• No results found

Food sovereignty in the U.S.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Food sovereignty in the U.S."

Copied!
31
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Sovereignty in the US food system

Creating a framework for a complex system with the Storyline Method

By

Diederik van Duuren, Isa Mulder, Huub Saris, and Floris Veloo

Course: Interdisciplinary Project Study: Future Planet Studies Date: 18 December 2015 Tutor: K. van der Gaast Expert: C. Rammelt Word count: 7500

Inhoudsopgave

(2)

2. Theoretical Framework 4 2.1 Complexity 4 2.2 Sovereignty 6 3. Methodology 7 3.1 Structure 7 4. Results 8 4.1 Health 8 4.1.1 American Diet 9

4.1.2 System: Health issues 10

4.1.3 Conclusion 12 4.2 Sustainability 14 4.2.1 System 14 4.2.2 Conclusion 14 15 16 4.3 Rights 16

4.3.1 System: Economic, social and cultural rights 16

4.3.2 Conclusion 18

Discussion 20

One of the reasons is income (capital) inequality, that is increasing according to Pikkety (2014) since

the 80s. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Conclusion 20

References 21

Appendixes 24

Appendix A 24

A1.1 System Analysis 25

A1.2 Causal Loop Diagram 25

A1.3 Storyline Method 26

Appendix B Health 28

B.1 Recommended household expenditure shares as compare to average expenditure shares, by

CNPP food category, 1998-2006. 28

B.2 Top ten sources of calories for low-income individuals. 28

Appendix B.3 Top ten farm subsidies by crop. (1995-2012, in billions of dollars). 28

Appendix C Sustainability 29

C.1 Top 10 export products of the United States of America in 2011. 29 C.2 Top 10 import products of the United States of America in 2011. 29

Appendix D Rights 30

D.1 Crop farms in 2011: Most are small, but most land is on large farms. 30

1. Introduction

The United States of America has one of the largest economies of the world (World Bank, 2015). Therefore, it is also one of the richest countries in the world, measured in GDP per capita (Pasquali, 2015).

(3)

However, 14 percent of US citizens are food insecure1 (Coleman-Jensen, Nord & 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.

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 The World Food Summit (1996) defined food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to

(4)

2. 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 chain2 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; and Social Organizations (5), such as education, media, household structure, social movements, and health care systems. These domains include different scientific disciplines. Therefore, 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.

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

2 Food supply chain: A description of the process wherein edible food products that are consumed by end-users are

(5)

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 actors3. 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.

3 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.

E

leme

n

ts

(6)

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 there 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 build 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)4.

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. 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.

4The 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.”

R elati on s E n vi ro n me n t s

(7)

3. 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: policymakers, health advocates, planners, researchers from several disciplines, business owners and engaged citizens.

Two existing methods (Appendix A.1 and A.2) that describe different parts of a complex system are integrated with a more general in-depth method. This resulted in the Storyline Method (SM), named after the phrase of Joel Salatin as described in the introduction. For a detailed description of this method and scientific basis see Appendix A.

3.1 Structure

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 underlying theories and discourses to see if there are similarities between these pillars. We will end with a brief conclusion, where we answer the central 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.

So to summarize, we started with a theoretical basis and a method to analyse the complex food system. The actual study includes a separate study of the three pillars (health, sustainability, and rights). Here again, the start is rather narrow (problems) while the actual food and system analysis is more broad and extended. More in-depth information will be in the appendix or in footnotes. To end each pillar, we present a more underlying discourse. In the following conslusion the main aspects and discourses of the pillars combined will be discussed. (see figure 2).

(8)

4. Results

The study starts with a description of the health pillar. The American diet (4.1.1) is included in this first paragraph and this is not repeated in the following paragraphs, respectively sustainability and rights

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. At first, it is necessary to discuss the problems themselves and see the scale of the separate issues.

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 insecurity5, and obesity. The overconsumption of (particular) foods can also result in issues such as;

5

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.

Figure 2

(9)

diseases6, low quality of life, and again obesity7. There is also a contradictory relation between food insecurity and obesity8.

4.1.1 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 B.1). 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). 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).

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

6 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).

7More 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).

8 Obesity and food insecurity: 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).

(10)

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 others9. 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). See Appendix B.2 for products and daily calorie intake for low-income individuals.

4.1.2 System: Health issues

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 the public 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 driven by neoliberal principles such as profit maximization and commodification10. 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 corn11, receiving over $84 billion in subsidies in the period 1995-2012 (EWG). See for subsidies Appendix B.3.

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

9Field 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)

10Commodification: According to Marx (1867) some one could ad value to a certain product with help of technology

(including knowledge) or labour. This aspect would increase the revenues of a certain company. For foods we speak of commodification when raw products, such as cauliflower or tomato’s, are processed, throughout technology or labour, and become a new entity. Foods that are processed went through a process of commodification and in the end they came out with a higher price. So from a market perspective it seems profitable to process foods rather than to sell them unprocessed (or lightly processed, such as washed and packed). The problem is that healthy substances (fibres, minerals, vitamins etc.) become costlier. This due to the fact that commoditised products are costlier but not more nutritious or even less nutritious as the sum of the products inside.

11 Subsidized corn is used for biofuel, corn syrup, and animal feed. Subsidies reduce crop prices but also support the

(11)

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).

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. To sum up, health is shaped by both personal choices and features of the food environment. Food-choice decisions depend on complex interactions between biology and behaviour, and are further modulated by the built environment and community structure (Drewnowski & Kawachi, 2015).

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-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

(12)

Olympics in Sochi and the FIFA World Cup in Brasil (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.

4.1.3 Conclusion

Comodification Karl Marx Kaptial

(13)
(14)

4.2 Sustainability

4.2.1 System

4.2.2 Conclusion

The majority of the food that is consumed in the US is also produced there. As a result of the wide areas of grasslands that made up for a significant part of the US landscape, the European conquests 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 US 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. Export data gives a representative view on the amount of pastures produces (Appendix C.1). This is due to the amount of overproduction of meat products and pastures. Products that are produced in the US, but can not be consumed because of the limited population, are exported. Export data of the US 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. 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 (Appendix C.2) reveals no significant import product that meets the requirements of the average American diet (Appendix B.1). So it can be said that most of an American’s 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 US. 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)

(15)
(16)

4.3 Rights

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 labelled 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 analysed. The focus will be on the rights that aren’t formalized and enforced, and therefore go against the food sovereignty principle.

4.3.1 System: 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 colour) 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 behaviour 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

(17)

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 neighbourhoods 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 (see Appendix D.1). 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 farmer’s 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.

The current US food system is primarily a national or even an international system that is dominated by multinationals and corporations. The consolidation of companies has led to a market with fewer and fewer parties. On the production side, four firms control 85 percent of the beef packing market (US Census Bureau, 2007) and 82 percent of the soybean processing (USDA ERS, 2012). While on the consumption side the top four retailers sold 36 percent of America's food in 2012, an increase of more than 100 percent compared to 1993 (Ibid.). A system controlled by a few companies and with a strong political lobby withholds the voice, participation, and rights of the public in the food system.

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 US. 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

(18)

to food. Food waste can be seen as a huge problem because it is present in every layer of society and every type of family in almost the same amount (Benitez et al., 2008).

4.3.2 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.

(19)
(20)

Conclusion

Two main discourses dominate the US food system according to our analysis. Nationalism, putting the nations interest above others, seems contradicting with capitalism. However, this is not the case. Most intervention of the US government (crop subsidies and assistance programs) are more beneficial for large companies than for small scale farmers and consumers. Subsidies mostly end up at large firms while funds for assistance programs are used for buying food products, so large firms again benefit from these interventions. In this light, nationalism can also be seen as a form of capitalism in the sense that large corporations benefit rather than individuals.

In the health pillar capitalist elements, such as profit maximization, efficiency and commodification, result in an American diet that is full of calories and unhealthy. Differences between income, location, and background determine the quality of foods consumed up to a certain degree. The capitalist driven system stimulates an unhealthy diet which is causing western diseases and obesity.

In the sustainability pillar features of a capitalist system, such as efficiency (monocultures, use of pesticides and herbicides), and the free use of natural resources (fossil fuels, water, soil etc.), result in several environmental problems. For instance, meat production is one of the main drivers of climate change (global effect) while also local negative side effects of the agro industrial food system are prevalent. Namely, desertification, groundwater pollution, species extension (also global, biodiversity), food waste etc. The food system is mining the worlds natural resources and polluting the environment at a local and global scale.

Capitalist features, such as profit maximization and efficiency, create environmental and social externalities. Such as unhealthy and unsafe working conditions, and low wages for wage workers and farmers. For consumers there are inequalities on quality, access, and cultural appropriateness of food for low socio-economic groups, cultural and ethnic minorities.

In conclusion, the current US food system is by far not a sovereign system. On all three main elements of food sovereignty the current food system fails. Several elements can be defined that result in this unhealthy, unsustainable, and unequal food system. This include profit maximization, the need for efficiency such as monocultures and unsafe working conditions, protectionism for companies instead of citizens, and the lack of public interventions. Most of these elements have a direct or indirect link with the discourse of capitalism. In which capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit.

Discussion

It takes more than a bookwork to describe a complex system such as the US food system. Nevertheless, we tried to show the complexity of the system and hopefully presented new information for you as a reader. This framework is not all inclusive, we only presented some of the most important parts, but is can serve as a start that can be extended by others.

To change such a system in a sovereign direction it starts with awareness of the consumers, producers, and others in the system. Such a transition can be based on multiple elements as described in this study. A transition for individuals to create a healthier life and the global transition for a sustainable world could be translated in one transition. In western countries only a minority of consumers is prepared to make such a transition, to avoid meat consumption, but as Beardsworth and Bryman (2004) noticed health issues provide stronger incentives than environmental issues. Promoting one transition instead of two different stories could result in more affective impact, because the issue is global and personal at the same time. This transition could be seen as a win-win situation where individuals create a healthier life and by doing so a sustainable world where the capacity of the planet will not be challenged. Or like the Dutch Health Council (2011) mentioned it in their integrated policy report on food security, sustainability,

(21)

and health; “better dietary health and environmental quality go hand in hand”. Such a transition would give the rights back to consumers, producers, and others in the food system.

Nevertheless, the day that the US food system will become a sovereign system will probably not happen in the near future. However, this does not mean that one could strive for such an idea. Parts of this utopian concept will become reality.

References

Aiking, H., Boer, j, de., & Vereijken, J. M. Eds. (2006). Sustainable protein production and consumption: Pigs or peas? Environment & Policy, Vol. 45.

Alwitt, L. F., & Donley, T. D. (1997). Retail stores in poor urban neighborhoods. The Journal of Consumer

Affairs, pp. 139-164.

American Planning Association’s Planning and Community Health Research Center. (2010). “Food Systems Planning.” Quick Notes. February.

Anderson, M. D. (2008). Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems reform. Agriculture

and Human Values, Vol. 25 (4), pp. 593-608.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. Eds. (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003

Bernstein, A.M., et al. (2010). Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women.

Circulation, Vol. 122 (9): pp. 876-83.

Bernstein, A.M., et al. (2012). Dietary protein sources and the risk of stroke in men and women. Stroke, Vol. 43 (3): pp. 637-44.

Capra, F. (1996) The web of life: a new scientific understanding of living systems (1st Anchor Books ed). New York: Anchor Books. p. 30

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.

Covey, T., M. Ahearn, J. Johnson, M. Morehart, R. Strickland, S. & Vogel, L. et al. (2007). Agricultural income and finance outlook. Washington: Economic Research Service AIS-85. U.S. Department of Agriculture

Dietz, W. H. (1995). Does Hunger cause Obesity? Pediatrics, Vol. 95, pp. 766. Drewnowski, A., & Ichiro, K. (2015). Big Data, Vol. 3 (3): pp. 193-197.

ERS. (2014a). Ag and food sectors and the economy. Retreived at 20 November 2015 from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag- and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-the-economy.aspx#. VD1ZXRawSAo

ERS. (2014b). Corn Background. Retrieved at 22 November 2015 from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn/policy.aspx

Etienne, X. L., Irwin, S. H., & Garcia, P. (2015). Price Explosiveness, Speculation, and Grain Futures Prices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 97 (1), pp. 65-87.

Farvid, M. S., Cho, E., Chen, W. Y., Eliassen, A. H., & Willett, W. C. (2014) Adolescent meat intake and breast cancer risk. International Journal Cancer.

(22)

Feenstra, G. (2002). Creating space for sustainable food systems: lessons from the field. Agriculture and

Humand Values, 19: pp. 99-106.

Ford, A. (2010). "Chapter 9: Information feedback and causal loop diagrams". Modeling the Environment, Island Press. pp. 99.

Foran, T., Butler, J. R. A., Williams, L. J., Wanjura, W. J., Hall, A., & Carter, L. (2014). Taking complexity in food systems seriously: An interdisciplinary analysis. World Development Vol. 61, pp. 85-101. Frontier Agriculture Ltd. (2015). Retrieved on 10 Oktober 2015 from

http://www.frontierag.co.uk/about-us/facts-and- figures.aspx.

Fung, T. T., Rexrode, K. M., Mantzoros, C. S., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2009).

Mediterranean diet and and incidence of and mortality from coronary heart disease and stroke in women. Circulation, Vol. 199(8), pp 1093-1100.

Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. Eds. (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and

Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2002.

Hayles, N. K. (1991). Chaos Bound: Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Headey, D. (2011). Rethinking the global food crisis: The role of trade shocks. Food Policy, Vol. 36 (2), pp. 136-146.

International Planning Committee for food Sovereignty. (2007). Definition of Food sovereignty. Retrieved at 8 November 2015 from http://www.foodsovereignty.org

Kinsey, J. D. (2001). The new food economy: Consumers, farms, pharms, and science. American Journal

of Agricultural Economics Vol. 83 (5), pp. 1113-1130.

Kinsey, J. (2013). Expectations and realities of the food system. In U.S. programs affecting food and

agricultural marketing, edited by W. J. Armbruster and R. Knutson. New York: Springer Science +

Business Media. Pp. 11-42.

Levin, S. A. (1999). Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA,1999.

Lin, B. H., and J. Guthrie. (2012). Nutritional quality of food prepared at home and away from home, 1977-2008. Economic Information Bulletin, No. 105. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Liu, J. et al. (2007). Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems. Science, Vol. 317, pp. 1513. Malden, C., Nesheim, M. O., & Peggy, T. Y. Eds. (2015) A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food

System. The National Acadamies press: Washighton D.C.

Marx, K. (1867). “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol 1, Chapter 1. Progress Press: Moscow. Meadows, H. M., Wright, D. Eds. (2008). Thinking in System: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing: Main,

USA.

McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. P., Butler, C. D., & Uauy, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet, Vol. 370 (9594), pp. 1253-1263.

McMillan, T. (2014). The new face of hunger. The future of food, National Geographic, Food issue, pp. 27-30.

(23)

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, Vol. 22 (1), pp. 23-29.

National Institutes of Health. (1998). Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: The evidence report. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. (2012). Obesity numbers. Retrieved at 11 November

2015 from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/survey_content_99_16.pdf

Nisbett, R. E. (1972). Hunger, obesity, and the ventromedial hypothalamus. Psychological Review, Vol. 79 (6), pp. 433-453.

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, Vol. 52 (7), pp. 992-999.

Oskam, A., G. Backus, J. Kinsey, and L. Frewer. 2010. The new food economy. In E.U. policy for

agriculture, food and rural area. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Pp. 297-306.

Oström, K. J., & Murray, R. M. (2010). Feedback Systems: An introduction to Scientists and Engineers. Princeton University Press. pp. 1

Pan, A., et al. (2012). Red meat consumption and mortality: results from 2 prospective cohort studies.

Arch Intern Med, Vol. 172 (7): pp. 555-63.

Pasquali, J. (2015). Global Finance: Richest Coutries in the World. Retrieved at 14 December 2015 from https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/richest-countries-in-the-world?page=3

Prigogine, I. (1997). The End of Certainty, The Free Press, New York.

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, Vol. 12 (1), pp. 91-116.

Rosa, E. A., & Dietz, T. (1998). Int. Soc. 13, pp. 421

Scharpf, F. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-Centred Institutionalism. Boulder/Cumnour: Wesview Press. [Chapter 3: Actors]

Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., Vuuren, D. van., Elzen, M. G. J. den., Eickhout, B., & Kabat, P. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet. Climate Change.

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, Vol. 7 (1A), pp. 123–146.

Timmer, P.C. (1986). Getting Prices Right: The Scope and Limits of Agricultural Price Policy. Cornell

University Press, pp. 13-20.

United Nations Environment Programme. (2014). Food Waste: The Facts Regional Office of North

America UNEP. Retrieved at 12 November 2015 from

http://www.worldfooddayusa.org/food_waste_the_facts

US Census Bureau. (2013). Table 9. Death rates by age and age-adjusted death rates for the 15 leading causes of death in 2013: United States, 1999-2013. Retrieved at 15 November 2015 from

(24)

Jerardo, A. (2015). U.S. food imports, estimated value by country. Retrieved on 3 December 2015 from www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/us-food-imports.aspx#25418.

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 on 15 Oktober 2015 from

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=opportunities-factsheets.html

Volpe, Richard, and Abigail Okrent. Assessing the Healthfulness of Consumers’ Grocery Purchases, EIB-102, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, November 2012.

World Bank. (2015). World Development Indicators database: Gross domestic product 2014. Retrieved on 17 November 2015 from http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf

Worldwatch Institute. (2013). Globetrotting food will travel farther than ever this thanksgiving. Retrieved on 10 November 2015 from http://www.worldwatch.org/globetrotting-food-will-travel-farther-ever-thanksgiving.

Wright, B. D. (2011). The Economics of Grain Price Volatility. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Vol. 33 (1), pp. 32-58.

Appendixes

Appendix A

In this chapter we present the Storyline Method and the elements that it contains. In the following paragraph the first method, System Analysis (SA), will presented with a link to complexity. In the

(25)

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.

A1.1 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 on 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 1.

A1.2 Causal Loop Diagram

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.

System Analysis

(26)

This method helps us to visualize positive and negative relations (Figure 2). 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.

A1.3 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 3). 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.

Causal Loop Diagram

(27)

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.

Figure 3

Storyline

(28)

Appendix B Health

B.1 Recommended household expenditure shares as compare to average expenditure shares,

by CNPP food category, 1998-2006.

Source:

B.2 Top ten sources of calories for low-income individuals.

Source:

(29)

Source:

Appendix C Sustainability

C.1 Top 10 export products of the United States of America in 2011.

Source: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. (2011).

(30)

Source: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. (2011).

Appendix D Rights

D.1 Crop farms in 2011: Most are small, but most land is on large farms.

Source: USDA, Economic Researcg Service using data from UDSA’s 2011 Agricultural Resource

(31)

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The overarching aims of the studies reported on in this thesis were to gain more understanding about the causation of chronic nonspecific musculoskeletal complaints (MSC)

De totale hoeveelheid koper die in de loop der jaren beschikbaar is gekomen in de vorm van varkensmest bedraagt ca. Wanneer deze hoeveelheid gelijkmatig zou zijn verdeeld over

Als bij marktordening de binnenlandse prijzen van landbouwprodukten op een hoger peil worden beheerst dan het internationale prijsniveau, zijn het de consumenten die in

In Walewale en Sandamfong heeft een (kapotte) mobiele telefoon daardoor een hoge waarde, omdat het voor meer doeleinden kan worden gebruikt dan het script

Bij het thema ‘organisatie’ zijn de variabelen belang actoren en zeggenschap meegenomen. Belang omdat deze in grote mate samenhangen met het maatschappelijk ondernemerschap

Uit dit onderzoek blijkt het gebruik van negaties binnen winst- en verliesframes niet te leiden tot een positievere attitude tegenover het aannemen van de juiste houding en ook

We see how different anycast deployments respond to stress, and identify two policies: sites may absorb attack traffic, containing the damage but reducing service to some users, or

The odds to develop core symptoms given the presence instead of the absence of each of the remaining symptoms last week was significant for all six symptoms (p≤.003), and the odds