paragraphs.
Volpe and Abigail (2012) concluded that out of a maximum score of 100%, which represent the 2005 Dietary Guidelines, the average Healthy Eating Index (HEI) of 2005 for food bought in the supermarket was 56.1% per household. This percentage had not changed significantly between the year 1998 and 2006. Instead of buying healthier foods when doing groceries, consumers have a tendency to buy for instance less vegetables, fruits and fish and
more cheese, beverages, and frozen foods (Appendix A). As a result of the consumer's choice to follow this diet pattern, their consumption of refined grains, sugars, meat and fats increases, which indicates an unhealthy diet (Volpe & Abigail, 2012).
The examples above are from foods consumed at home while changes in food consumed away from home, such as restaurant food, school food, and fast food are even worse. Between 1977 and 2008, the share of calorie intake increased from 18 to 32 percent (Lin & Guthrie, 2012) while calorie intake at home remained stable. To highlight the scale, 47 percent of all food sales where in the food away from home sector in 2013, with increasing numbers for fast food establishments (ERS, 2014a). The highest percentage of calories from saturated fat occurred in fast foods (Lin & Guthrie, 2012). This highlights an important aspect of the food system: where you consume food influences the level of healthy and nutritious food.
The products that come from the field and that are processed and transformed into the foods that people eat are for the largest share only a few. Soy, grains, and corn are the main products which the American diet consists of. Corn is present in more than 70 percent of all products in large supermarkets. Such as in sugary beverages (high fructose corn syrup), in meat (Feed lock cows are fed by corn), and others[1]. Corn is the primary US feed grain, for the meat industry, and accounting for more that 95 percent of total feed grain production and use (ERS, 2014b).
4.1.3 System
The US can be considered an Anglo-Saxon capitalist country. The Anglo-Saxon economic model emerged in the 70’s, based on the Chicago school of economics. It is called Anglo-Saxon because it is found in many English-speaking nations besides the US, such as the UK, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand. The term Anglo-Saxon capitalism covers characteristics such as low levels of regulation and low taxes, and thepublic sector providing fewer services. It can also mean strong private property rights, contract enforcement, and overall ease of doing business as well as low barriers to free trade. Economic enterprise is often driven by neoliberal principles such as profit maximization and commodification. These characteristics can all be detected within the US economy, and they have a significant impact on the food system. Public policies are shaped by this economic model, and in their turn also affect the shape of the food system. The government knows little intervention in the food system when it comes to stimulating the choice for healthy foods by price incentives or higher availability. Moreover, the products that agricultural subsidies end up supporting are in great contrast with the crops recommended in the FAO guidelines for a healthy diet. The number one crop supported by US subsidies is corn, receiving over $84 billion in subsidies in the period 1995-2012 (EWG). Of this corn, a large part is going towards animal feedstuffs, which is also one of the reasons meat can be sold for relatively low prices.
Another effect of these economic policies is that products with a long shelf life and a higher production-to-calorie ratio (less effort to produce more calories) become more profitable. This includes cured meat, products containing high fructose corn syrup and definitely excludes fresh fruits and vegetables. This also results in the cheapest and best available diet being nearly the opposite of what the FAO recommends as a healthy diet.
Other elements that have an effect on the price of corn and grain are speculations, global demand, commodification, and efficiency. Since the food crisis of 2008, with rising grain prices the role of futures (speculations) has been an important topic in media and science. The actual influence of speculations on the real price of grains and corn remains ambiguous. According to Etienne et al. (2015) there was overall little effect or negative effects on price explosiveness as a result of speculations. While Headey (2011) noticed that speculations could result in an increase or decrease in the actual prices of grains. An increase results eventually in higher prices for consumers, with inequality as a result, while a decrease in the price results in lower wages or payments for farmers. Nevertheless, the global demand for grain has a greater impact on the price volatility than speculations according to Wright (2010), but speculations sound more unethical. The role of efficiency on prices will be described in the paragraph of sustainability (4.2) as well as commodification.
Something else that comes with the US capitalist system is that companies move to places where they can maximize their profit. This is also the case with grocery stores. Curtis and McCellan (1995) assumed that the growth of large chain supermarkets at the edge of the inner-cities in more prosperous areas offer the consumers better quality, variety and price for food options. They also have longer business hours and better parking options which are attractive for the consumers. The downside of this development is that the expansion of these supermarkets have necessitated the smaller, independent, neighbourhood grocery stores to close. This resulted in areas where affordable, varied food is accessible to those who have access to a car, or who are able to pay for public transportation if there even is a public network. This are so called food deserts, which was defined by Tessa Jowell, UK Government Health Minister, as an area “where people do not have easy access to healthy, fresh foods, particularly if they are poor and have limited mobility (Furey, Strugnell & McIlveen, 2001). Lanchard and Lyson (2010) found that urban centres and hinterland areas are the most susceptible to become a food desert.
The concept of segregation has also had impact on the development of food deserts. Segregation is the spatial separation of specific population subgroups within a wider population (Knox & Marston, 2014). Economic segregation has taken place in the United States and has left a big mark on especially low income, inner-city neighbourhoods. They have suffered due to the out-migration of the middle class to the suburbs (Nyden, Lukehart, Maly & Peterman, 1998). Wealthy households immigrated from inner-cities to suburban areas, which dropped the median income of the inner-cities drastically. This drop of the median income of the inner-cities population forced nearly one-half of the supermarkets to close in the three largest cities in the United States (Walker, Keane & Burke, 2010). The lowest income neighbourhoods have 30% less supermarkets than the highest income neighbourhoods (Weinberg, 1995). According to Rose and Richards (2004) is the lack of transportation options, like owning a car or being able to pay for public transportation, not the only problem in segregated areas. Having to walk through unsafe areas, lacking time due to work schedules, being a single parent, or lacking time to prepare a meal can lead to difficulty accessing supermarkets. According to Larsen and Gilliland (2009) residents pay more for groceries in areas with poor supermarket access. Healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables are scarcer at small grocery stores than at supermarkets which makes the goods more expensive. So not only do the small grocery stores have less healthy food, the healthy food is also more expensive than the unhealthy food.
In conclusion, food insecurity is primarily due to the high costs of healthy and fresh products in certain areas such as food deserts. Many people rely on car ownership or public transit to sustain a healthy diet. Nevertheless, for these segregated poor individuals in urban centres and hinterlands a car is not a common good. So these groups are bounded to local fast food companies to sustain their daily energy intake (see targeted marketing individual literature report Human Geography).
Nevertheless, the politics do or do not support these kind of businesses, businesses like McDonalds advertise on television and largely among great sport events. They sponsored the winter Olympics in Sochi and the FIFA World Cup in Brazil ( McDonalds, 2015). This kind of sponsoring is called buzz marketing, where companies sponsor popular sport and entertaining events (Harris et al.) They also lure children into their restaurant by cross-promotion tactics where they have licensing agreements with child targeted products like movies or toys. The McDonalds does this cross-promotion with ‘Happy Meals’ where they add toys to the food they sell. All these marketing practices are considered targeted marketing, whereas the company target a specific group of society.
[1]Field corn processed products: Glucose, dextrose, starch, corn oil, beverage alcohol, industrial alcohol, fuel ethanol, flakes for cereal, corn flour, corn grits, corn meal, and brewers grits for beer production (ERS, 2014b)
Sustainability
Introduction
The Resilience Theory (Holling, 1973) describes two types of resilience: engineering resilience (Holling, 1996) and ecological resilience (Walker et al., 1969; Holling, 1996). According to engineering resilience, ecological systems have one equilibrium steady-state where the system exists around. After a disturbance, resilience is the time the system needs to recover to that one equilibrium steady-state (Holling, 1996). Ecological resilience considers multiple equilibrium steady-states to which a system can shift to after a disturbance. In this case resilience is defined as the amount of disturbances the system can absorb before shifting to another regime (Walker et al., 1969; Holling, 1996).
Furthermore, in 1798 Malthus published his theory of population growth. This theory stated that food supply grows linearly and population grows exponentially. Therefore, the world’s population will eventually exceed the food supply. Since Malthus published his theory, the food system has changed. The Green Revolution reshaped the production of food and increased the food supply drastically, giving the world’s population room for expansion. However, this theory still applies for the food system.
The Resilience Theory can be integrated into the Malthus Theory on population growth. The earth can be considered as the system whereas the disturbances can be appointed to human population. In the case of ecological resilience, human population can put pressure on the earth, which will absorb the disturbance. At some moment the Earth will pass a threshold value where it can shift to another regime. When this moment happens it could be possible that the new equilibrium steady-state will not be able to sustain the high demand for food which will result in a decline in human population. According to engineering resilience, the Earth will need some time to recover from the disturbances and human population will need to rely on technology to prevent extermination due to exceeding the food supply.
It has been proven that technology can help humanity to increase their food supply. However, the last century population grew from 1.5 to 6.1 billion people and is still increasing. What if our technology fails to increase our food supply? What if it is not possible with the current technology to sustain 9 billion people in 2050?
In the case of sustainability, there are many ways to define what a sustainable food system should encompass, but in general it is thought most important that the food is produced/processed, distributed and consumed in such a way that it does not harm the current environment (to some extent) and that it provides a chance for future generations to sufficiently feed themselves while not crossing the carrying capacity of the environment (Sodano, 2012).
In this pillar, to what extent the agroindustry is a sustainable industry will be examined. The
three elements (?) that the U.S. food system is made of should be completely sustainable in the long run for the system to meet the sovereignty requirements.
Food production
The U.S. food system starts the cycle with the production of food. The 3 main aspects of the U.S. food production that are causing the most severe environmental problems are meat production, agricultural area and water use.
Demand for water
The demand of the U.S. food system on freshwater resources is one of the main causes of environmental problems and thus provides evidence of unsustainable practices within the system. Problems consists of groundwater depletion, degradation of irrigated land, ecological degradation, poor water quality and reduced socio-economic conditions (FAOSTATS, 2013). For example, it costs 5000 gallons of water to produce one pound of meat from a feedlot ( Pollan, 2008). Referring to Figure 1, which shows a dominant demand for meat products, the U.S. food system requires high quantities of water. Groundwater depletion is the result. On the other hand groundwater is used for irrigation purposes. Common negative effects on the environment include salinization, alkalization, waterlogging and soil acidification (FAOSTATS, 2013). These negative effects together with a global trend of increasing temperatures result most often in land degradation and desertification, which has in turn a negative effect on the amount of agricultural area.
When European colonists settled in North America deforestation increased rapidly. This increase was mostly caused by the timber industry, but over time this causation shifted to the agroindustry. Forest cover has decreased from 46% of the total U.S. land area in 1630 to 34% in 1910 to relatively the same amount in the present. This low change in forest cover over the past century can be addressed to the protection from deforestation and slow reforestation including urban reforestation (USDA, 2014)
Because in the United States the land cover changed significantly, it influenced the environment. Habitat loss resulted in a large decrease in biodiversity and loss of wildlife. Former regional functions of the forest disappeared including the stabilization of soils, the regulation of water flow and the preservation of the water quality. Also on a global scale the production of oxygen decreased, the uptake of atmospheric CO2 decreased, evapotranspiration decreased and changes the albedo (Tchir et al, 2012).
Danger of a monoculture
The U.S. food system is known for its monoculture. By using one type of crop on a large agricultural land increases the total crop yield on the short term, but decreases the resilience of the area (Pollan, 2008). For instance, when a disease or plague strikes, a farmer who uses a monoculture is in danger of losing all of his crop yield, while a farmer who uses a polyculture is only in danger of losing part of its crop yield. To tackle this problem, the modern farmer uses pesticides and insecticides to keep its crops save. These chemicals are the main cause of biodiversity loss in the agricultural sector (Carson, 1962).
Biodiversity loss outside the agricultural area
Fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides are often used in modern agriculture. When these chemicals run-off into a nearby stream, river or lake the nutrient availability increases rapidly. The high nutrient availability stimulates rapid algae growth near the surface water and eutrophication of the lake is inevitable. The algae population acts like a blanket resulting in reduced light penetration towards deeper water layers. Other trophic levels are influenced by this process. The photosynthesis of water plants, that survive on the bottom of the lake, comes to a sudden stop. Because of this reduction in water plant population, certain types of fish have not sufficient food to survive and die. After a domino-effect, which affects most of the trophic levels within and around the lake, the biodiversity declines (Walke, 2015). These processes also influence the water quality and thus the environment. This has direct and indirect consequences for human health.
Furthermore, fisheries are world wide overexploited. 71% Of all fish stocks are fully exploited or overexploited. When this trend continues marine life and biodiversity is lost, resilience of marine and terrestrial ecosystems decreases and recovery time increases. In 2002 the United States were the fourth largest fishing country in the world. During this decennia Asian countries have taken over the fish market with China having a leading role (approximately 30% of world fish production) (FAO, 2015).
The U.S. food system has a large effect on the emissions of greenhouse gases. Due to heavy oil-based machinery large areas of agricultural lands can be cultivated, but are increasing the Carbon Footprint (Wackernagel & Rees, 1996). In the U.S. meat production has the largest contribution to the Carbon Footprint of the U.S. food system. According to Pollan (2008), the world’s livestock alone accounts for 18% of all greenhouse gases. It is estimated that this percentage is even higher, due to deforestation, albedo-change of new agricultural lands and oil-based wheat production for feedlots. Livestock produces 130 times more waste than humans. Before the introduction of large feedlots, animal waste has been used to fertilize agricultural lands in a natural way. Using animal waste as a fertilizer not only makes the soil fertile, but also increases its water holding capacity and could make crops more nutritious. This reduces land degradation and soil erosion.Nowadays, chemical fertilizers have taken its place in agricultural practices. As a result animal waste can not be degraded in the soil and contributes to America’s greenhouse gases emissions. This means that the U.S. food system has changed the main natural fertilizer into a pollutant (M. Pollan., 2008).
About 60 percent of land of the United States is privately owned. The residuary land is in possession of the American government and a small part is in possession of Indian reservations (2%) and foreigners (1%). Almost all cropland is in possession of private owners.
The differences between small and large farming companies within the private landowners group can be visualized by figure 5. Half of all farms have 45 acres or less and half of the cropland is in possession of farms larger than 1.100 acres. Due to the large land area that large farming companies possess, monocultures of a specific crop are preferred. The rest of their land is mostly used for grazing. Small farming companies usually specialises in livestock and dairy production. They also to a lesser extent cultivate croplands where the main focus lays on specialized foods, which are not produced by larger farming companies due to their bad competitive position (USDA, 2006)
The sustainability in total production of small and large farmers
The majority of the food that is consumed in the U.S. is also produced there. As a result of the wide areas of grasslands that made up for a significant part of the U.S. landscape, the European conquestors could transform the lands into efficient agricultural lands. The humid temperate climate and large groundwater and oil reserves stimulated the industrial agricultural revolution. Because of the large amount of natural resources, the U.S. produces more than it consumes. In 2007 there was 191.5 million ha used for pastures and rangeland, which is 51.3 % of the total agricultural farmland. Exportdata gives a representative view on the amount of pastures produces (figure 3). This is due to the amount of overproduction of meat products and pastures. Products that are produced in the U.S., but can not be consumed because of the limited population, are exported. Export data of the U.S. shows the amount of overproduction of meat products and the pastures. Noticeable are the immense amounts of pastures that are exported; soybeans, maize and wheat (figure 3). This is due to the exact amount of exported pastures and the amount of pastures that is hidden in the exported meat. After all, livestock consumes pastures.
Import data (figure 2) reveals no significant import product that meets the requirements of the average American diet (figure 1). So it can be said that most of an American diet consists of products produced in their own country.
Beef production is the most dominant type of meat production on these pasture and rangelands. This include all the elements of beef production; cow-calf production, growing calves and finishing them. These practices are mostly concentrated in the central states from Texas to North Dakota to Florida (figure 4). During the beef production special management on cattle their health is carried out to reduce negative health impacts (FAO, 2011).
Also dairy products are overproduced in the U.S.. For instance, milk was exported for approximately 1,5 billions dollars in 2011 (FAO, 2011). As a result of severe rules and regulation around livestock health, dairy livestock is mainly held on natural grasslands. The more natural approach results in healthier livestock and reduces the risk of diseases. Dairy farms are mainly concentrated in the Upper Midwest, the northeastern States and California (figure 5)
When it comes to the U.S. government, sustainable agriculture is not something actively fought against, however the need for sustainable agriculture is often overlooked or disregarded. Although some government grant money is available for research and projects in sustainable agriculture, it is a small amount in comparison to the government funds invested in conventional agriculture. Government investments that harm sustainable agriculture range from major water projects that disproportionately benefit large-scale, industrial growers to research on pesticides and transgenic crops (USDA, 2015).
The Worldwatch Institute (2013) argues that food nowadays travels between the 1500 and 2500 miles to get from the farm on the plate, this is 25% farther than it was twenty years ago. They state that the larger the distance is that food needs to travel the more vulnerable the U.S. food system becomes. The energy people nowadays put in the transport of food is a lot more than people get out of the food. The Worldwatch Institute argues that a meal made with local ingredients instead of ingredients from the conventional food chain entails 17 times less petroleum consumption used for transport.
The U.S. have overall increased 7.6% on their import of food from 1999 till 2014 (USDA, 2015). Canada and Mexico are great exporters to the U.S. considering food. Canada exports for 22018,5 million U.S. dollars to America and Mexico exports for 19230,3 million U.S. dollars to America, followed by China who only exports for 5755,5 million U.S. dollars to America. Canada and Mexico are obviously large exporters to the U.S. because they are neighboring countries.
Lettuce that is shipped from West of the U.S. to the East travels approximately 4800 kilometers and uses 36 times more energy when converted to travel energy from fossil fuels than the energy that people obtain by consuming the lettuce (worldwatch, 2013?).
1.6 Gtonnes of 6 Gtonnes equivalent of primary products was the global food wastage in 2007. 960 million tonnes of food wastage was produced through agricultural production and by storing food.
185 millions tonnes of food wastage was produced through processing food into final products. Another 195 millions tonnes of food wastage was produced by the distribution of food.
340 million tonnes of food wastage was produced by the consumption of food. However, there is an high regional variability. In middle and high income regions approximately 35% of the consumption is food wastage, which is in low income regions approximately 10%.
The carbon footprint of animal products accounts for 33% of the total human carbon food print. Food wastage accounts for 15% of the carbon footprint.
The high carbon footprint at the consumption phase is due to individual storage, processing and distribution of food. For instance, cooking or driving to the supermarket is included.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf
The amount of water an American citizen uses directly equals approximately 64.000 gallons per year. This seems like a significant amount, but it is negligible with the amount of water that is needed for the production of our food. Due to the food livestock eat, the water needed to grow this food and their demand for drinking water it costs approximately 5000 gallons of water for a pound of feedlot beef to be produced (Pollan, 2008). Humanity drink 5.2 billions gallons of water per day and eat 21 billion pounds of food per day, while only the world’s cow population drinks 45 billion gallons of water per day and eat 135 pounds of food per day. So the sustainability of human society should be addressed from a systems perspective instead of an individual perspective. By showering a few lesser minutes every day will have tremendous lesser effect than by eating one hamburger one day in the week. The American people consume even more meat; approximately 80 billion pounds of meat per year. In comparison an average diet of an american citizen is very unsustainable due to the large participation of meat in comparison with more sustainable vegetarians.
4.2 Danger of packages
It is more or less unimportant if it is a hamburger or a tomato that people buy, because it is all packed with plastic. After consumption the plastic packages are thrown in the garbage and eventually by the government temporary stored or recycled. There is also a percentage that is lost to the environment before society is able to recycle it. This plastic is transported by wind and water to the oceans where it is stored in the surface waters of the five ocean gyres. Plastic pollution is the cause of the death of approximately 1.000.000 seabirds and 100.000 marine mammals every year. It is one of the main causes for the decrease in marine biodiversity (Laist, 1997).
About 8 million tons of plastic enters the ocean every year (Jambeck et al., 2015). At the moment there have not yet been any recorded practical attempt to clean the oceans of plastics. This plastic consists not only of visible size packages, but also of microplastics. These microplastics can be ingested by the fish, that we catch and later eat. Therefore, these microplastics are unknowingly ingested by humans and are potentially dangerous for our health.Conclusion
The agroindustry is an efficient industry with one goal; to produce as much food as possible with minimal costs and sell as much food as possible to maximize profits. Western countries diet preferences are highest priority as a result of an higher capita per person than poorer countries. This short term and profits based view of the U.S. food system uses the whole world for their food system and has a large share in the degradation of the environment.
If humanity find a way to increase food supply by the use of technology, it has lost most of its natural resources.
So as a result of environmental degradation due to modern agricultural practices the resilience of agricultural areas and even the Earth decreases. The result may be an undefined recovery time, while the system can not be used, or a shift to another regime, which include the possibility of being unable to meet the demand for food supply. The U.S. food system can not meet the requirements of the definition of sustainability and therefore is not able to be defined as a sovereign food system.
Rights
Introduction
In the definition of the concept food sovereignty, the term ‘right to’ was mentioned multiple times. Its meaning differs each time, as a right to something can be a legal issue, a humanitarian issue, a political issue or even just an issue of morality. Rights can therefore be divided into two groups: they are sometimes defined within formal institutions and sometimes belong to informal institutions. Rights within formal institutions consist of rules that have been formalized in the sense that they are written down somewhere, such as the law, or policies. Informal institutions are much more difficult to grasp as they are not written down; they are a matter of decency or values that are supposedly shared within society. The right to something is not always an issue that can be formalized. They can be labeled ESCR: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The lack of formalization of these ESCR leads to many issues. For example, some of these informal rules are constantly being disobeyed and this might harm the rights of citizens or companies. Formalization is a way in which to force obligation to these rules. In this chapter, both formal and informal rights in the U.S. food system, or the lack thereof, will be analyzed. The focus will be on the rights that aren’t formalized and enforced, and therefore go against the food sovereignty principle.
Economic, social and cultural rights
The U.S. government recognizes and enforces formal civil and political rights, but often lacks in the recognition of Economic, Social and Cultural rights (ESCR) and the effect of this can be seen in different groups: U.S. food wageworkers, consumers and farmers.
A reason food in the U.S. can be so cheap is because many social and environmental costs are externalized, which in effect means the rights of U.S. workers are being externalized (Anderson, 2008). Wages are low, working conditions are unsafe and unhealthy, and union formation is often not allowed. A significant part of the wage workers in the food system also consists of illegal immigrants, which can lead to even more rights violations such as forced labor (Rivera-Batiz, 1999)
A significant part of the USDA budget goes to food assistance programs for poor consumers. Nevertheless, this form of aid does not address the problem that underlies the need to these assistance programs. Little money is spent on the reform of the food system as is; on the structural improvement for those not able to obtain sufficient food. The right to food is also not recognized in the U.S., so despite the food assistance programs, there are no real binding obligations which leads to even less food security.
Besides the lack of rights to food, there is also little enforcement of rights to culturally appropriate food. It can be said that the current food system undermines cultural minorities ability to obtain this food and pursue their tradition. Culturally appropriate food is often unavailable or expensive, while POC (people of color) are often already the poorest and most food insecure (Anderson, 2008).
The rates of childhood obesity are too high among all children in the U.S., especially among children from ethnic minorities and low income households (Kumanyika & Grier, 2006). The majority of the African Americans have a low income, income is related to the sensitivity of the cost of food, and thus are African Americans vulnerable to food price changes (Grier & Kumanyika, 2008). (see 4.1.3 for price fluctuations).
A plethora of studies has been done on the fact that health and behavior are affected by individuals’ social and physical surroundings (Morland, Wing, Roux & Poole, 2002). As Grier & Kumanyika (2008) proposed, the cost of food is cost sensitive. Therefore cost is the most significant predictor of dietary choices, which makes healthy eating habits difficult to achieve for the poor (Morland, Wing, Roux & Poole, 2002). Not only are the healthier foods more expensive, Morland et al. (2002) suggest that food in general costs more for the people of low socioeconomic status because they buy in small quantities and are more reliant on processed food. Another factor is when the large supermarkets leave the inner-city area, which can lead to a decrease in supply, other retailers can sell for higher prices (Alwitt & Donley, 1997). This fact is due to the smaller grocery stores compared to the large supermarkets outside the inner-city. Urban residents pay 3% up to 37% more for their groceries at their local supermarket than suburban residents do on the same products. These findings suggest that the migration of supermarkets to the suburbs and the lack of transportation available for the low income households are contributing to malnutrition and food insecurity among people with a low socioeconomic status. Segregation is a large problem in America which causes a lot of other problems. Focusing on the food related problems which were mentioned before, like food deserts and targeted marketing, each with their own problems. A solution could be to handle the segregation by moving low-income households. This is not easily done because it is also a matter of where people want to live. They usually want to live in neighborhoods that have large percentages of their own ethnic group (Clark, 1992).
Another group that faces challenges in the U.S. food system is the farmers. As mentioned before, about 60 percent of land of the United States is privately owned. The residuary land is in possession of the American government and a small part is in possession of Indian reservations (2%) and foreigners (1%). Almost all cropland is in possession of private owners. The rights to land, seeds and crops are mainly concentrated within a small group of companies. For instance, Frontier Agriculture Ltd owns approximately 1/5ft of the grain market, 1/4ft of the seed market and has 800,000 ha of agricultural land to their disposal (Frontier Agriculture Ltd, 2015). These companies are subsidized by the U.S. government with the aim of reducing the unpredictability of the food prices and increasing the income farmers make out of food production. In the latter, this has been done by increasing the food prices above the free-market prices or subsidizing farmers income directly. This policy makes it able for agricultural companies to produce and sell food at low prices. It increases the consumer's purchasing power, but also stimulates overconsumption of food and creates an unfair competition for small scale farmers (Timmer, 1986). Over the period of 1995 until 2012, the U.S. has paid $292.5 billion in subsidies to its farmers (EWG, 2012). Subsidies are believed to help the financial status of those in the agricultural sector by increasing income stability. Nevertheless, 62 percent of farms in the U.S. did not collect these subsidy payments (USDA, 2007). Instead, a pattern is emerging where the top 10% in the agricultural
sector collects 75% of all subsidies given out. Subsidies seem to mainly go out to the large agricultural corporations while smaller farms are being disadvantaged. A large number of family farms even earn under the poverty line (Covey, 2007) and are forced to find off-farm incomes.
Economic perspective on food waste in the U.S.
According to the Economic Research Service of the USDA, retail, service and consumer food losses amount up to 43.7 Mt in 1995, which is 27% of the total edible food supply in the U.S. (Kantor et al., 1997). The price tag of landfilling disposal was in 1996 35 U.S.D/t (Goldstein, 1997). If all the discarded food in 1998 was landfilled, which is 20.1 Mt, it would have cost annually 708 million U.S.D. This is a large sum of money which could have been spent differently if the U.S. did not waste that much food. If only 5% of the 43.7 Mt had been recovered, this could feed 4 million Americans every day (Garvin et al., 2000). There are huge possibilities in not wasting and recovering edible food for consumption. This would help to avoid the huge costs of food disposal in the U.S.. The money that is not spend on disposal of food could be used to facilitate the people in the low socioeconomic layer of the society with food and better access to food. Food waste can be seen as a huge problem because it is present in every layer of society and every type of familie in almost the same amount (Benitez et al., 2008).
figure 5
Conclusion
In the U.S., there are many government laws and policies about where and how rights concerning food should be distributed. However, there is also a large group of issues that could be
considered rights issues within the food system that are not acknowledged by the U.S. government. This leads to these issues being largely left alone, with as a result a food system where rights mostly belong to large agribusinesses. A lot could be done to help people from lower socioeconomic layers which would lead to a more sovereign food system regarding rights, and solving some of these rights issues would simultaneously solve other issues, such as sustainability and health.
References
Alwitt, L. F., & Donley, T. D. (1997). Retail stores in poor urban neighborhoods.The Journal of Consumer Affairs
,
139-164.
Anderson, M. D. (2008). Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform. Agriculture and Human
Values
, 25(4), 593-608.
Covey, T., M. Ahearn, J. Johnson, M. Morehart, R. Strickland, S. Vogel, L. Traub, D. Brown, C. McGath, B. Williams, P. Stenberg, R. Green, K. Erickson, and M. Harris. 2007. Agricultural income and finance outlook. Washington: Eco- nomic Research Service AIS-85. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Rivera-Batiz, F. L. (1999). Undocumented workers in the labor market: An analysis of the earnings of legal and illegal Mexican immigrants in the United States. Journal of Population Economics
, 12(1), 91-116.
Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., & Singh, A. (2013). "Household Food Security in the United
States in 2012." ERR-155.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
36-41.
Dietz, W. H. (1995). Does Hunger cause Obesity?
Pediatrics 95,
766.
McMillan, T. (2014). The new face of hunger.
The future of food, National Geographic, Food
issue
, 27-30.
Nisbett, R. E. (1972). Hunger, obesity, and the ventromedial hypothalamus.
Psychological
Review, Vol 79(6),
433-453.
Swinburn, B. A., Caterson, I., Seidell, J. C., & James, W. P. T. (2004). Diet, nutrition and the
prevention of excess weight gain and obesity.
Public Health Nutrition
:
7(1A),
123–146.
United Nations Environment Programme. (2014). Food Waste: The Facts
Regional Office of
North America UNEP.
Retrieved from
http://www.worldfooddayusa.org/food_waste_the_facts
Williamson, E. (2006). Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry.
Washington Post
, Thursday, November 16, 2006.
National Institutes of Health. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: The evidence report. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; September 1998.
Morland, K., Wing, S., Roux, A. D., & Poole, C. (2002). Neighborhood characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. American journal of preventive medicine
Frontier Agriculture Ltd. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.frontierag.co.uk/about-us/facts-and- figures.aspx on 10-10-2015
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators (2006). 1.3 Land ownership and farm structure. Economic Research Service/USDA.
pp. 1-30.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015). USDA investments in rural America. Retrieved from
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=opportunitie s-factsheets.html
Timmer, P.C. (1986). Getting Prices Right: The Scope and Limits of Agricultural Price Policy. Cornell University Press. Pp. 13-20.
Ojeda-Benítez, S., Armijo-de Vega, C., & Marquez-Montenegro, M. Y. (2008). Household solid waste characterization by family socioeconomic profile as unit of analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52(7), 992-999.
Worldwatch Institute (2013). Globetrotting food will travel farther than ever this thanksgiving. Retrieved from
