Pub Date : 2025-05-06DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100862
Saskia de Pee
{"title":"Foreword GFS special issue – Diet Cost and Affordability Metrics: Application of subnational evidence for food security and nutrition","authors":"Saskia de Pee","doi":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100862","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100862","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48741,"journal":{"name":"Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100862"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143906747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-05-05DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100859
Melissande Machefer , Anne-Claire Thomas , Michele Meroni , Jose Manuel Veiga Lopez Pena , Michele Ronco , Christina Corbane , Felix Rembold
Acute Food Insecurity (AFI) remains a highly relevant and persistent challenge. Machine Learning (ML) presents promising solutions to improve predictions and early warning systems by integrating large and diverse datasets and considering multiple drivers of AFI. This review examines target variables and input features in existing ML modeling efforts, providing an assessment of current data availability, accessibility and fragmentation, and improving the understanding of possibilities and limitations of ML for end-users. For modelers, we recommend optimal input variables and outline the modeling workflow by comparing all approaches. We furthermore develop a quantitative comparison of the influence of drivers in studied models’ predictions. We advocate for an increased effort to investigate ML causality and improve usability of ML models.
{"title":"Potential and limitations of machine learning modeling for forecasting Acute Food Insecurity","authors":"Melissande Machefer , Anne-Claire Thomas , Michele Meroni , Jose Manuel Veiga Lopez Pena , Michele Ronco , Christina Corbane , Felix Rembold","doi":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100859","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100859","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Acute Food Insecurity (AFI) remains a highly relevant and persistent challenge. Machine Learning (ML) presents promising solutions to improve predictions and early warning systems by integrating large and diverse datasets and considering multiple drivers of AFI. This review examines target variables and input features in existing ML modeling efforts, providing an assessment of current data availability, accessibility and fragmentation, and improving the understanding of possibilities and limitations of ML for end-users. For modelers, we recommend optimal input variables and outline the modeling workflow by comparing all approaches. We furthermore develop a quantitative comparison of the influence of drivers in studied models’ predictions. We advocate for an increased effort to investigate ML causality and improve usability of ML models.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48741,"journal":{"name":"Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100859"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143906746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-21DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100845
Jaron Porciello , Paul Winters , Mohammed Farrae , Julia McKenna , Lauren Phillips
Supporting agrifood system transformation to improve outcomes around climate, nutrition, and inclusion requires that institutions and governments work together. International financial institutions play a pivotal role in shaping global development by providing billions of dollars in loans and grants to borrowing countries for large-to-medium scale projects in the agrifood sector. While projects are agreed upon between institutions and borrowing countries, there are significant challenges in tracking outcomes originating across projects. We used large language models to analyze the agrifood systems outcomes reported in 916 international financial institution project design documents approved by agency boards from 2015 to 2022. The results reveal a lack of environmental and climate change outcomes in the regions most impacted by climate change and little focus on women's empowerment, inclusivity, and agency.
{"title":"Do international financial institutions facilitate agrifood systems transformation? A textual analysis of design documents","authors":"Jaron Porciello , Paul Winters , Mohammed Farrae , Julia McKenna , Lauren Phillips","doi":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100845","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100845","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Supporting agrifood system transformation to improve outcomes around climate, nutrition, and inclusion requires that institutions and governments work together. International financial institutions play a pivotal role in shaping global development by providing billions of dollars in loans and grants to borrowing countries for large-to-medium scale projects in the agrifood sector. While projects are agreed upon between institutions and borrowing countries, there are significant challenges in tracking outcomes originating across projects. We used large language models to analyze the agrifood systems outcomes reported in 916 international financial institution project design documents approved by agency boards from 2015 to 2022. The results reveal a lack of environmental and climate change outcomes in the regions most impacted by climate change and little focus on women's empowerment, inclusivity, and agency.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48741,"journal":{"name":"Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100845"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143855209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-19DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100857
Martin K. van Ittersum , João Vasco Silva , Riccardo Bommarco , Renske Hijbeek , Ola Lundin , Romain Nandillon , Göran Bergkvist , Alexander Menegat , Ingrid Öborn , Annika Söderholm-Emas , Frederick L. Stoddard , Giulia Vico , Wytse J. Vonk , Christine A. Watson , Chloe MacLaren
Sustainable production of sufficient and healthy food requires efficient use of agricultural inputs. In many regions of the world with intensive agriculture and relatively small yield gaps, this calls for a reduction of external inputs (fertilizers and pesticides) while maintaining yields. Ecological intensification, defined as the use of practices that enhance on-farm ecosystem services to reduce external input requirements, has been proposed as a strategy to help achieve this. However, the effects of ecological intensification are context- and input-dependent, creating uncertainty on its effectiveness and feasibility. Here, we introduce the concept of an ‘ecological yield gap’ to provide a common analytical framework to strengthen collaboration between agronomists and ecologists in assessing the contribution of ecosystem services within the wider array of inputs, management practices, technologies, and biophysical limits that determine on-farm crop yields. We define the ecological yield gap as the yield increase that could be achieved in a given context (climate x soil x cropping system), and at a given input level, by increasing the delivery of ecosystem services via ecological intensification practices that support crop growth and substitute external inputs. We provide empirical examples of such practices, including crop diversification, service crops, and organic amendments that can increase the use efficiency of mineral fertilizers and suppress pests, weeds and diseases. The potential of these practices to narrow the ecological yield gap and their feasibility at farm level depend on how the ecosystem services they provide interact with other aspects of the farming system and requires analysis at farm level. This perspective paper aims to facilitate a shared research agenda among agronomists and ecologists to develop complementarity between ecosystem services and inputs at field and farm levels.
{"title":"Narrowing the ecological yield gap to sustain crop yields with less inputs","authors":"Martin K. van Ittersum , João Vasco Silva , Riccardo Bommarco , Renske Hijbeek , Ola Lundin , Romain Nandillon , Göran Bergkvist , Alexander Menegat , Ingrid Öborn , Annika Söderholm-Emas , Frederick L. Stoddard , Giulia Vico , Wytse J. Vonk , Christine A. Watson , Chloe MacLaren","doi":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100857","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100857","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Sustainable production of sufficient and healthy food requires efficient use of agricultural inputs. In many regions of the world with intensive agriculture and relatively small yield gaps, this calls for a reduction of external inputs (fertilizers and pesticides) while maintaining yields. Ecological intensification, defined as the use of practices that enhance on-farm ecosystem services to reduce external input requirements, has been proposed as a strategy to help achieve this. However, the effects of ecological intensification are context- and input-dependent, creating uncertainty on its effectiveness and feasibility. Here, we introduce the concept of an ‘ecological yield gap’ to provide a common analytical framework to strengthen collaboration between agronomists and ecologists in assessing the contribution of ecosystem services within the wider array of inputs, management practices, technologies, and biophysical limits that determine on-farm crop yields. We define the ecological yield gap as the yield increase that could be achieved in a given context (climate x soil x cropping system), and at a given input level, by increasing the delivery of ecosystem services via ecological intensification practices that support crop growth and substitute external inputs. We provide empirical examples of such practices, including crop diversification, service crops, and organic amendments that can increase the use efficiency of mineral fertilizers and suppress pests, weeds and diseases. The potential of these practices to narrow the ecological yield gap and their feasibility at farm level depend on how the ecosystem services they provide interact with other aspects of the farming system and requires analysis at farm level. This perspective paper aims to facilitate a shared research agenda among agronomists and ecologists to develop complementarity between ecosystem services and inputs at field and farm levels.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48741,"journal":{"name":"Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100857"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143847492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-18DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100861
Emmanuel Mwakiwa , Ayala Wineman , Andrew Agyei-Holmes , Modou Gueye Fall , Lilian Kirimi , Zena Mpenda , Edward Mutandwa , Iredele Ogunbayo , David Tschirley
Recent years have brought a deluge of shocks to agrifood systems, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. These include the Covid-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine War, and manifestations of climate change, among others. This paper quantitatively explores the nature of price shocks in fuel, fertilizer, and foods since 2019 and qualitatively characterizes the policy responses undertaken in six African countries, namely Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Results confirm that prices for key foods (maize, rice, wheat, and vegetable oil), fuel, and fertilizer increased markedly in all six countries, with the most rapid increases arriving in 2022. We completed a desk review of relevant policy responses and conducted 104 semi-structured interviews with policy makers and other key stakeholders across the six countries to understand their experiences with, and perspectives on, policy responses to recent and ongoing shocks. These interviews surfaced several themes: (1) Policies exhibit an intensifying emphasis since 2020 on self-sufficiency in food and fertilizer; (2) Though subsidies and tariff reductions are a readily available policy response, the fiscal burden can be quite high; (3) Policy responses to shocks sometimes lack coherence, with some policies offsetting the others’ impacts; (4) While recent shocks triggered some trade realignment, they have not stimulated increased within-Africa (intra-regional) trade; and (5) Policy makers exhibit an increasing appreciation for organic fertilizer and increasingly recognize climate change and associated environmental stress when shaping fertilizer policy. Altogether, these findings underscore a need for more discourse on the most fitting balance between national self-sufficiency and participation in international trade.
{"title":"Price shocks and associated policy responses stemming from the Russia-Ukraine War and other global crises: Evidence from six African countries","authors":"Emmanuel Mwakiwa , Ayala Wineman , Andrew Agyei-Holmes , Modou Gueye Fall , Lilian Kirimi , Zena Mpenda , Edward Mutandwa , Iredele Ogunbayo , David Tschirley","doi":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100861","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100861","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent years have brought a deluge of shocks to agrifood systems, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. These include the Covid-19 pandemic, the Russia-Ukraine War, and manifestations of climate change, among others. This paper quantitatively explores the nature of price shocks in fuel, fertilizer, and foods since 2019 and qualitatively characterizes the policy responses undertaken in six African countries, namely Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. Results confirm that prices for key foods (maize, rice, wheat, and vegetable oil), fuel, and fertilizer increased markedly in all six countries, with the most rapid increases arriving in 2022. We completed a desk review of relevant policy responses and conducted 104 semi-structured interviews with policy makers and other key stakeholders across the six countries to understand their experiences with, and perspectives on, policy responses to recent and ongoing shocks. These interviews surfaced several themes: (1) Policies exhibit an intensifying emphasis since 2020 on self-sufficiency in food and fertilizer; (2) Though subsidies and tariff reductions are a readily available policy response, the fiscal burden can be quite high; (3) Policy responses to shocks sometimes lack coherence, with some policies offsetting the others’ impacts; (4) While recent shocks triggered some trade realignment, they have not stimulated increased within-Africa (intra-regional) trade; and (5) Policy makers exhibit an increasing appreciation for organic fertilizer and increasingly recognize climate change and associated environmental stress when shaping fertilizer policy. Altogether, these findings underscore a need for more discourse on the most fitting balance between national self-sufficiency and participation in international trade.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48741,"journal":{"name":"Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100861"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143847479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-17DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100856
Romina Cavatassi , Lauren M. Phillips , Giuseppe Maggio , Zecharias Anteneh , Athur Mabiso
Women's empowerment is crucial not only for their well-being but also for the well-being of entire households, communities and economies. Closing gender gaps and increasing women's empowerment in agrifood systems is critical to achieving a broad range of objectives, including Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 5 and 10. Much of the literature on women's empowerment in agriculture and agrifood systems focuses on its benefits in terms of agricultural production, dietary diversity, child nutrition and women's nutrition. However, there is limited evidence on the impact of women's empowerment on outcomes related to livelihoods and resilience to shocks -- two key elements that drive improvements in the livelihoods of small-scale producers and help to further justify the importance of investing in women's empowerment to achieve development outcomes. This paper aims to bridge this gap by examining how women's empowerment within development projects in the agriculture and rural development sectors affects household livelihood outcomes including income, food security/nutrition and resilience. Utilizing a comprehensive dataset from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) across 23 countries worldwide, we assess the role of empowering women in improving livelihoods for their households. Our analysis employs a dual approach: a meta-level evaluation focusing on project outcomes and a household-level analysis aggregating data from 21 of the 23 countries available. Results from both analytical methods reveal significant benefits to livelihood outcomes, including enhanced household income and resilience, where women report increased empowerment. This suggests that women's empowerment is a key area of investments for rural development and prosperity.
{"title":"Enhancing households' livelihoods in agrifood systems: The role of women's empowerment","authors":"Romina Cavatassi , Lauren M. Phillips , Giuseppe Maggio , Zecharias Anteneh , Athur Mabiso","doi":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100856","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100856","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Women's empowerment is crucial not only for their well-being but also for the well-being of entire households, communities and economies. Closing gender gaps and increasing women's empowerment in agrifood systems is critical to achieving a broad range of objectives, including Sustainable Development Goals 1, 2, 5 and 10. Much of the literature on women's empowerment in agriculture and agrifood systems focuses on its benefits in terms of agricultural production, dietary diversity, child nutrition and women's nutrition. However, there is limited evidence on the impact of women's empowerment on outcomes related to livelihoods and resilience to shocks -- two key elements that drive improvements in the livelihoods of small-scale producers and help to further justify the importance of investing in women's empowerment to achieve development outcomes. This paper aims to bridge this gap by examining how women's empowerment within development projects in the agriculture and rural development sectors affects household livelihood outcomes including income, food security/nutrition and resilience. Utilizing a comprehensive dataset from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) across 23 countries worldwide, we assess the role of empowering women in improving livelihoods for their households. Our analysis employs a dual approach: a meta-level evaluation focusing on project outcomes and a household-level analysis aggregating data from 21 of the 23 countries available. Results from both analytical methods reveal significant benefits to livelihood outcomes, including enhanced household income and resilience, where women report increased empowerment. This suggests that women's empowerment is a key area of investments for rural development and prosperity.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48741,"journal":{"name":"Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100856"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143839468","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-16DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100849
Antoine Libert-Amico, Rebeca Koloffon
After steadily declining for years on a global level, food crises driven by conflict, climate extremes and economic downturns have marked an increase in the number of people who face hunger and malnutrition since 2015. Food crises are leading countries far off-track from achieving food security and improved nutrition by 2030, as set out in Sustainable Development Goal 2. Conventional approaches to rural transformation driven by enhanced agricultural productivity have not rendered the needed results, heading the call for inclusive agrifood system transformation that focuses on resilience, particularly in crisis contexts. However, obstacles such as fragile institutions, conflict and violence and recurring shocks and stresses hinder investing in crisis contexts and threaten transformation pathways in agrifood systems. This paper describes synergies between humanitarian, development, peace and climate interventions that can be leveraged to direct investments in a comprehensive set of resilience building interventions along the agricultural sectors and food system livelihoods to contribute to sustainably address hunger and malnutrition in food crisis countries.
{"title":"Challenges and opportunities for building resilient agrifood systems in food crisis contexts","authors":"Antoine Libert-Amico, Rebeca Koloffon","doi":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100849","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100849","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>After steadily declining for years on a global level, food crises driven by conflict, climate extremes and economic downturns have marked an increase in the number of people who face hunger and malnutrition since 2015. Food crises are leading countries far off-track from achieving food security and improved nutrition by 2030, as set out in Sustainable Development Goal 2. Conventional approaches to rural transformation driven by enhanced agricultural productivity have not rendered the needed results, heading the call for inclusive agrifood system transformation that focuses on resilience, particularly in crisis contexts. However, obstacles such as fragile institutions, conflict and violence and recurring shocks and stresses hinder investing in crisis contexts and threaten transformation pathways in agrifood systems. This paper describes synergies between humanitarian, development, peace and climate interventions that can be leveraged to direct investments in a comprehensive set of resilience building interventions along the agricultural sectors and food system livelihoods to contribute to sustainably address hunger and malnutrition in food crisis countries.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48741,"journal":{"name":"Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100849"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143834496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-16DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100848
Binlei Gong , Shouhan Dai , Shuo Wang , Xinjie Shi , Biao Huang , Kevin Z. Chen
An apparent paradox is that, sufficient food is currently being produced to feed the global population, yet there has been a rising hunger in many parts of the world. An explanation that has been advanced in the literature lies in unfair food distribution within a specific region. However, empirical evidence regarding how infectious diseases influence people's food availability from a global food distribution perspective is still lacking. This paper aims to provide empirical evidence through investigating the effect of infectious diseases on hunger from the perspective of global food distribution. Using a panel data for 105 countries over the period of 1990–2016, we find that infectious diseases had no significant impact on overall global food production, but they caused more severe hunger in many countries or regions. How is that possible? The mechanism analysis shows that there was an increased flow of food from developing countries to developed countries during epidemics. Meanwhile, developing countries failed to compensate for this shortfall through either food stock or food aid, resulting in a reduced availability of food for domestic consumption. We find that epidemics caused higher domestic food prices and reduced affordability of food, which further exacerbated food insecurity and malnutrition in developing countries. To achieve the 2030 SDGs goal of Zero Hunger, it is critical to improve global food governance and enhance food distribution when facing a crisis such as epidemics.
{"title":"Why do epidemics cause more hunger even when global food production is unaffected?","authors":"Binlei Gong , Shouhan Dai , Shuo Wang , Xinjie Shi , Biao Huang , Kevin Z. Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100848","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100848","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>An apparent paradox is that, sufficient food is currently being produced to feed the global population, yet there has been a rising hunger in many parts of the world. An explanation that has been advanced in the literature lies in unfair food distribution within a specific region. However, empirical evidence regarding how infectious diseases influence people's food availability from a global food distribution perspective is still lacking. This paper aims to provide empirical evidence through investigating the effect of infectious diseases on hunger from the perspective of global food distribution. Using a panel data for 105 countries over the period of 1990–2016, we find that infectious diseases had no significant impact on overall global food production, but they caused more severe hunger in many countries or regions. How is that possible? The mechanism analysis shows that there was an increased flow of food from developing countries to developed countries during epidemics. Meanwhile, developing countries failed to compensate for this shortfall through either food stock or food aid, resulting in a reduced availability of food for domestic consumption. We find that epidemics caused higher domestic food prices and reduced affordability of food, which further exacerbated food insecurity and malnutrition in developing countries. To achieve the 2030 SDGs goal of Zero Hunger, it is critical to improve global food governance and enhance food distribution when facing a crisis such as epidemics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48741,"journal":{"name":"Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100848"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143839469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-04-15DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100860
Kaitlyn Spangler , Andrea Rissing , Emily K. Burchfield , Britta L. Schumacher , Bronwen Powell , Karen R. Siegel
The United States (US) agri-food system is primarily oriented toward growing grain for livestock, biofuels, and other highly processed byproducts that cause concern for human and environmental health. Simultaneously, the US is in a trade deficit, importing three times as many fruits and vegetables as it exports. Those fruits and vegetables that are produced in the US rely on precarious labor systems and unsustainable costs to the wellbeing of farmers and farmworkers, exposing the fractures and precarity of these systems amidst changing trade agreements and immigration policies. To overcome these fractures, calls for more diverse and resilient food systems are increasingly urgent. Using national-scale agricultural and labor datasets, we ask: 1) How well do current US agricultural landscapes produce the fruits and vegetables needed for a healthy and diverse diet at scale? 2) How diverse are these landscapes? 3) How does migrant labor support fruit and vegetable production and diversity? We show that US agricultural landscapes are not producing the fruits and vegetables needed for a healthy and diverse diet. Fruit and vegetable production is concentrated on the coasts of the country and occupies little land, making it difficult to see, track, and understand on a national scale. Further, as the proportion of cropland under fruit and vegetable production increases, fruit and vegetable diversity decreases, suggesting that most fruits and vegetables are grown in simplified systems. Finally, counties with the highest proportion of fruit and vegetable production have the highest averages of H-2A farmworker certifications, emphasizing a disproportionate reliance on migrant labor as fruit and vegetable production expands. This study helps to disentangle the link between what we grow and what we eat in the US, tempering calls to increase fruit and vegetable production in the US writ large without reconciling the accumulating concerns of these current systems.
{"title":"Nutritious monocultures? Where and how fruits and vegetables are produced in the US","authors":"Kaitlyn Spangler , Andrea Rissing , Emily K. Burchfield , Britta L. Schumacher , Bronwen Powell , Karen R. Siegel","doi":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100860","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.gfs.2025.100860","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The United States (US) agri-food system is primarily oriented toward growing grain for livestock, biofuels, and other highly processed byproducts that cause concern for human and environmental health. Simultaneously, the US is in a trade deficit, importing three times as many fruits and vegetables as it exports. Those fruits and vegetables that are produced in the US rely on precarious labor systems and unsustainable costs to the wellbeing of farmers and farmworkers, exposing the fractures and precarity of these systems amidst changing trade agreements and immigration policies. To overcome these fractures, calls for more diverse and resilient food systems are increasingly urgent. Using national-scale agricultural and labor datasets, we ask: 1) How well do current US agricultural landscapes produce the fruits and vegetables needed for a healthy and diverse diet <em>at scale</em>? 2) How diverse are these landscapes? 3) How does migrant labor support fruit and vegetable production and diversity? We show that US agricultural landscapes are not producing the fruits and vegetables needed for a healthy and diverse diet. Fruit and vegetable production is concentrated on the coasts of the country and occupies little land, making it difficult to see, track, and understand on a national scale. Further, as the proportion of cropland under fruit and vegetable production increases, fruit and vegetable diversity decreases, suggesting that most fruits and vegetables are grown in simplified systems. Finally, counties with the highest proportion of fruit and vegetable production have the highest averages of H-2A farmworker certifications, emphasizing a disproportionate reliance on migrant labor as fruit and vegetable production expands. This study helps to disentangle the link between what we grow and what we eat in the US, tempering calls to increase fruit and vegetable production in the US writ large without reconciling the accumulating concerns of these current systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48741,"journal":{"name":"Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and Environment","volume":"45 ","pages":"Article 100860"},"PeriodicalIF":9.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143829876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号