DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards a Common Food Policy for the European Union the Policy Reform and Realignment That Is Required to Build Sustainable Food Systems in Europe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Towards a Common Food Policy for the European Union the Policy Reform and Realignment That Is Required to Build Sustainable Food Systems in Europe TOWARDS A COMMON FOOD POLICY FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION THE POLICY REFORM AND REALIGNMENT THAT IS REQUIRED TO BUILD SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS IN EUROPE REPORT Lead author: Olivier De Schutter Research and editorial leads: Nick Jacobs, Chantal Clément, Francesco Ajena Adopted by the IPES-Food panel: February 2019 This report would not have been possible without the sustained efforts of the IPES-Food team. Firstly, the IPES-Food panel would like to thank Nick Jacobs for his invaluable contributions to conceptualizing the process and drafting the final report, Chantal Clément for critical organizational and research contributions throughout the process, and Francesco Ajena for essential research and strategic inputs. Throughout the process, they have been ably supported by other members of the IPES-Food secretariat: Céline Pérodeaud, Timothy Eden, Lidia Mahillon, Gloria Passuello, and Anne Demonceaux. IPES-Food would like to thank the Chaire UNESCO on World Food Systems (Montpellier), IDDRI, EPHA and Slow Food for co- leading workstreams, and the following organizations for their many contributions to the process: Acces to Land, ActionAid, ACT Alliance, Agroecology in Action, Die Agronauten, Arc2020, BEUC, The Centre for Agroecology Water and Resilience (University of Coventry), CIDSE, Eating City, EEB, Euro Coop, EuroHealthnet, European Anti-Poverty Network, European Coordination of the Via Campesina, ESTÀ, Fair Trade Advocacy Office, FIAN, Fondazione Cariplo, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, IFOAM, IEEP, Oxfam Solidarité, Pour une autre PAC, RIPESS, SAFE, SEO Birdlife, University of Bristol (School of Law), and Urgenci. The process was also made possible by collaboration with institutional partners. IPES-Food would like to thank the European Economic and Social Committee, and in particular Peter Schmidt and Mindaugas Maciulevičius, and the following MEPs and their support teams: Maria Heubuch, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Daciana Sârbu, Bart Staes, Marc Tarabella, and Sirpa Pietikäinen. IPES-Food is also grateful to the cities of Freiburg, Montpellier, Milan and Turin for hosting Local Labs. In addition to the partners mentioned above, IPES-Food would like to thank the following individuals for reviewing various materials: Elin Bergstrøm, Gianluca Brunori, Sibylle Bui, Pedro Cerrada-Serra, Tom Dedeurwaerdere, Tomaso Ferrando, Peter De Franceschi, Mikelis Grivens, Jean-Marc Meynard, Nora McKeon, Dionisio Ortiz-Miranda, Ana Moragues, Adrian Mueller, Kelly Parsons, Carsten Pedersen, Robert Pederson, Sudhvir Singh, Chiara Tornaghi, and Hubert Wiggering. Further, IPES-Food would like to thank the following individuals for their research, translation, and organizational support at various stages of the process: Rachael Bowen, Giulia Carcasci, Paola Fernandez-Wulff, Inés Jordana, Caroline Ledant, Mikkel Kofod Nørgård, Ellen Van Nieuwenhuyze, Silvia Obregon, Emanuele Pallotta, Peter Volz, and Eva Zemmour. IPES-Food also thanks the Daniel and Nina Carasso Foundation for its ongoing support, without which the Common Food Policy process would not have been possible. Finally, IPES-Food would like to thank all of the participants of the Policy Labs, Local Labs, and the EU Food and Farming Forum, whose willingness to work together was and will continue to be essential in building sustainable food systems in Europe. Layout & graphic design by Hearts and Minds TOWARDS A COMMON FOOD POLICY FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION THE POLICY REFORM AND REALIGNMENT THAT IS REQUIRED TO BUILD SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS IN EUROPE FOREWORD BY KARL FALKENBERG I welcome this IPES-Food report, ‘Towards a Common Food Policy for the European Union’. The three years of research and broad-based consultation on which it is based provide for a comprehensive analysis of why such a policy is needed, and also for concrete ideas to be put forward as to how the change in policy could involve the participation of all relevant actors at the European, national, regional, and local level. Much of the report corresponds to my own assessment of the agri-food nexus in the European Union. Current EU agri-food policies are not sustainable. On all three counts, economic, social, and environmental, the current trends are going in the wrong direction. To understand the present reality, a historical review is helpful. Agriculture has been and remains a key element of the European construction. In the wake of World War II, European nations experienced food shortages and famine, and were less than 50% self- sufficient in food. The European Economic Community was therefore built on ambitious commitments towards increasing food production and securing farm incomes in line with overall income developments. The EU opted for an approach seeking to guarantee farm income by fixing commodity prices at levels well above world markets. The US farm policy followed a diametrically opposed path, helping US farmers with direct income support to sell their products at highly-competitive (low) prices. This helped to establish the US as one of the leading commodity exporters in the world. The EU’s high-price policy, effectively paid for by the consumer, required substantial border protection, but proved highly efficient in making Europe self- sufficient in food production. Eventually Europe became more than self-sufficient in a range of key commodities and introduced export refunds to be able to dispose of surplus production in world markets. This set the EU against the US in world markets and disrupted the growth prospects for many other nations, developed and developing. It also favoured, in the EU and the US, the emergence of large specialised farms, because the respective subsidies went essentially to those that produced the most. In 1995, the World Trade Organisation forced both the EU and the US to review their farm policies, by forcing reductions in domestic and export support and imposing less border protection, but the respective reforms fundamentally maintained the bias in favour of large holdings. The social and environmental impacts of these policies are visible today. In Europe, millions of farms have disappeared, weakening rural structures and changing entire landscapes. The disappearance of hedgerows, the use of pesticides and fertilisers, and the emergence of large-scale monocultures, have dramatically reduced biodiversity in agricultural zones. Intensive animal husbandry has contributed substantially to nitrate pollution of surface waters and surrounding seas. Not to mention the substantial contribution to climate change made by these forms of industrial agriculture. The present report rightly highlights these impacts. 4 TOWARDS A COMMON FOOD POLICY FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION There is some recent hope: in the last ten years, the only agricultural sector that has expanded in land use, number of farms, and employment, is organic. But this growth starts from a very small base, remaining well below 10% of the respective totals. The trend appears to show that reducing pesticide and fertiliser use, and avoiding over-mechanisation, can lead to higher farm incomes. In some cases, pesticide reductions have even contributed to higher yields, because even wind-pollinated crops benefit from additional insect pollination. There also seems to be a slow change coming from consumer behaviour. There is growing concern with chemical residues in food, the limited nutritional value of mass-produced food, and a general awareness of the negative health effects of diets relying heavily on sugar, salt, and meat. I am convinced that the two trends will reinforce one another in the years to come. But these changes are not supported by today’s agri-food policies: the lion’s share of EU support still goes to 20% of large holdings. The latest reform proposals by the EU Commission continue to distribute the bulk of support through Pillar 1, i.e. direct income support based mainly on the size of the farm. A much bigger shift towards Pillar 2, i.e. support for ‘Rural Development’, would be necessary. Support should be linked to sustainable farming, i.e. farming that maintains rural activity and contributes to protecting the environment, from biodiversity to soil, water, and air. The ‘polluter pays’ principle should be applied to agriculture, including where climate change is concerned. The maintenance of green fields, wetlands, and forests, as well as environmentally sound farming practices, should be encouraged financially. Branding for sustainable farming, including animal welfare, should be strictly monitored for reliable and clear consumer information. All of this will be achieved only if governance itself changes: away from the present silo approaches in national ministries, the European Commission’s Directorate-Generals (‘DGs’) and European Parliament Committees. The Commission’s broad public consultation on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy was a good starting point, taken up in large numbers by EU citizens. I support the call made in the present report for a more integrated, holistic approach in moving forward the much-needed changes in the way in which we produce our food, with renewed attention to guaranteeing the safety and quality of diets in Europe. Karl Falkenberg, a former trade negotiator and Director for Environment within the European Commission, was Senior Advisor to the European Political Strategy Centre (EPSC) dealing with Sustainable Development until 2018. The views expressed in this foreword are written in his personal capacity and should not be attributed either to the European Commission or to the EPSC.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sustainable Food Systems Concept and Framework
    Sustainable food systems Concept and framework WHAT IS A SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEM? Food systems (FS) encompass the entire range of actors and their interlinked value-adding activities involved in the production, aggregation, processing, distribution, consumption and disposal of food products that originate from agriculture, forestry or fisheries, and parts of the broader economic, societal and natural environments in which they are embedded. The food system is composed of sub-systems (e.g. farming system, waste management system, input supply system, etc.) and interacts with other key systems (e.g. energy system, trade system, health system, etc.). Therefore, a structural change in the food system might originate from a change in another system; for example, a policy promoting more biofuel in the energy system will have a significant impact on the food system. A sustainable food system (SFS) is a food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised. This means that: – It is profitable throughout (economic sustainability); – It has broad-based benefits for society (social sustainability); and – It has a positive or neutral impact on the natural environment (environmental sustainability). A sustainable food system lies at the heart of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Adopted in 2015, the SDGs call for major transformations in agriculture and food systems in order to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition by 2030. To realize the SDGs, the global food system needs to be reshaped to be more productive, more inclusive of poor and marginalized populations, environmentally sustainable and resilient, and able to deliver healthy and nutritious diets to all.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstracts Final SVD 100626 FN
    European Working Group European Working Group on on Gaucher Disease Gaucher Disease 9th International EWGGD Workshop Program and Abstracts! June 30th – July 3rd 2010 Cologne | Germany SPonSorS Platinum ConferenCe SPonSor ProGrAm Shared Sponsoring Bronze ConferenCe SPonSor European Working Group on Gaucher Disease 9th International EWGGD Meeting Organizing Group Bembi, Bruno Hollak, Carla Hrebiczek, Martin Manuel, Jeremy Niemeyer, Pascal vom Dahl, Stephan Dear colleagues, physicians and scientist, dear visitors it is our pleasure to welcome you to the 9th Workshop of the EWGGD (European Working Group on Gaucher Disease). This time, the location will be Grand Hotel Schloss Bensberg near Cologne, in Germany. Hopefully, the calm atmosphere and the famous view on one of Germany´s oldest cities, Cologne, will add to your well-being and stimulate scientific ideas. As in the former years, the principal aim of the meeting is to enable a fruitful scientific exchange on Gaucher-related issues. Young physicians and researchers from all scientific backgrounds are encouraged to present their research and to attend our meeting for learning purposes. The opportunity for presenting unpublished scientific data as well as free discussion is a central premise of the Group. A couple of things were novel this time: The European Gaucher Alliance (EGA), the head organisation of patient associations in Europe, was involved into the organisational flow of the workshop from the beginning. Second, a travel grant programme has been set up to support the attendance of young researchers and physicians to present their results. During this meeting, the posters will not only be displayed, but discussed during separate poster tours on Thursday and Friday.
    [Show full text]
  • Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes and Sugar Intake: Policy Statements, Endorsements, and Recommendations Updated January 2017
    Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes and Sugar Intake: Policy Statements, Endorsements, and Recommendations Updated January 2017 Policy Statement/Resolution/Statements in Support of Taxes American Academy of Pediatrics Obesity/Advocacy Policy: Change Relative Price. See bottom of web page. Implement a tax strategy to discourage consumption of food and beverages with minimal nutritional value, including a soda tax. National Consumers League NCL supports a tax on sweetened drinks, with proceeds devoted to school nutritional education programs. Acknowledgement of Taxes as a Public Health Strategy American Medical Association Policy Statement, June 2012. Taxes on beverages with added sweeteners are one means by which consumer education campaigns and other obesity-related programs could be financed in a stepwise approach to addressing the obesity epidemic….Where taxes on beverages with added sweeteners are implemented, the revenue should be used primarily for programs to prevent and/or treat obesity and related conditions…. Reports Recommending Taxes Bipartisan Policy Center Restoring America’s Future. Reviving the Economy, Cutting Spending and Debt, and Creating a Simple, Pro-Growth Tax System. November 2010, pp. 69-71. Introduce an excise tax on the manufacture and importation of beverages sweetened with sugar or high-fructose corn syrup (non-diet soft drinks, sweetened fruit drinks, etc.) to reduce obesity-related healthcare costs. Brookings Institution Bending the Curve. Effective Steps to Address Long-Term Health Care Spending Growth. August 2009, pg. 7. Target obesity reduction through price incentives, such as sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, and through aggressive piloting and evaluation of other reforms that are designed to improve the evidence base of reforms that demonstrably reduce obesity — for example, community-, school-, and work-site interventions.
    [Show full text]
  • State Farm to School Policy Handbook: 2002–2020 Builds on a Survey That Was Originally Released in 2011, and Updated in 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2019
    State Farm to School Policy Handbook 2002–2020 Includes state policies introduced between January 2002 and December 2020, as publicly available at the time of the Handbook’s publication. PUBLISHED | JULY 2021 Table of Contents 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 6 INTRODUCTION 7 What’s New in this Edition 7 Our Methodology 8 How to Use this Handbook 9 What is Farm to School? 9 Why Farm to School? 10 Why State Farm to School Legislation Matters 11 Key Strategies for Advancing Farm to School through Policy 12 TRENDS IN FARM TO SCHOOL POLICY 15 Overall Look at State Policy Efforts 16 2019–2020 Legislative Trends 19 Emerging Farm to School Opportunities 20 POLICY IN ACTION 21 Promising Practices 23 Advocacy Strategies 28 Next Steps for Advocates 30 CASE STUDIES 31 Local Procurement Incentives: Lessons from the Field 35 Farm to School State Policy Strategies to Support Native Food and Tribal Sovereignty 38 State Policy Responses to COVID-19 Impacting Farm to School 40 BILL SUMMARIES 145 APPENDIX 146 Methodology: The Coding Process 147 Additional Farm to School Resources 148 US Territories 149 2018 Case Studies 149 Hawai‘i 151 Michigan 153 New Mexico 155 US Virgin Islands 157 Vermont 159 State Rankings Chart Acknowledgements This project is funded by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. About the Authors National Farm to School Network has a vision of a strong and just food system for all. We seek deep transformation toward this vision through farm to school – the ways kids eat, grow, and learn about food in schools and early care and education settings.
    [Show full text]
  • COM(2011) 424 Final
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 13.7.2011 COM(2011) 424 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 5 2. Contributing to long term sustainability worldwide .................................................... 5 2.1. Transforming our dialogues into working partnerships............................................... 5 2.2. Upholding and strengthening the global architecture for fisheries governance........... 7 2.3. Contributing towards a more effective functioning of RFMOs................................... 8 3. Towards Sustainable Fisheries Agreements............................................................... 10 3.1. Current Fisheries Partnership Agreements and their shortcomings........................... 10 3.2. Better promotion of long-term resource conservation and sustainability .................. 10 3.3. Reinforcing the governance of bilateral fisheries agreements ................................... 11 3.4. More effective support for sustainable fisheries in partner countries........................ 12 4. Coherence with other EU policies.............................................................................. 13 ANNEX I.................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Food, Climate, and the Green New Deal: a Social Contract for Justice?
    Our research and analysis is fueled by people like you. Help keep Food First an independent think-and-do tank today at foodfirst.org/support. INSTITUTE FOR FOOD AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY SPRING 2019 VOLUME 25 • NUMBER 1 Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey unveil the Green New Deal Resolution. Photo courtesy of Senate Democrats (CC BY 2.0) Food, Climate, and the Green New Deal: A Social Contract for Justice? By Eric Holt-Giménez and Heidi Kleiner The Green New Deal has taken the country by storm. The non-bindingResolution calls for massive public investment in green jobs and green infrastructure to achieve “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers… to be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization.”1 Unsurprisingly, the Green New Deal (GND) introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA), has been ignored by industry, mocked by Republicans and vilified in the conservative media.2 Though it has nearly 70 co-sponsors, powerful mainstream Democrats are tiptoeing around it, perhaps because they are nervous about angering the fossil fuel industry. And while the GND has been overwhelmingly celebrated by environmentalists, social justice groups are giving it a cautious welcome.3 Ocasio-Cortez and Markey’s GND all farmers and society. A social contract follows on prior initiatives from was established.”9 economist Thomas Friedman,4 the British Green New Deal Group,5 The Green New Deal, crafted by the United Nations
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change and Food Systems
    United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021 Scientific Group https://sc-fss2021.org/ Food Systems Summit Brief Prepared by Research Partners of the Scientific Group for the Food Systems Summit, May 2021 Climate Change and Food Systems by Alisher Mirzabaev, Lennart Olsson, Rachel Bezner Kerr, Prajal Pradhan, Marta Guadalupe Rivera Ferre, Hermann Lotze-Campen 1 Abstract Introduction Climate change affects the Climate change affects the functioning of all the components of food functioning of all the components of food systems, often in ways that exacerbate systems1 which embrace the entire range existing predicaments and inequalities of actors and their interlinked value-adding between regions of the world and groups in activities involved in the production, society. At the same time, food systems are aggregation, processing, distribution, a major cause for climate change, consumption, and recycling of food accounting for a third of all greenhouse gas products that originate from agriculture emissions. Therefore, food systems can (including livestock), forestry, fisheries, and and should play a much bigger role in food industries, and the broader economic, climate policies. This policy brief highlights societal, and natural environments in nine actions points for climate change which they are embedded2. At the same adaptation and mitigation in the food time, food systems are a major cause of systems. The policy brief shows that climate change, contributing about a third numerous practices, technologies, (21–37%) of the total Greenhouse Gas knowledge and social capital already exist (GHG) emissions through agriculture and for climate action in the food systems, with land use, storage, transport, packaging, multiple synergies with other important processing, retail, and consumption3 goals such as the conservation of (Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • The Reluctant European
    SPECIAL REPORT BRITAIN AND EUROPE October 17th 2015 The reluctant European 20151017_SRBRITEU.indd 1 05/10/2015 16:26 SPECIAL REPORT BRITAIN AND EUROPE The reluctant European Though Britain has always been rather half-hearted about the European Union, its membership has been beneficial for all concerned, argues John Peet. It should stay in the club THE QUESTION THAT will be put to British voters, probably in the au- CONTENTS tumn of 2016, sounds straightforward: “Should the United Kingdom re- main a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?” 4 How referendums can go (The final clause was added last month at the insistence of the Electoral wrong Commission, which decided the question might look biased without it.) Herding cats When David Cameron, Britain’s Conservative prime minister, first pro- 5 Euroscepticism and its roots posed a referendum in early 2013, he was hoping that the answer would The open sea ACKNOWLEDGMENTS also be straightforward. Once he had successfully renegotiated some of Britain’s membership terms, the electorate would duly endorse him by 6 Britain’s clout in Brussels Besides those mentioned in the text, Not what it was the author would like to thank the voting to stay in. following for their help: Andy But referendums are by theirnature chancy affairs, as a string ofpre- 7 Costs and benefits Bagnall, Matthew Baldwin, Steven vious European examples have shown (see box later in this article). Mr Common market economics Blockmans, Stephen Booth, Hugo Cameron is well aware that the September 2014 referendum on Scottish Brady, Helen Campbell, Martin 9 The euro zone Donnelly, Monique Ebell, Matthew independence, an issue about which he said he felt far more strongly Elliott, Jonathan Faull, Maurice than he does about the EU, became a closer-run thing than expected.
    [Show full text]
  • The Urgent Call U.S. National Food Strategy
    THE URGENT CALL for a U.S. NATIONAL FOOD STRATEGY An Update to the Blueprint october 2020 Authors and Acknowledgments Report Authors: The lead authors of this report are Emily M. Broad Leib, Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School and Laurie Beyranevand, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law School, with significant research, writing, input, and editing support fromEsther Akwii, Clinical Fellow of the Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School and Cydnee Bence, LLM Fellow, Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law School. In addition, the following students contributed significant research and writing to the report: Bradley Adams, Madison McDonald, Tessa Pulaski, Ali Ruxin, and Ali Schklair. Finally, the following Food Law and Policy Clinic Students at Harvard Law School contributed additional editing and writing support: Libby Dimenstein, Oscar Heanue, and Stephanie Kelemen. This report would not have been possible without the assistance, partnership, and tremendous production support of Lihlani Skipper Nelson, Associate Director and Research Fellow, Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law School and the support of Kyra Sanborn, Advancement Officer at the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, on report production, release, and communications. We thank the following people for reviewing this report. The reviewers do not necessarily concur with the report’s arguments and recommendations, but provided useful guidance on portions of its content: Jerold Mande, Senior Advisor, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Margot Pollans, Professor of Law, Director of Pace-NRDC Food Law Initiative at Elisabeth Haub School of Law, and Emily Spiegel, Assistant Professor and Faculty Fellow, Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • International Research and Exchanges Board Records
    International Research and Exchanges Board Records A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress Prepared by Karen Linn Femia, Michael McElderry, and Karen Stuart with the assistance of Jeffery Bryson, Brian McGuire, Jewel McPherson, and Chanté Wilson-Flowers Manuscript Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 2011 International Research and Exchanges Board Records Page ii Collection Summary Title: International Research and Exchanges Board Records Span Dates: 1947-1991 (bulk 1956-1983) ID No: MSS80702 Creator: International Research and Exchanges Board Creator: Inter-University Committee on Travel Grants Extent: 331,000 items; 331 cartons; 397.2 linear feet Language: Collection material in English and Russian Repository: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Abstract: American service organization sponsoring scholarly exchange programs with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the Cold War era. Correspondence, case files, subject files, reports, financial records, printed matter, and other records documenting participants’ personal experiences and research projects as well as the administrative operations, selection process, and collaborative projects of one of America’s principal academic exchange programs. International Research and Exchanges Board Records Page iii Contents Collection Summary .......................................................... ii Administrative Information ......................................................1 Organizational History..........................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Community-Based Sustainable Food System
    Building a Community-Based Sustainable Food System Case Studies and Recommendations Building a Community-Based Sustainable Food System Case Studies and Recommendations University of Michigan Urban & Regional Planning Capstone Project April 2009 Executive Summary The current global food system, while highly efficient in production, has produced many undesirable social and environmental impacts. Producers’ profit margins have significantly decreased over the last thirty years and agri- business organizations with global networks of production, processing, and distribution now dominate the food industry. Changing economic conditions have decreased the economic viability of small and medium-sized farms, increased fossil fuel consumption, reduced the number of farm-related local business and processing facilities and made the profession of farming less attractive to younger generations. In large part, food production has been removed from our communities, diminishing our collective knowledge of our region and agrarian practices. While the current food system offers consumers inexpensive food, the amount of processing, lengthy distribution channels, and global trade patterns favor prepared food that is calorie-rich but nutritionally deficient. Another challenge is that conventional food retail sources, such as grocery stores, are inequitably distributed throughout our communities. While middle and upper income neighborhoods have many grocery stores, cities such as Detroit, are often characterized as urban food deserts. In addition to large grocery chains and small markets, farmers markets, community supported agriculture (CSA) programs, and community gardens are emerging food suppliers within our communities that offer benefits for all and may specifically address the unmet needs of low-income residents. The food we eat has direct implications on our long-term health and the existing inequitable patterns of food retail disproportionally impact our poorest residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Safety Policy
    Food Safety Policy Laurian J. Unnevehr, University of Illinois in prepared form, consumers exercise less control Background over food safety. Public policy sets standards for food safety. Such standards reflect policy decisions about acceptable Food safety encompasses many kinds of potential risks and costs of risk avoidance. For many food hazards in food. Examples include foodborne safety hazards, consumers cannot detect the hazard pathogens such as salmonella, naturally occurring at the time of purchase, and producers may also be mycotoxins, such as aflatoxin, or pesticide residues. unable to measure or guarantee a particular level of These hazards can pose acute risks (consumers safety. Therefore, consumers cannot always make become ill immediately) or chronic risks (consumers’ their demand for safer food known through purchase risk of chronic illness is enhanced). Some hazards decisions, and producers cannot always supply what are easily controlled or detected while others occur consumers demand. Public policies attempt to naturally and may be difficult for producers to see or address this market failure by setting standards that eliminate. ensure some level of acceptable safety for all Most food safety hazards pose only small risks consumers. due to the quality of U.S. food production and the Food safety previously has not been addressed strong standards in place. However, food safety directly in the Farm Bill, but it is a public policy issue issues are receiving more attention now for several that affects farm and food industry profitability, reasons. First, science is now better able to trace product reputation, and competitiveness in many foodborne illnesses and their outcomes to international trade.
    [Show full text]