Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 37
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
3
APPROACHES TO ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE
FOOD SECURITY
The second segment of the workshop focused on the approaches to achieving sustainable
food availability at affordable prices: the road to sustainable food security for all for the
foreseeable future. Several potential approaches to achieving sustainable food availability were
discussed. The session began with discussions on farm-level sustainable intensification, food
value chains for smallholders leading to sustainable intensification, and sustainable ecosystem
management while expanding food production. Subsequent speakers talked about barriers to
sustainably increasing the productivity of crop yields and the need for increased energy
efficiency in production systems. There were also sessions examining private investment and
farm size issues, the losses and wastes in supply chain, global governance of natural resources,
and international consensus on food safety issues. Most of these already have champions, and
many have undergone some pilot testing, providing some information on strengths and
weaknesses. Presenters took this learning and experience into account and provided subjective
assessments as to scalability and broad impact, impact on affordability of food, and relative
contributions to sustainability. Each session was followed by a brief question and answer period.
FARM-LEVEL SUSTAINABLE INTENSIFICATION23
Mike Bushell, Syngenta Global R&D
Mike Bushell discussed farm-level sustainable intensification from the private sector
perspective, reiterating the challenge to find sustainable ways to feed a population now forecast
to grow beyond 10 billion (United Nations, 2011). Substantial efforts have gone into considering
this grand challenge since the 2008 food price crisis (UK Foresight Report, 2011). It is
recognized that production of food must substantially increase but that environmental impacts
from intensive agriculture must be reduced as well. Extensification of agriculture, bringing more
land into production under lower yielding systems, is widely seen as an unacceptable solution
given the limited land bank available, the large greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that result from
land use conversion, and the associated catastrophic impacts on biodiversity, particularly from
deforestation.
Sustainable intensification of agriculture requires that both agricultural productivity and
environmental outcomes are preeminent (Pretty, 2011). It is clear that this challenge, to “grow
more from less” (Syngenta) must be met by increasing productivity of land use. One opportunity
is the “yield gap,” where high performing farmers can achieve yields several times greater than
their neighbors; yields for rice in Asia and wheat in Europe can vary between less than 1 t/ha and
greater than 10 t/ha. By understanding the limitations on yield, which are often related to lack
23
The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564,
presentation by Mike Bushell (May 3, 2011).
37
OCR for page 38
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
of agronomic skills, knowledge and technology access, productivity of all the major crops can be
substantially increased even using basic technology available today.
Advances in developing world agriculture require inter alia investments in infrastructure,
development of local markets, financial instruments such as availability of credit and insurance,
effective national social policies on land rights and gender issues. Public private partnerships
will be an important part of developing local solutions.
Modern technologies will be important but will not be the only limiting factor.
Technologies are available today to accelerate the development of new seeds with higher genetic
potential based on advances in genetic knowledge, phenotyping and marker assisted breeding.
Genetically modified (GM) crops, which have been a central part of the yield gains in United
States and Latin American agriculture, offer significant yield growth potential in many areas,
such as India and China. Their true potential may be limited in Europe and Africa if effective
and proportionate regulatory frameworks remain elusive.
Modern approaches to the development of new agrochemicals that set even higher
standards of efficacy and safety in use are underpinned by sophisticated technologies for design,
synthesis and analysis, and also by advances in formulation science and application technology.
There is still huge demand for innovation in developing products with new modes of action,
particularly to counter the threat of resistance development.
Integrated solutions are attractive, since creating genetic potential in a seed is only part of
the story. Yield potential depends on seed genetics and favorable soil fertility through effective
fertilization and water availability. Without effective crop protection, 40-50 percent of the food
today simply would not exist; it would be lost to weed competition, insect and disease damage
(Oerke, 2006). All technologies must be used responsibly, and the regulatory requirements for
modern crop protection chemicals are the most stringent of any technology area. The largest
component of the $250 million research and development (R&D) investment needed to bring a
new active ingredient to market, is the mammalian and environmental safety profiling, which
ensures that products can be manufactured and used safely.
Water is a particular concern and may be the limiting factor in agricultural productivity in
many regions where groundwater reserves are being used unsustainably (see Figure 3-1). There
will not be any magic solutions, but better systems for water use efficiency (WUE) can certainly
be developed. Almost all aspects of the farm system can affect WUE. A lot of irrigation water
is wasted (as much as 40 percent in some cases) through inefficient application. Crop
enhancement chemicals (Bushell, 2009) can increase “crop per drop” by enhancing yield and
reducing irrigation requirements. Seed treatment chemicals, such as Cruiser™, activate
biochemical cascades within plants protecting against stress, creating vigorous, more extensive
root systems that contribute to higher yields under water- or nutrient-stress situations. Crop
genetics improvements also are an important area of research. The first drought tolerant corn
varieties have been launched in the United States in 2011. In high value crops such as fruit, nuts
and vines, drip irrigation holds a lot of promise for reducing total water usage and increasing
WUE, as well as enabling better nutrient use efficiency through fertigation. Drip irrigation can
also be effective in crops like rice, but may be too expensive an investment for widespread use in
field crops. The tools do not have to be complex. For example, the PaniPipe project in
Bangladesh involves locating short plastic pipes in paddy fields that allow farmers to easily see
the water level and optimize their use of irrigation water—avoiding overuse in situations where
perfect leveling is not possible. This led to a 46 percent reduction in water used and a large
profit increase for the farmers.
38
OCR for page 39
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
FIGURE 3-1 Areas of physical and economic water scarcity.
SOURCE: Bushell 2011; IMWI Report, Insights from the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in
Agriculture, 2006, p. 8.
The biggest negative externality of intensive farming is arguably the diffuse
contamination of water bodies with run-off from agricultural fields. Intense rainfall events can
physically wash soil particles off fields, carrying fertilizer and pesticide residues into ditches and
streams. The downstream effects of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) pollution can result in
creation of algal blooms, eutrophication and even “dead zones.” Landscape planning can help
minimize these effects, using high-resolution GIS to identify high risk areas at a regional,
watershed and farm level. Areas of particular risk are those where the principal risk factors are
found together (i.e., areas where crops are planted on shallow soils on an impervious base, with a
slope greater than 2°. Fields can be identified where run-off risk is highest and effective
mitigation measures can be discussed with the farmer (could be enhanced watercourse protection
through buffer strips or woodland, use of no-till or cover crop practices, or in some cases not
using particular products or growing crops at all). A 10 meter margin can reduce run off by 90
percent (Reichenberger et al., 2007), but in practice these benefits may not always be fully
delivered. By understanding the specific farm environment and the elements that favor the flow
of water (paths, ditches, slope) and elements that limit or channel the flow (hedges, woodland,
grass strips, wet meadows and reed beds) better environmental outcomes can be delivered
through smarter design of buffer zones.
Integrated approaches involving responsible use of technology and better planning at a
systems level on the farm show a lot of promise; indeed they will enable more of the benefits of
intensification to be delivered with less of the negative externalities. This can happen on any
scale, from megafarms in Brazil to smallholders in Asia or Africa. More sophisticated,
sustainable intensification of agriculture approaches will be enabled by improvements in
extension services and use of modern information systems for knowledge transfer to farmers. Yet
39
OCR for page 40
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
the principal limitations for smallholders may still be in poor infrastructure or in inability to link
to input or output markets, and these require a national government approach, where again
spatial planning for land use could be beneficial in synchronizing investments and avoiding
conflicts over land use or competition for natural resources. Access to credit or instruments like
crop input insurance will also be important to help increase financial resilience in the face of the
risks and uncertainties of farming in the future.
FOOD VALUE CHAINS LEADING TO SUSTAINABLE INTENSIFICATION24
Maximo Torero, IFPRI
Maximo Torero discussed food value chains for smallholders leading to sustainable
intensification, introducing the topic by describing the evolution of agriculture over time. There
has been a decline in the agricultural importance of grains and other staple foods, with a move
towards more consumption of high-value agricultural commodities. Additionally, where the
Green Revolution was once supply-led, the current agricultural transformation is now largely
demand-driven. These changes have had many implications, particularly for the markets. There
is a need for more coordination and new roles for the government. The major drivers behind this
transformation include rising income, urbanization and population growth, outward-oriented
trade policy, and changes in foreign direct investment.
This agricultural transformation has introduced new linkages for the farmer and buyer
relationship, due to the increasing preference for high-value commodities, which are generally
more perishable. If the appropriate infrastructure is not in place, this can create increasing costs
and losses throughout the supply chain. Torero introduced the paradox of the smallholders due to
changes in agricultural production discussed above. Two issues are central to this paradox:
changes in production methods are not scale neutral as they were during the Green Revolution,
and economies of scale in agriculture may apply in the input supply, processing of harvests, and
in transport.
Torero noted that there are several levels of problems that are faced by smallholders
throughout the value chain. In production, primary concerns including the quality of inputs, low
productivity, and non-demand linked production. In the supply chain, weak road infrastructure,
lack of storage, and food waste and losses are of concern. Low processing, a lack of quality
product, poor returns, and low capacity utilization are primary issues in the processing stages.
Finally, in marketing, challenges include poor infrastructure, a lack of grading and linkages, and
a lack of transparency in prices.
Torero noted that the four key issues he planned to address in his presentation included
(1) the heterogeneity of small holders, (2) access to infrastructure, (3) resolving of market
failures and obtaining economies of scale, and (4) scaling up of solutions.
Regarding the first issue of heterogeneity of small farmers, Torero noted that rural
households in developing countries are extremely diverse in their economic characteristics.
Rural development policies need to take this heterogeneity into account to be effective. Torero
discussed the concept of the stochastic profit frontier and efficiency in terms of that frontier,
which were used to develop a typology of development domains. This typology takes into
24
The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564,
presentation by Maximo Torero (May 3, 2011).
40
OCR for page 41
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
consideration level of efficiency and potential, along with a poverty index that was used to assess
policies that could improve productivity and efficiency. For example, for areas of low efficiency
and high potential, with high levels of poverty, it is possible to identify policies that may
improve efficiency throughout the value chain analysis. Torero noted that he has conducted
research on ten countries using this type of analysis and is currently completing the empirical
analysis.
Torero discussed his research to address problems related to access to infrastructure.
Utilizing the concept of isoprofits in economics, he was able to account for costs in an analysis
of the effectiveness of infrastructure investments. He used the example of maize grown in South
Africa, first examining the yield in terms of production potential and infrastructure access. In his
analysis, he was able to assess areas where it would be possible to have the highest potential in
terms of returns.
Torero also discussed the lack of coordination of infrastructure services found in many
countries. For example, in many developing countries, electricity may be managed by one
ministry, while transportation issues may be overseen by another ministry, etc., with little
coordination between these entities. Torero noted that examining the whole chain is imperative
to understand how to improve coordination and infrastructure issues.
Regarding market failures and obtaining economies of scale, Torero discussed research
examined various ways private companies are working with small farmers, including contract
farming arrangements. He noted that there are barriers to vertical integration that make it
desirable to contract out (e.g., land laws and need for flexibility). Torero cautioned that
exploitation is possible when firms have monopsonistic power.
Torero noted that studies have found that regarding conventional contract farming
arrangements, smallholders may be hesitant to enter into contract agreements, as the monitoring
costs may be too high. Additionally small producers may not have resources to meet the quality
specifications. There is also the risk of higher costs of production and contract defaults. For
example, it has been shown that cash constrained farmers may break their contract because they
may need cash sooner than is permitted by the contracts. To address these concerns, Torero
discussed efforts to utilize microfinance options such as club formation, which could reduce
costs for smallholders. Strengthening farmer association groups is another approach to improve
contract arrangements with small farmers. Torero noted that IFPRI is now evaluating cases of
contracts entered into with groups of farmer associations as compared with contracts with
individual farmers to determine if there is any significant difference.
Regarding the scaling up of solutions, Torero discussed the use of impact evaluation and
typology. Evaluation in particular can be used to identify and measure project results, identify a
causal link between an intervention and these results, provide a systematic and objective
assessment of program impacts, and could assist in determining if interventions are relevant and
cost effective. Finally, evaluation can be used to promote accountability, evidence-based
policymaking, and learning.
41
OCR for page 42
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT25
Jeffrey Milder, EcoAgriculture Partners
Jeffrey Milder discussed approaches to ensure sustainable management of natural
resources while expanding food production. As previously discussed, in the 21st century, society
will place increasing demands on the world’s rural land base. The challenge of “sustainable food
security,” therefore, is not solely about increasing global food supplies by approximately 70
percent in the context of climate change and growing resource scarcity. It is about doing so while
simultaneously meeting other societal needs from agricultural lands—needs that include the
provision of clean water and other ecosystem services to urban areas and other downstream
users, mitigation of climate change by sequestering carbon, protection of biological diversity,
and provision of energy for local use and/or world markets. Recent empirical and modeling
studies suggest that it will be impossible to meet all of these objectives at regional to global
scales if each is pursued through separate, single-objective strategies. Instead, integrated
approaches to landscape management are needed to increase synergies among these multiple
objectives and thereby generate larger bundles of goods and ecosystem services from rural lands.
Ecosystem management provides a theoretical and practical framework for the integrated
management of agricultural landscapes. This framework seeks to balance resource conservation
with resource use through a holistic approach that manages resources as systems rather than
individual parts and that integrates scientific knowledge with social, economic, and political
conditions and values.
While ecosystem management is rooted in the field of biological conservation and natural
resource management, its principles are useful for supporting sustainable approaches to food
production. At the farm scale, ecosystem management approaches can be used to increase yields
profitability and sustainability by managing agricultural biodiversity (e.g., through integration of
diverse crop varieties and non-crop species), conducting integrated pest management, and
managing soils in ways that increase beneficial nutrient and water cycling processes. These basic
principles are applied in a variety of agroecological farming systems including organic
agriculture, agroforestry, permaculture, conservation agriculture, and systems of rice
intensification.
Landscape scale applications of ecosystem management in agricultural areas
(“ecoagriculture”) have historically been less widely used than farm-scale application, but are
likely to be increasingly important for supporting sustainable food production in the future.
Ecoagriculture approaches may be needed both to address challenges to agricultural production
(e.g., adaptation to climate change, management of upstream-downstream water dynamics, and
resolution of land-use conflicts) and to capitalize on new opportunities (e.g., sequestering carbon
in agricultural landscapes). In ecoagriculture landscapes, synergies among multiple landscape
outcomes are realized through improved spatial planning and organization of land use, and
deliberate management of ecosystem services to agriculture (e.g., pollination and pest control),
as well as ecosystem services provided by agricultural areas, economies of scale achieved
through collective action, substitution of natural capital for financial capital, and several other
mechanisms.
25
The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564,
presentation by Jeffrey Milder (May 3, 2011).
42
OCR for page 43
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
A recent survey of ecoagriculture landscape approaches for achieving food production,
natural resource conservation, and Millennium Development Goals identified five salient
characteristics of such approaches (Milder et al., 2011):
1) Management is conducted at the scale of landscapes—areas of hundreds to thousands of
square kilometers defined by common biophysical, socioeconomic, cultural, and/or
jurisdictional characteristics, and often defined around specific management problems or
challenges.
2) Landscapes are understood and managed as systems, in which multiple components
interact dynamically in feedback loops.
3) Landscapes are deliberately managed to achieve multiple outcomes.
4) Adaptive management processes are used to conduct evidence-based decision making
and create a structured process by which to learn from experiences.
5) Landscape management is conducted by multi-stakeholder groups supported by social
learning.
Ecoagriculture-type approaches to managing agricultural mosaics have become more
prevalent in recent years, driven by grassroots action, as well as new agency programs (e.g.,
investments in sustainable land management in Africa and elsewhere), new policy and
governance platforms (e.g., various territorial development initiatives in Latin America), and
new forms of investment. Hundreds of examples have been documented, representing all
continents except Antarctica.
Key barriers to the more effective and widespread use of ecoagriculture include the lack
of supportive governance structures and institutions, which are frequently not conducive to
cross-sectoral, landscape-scale action. In addition, knowledge and capacities needed to manage
landscapes for multiple objectives are not widely held, and “landscape literacy” is not commonly
a part of university or adult education for agriculture and environment professionals, farmers,
and community leaders. With some notable exceptions, incentive structures do not adequately
encourage farmers and land managers to consider the value of ecosystem services and the effects
of environmental externalities in their decision making processes. Future research on the
adoption, effectiveness, and functioning of ecoagriculture approaches to landscape management
can help expand the contribution of such management solutions to food security at local,
regional, and global scales.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Workshop participants and speakers discussed evaluation efforts and data quality issues
during the discussion session. One participant noted that Mike Bushell, Maximo Torero, and
Jeffrey Milder each discussed different criteria for evaluating agricultural programs and policies
and asked if the speakers could recommend any standard evaluation criteria. Torero noted that
initiating evaluation efforts after a program has already been designed and is the process of being
implemented can be costly. He added that the key to effective evaluation efforts is to design
these in conjunction with implementation planning rather than at the back end. Milder stated that
from the standpoint of landscape and ecosystem management approaches, controlled
experiments or research on the outcomes of those systems are not currently available and may
43
OCR for page 44
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
not be appropriate due to the number of exogenous factors that cannot be controlled. Milder
added that the goal of monitoring in these types of systems, rather, is to provide insight not only
into food security issues but to understand the simultaneous implications for natural resources.
Milder noted that in terms of designing projects effectively to address a community’s needs, it is
important to examine all important factors up front so that these are accounted for in the initial
planning stages. CARE, an international aid organization, recently developed frameworks for
working with communities on climate change, adaptation and vulnerability and discussed these
issues upfront with the community so that they could be integrated into the design of a project.
Milder added that in thinking about the smallholder context where adaptations to environmental
change are the cornerstone of sustainability, one method for evaluating efforts could be to assess
the capacities the communities have to adapt to changing circumstances. Human capital should
not be ignored as a legitimate outcome of programs and investments.
Regarding data, one participant noted that data should be accurate, timely, objective,
sustainable, comprehensive, flexible, and be able to measure change. The participant added that
nonsampling errors are a significant issue, as is data objectivity. Torero noted that a significant
challenge in collecting data is the reliance on census data that in some cases may be 10 to 15
years old. The funding to update these data is also lacking. One participant stated that the Gates
Foundation is currently funding a project in Ethiopia that uses satellite imagery to collect census
data. Pardey added that alternative technology can provide new and innovative approaches for
obtaining much needed and accurate data.
REDUCTION OF YIELD GAPS TO INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY AND
SUSTAINABILITY26
Judith L. Capper, Washington State University
Judith Capper discussed barriers to sustainably increasing the productivity of crop yields
to meet rapidly increasing global food demand. She noted that projections indicate that the
average domestic income will increase, with the projected GDP of China and India being similar
to that of the United States (Keyzer et al., 2005). Compounding the increased demand, the desire
for a diet richer in animal-source proteins rises in tandem with increasing income, thus the global
livestock sector will be charged with the challenge of producing more milk, meat and eggs using
fewer resources.
On a global basis, crops yields have increased over time as knowledge and understanding
of plant nutrition and management has improved, innovative agronomical practices have been
implemented, and technologies have been adopted. Between 1961 and 2010, the global corn
yield increased from 1.94 t/ha to 5.98 t/ha. If the same trend continues until 2050, corn yield will
reach 7.78 t/ha (extrapolated from FAO data [http://faostat.fao.org]). Malnutrition and hunger are
significant issues across the globe, with 925 million people undernourished annually and 16,000
children dying from malnutrition each day (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations 2010). Nonetheless, it has been suggested that the quantity of food produced is already
sufficient to feed the population; therefore the issue is not one of production but of a combination
of considerable food wastage and the lack of designated infrastructure to transport food to those
26
The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564,
presentation by Judith Capper (May 3, 2011).
44
OCR for page 45
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
areas of the world where it is currently lacking (Rabobank Group, 2010). If this conflict was
overcome by the year 2050 and crop yields continued to increase, food security might cease to be
a significant issue.
Capper discussed public perceptions on food choice related to organic and genetically
modified foods. The demand for organic food products is increasing in developed countries
where malnutrition is more often associated with obesity than undernourishment, and consumers
have sufficient income to demand food choice. In the United States, organic food commands a
small portion of total market share (3.7 percent; Organic Trade Association, 2010) with the
greatest share being seen in the fruit and vegetable sector (~12 percent), compared with dairy (~
6 percent; Organic Trade Association, 2011) or beef (2.5 percent; Clause, 2010). Recent data
shows that almost 95 percent of U.S. consumers buy food according to economic, nutritional and
taste aspects, with only 4 percent seeking food according to their specific lifestyle choices (e.g.,
vegetarian, organic or local), yet a majority of consumers will occasionally buy organic food
(Simmons, 2011). A survey by Raab and Grobe (2005) reported that consumers associated
organic foods with positive attributes including “chemical-free,” “healthier/more nutritious,”
“clean/pure” and “earth-friendly,” whereas the main negative attributes were related to economic
cost and a mistrust or lack of knowledge of the practices associated with organic production.
Capper argued that although the generally positive consumer response to organic food
production improves the social component of the sustainability triangle (economic viability,
environmental impact and social acceptability), productivity is demonstrably less in organic
systems. Crop yield data gathered from the 2008 U.S. organic production survey (USDA/NASS
2010a) documented reductions in major crop yields varying from 29 percent for corn grain to 34
percent for soy and 40 percent for winter wheat. In a world where arable land sufficiency is
decreasing, this presents a significant concern if future food security is to be maintained. By
contrast, the adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops led to a 12.3 million ha reduction in
the amount of total land required for canola, cotton, soy and corn production in 2009 (Brookes
and Barfoot, 2011).
Public perception of organic food as being “chemical-free” and “clean/pure,” stated
Capper, is supported to some extent by the prohibition of inorganic fertilizers and conventional
pesticides in organic production; however, it should be noted that many naturally-derived
chemicals are approved for use as organic pesticides. Organic production has greatly advanced
the ability of producers to control pests through non-chemical means; however, this effect is not
confined to alternative production systems.
On the other hand, Capper noted that public perception of GM foods has generally been
negative, which has impacted GM food production. However, using biotechnology to improve
disease and pest resistance reduced pesticide spray use on GM crops by 8.7 percent between
1996 and 2009, thus reducing the environmental impact from pesticide use by 17.1 percent
(Brookes and Barfoot, 2011). The global acreage devoted to GM crops is estimated at ~10
percent of cropland; therefore, the reductions in pesticide use resulting from biotechnology do
not negate the concerns relating to widespread chemical use in conventional production.
Nevertheless, the data indicate that both technological and organic approaches show promise in
reducing pesticide inputs to crop production.
In contrast to organic practices, which often require increased passes across the crop to
mechanically control pests, use of GM crops has favored the adoption of reduced-tillage
practices, which have a two-fold advantage with regards to the environmental impact of crop
production. Fuel use decreases in reduced-tillage practices as a consequence of the lesser
45
OCR for page 46
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
intensity of cultivation compared with conventional tillage. Furthermore, the quantity of carbon
sequestered into the soil is increased under reduced-tillage systems. Brookes and Barfoot (2011)
estimate the reduction in carbon emissions conferred by GM-crop adoption to be equal to
removing 7.8 million cars from the road per year.
The environmental impact mitigating effects of improved productivity are not restricted
to crop production, but also offer opportunities for considerable gains within livestock
production. Within the U.S., advances in nutrition, management and genetics between 1944 and
2007 conferred a four-fold increase in the average milk yield of dairy cattle and facilitated the
production of considerably more milk (84.2 billion kg 2007 vs. 53.0 billion kg 1944) from a
national herd containing 64 percent fewer animals (9.2 million cows vs. 25.6 million cows).
Carbon emissions per unit of milk were reduced by 66 percent over the same period, with an
industry-wide decrease of 41 percent in total emissions (Capper et al., 2009). The same trends
can be seen on a global basis at a single time point. A recent FAO report modeled GHG
emissions from dairy production using life cycle analysis, demonstrating that as production
intensity increases and the average milk yield shifts from approximately 250 kg/cow for Sub-
Saharan Africa to ~9,000 kg/cow for North America, the carbon footprint decreases from 7.6 kg
CO2-eq/kg milk to 1.3 kg CO2-eq/kg milk. If we examine yield data for organic dairy production
in the USA, conventional milk yields are significantly higher (10,062 kg/yr) compared with
yields from organic (7,425 kg/yr) or grazing herds (7,213 kg/yr; USDA 2007). This decline in
productivity has a significant effect upon resource use. Capper et al. (2008) modeled the effect of
supplying the entire projected U.S. population in 2040 with the 0.71 liters of milk (or its low-fat
equivalent) per day as recommended by USDA (2005). Assuming that current productivity
trends continue for both crop and animal production, fulfilling dairy requirements via organic
production would increase the national herd size by 3.5 million animals (20 percent) compared
with conventional production and augment land requirements by 3.1 million ha (a 30 percent
increase). The world record for dairy production is currently held by a Wisconsin dairy cow that
produced 32,726 kg of milk over 365 days in 2010. Given that the average U.S. cow produced
9,593 kg of milk in 2010 (USDA, 2011), considerable progress can continue to be made in order
to improve productivity and reduce environmental impact.
Yield thresholds for meat production relate to the quantity of edible protein produced per
animal (i.e., the slaughter weight and the proportion of the carcass that is meat vs. non-edible by-
products). Anecdotal evidence from the beef processing industry indicates that a threshold for
beef-animal slaughter weights has been reached and that slaughter weight cannot continue to
increase without reorganization of the processing infrastructure, currently designed for an upper
threshold of approximately 635 kg (average U.S. beef slaughter weight for 2010 was ~590 kg).
Nevertheless, the beef industry has a considerable opportunity to improve productivity through
improving both growth rate and lean muscle accretion through the use of technologies that
improve feed efficiency and partition nutrients towards muscle growth. Such technologies
include ionophores, steroid hormone implants, in-feed hormones and beta-agonists. These
technologies are not permitted within organic production, leading to efficiency losses.
Fernàndez and Woodward (1999) compared performance parameters for beef animals
finished in organic or conventional feedlot systems and reported decreases in growth rate and
feed efficiency (1.40 kg/d and 7.57 kg feed per kg gain for the organic system, 1.77 kg/d and
5.44 kg feed per kg gain for the conventional system), leading to a reduced slaughter weight 536
kg vs. 578 kg), increased days in the feedlot (226 d vs. 164 d) and an increase in total production
costs of $0.51 per kg gain ($1.86/kg gain vs. $1.35/kg gain), a cost that would ultimately be
46
OCR for page 47
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
passed to the consumer. This comparison is somewhat disingenuous, as feedlot finishing is not
routinely practiced within organic production--grass-fed finishing systems (without the use of
productivity-enhancing technologies) are far more common. As a consequence of the reduced
nutrient density of forage-based diets, productivity indices in grass-fed systems are reduced still
further, with growth rates averaging 0.59 kg/d over the entire lifespan compared with 1.74 kg/d.
If the quantity of U.S. beef produced in 2010 was supplied from a grass-fed system, an extra 64.6
million animals would need to be added to the national herd, the extra land needed would be
equal to three-quarters of the land area of Texas (53.1 million ha), and the extra water required
would be sufficient to supply 46.3 million U.S. households for a year (adapted from Capper,
2010). Despite the popular perception that organic systems are more environmentally-friendly,
the increase in greenhouse gas emissions produced by changing to a grass-fed system would be
equal to adding 26.6 million cars to the road per year.
Nutritionally, studies show that grass-finished beef contains higher quantities of
beneficial omega-3 and conjugated linoleic acids. The concentrations are extremely small, and
their advantages may be outweighed by a higher concentration of saturated fatty acids, which
have negative health effects (Leheska et al., 2008). Nonetheless, the social acceptability of a
pasture-based system that is more akin to consumers’ perception of a “natural” environment and
diet for cattle gains significant kudos when compared with the public image of a contemporary
feedlot.
Capper stated that one significant advantage of organic production from a consumer
perspective is the prohibition of antibiotic use in livestock production. Despite the considerable
debate as to whether antibiotic use in animals has significant implications for human health,
evidence suggests that, when specifically asked, consumers consider it to be a concern
(Wenderoff, 2011). Reviewing 31 published studies comparing organic and conventional
systems reveals that there was no difference in the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR)
between systems in nine studies, whereas organic systems showed a lesser prevalence than
conventional systems in the remaining 22 studies (Alali et al., 2010; Call et al., 2008; Jacob et
al., 2008; Walid et al., 2010; Wilhelm et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2010). Removal of antibiotic
technologies from livestock production certainly has the potential to mitigate AMR; however, it
is important to note that none of the studies reported zero AMR in organic systems.
Simmons (2011) showed that a small yet vocal proportion of consumers (1.7 percent)
regard the majority of food purchasers as being naïve and regard it as their responsibility to
educate them about the perceived dangers of contemporary large-scale food production. The
preponderance of information that condemns technology use in food production is overwhelming
and may mislead the consumer. For example, a recent editorial in the Washington Post
mentioned GM corn and soy, cloned animals and McNuggets™ in the same sentence, conferring
the message that cloned animals are as ubiquitous as fast food restaurants. However, Then and
Tippe (2010) report that 600 cloned cattle exist in the USA and 120 in Europe. When compared
with the 2010 U.S. cattle population of 93.7 million animals (USDA/NASS, 2010b), the numbers
are extremely small, yet media reports play upon consumer fears and misconceptions to incite a
climate of fear regarding the use of technology.
Capper noted that the beauty of consumer choice lies in the fact that there is a market for
every production system, intensive or extensive, large-scale or small-scale, contemporary or
alternative, with or without technology use, providing that it continues to adapt to the economic,
environmental and social issues that together confer sustainability. Although organic production
systems confer positive advantages in terms of social sustainability, productivity losses lead to an
47
OCR for page 54
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
western Brazil. Environmental concerns have also surfaced, especially where land expansion
occurs at the expense of tropical forests, as with pastures in Latin America and oil palm in
Southeast Asia. Finally, even economic benefits are often compromised by lack of technology
and land speculation—especially where land is provided through government channels free or at
very low prices. For all these reasons, investments in Africa often fail, with lasting damage to
communities and the environment.
Byerlee said that, to realize the benefits that could be attained, changes in land
governance, policy, and institutional capacity will be needed. These changes include recognition
of local rights, transparent mechanisms to transfer rights voluntarily instead of having them
expropriated by the state, and public institutions with clear mandates and sufficient capacity to
prevent negative social or environmental effects. Additional provisions for local employment
content, training and technology transfer would help spread the benefits. Although this appears a
daunting list, there are good examples to draw from that indicate that the benefits from
implementing these reforms could be high. As expected, outcomes are best where investments
are made in situations of good land governance where property rights are already well defined.
Private investment in farming will be critical to ensuring agricultural supply response for
world food security. A variety of institutional models that involve a range of farm sizes will be
needed. The first priority is to level the playing field to ensure that commercially-oriented family
farms can respond to improved incentives and tap new sources of private capital. Much greater
attention to land rights and governance will be needed to ensure favorable outcomes in Sub-
Saharan Africa.
LOSSES AND WASTE IN THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN29
Adel Kader, University of California, Davis
(Presented by James Gorny, U.S. Food and Drug Administration)
James Gorny, presenting on behalf of Adel Kader, discussed the issue of waste in the
food supply and strategies for reducing these losses. Postharvest losses and waste in foods of
plant origin between the production and consumption sites are estimated to average about 33
percent and range from 5 percent to 50 percent, depending on the product’s perishability and
handling conditions during domestic and export marketing. Reduction of these losses can
increase food availability to the growing population, decrease the area needed for food
production, and conserve natural resources.
Strategies for loss reduction include use of cultivars with longer postharvest life, use of
an integrated crop management system that maximizes yield and quality, and use of proper
postharvest handling procedures to maintain quality and safety of the products. Although
reducing postharvest losses of already-produced food is more sustainable than is increasing
production to compensate for these losses, less than 5 percent of the funding of agricultural
research, extension, and development internationally is allocated to reducing postharvest losses
and waste in the food supply chain.
Biological (internal) causes of deterioration include respiration and associated metabolic
rate, ethylene production and action, rates of compositional changes (associated with color,
29
The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564,
presentation by Adel Kader (May 3, 2011).
54
OCR for page 55
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
texture, flavor, and nutritive value), mechanical injuries, water stress, sprouting and rooting,
physiological disorders, and pathological breakdown. The rate of biological deterioration
depends on several environmental (external) factors, including temperature, relative humidity, air
velocity, atmospheric composition (concentrations of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ethylene), and
sanitation procedures. Insect infestation, birds, and rodents are also important factors in losses of
agronomic food crops (cereals, grains, oil seeds, and other dried products).
Although the biological and environmental factors that contribute to postharvest losses
are well understood and many technologies have been developed to reduce these losses, they
have not been implemented, in many cases, due to one or more of the following socioeconomic
factors: (1) predominance of small-scale producers and handlers; (2) inadequate marketing
systems; (3) inadequate storage and transportation facilities; (4) unavailability of needed
materials, tools, and/or equipment; (5) lack of information; and (6) unintended consequences of
some governmental regulations and legislations.
Strategies for reducing losses and waste of agronomic food crops include (1) drying to
reduce moisture content to below 8 percent, (2) effective insect disinfestation and protection
against reinfestation, (3) storage temperature (storage potential doubles for every 5ºC reduction
in temperature), (4) maintaining storage relative humidity in equilibrium with moisture content
of the product, and (5) proper sanitation procedures to minimize microbial contamination and
avoid mycotoxin formation. The presenter suggested that international development
organizations and governments should give highest priority to improving storage facilities of
agronomic food crops at the national, regional, village, and household levels in all developing
countries.
Availability and efficient use of the cold chain is much more evident in developed
countries than in developing countries. Unreliability of the power supply, lack of proper
maintenance, and inefficiency of utilization of cold storage and refrigerated transport facilities
are among the reasons for failure of the cold chain in developing countries. Cost of providing the
cold chain per ton of produce depends on energy costs plus utilization efficiency of the facilities
throughout the year. Strategies reducing postharvest losses and waste of perishable foods in
developing countries include (1) application of current knowledge to improve the food handling
systems and assure food quality and safety; (2) removing the socioeconomic constraints, such as
inadequacies of infrastructure, poor storage facilities and marketing systems, and weak research
and development capacity; and (3) overcoming the limitations of small-scale operations by
encouraging consolidation and vertical integration among producers and marketers of each
commodity or group of commodities.
Following are some examples of the recommended loss reduction interventions: (1)
improved containers to better protect produce from damage; (2) providing shade to reduce
temperature and provide a natural source of cooling; (3) improved curing of root and tuber crops;
(4) use of water disinfection methods and other sanitation procedures; (5) use of cost-effective
cooling methods, such as evaporative forced air cooling, hydro-cooling with well water, and
small-scale cold rooms with CoolBot-controlled air conditioners30; (6) effective insect control
(disinfestation and protection against reinfestation); and (7) improved small scale food
processing methods.
30
The CoolBot works much like a cooler compressor and can be used with a window-type air conditioning unit to
enhance its cooling capacity. It has proved particularly useful for farmers and florists.
55
OCR for page 56
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Emmy Simmons introduced the session by inquiring as to which of the low-cost methods
described in James Gorny’s presentation would be most effective in reducing global food waste.
Gorny responded that there is no “silver bullet,” but the methods he presented, including efforts
to packaging materials, shading of produce, and transportation improvements, appear to be the
simplest, least costly, and most easily implemented. Uzo Mokwunye added that little research is
being conducted on postharvest losses, which is major issue in Africa, noting that for farmers
with little income and small farms, building a silo, improving irrigation and refrigeration are not
possible. Gorny agreed that it is not appropriate for small farmers to make a large investment in
improving infrastructure, but noted that governments or individual companies could play a role
in developing a cooperative approach to addressing some of these postharvest loss issues.
One participant inquired as to what farm structures may look like 25 years from now in
the three relevant geographies of China, India and Africa. Derek Byerlee speculated that in
China, in particular, farm population is declining and there will likely be farm consolidation, but
how this will occur is unclear. With more entrepreneurial farmers expanding through land
rentals, he noted that there may be an increase in the number of professional farm managers
including private companies. Byerlee noted that Africa is the least certain and that clearly
“smallholders are going to be the way forward.”
Regarding investment in small farms, one participant inquired if public and private
investments will likely materialize. Byerlee noted that there is currently significant interest from
the private sector in agriculture; however, it is unclear how these investments will be
implemented and whether they will be concentrated in contract farming or in other approaches.
Recent public private partnerships on irrigation have demonstrated that there can be innovative
approaches from both sectors for investing in agriculture.
Responsible investment issues were also discussed, as one participant noted, most
governments are interested in attracting foreign investment. Kostas Stamoulis noted that country
investment principles have been developed by the FAO, World Bank, International Fund for
Agricultural Development, and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. These
principles, which provide a code of conduct for foreign investment, have been warmly received
by the private sector, and there has been consultation with the private sector and the agencies that
developed these principles. Although these agencies have offered to advise governments on the
principles, there has not been interest from government agencies regarding how to handle
negotiations on investments that respect land rights, the environment, etc. The private sector in
this case is more eager to buy into these voluntary rules and principles than are some of the
governments.
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE OF NATURAL RESOURCES: QUANTITY VS. QUALITY31
Nancy McCarthy, FAO
Nancy McCarthy discussed global governance of natural resources. Preliminary research
on existing international agreements concerning natural resources reveals the large quantity and
31
The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564,
presentation by Nancy McCarthy (May 3, 2011).
56
OCR for page 57
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
large variety in instruments and resources covered. Considering bilateral and multilateral
treaties, agreements, and conventions, the international community has created thousands of
instruments covering every resource type. These instruments vary greatly in language and scope,
requiring a more detailed look at factors that make each successful or not.
McCarthy presented on her review of the nature of supra-national governance structures
for natural resources important to food security. This review focused mainly on resources where
externalities arise in resource use and management, in particular plant genetic resources,
fisheries, water basins, forests, grasslands, and soil.32 Once countries decide to draft agreements
to manage these externalities, they face a number of choices in the design of those agreements.
Externalities give rise to the need for collective action--they determine the necessary
membership in collective action agreements as well as the distribution of costs and benefits both
from remaining at the status quo and from agreements to internalize externalities. The nature of
externalities--positive and negative--strongly influences the costs of crafting and enforcing
international agreements. For instance, ocean fisheries are an open-access resource with strong
incentives for fleet owners to not comply with any agreements, especially with respect to species
with high commercial value. Management of ocean fisheries implies all countries should be
parties to agreements.
Further, it is very difficult to monitor highly mobile ocean fish stocks, making
determinations of non-compliance difficult. Fish stocks accessed by a smaller number of
countries in seas, lake, and rivers are more akin to a common pool resource, but similarly,
difficulty in monitoring means that countries face high costs of ensuring compliance by their
own nationals, especially with respect to high value species. On the other hand, agreements to
invest in public maintenance for navigation on rivers generally present a far less formidable
incentive structure. First, such agreements generally entail few countries. Additionally, public
investments do not imply restrictions on their own nationals, so countries do not have to enforce
compliance against their own citizens. Agreements on forest resources often focus on mitigating
negative externalities (reducing deforestation on riparian land to reduce erosion and siltation) and
on providing positive externalities (afforestation and reforestation to improve water flow and
quality, to preserve biodiversity corridors). These agreements are generally between relatively
small numbers of countries, and monitoring is easier than it is with fisheries, especially with
satellite imagery. However, countries must still be able to ensure compliance by their own
nationals, which may be costly. These examples demonstrate that the management of different
natural resources implies different incentive structures, with implications for the design of
agreements and the potential costs of monitoring and enforcement.
Once a set of countries has decided to enter into an agreement covering natural resources,
several design elements come into play during negotiations. One issue is whether to craft a
legally binding or non-binding agreement. Legally binding agreements are generally viewed as
more credible than non-binding agreements, but non-binding agreements are seen as more
flexible. Flexibility is often important when future costs and benefits are uncertain and where
countries exhibit substantial heterogeneity, which can require flexibility in implementing the
spirit of the agreement. Also important is the strength of domestic interest groups, which tend to
strongly favor binding agreements and put less emphasis on the need for flexibility. On the other
32
Air pollution can affect food security both directly and indirectly through climate change. However, this differs
from the other resources, since air quality is affected (mainly) by non-resource-based sources (e.g. industries,
transportation, etc.). There are still lessons to be learned from agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the
Montreal Protocol, but these have been extensively studied elsewhere and so are not part of this paper.
57
OCR for page 58
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
hand, binding instruments can be made flexible through allowance of explicit ex-post adjustment
mechanisms in the agreement or through the use of vague language, which is later interpreted by
the countries themselves or in a central forum. The degree of precision in language is the second
choice faced in crafting an agreement. As with non-binding instruments, vague language gives
greater flexibility and more easily accommodates heterogeneous circumstances. It also allows
for easier adjustment than treaties as uncertainties are resolved. However, vague language also
makes compliance monitoring more difficult and detracts from the credibility of the
commitment.
Implementing the agreement requires certain functions, such as information sharing,
monitoring, dispute resolution, and enforcement. Lessons learned from the literature on optimal
devolution and principals of subsidiarity clearly stress the need to devolve responsibility to the
lowest level possible. One can then use federated structures to improve monitoring and
compliance. In terms of the four functions above, the issue is how best to harness “lower level”
knowledge and capacity to implement and monitor agreements while simultaneously recognizing
that greater centralization of certain functions provides greater credibility and overall
compliance. For instance, centralized monitoring and/or dispute resolution mechanisms can
address otherwise potential weaknesses arising from the use of non-binding agreements or of
vague language. It is worth noting that these functions can be performed at more than one level
in a federated structure. Finally, enforcement is almost never centralized. Rather, agreements
are either enforced through national mechanisms or through reputation effects, the latter of which
can often be very effective.
As discussed above, international cooperation in the management of ocean fisheries is
necessary because of the nature of the resource’s externalities and high difficulty in monitoring.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a legally binding international treaty,
covering a variety of ocean uses through very specific language, including exclusive economic
zones, navigation rights and obligations, and pollution prevention. In the area of living resources
of the oceans, the convention is more vague and is left open to interpretation and enforcement by
signatory nations. However, the strength of the convention lies in its establishment of strong
international structures that include information platforms, monitoring mechanisms, and dispute
resolution mechanisms, though their relation to fisheries was not well defined. The convention
has been greatly effective in areas where its language is more precise but has had very limited
effectiveness in managing the ocean’s living resources. Bringing more clarity and specificity to
ocean fisheries, the UN FAO implemented the FAO Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries,
a non-binding instrument with weak structures but more precise language. Though non-binding,
this Code is able to utilize existing UNCLOS structures for monitoring and compliance.
Combined with the development of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations under
UNCLOS (following the principles of federated structures), there appear to have been some
gains made vis-à-vis past performance, though certain stocks are still highly depleted. Further
efforts to promote the sustainable management of living resources in the oceans are being made
with the establishment of the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, a legally binding instrument with precise language
specifying obligations for both flag and non-flag states. This agreement also has weak
structures, utilizing instead existing UNCLOS structures, but there is great hope for its future
success through specific requirements and enforcement.
Forest management is an area where global agreement has been elusive, primarily
because the global externalities of forest management are difficult to define. Demonstrative of
58
OCR for page 59
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
the difficult progress in this area is the UN Non-Legally Binding Instrument on All Types of
Forests, an obviously non-binding agreement with vague language. This agreement has all of the
signs of an ineffective agreement: non-binding nature; vague language; and no information
sharing, joint monitoring, or dispute resolution structures. Assessing compliance with this
agreement is nearly impossible, and its effectiveness in furthering sustainable management in the
future is doubtful. A good contrast with the UN Forest Agreement is the Central African Forests
Commission (COMIFAC), a regional body among 10 Central African nations created by a
legally binding treaty. The establishing treaty is binding but explicitly makes the sustainable use
of forests a voluntary commitment of members. Its fuzzy standards are left open for later
refinement, but the structures created in COMIFAC include activity information, coordination
platforms, and federated monitoring. The later COMIFAC Plan of Convergence represents a
step toward narrowing the specific areas for future regional harmonization. The effectiveness of
COMIFAC and its Plan are still difficult to assess, but they appear to have the proper elements to
be a successful resource agreement. Through a combination of non-binding standards and a
strong structure, COMIFAC is aiming to integrate and coordinate the regions forest management.
Finally, McCarthy noted that there are other international mechanisms that affect natural
resources, including voluntary private sector adoption of guidelines or participation in “payments
for environmental services” markets, market-based certification/labeling, and within other
development financing mechanisms (e.g., the CADDP process), of which environmental
sustainability is one of four pillars that need to be addressed to secure financing.
McCarthy concluded that, for the most part, natural resources with supra-national
externalities are already generally covered by existing international agreements. However, there
is scope to improve the efficacy of these agreements. First, a better understanding of how the
design elements either complement or substitute for one another could be used to strengthen
agreements. Second, these agreements could also better incorporate lessons learned from the
principles of subsidiarity/federated structures literature in order to strengthen compliance.
Preserving the natural resource base is critical for achieving and maintaining food security, and
that this is even more important in the face of climate change. Improving design of governance
instruments is key to preserving the natural resource base and ensuring food security.
GLOBAL PUBLIC GOODS: FOOD SAFETY33
Laurian Unnevehr, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture34
Laurian Unnevehr discussed the international consensus on food safety issues, identifying
four main conclusions. First, food safety is an important public health challenge in developing
countries. WHO (2002) estimates that 2.2 million people die each year from food and
waterborne disease in developing countries. However, there is substantial uncertainty
surrounding such estimates, and the WHO is undertaking a more systematic assessment of the
global burden of foodborne illness. Animal and human health management are linked through
zoonoses such as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). Microbial pathogens are the most
33
The presentation is available at http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/sustainability/foodsecurity/PGA_062564,
presentation by Laurian Unnevehr (May 3, 2011).
34
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speaker and are not intended to represent the views of
USDA.
59
OCR for page 60
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
important risk, but mycotoxin exposure is also important in developing countries. The science of
identifying, monitoring, and tracking foodborne risks is advancing, making better control more
feasible. Climate change may alter risks or make risks more dynamic through changing the
environmental conditions that foster pathogens or toxins or by increasing the incidence of
weather-related emergencies.
Secondly, Unnevehr noted that food safety is a global public good because risks are
shared across borders and mechanisms of control require international coordination. Microbial
pathogens can enter the supply chain at many points between farm and consumer, and mixing
commodities from multiple sources increases the potential spread of risks. Growing trade in
perishable products, changing consumption patterns, and increased preparation of food away
from home all lead to greater need for coordinated management of food safety along the entire
global supply chain. Externalities from hazard control and asymmetric information lead to
incomplete market incentives for food safety improvement.
Thirdly, there is an emerging international consensus regarding the best practices for food
safety management and regulation. International institutions are emerging to support food safety
in both public and private sectors. There is also an emerging international consensus that a
preventative, risk analysis based approach to food safety, which addresses the entire supply chain
from farm to table, is the best way to design management and regulation. Developed-country
regulations increasingly follow this approach, which prioritizes risks according to their public
health importance, addresses critical control points with preventive measures, and mandates
traceability for identifying risk sources. Private sector certification schemes are increasing, and
there are efforts to coordinate and benchmark different systems. The Sanitary and Phytosanitary
(SPS) Agreement under the WTO provides a framework for addressing the need for global
“standards for standards.”
Finally, increased investment in capacity and in institutions would strengthen the ability
of the global food system to respond to emerging food safety challenges. Investments in
surveillance, water and sanitation infrastructure, and “standards for standards” would enhance
management capacity. Institutions are incomplete for carrying out the tasks of prioritizing risks
on a global basis, sharing the benefits of control between winners and losers, and providing
consistent information about the food safety performance.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Emmy Simmons opened the discussion by posing a question to Nancy McCarthy related
to solutions for encouraging collective action and voluntary compliance. Simmons inquired if
these might not be limited solely to joint monitoring but would extend to joint science efforts as
well, specifically inquiring about how often she identified global collaboration on science as part
of her review of the global treaty process. McCarthy responded that in her review, she found that
river basin organizations, as well as efforts by the United States and Canada to monitor certain
fish stocks on the rivers, generated scientific data. She did not note a strong emphasis related to
this issue in any of the forestry treaties that she reviewed. There is also great variability in the
treaties and the way they are managed and enforced. Participants discussed challenges of the
Rhine River Basin and Indus Basin treaties. McCarthy noted that regarding river basin treaties,
she found that when these areas faced prior conflicts, the new treaties tended to be stronger and
more effective.
60
OCR for page 61
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
Participants also discussed food safety perceptions related to GMOs, noting that despite
evidence that these types of crops can increase productivity and reduce environmental damage,
public perception in many places of the world is that GMOs are unsafe and unhealthy. One
participant observed that obviously there is an international disagreement about GM food and
GM food safety and it is not clear that there is an institution that is currently capable of resolving
this issue.
Per Pinstrup-Andersen reiterated Laurian Unnevehr’s point that international institutions
for food safety should be strengthened, but inquired as to how specifically she would recommend
this be done. Unnevehr stated that with regards to increasing CODEX35 enforcement capability,
she believes that it is impossible to develop international standards for food safety, particularly
as risk management activities are individual-country specific and cannot be predetermined.
Rather, Unnevehr stated that when she discussed strengthening international institutions, she was
in fact referring to giving these organizations more authority to take a broader assessment of
prioritizing risks rather than focusing on standards for a specific crop or use of pesticide. She
added that the World Health Organization’s efforts to assess the global burden of foodborne
illness are a positive step but could also be strengthened.
Simmons summarized the presentations noting several crosscutting themes identified
throughout the day related to achieving food security, including the need for additional research,
better use of science, improved documentation efforts, and the need for location-specific data in
some cases. She added that although the goal is the same, to achieve global food security, the
presentations had demonstrated that the approaches for meeting this challenge vary extensively.
REFERENCES
Bushell
Bushell, M. 2009. Presentation at CGIAR workshop. Available at
http://www.cgiar.org/pdf/pscnov2009/4.1%20Mike%20Bushell%20-
%20Identifying%20research%20priorities%20and%20setting%20objectives.pdf
IMWI (International Water Management Institute). 2006. Insights from the comprehensive assessment of
water management in agriculture. Stockholm World Water Week:8.
Oerke, E. C. 2006. Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science 144:31-43.
Pretty, J. 2011. Editorial: Sustainable intensification in Africa. Pp. 1-9 in Sustainable intensification:
increasing productivity in African food and agricultural systems, J. Pretty, C. Toulmin, and S.
Williams, eds. London, UK: Earthscan.
Reichenberger S., M. Bach, A. Skitschak, and H.-G. Frede. 2007. Mitigation strategies to reduce pesticide
inputs into ground- and surface water and their effectiveness: a review. The Science of the Total
Environment 384:1-35.
Syngenta. 2011. Contributing to food security. Available at http://www2.syngenta.com/en/grow-more-
from-less.
UK Foresight Programme. 2011. The Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global
Sustainability. Available at http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/food-and-
farming/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf.
35
The CODEX Alimentarius is a food code used by global consumers, food producers and processors, national food
control agencies and the international food trade. It is designed to protect the health of consumer and ensure fair
trade practices encouraging the coordinating of international food standards.
61
OCR for page 62
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
United Nations. 2011. World Population Prospects: 2010 Revision. The Population Division of the United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Milder
Milder, J. C., L. E. Buck, F. A. J. DeClerck, and S. J. Scherr, eds. 2001. Landscape Approaches to
Achieving Food Production, Natural Resource Conservation, and the Millennium Development
Goals. Integrating Ecology and Poverty Reduction, F. A. DeClerck, J. C. Ingram, and C.
Rumbaitis del Rio, eds. New York: Springer.
Capper
Alali, W. Q., S. Thakur, R. D. Berghaus, M. P. Martin, and W. A. Gebreyes. 2010. Prevalence and
distribution of Salmonella in organic and conventional broiler poultry farms. Foodborne
Pathogens and Disease 7:363-371.
Bauman, D. E., and J. L. Capper. 2011. Future Challenges and Opportunities in Animal Nutrition. 26th
Southwest Nutrition and Management Conference. Tempe, AZ.
Brookes, G., and P. Barfoot. 2011. GM Crops: Global Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts 1996-
2009. Dorchester, UK: PG Economics Ltd.
Call, D. R., M. A. Davis, and A. A. Sawant. 2008. Antimicrobial resistance in beef and dairy cattle
production. Animal Health Research Reviews 9:159-167.
Capper, J. L., E. Castañeda-Gutiérrez, R. A. Cady, and D. E. Bauman. 2008. The environmental impact of
recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) use in dairy production. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 105:9668-9673.
Capper, J. L., R. A. Cady, and D. E. Bauman. 2009. The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944
compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 87:2160-2167.
Capper, J. L. 2010. The environmental impact of conventional, natural and grass-fed beef production
systems. Proc. Greenhouse Gases and Animal Agriculture Conference 2010. Banff, Canada.
Clause, R. 2010. Organic Beef Profile. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center.
http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/livestock/beef/organic_beef_profile.cfm.
Accessed May 2011.
FAO. 2009. How to Feed the World in 2050. Rome, Italy: FAO.
FAO. 2010. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2010. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Fernàndez, M. I., and B. W. Woodward. 1999. Comparison of conventional and organic beef production
systems I. Feedlot performance and production costs. Livestock Production Science 61:213-225.
Jacob, M. E., J. T. Fox, S. L. Reinstein, and T. G. Nagaraja. 2008. Antimicrobial susceptibility of
foodborne pathogens in organic or natural production systems: An overview. Foodborne
Pathogens and Disease 5:721-730.
Keyzer, M. A., M. D. Merbis, I. F. P. W. Pavel, and C. F. A. van Wesenbeeck. 2005. Diet shifts towards
meat and the effects on cereal use: can we feed the animals in 2030? Ecological Economics
55:187-202.
Leheska, J. M., L. D. Thompson, J. C. Howe, E. Hentges, J. Boyce, J. C. Brooks, B. Shriver, L. Hoover,
and M. F. Miller. 2008. Effects of conventional and grass-feeding systems on the nutrient
composition of beef. Journal of Animal Science 86:3575-3585.
Organic Trade Association. 2010. U.S. Organic Product Sales Reach $26.6 Billion in 2009. Available at
http://www.organicnewsroom.com/2010/04/us_organic_product_sales_reach_1.html. Accessed
May 2011
Organic Trade Association. 2011. U.S. Organic Industry Valued at Nearly $29 billion in 2010. U.S.
organic industry valued at nearly $29 billion in 2010. Accessed May 2011.
Raab, C., and D. Grobe. 2005. Consumer knowledge and perceptions about organic food. Journal of
Extension 43:online.
62
OCR for page 63
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
Rabobank Group. 2010. Sustainability and Security of the Global Food Supply Chain. Utrecht, The
Netherlands: Rabobank Nederland.
Simmons, J. 2011. Making Safe, Affordable and Abundant Food a Global Reality. Greenfield: Elanco
Animal Health.
Then, C., and R. Tippe. 2010. Agro-Biotechnology: Cloned Farm Animals - A ‘Killing Application’?
Risks and Consequences of the Introduction of Cloned Animals for Food Production. Munich,
Germany: Test Biotech Institute.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2005. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005. Washington,
DC: USDA.
USDA. 2007. Dairy 2007, Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health and Management Practices in the
United States. Fort Collins, CO: USDA-APHIS-VS.
USDA/NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2010a. 2008 Organic Production Survey.
Washington, DC: USDA.
USDA/NASS. 2010b. Overview of the United States Cattle Industry. Washington, DC: USDA.
USDA. 2011. Data and Statistics. Available at
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/index.asp. Accessed May 2011.
Walid, W. Q., S. Thakur, R. D. Berghaus, M. P. Martin, and A. G. Wondwossen. 2010. Prevalence and
distribution of Salmonella in organic and conventional broiler poultry farms. Foodborne
Pathogens and Disease 7:1363-1371.
Wenderoff, J. 2011. Moms across America uniting to preserve effectiveness of antibiotics: poll of 800+
moms shows more than three out of four concerned about use of antibiotics in food animal
production, support government action to limit such use. Available at
http://www.saveantibiotics.org/newsroom/pr_3may2011.html. The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Accessed May 2011.
Wilhelm, B., A. Raji , L. Waddell, S. Parker, J. Harris, K. C. Roberts, R. Kydd, J. Greig, and A.
Bayntonet. 2009. Prevalence of zoonotic or potentially zoonotic bacteria, antimicrobial resistance
and somatic cell counts in organic dairy production: Current knowledge and research gaps.
Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 6:525-539.
Zhang, J., S. K. Wall, L. Xu, and P. D. Ebner. 2010. Contamination rates and antimicrobial resistance in
bacteria isolated from “grass-fed” labeled beef products. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease
7:1331-1336.
Crane
Flynn, H.C. and P. Smith. 2010. Greenhouse gas budgets of crop production – current and likely future
trends. Paris, France: International Fertilizer Industry Association.
Jenssen, T.K., and G. Kongshaug. 2003. Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in fertilizer
production. IFS (The International Fertiliser Society) Proceedings No: 509. York, UK: IFS.
Byerlee
Deininger, K., and D. Byerlee with J. Lindsay, A. Norton, H. Selod, and M. Stickler. 2011a. Rising
Global Interest in Farmland: Can it Yield Sustainable and Equitable Benefits? Washington, DC:
The World Bank.
Deininger, K., and D. Byerlee. 2011 The Rise of Large Farms in Land Abundant Countries: Do They
Have a Future? World Development (forthcoming).
Eastwood, R., M. Lipton, and A. Newell. 2010. Farm size. in Handbook of Agricultural Economics, P. L.
Pingali and R.E. Evenson, eds. North Holland: Elsevier.
Hertel, T. 2011. The Global Supply and Demand for Land in 2050: A Perfect Storm? American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 93(1).
63
OCR for page 64
PREPUBLICATION COPY: UNCORRECTED PROOF
Kader
Kader, A. A. 2005. Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce. Acta
Horticulturae 682:2168-2175.
Kitinoja, L., S. Saran, S. K. Roy, and A. A. Kader. 2011. Postharvest technology for developing
countries: challenges and opportunities in research, outreach and advocacy. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture 91:597-603.
Unnevehr
Unnevehr, L. J. 2007. Food safety as a global public good: is there underinvestment? Contributions of
Agricultural Economics to Critical Policy Issues, K. Otsuka and K. Kalirajan, eds. Malden:
Blackwell.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2002. WHO global strategy for food safety: safer food for better
health. Available at: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/general/en/strategy_en.pdf
64
