essay about sustainable ways of growing food

Browse through the Interactive 2024 Report of the UN Sustainable Development Group

• Global Level
• Regional Level
• Countries and Territories
• Resources Library
• Annual UNCT Results Reports
• UNCT Key Documents Library
• Executive Board Session Documents
• Cooperation Framework
• UNSDG Chair Report on DCO
• System-Wide Contribution to the SDGs
• UNSDG Data Portal
• How We Work (Our Common Premises)
• Resident Coordinator Statistics
• 2030 Agenda and the SDGs
• RCs and the Decade of Action
• About the Goals
• SDG Action Campaign
• Joint SDG Fund
• Funding Compact
• Stories and Blogs
• Announcements
• How We Work
• The UN Reform
• UN Development Coordination Office

Towards Sustainable Food Systems: How to feed, not deplete the world

'Game-Changers’ is a new editorial series from the UN Development Coordination Office (DCO) on key transitions that the UN Secretary-General has called for, to advance progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs), catalyzing a more sustainable and equitable future. This series explores the progress achieved since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015 in key areas and how the UN is supporting this progress. The world needs renewed ambition and action to deliver these Goals at scale.   

Today, with one-third of all food produced globally ending up lost or wasted and more than three billion people unable to afford healthy diets, the question of how we produce, trade and consume food in a sustainable manner has come to the fore. As the global population continues to rise, this cycle, which is known as a ‘food system’, is failing in its primary purpose to end hunger and deliver food security and nutrition for all. 

As the UN  Secretary-General has said, “In a world of plenty, it is outrageous that people continue to suffer and die from hunger.”

We must transition towards a system that balances the need for food production with the urgent demand for climate action, sustainable agriculture and healthy, affordable, diets for all. 

Where was the world in 2015?

When the SDGs were adopted in 2015: 

• More than 795 million people (or  11 per cent of the global population) were facing hunger.  Hunger rates in countries enduring protracted crises were more than three times higher than elsewhere. 
• The growth and development of 159 million children , (24.6 per cent) under 5 years old  was impaired or ‘stunted’ due to poor nutrition. 

Where are we in 2023 at half-time?

• The prevalence of hunger has dropped only marginally since 2015, to 9.2 per cent of the global population. Progress has been frustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise in climate shocks and conflict, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has driven up the costs of food, fuel and fertilizers.
• Last year, approximately 735 million people faced hunger, which is still well above the pre-pandemic level, and 148 million children still faced stunting from poor nutrition; just over 2 per cent decrease since 2015. 
• At the same time, not enough is being done to support developing economies adapt their food production to the impacts of climate change. Small-scale farmers from developing countries produce one third of the world’s food, yet they receive only 1.7 per cent of climate finance.  

How can a food systems transition make a difference? 

With most of the world’s extremely poor living in rural areas and relying on agriculture to survive, efforts to transform global food production go hand in hand with increasing the productivity and incomes of farmers.  Doing so would lead to the restoration of degraded land and will prevent further deforestation for food production, helping mitigate the effects of climate change.  

What is the UN doing about this? 

Under the convening of the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, the UN system, world leaders, civil society and private sectors partners gathered at the UN Food Systems Summit in Rome in 2021 and a subsequent ‘stocktaking moment’ in 2023 to transform these failing food systems. The Summit has provided a platform for countries to share their food systems journeys and led to the launch of the Secretary-General's Call to Action for accelerated Food Systems Transformation.

At the national level, this shift is being supported by UN country teams on the ground, and backed by the knowledge, expertise and convening power of the Resident Coordinator system. 

Spotlight: Kick-starting transformation in the Gran Chaco Americano 

The Gran Chaco region of Latin America, which extends through areas of Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay, has the largest dry forest in the world, and is home to more than 9 million people. Yet high temperatures and prolonged droughts, make this region and its inhabitants particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and in desperate need of more resilient food systems. 

Recognizing these pressures, the UN Resident Coordinators in Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay have joined forces, along with their UN country teams to help create joint pathways for sustainable food systems to be adopted at scale. 

Earlier this year, the three Resident Coordinators set off on a joint mission through the region to engage with key members of the indigenous community, smallholder farmers, civil society and local government to design shared proposals that not only accelerate systemic climate action and boost the resilience of food production methods, but also tackle the region’s growing economic and social divides. 

Understanding that too many of today’s challenges, including those which are climate-related, know no country borders, the Resident Coordinators are helping their host governments articulate a common vision for food systems transformation and advancing shared data systems and policy pathways, to make this systemic shift a long-term reality. 

Learn more about other examples on what the UN is doing to support this transition:

Jordan’s farmers respond to water scarcity woes with innovation | United Nations DCO (un-dco.org)

Latest news and updates

• Ways to Give
• Contact an Expert
• Explore WRI Perspectives

Filter Your Site Experience by Topic

Applying the filters below will filter all articles, data, insights and projects by the topic area you select.

• All Topics Remove filter
• Climate filter site by Climate
• Cities filter site by Cities
• Energy filter site by Energy
• Food filter site by Food
• Forests filter site by Forests
• Freshwater filter site by Freshwater
• Ocean filter site by Ocean
• Business filter site by Business
• Economics filter site by Economics
• Finance filter site by Finance
• Equity & Governance filter site by Equity & Governance

Search WRI.org

Not sure where to find something? Search all of the site's content.

Creating a Sustainable Food Future

A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050

• Jillian Holzer
• Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Future: Creating a Sustainable Food Future, Installment Eleven
• Ensuring Crop Expansion is Limited to Lands with Low Environmental Opportunity Costs
• Avoiding Bioenergy Competition for Food Crops and Land
• Wetting and Drying: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Saving Water from Rice Production
• Crop Breeding: Renewing the Global Commitment
• Indicators of Sustainable Agriculture: A Scoping Analysis
• Improving Productivity and Environmental Performance of Aquaculture
• Creating a Sustainable Food Future: Interim Findings
• Improving Land and Water Management
• Achieving Replacement Level Fertility

By 2050, nearly 10 billion people will live on the planet. Can we produce enough food sustainably? World Resources Report: Creating a Sustainable Food Future shows that it is possible – but there is no silver bullet. This report offers a five-course menu of solutions to ensure we can feed everyone without increasing emissions, fueling deforestation or exacerbating poverty. Intensive research and modeling examining the nexus of the food system, economic development, and the environment show why each of the 22 items on the menu is important and quantifies how far each solution can get us.

WRI produced the report in partnership with the World Bank, UN Environment, UN Development Programme, and the French agricultural research agencies CIRAD and INRA.

World Resources Report

The World Resources Report is World Resources Institute's flagship publication.

Coolfood helps people and organizations reduce the climate impact of their food through shifting toward more plant-rich diets. 

Better Buying Lab

Cooking up cutting-edge strategies that enable consumers to buy and consume more sustainable foods.

Food Loss & Waste Protocol

Addressing the challenges of quantifying food loss and waste.

Land & Carbon Lab

Convened by World Resources Institute and the Bezos Earth Fund to develop breakthroughs in geospatial monitoring that power solutions for sustainable landscapes worldwide.

Primary Contacts

Communications Manager, Food

How You Can Help

WRI relies on the generosity of donors like you to turn research into action. You can support our work by making a gift today or exploring other ways to give.

Stay Informed

World Resources Institute 10 G Street NE Suite 800 Washington DC 20002 +1 (202) 729-7600

© 2024 World Resources Institute

Envision a world where everyone can enjoy clean air, walkable cities, vibrant landscapes, nutritious food and affordable energy.

A new reports looks at solutions to ensuring healthy diets for a burgeoning world population while improving the planet. Here, tomatoes are harvested at a large production facility in the Netherlands.

• ENVIRONMENT

How to feed the world without destroying the planet

The world’s population will hit 10 billion in 2050. A new report offers solutions for how more food can be grown sustainably.

Ensuring healthy diets for an expected global population of nearly 10 billion people in 2050, while at the same time improving the world those people live in, will require sweeping changes to farming and how we produce food, according to a new report.

“There is a pathway to achieve this but the challenge is even bigger than any of us thought,” said Richard Waite of the World Resources Institute (WRI) and co-author of “ Creating A Sustainable Food Future: Final Report .”

Agriculture already uses almost half of the world’s vegetated land . It consumes 90 percent of all the water used by humanity and generates one-quarter of the annual global emissions that are causing global warming. And yet of the seven billion people living today, 820 million are undernourished because they don’t have access to—or can’t afford—an adequate diet.

“We have to produce 30 percent more food on the same land area, stop deforestation, [and] cut carbon emissions for food production by two-thirds,” says Waite in an interview.

All of that must be done while reducing poverty levels and the loss of natural habitat, preventing freshwater depletion, and cutting pollution as well as other environmental impacts of farming.

“There is no silver bullet; To prevent more land from being converted into agriculture requires major improvements in feed quality and grazing management. It also requires finding ways to get more than one crop harvest per year, and requires better crop breeding techniques. For example, CRISP-R technology enables the fine tuning of genes to maximize yields. we need to do everything,” Waite says.

The “everything” Waite referred to are 22 solutions detailed in the 565 page report, all of which need to be implemented to some degree, depending on the country and region. Here are a few of the proposed solutions:

• Dramatically reduce the estimated one-third of food that is lost or wasted . From scaling up solar-powered cold-storage units on farms, to using natural compounds that inhibit bacterial growth and retain water in the fruit in order to extend shelf life at retail stores, improvements can be made all along the supply chain.

• Shift the diets of high-meat consumers toward plant-based foods. Meat, particularly from cattle, sheep, and goats, is very resource intensive. For growing populations to have access to some meat, others will have to consume less. There are now burgers made up of 20 to 35 percent mushroom and all-plant burgers that taste as good as, if not superior to, all-beef burgers, the report notes. It also says governments provide nearly $600 billion in annual subsidies to agriculture and those that favor meat and dairy production should be phased out.

• Boost crop yields and dramatically increase the output of milk and meat . To prevent more land from being used for agriculture will need major improvements in feed quality and grazing management. It also requires finding ways to get more than one crop harvest per year, which in turn will require better crop breeding techniques. For example, CRISP-R technology enables the fine tuning of genes to maximize yields.

• Improve wild fisheries management and aquaculture. Overfishing can be reduced by eliminating much of the $35 billion in annual global fisheries subsidies. Certification and better enforcement to eliminate illegal and unreported fishing could save an estimated 11 to 26 million tons of fish lost to it. Aquaculture can include the use of algae , seaweed, or oil seeds-based fish foods rather than relying on small fish to feed larger ones like salmon.

But is it enough?

“I don’t think the report truly represents the transformative change that the global food system needs to undergo,” says Hans Herren, President of the Washington-based Millennium Institute and winner of the World Food Prize for his work as an entomologist.

You May Also Like

How small changes to our diet can benefit the planet

How ‘Ugly’ Fruits and Vegetables Can Help Solve World Hunger

As food allergies rise, new treatments are on the horizon

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization and UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), among others, endorse a so-called agroecological approach to food production, but the WRI report doesn’t mention it, Herren said in an interview.

Agroecology mimics nature, replacing the external inputs like chemical fertilizer with knowledge of how a combination of plants, trees, and animals can enhance the productivity of land.

The CFS just released its own report looking at the issue of how to feed the world sustainably. It said agroecology encompasses whole agriculture and food systems from production to consumption and was increasingly seen as the way forward to create sustainable food systems. However, the report acknowledges that agriculture is extremely diverse and what works in one place may not in another.

Although the term agroecology isn’t used in WRI’s report, some of the solutions could be called that, said Waite. “I think overemphasis on agroecology as ‘the’ solution crowds out the very real needs for also advancing technological innovation,” he says.

Pollinators—the bees and other insects that pollinate food crops—are also largely missing in the WRI report. It does note that warmer temperatures are likely to cause early flower blooming before pollinators arrive, which reduces crop yields.

A larger concern is the growing lack of crop diversity in agriculture, which is often dominated by crops such as corn and soy. That puts pollinators at risk, a new study in Global Change Biology warns , because it severely limits their opportunity for nutrition. It recommends cultivating a variety of crops that bloom at different times to provide a more stable source of food and habitat for pollinators.

Useful ideas for food production

There isn’t a great deal new in the WRI report, said Danielle Nierenberg, President and Founder of Food Tank , a U.S. non-profit looking at solutions and environmentally sustainable ways of alleviating hunger, obesity, and poverty.

“I like the fact there are concrete messages with lots of useful ideas about the ways forward,” Nierenberg says in an interview.

Many of these are things we can do now to move to sustainable food production and things that will create more jobs and economic growth, she said.

Specifics aside, the world must act decisively, wrote Andrew Steer, president of the WRI, in the forward of the new report.

“Food production and ecosystem protection must be linked at every level—policy, finance, and farm practice—to avoid destructive competition for precious land and water,” Steer says.

Related Topics

• FOOD SUPPLY
• AQUACULTURE
• STAPLE CROPS
• FOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Move over, honeybees—America's 4,000 native bees need a day in the sun

How the humble soybean took over the world

What to do when you see mold on your food

Biodegradable plastic exists—but it’s not cheap

In Mexico City, the pandemic revived Aztec-era island farms

• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Fast Facts – What are sustainable food systems?

A sustainable food system is a food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all. The system encompasses everything from the processing, packaging and the transporting of food to consumers. Currently, these systems are not efficient or sustainable, and in 2022, about 9.2 per cent of the world population was facing chronic hunger, equivalent to about 735 million people – 122 million more than in 2019. In addition, these unsustainable practices are one of the main contributors to the climate crisis – they account for a third of greenhouse gas emissions and 70 per cent of the usage of the world’s freshwater.

There are three key indicators of whether a food system is sustainable or not:

• Economic sustainability – it is profitable throughout
• Social sustainability – it has broad-based benefits for society
• Environmental sustainability – it has a positive or neutral impact on the natural environment

“Broken food systems are not inevitable. They are the result of choices we have made. There is more than enough food in the world to go around. More than enough money to fund efficient and sustainable food systems to feed the world, while supporting decent work for those who grow the food we eat.” Secretary General, Antonio Guterres in his remarks to the UN Food Systems Summit +2 Stocktaking Moment.

But mounting pressures from population growth, urbanization, changing consumption patterns, and climate change are all contributing factors to the strain on food systems, meaning that an overhaul in our current practices is needed for our food systems to become sustainable.

A stressed global food system

Today, the world is facing a food emergency. Together, conflict, economic shocks, climate extremes and soaring fertilizer prices have created a food crisis of unprecedented proportions . Food inflation is impacting everyone around the world, and it is an opposing force to the economic gains made after Covid, which had led to improved access to food.

According to the 2023 SDG Progress Report , Western Asia, the Caribbean and all sub-regions of Africa are experiencing an increase in hunger, however, most sub-regions in Asia and Latin America have experienced improvements in food security.

The recently concluded Black Sea Initiative has also exacerbated the situation. This agreement allowed the transportation of commercial food and fertiliser from three main ports in Ukraine. Developing countries – which already had issues with food supply, are hit particularly hard by the situation.

Alongside being a source of nutrition, food systems are a source of employment across the world such as in agriculture, forestry and fishing . The majority of rural poor – nearly two thirds – work in small-scale agriculture, where poverty rates are more than four times higher than among non-agricultural workers.

The triple threat of overconsumption, unsustainable practices and malnutrition

Overconsumption is a key issue in food shortages, and wealthier countries are the biggest contributors to the problem. According to UNICEF , if everybody in the world consumed resources at the rate people in the United States, Canada or Luxembourg do, we would require the equivalent of more than five earths to satisfy their needs.

Food shortages also affect our health – malnutrition impacts children from low and lower-middle-income countries the most. Not getting the right nutrients can lead to stunting (growing less than average for their age), micronutrient deficiencies and being overweight which can place children at risk with poor growth and development.

Water, Food and Energy

Water, food and energy form a nexus at the heart of sustainable development. With a growing population, there is a growing demand for all three. Agriculture is the largest consumer of the world’s freshwater resources, and more than one-quarter of the energy used globally is expended on food production and supply.

What can we do about the global food crisis?

As outlined in the 2023 SDG Progress Report , we need urgent coordinated action, and policy solutions are imperative to address entrenched inequalities, transform food systems, invest in sustainable agricultural practices, and reduce and mitigate the impact of conflict and the pandemic on global nutrition and food security.

In July 2023, the UN Food Systems Summit + 2 Stocktaking Moment took place, with the purpose of reviewing progress made from the 2021 Food Systems Summit. The UN Secretary-General, António Gueterres noted in his keynote speech: “Over 100 countries have submitted voluntary progress reports on food systems transformation. Countries are taking decisive steps to reflect this priority in national and sub-national laws, policies and programming,”.

The Secretary General’s report on UN Food Systems explains that in order to bring the Sustainable Development Goals back from the brink, our Food Systems’ transformation play a vital role and their objectives must be integrated into global and national policy discussions, commitments and targets.

Learn more about actions you can take to contribute to a more sustainable world: https://un.org/actnow.

• Toggle navigation
• OneGreenPlanet Earth

Search By Post Type

Search by post category.

• Autoimmune Health
• Budget Friendly Guides
• Collections
• Contest Winner
• Eating Out Guides
• Grow / Harvest
• Heart Health
• Holiday and Festival Guides
• Human Interest
• Ingredient Guides
• International Cooking Guides
• Mental Health & Wellness
• Plant-Based Nutrition
• Plant-Based Protein Guides
• Plant-Based Recipe Roundups
• Plant-Based Strength
• Popular Trends
• Quick & Easy
• Take Action! Sign These Petitions
• Tips & Hacks
• Uncategorized
• Whole Foods

Get thousands of vegan, allergy-friendly recipes in the palm of your hands today!

Get your favorite articles delivered right to your inbox, how growing your own food can benefit the planet and why you should consider it, by marina qutab.

Help keep One Green Planet free and independent! Together we can ensure our platform remains a hub for empowering ideas committed to fighting for a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. Please support us in keeping our mission strong.

Buying food that is locally grown from your farmer’s market or local grocer is a great way to minimize your environmental impact, but growing your own food takes it to the next level.

The easiest way to imagine how growing your own food reduces your carbon footprint and benefits the planet is to think of food production and distribution in terms of an empty jar. The fuller the jar is, the greater the environmental impact, and the more components involved in producing your food and bringing your food to your plate.

Fossil Fuels and Fresh Produce

When you take into account the typical energy cost of transporting food to your local grocer, it is estimated that an average distance of 1,500 miles is traveled before the food is consumed. This large-scale, long-distance transportation of food relies heavily on the energy from burning fossil fuels. In fact, it is estimated that we currently put nearly  10 kilo calories  of fossil fuel energy into our food system for every one kilo-calorie of energy we get as food. Why is this bad?

Of the many public health and environmental risks associated with burning fossil fuels, the most serious, in terms of its potentially irreversible consequences, is a phenomenon we have all become familiar with – Climate change . As Noble Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai states, “ Climate change is life or death. It is the new global battlefield. It is being presented as if it is the problem of the developed world. But it’s the developed world that has precipitated Global warming .”

Despite fossil fuels containing large amounts of energy,  they are rarely found in a pure, untouched state. More often than not, fossil fuels are  refined and purified into a usable form, leaving excess waste material that requires disposal. The disposal and handling of this toxic waste take a large toll on the health of the environment, the health of wildlife, and the health of surrounding communities.

The Question of Pesticides and Fertilizer

Another factor to take into account is the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers on conventionally grown crops. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the use of many pesticides that were not yet extensively researched and were later linked to cancer and other diseases. Now the EPA considers 60 percent of all herbicides, 90 percent of all fungicides, and 30 percent of all insecticides carcinogenic . In fact, the latest EPA information on U.S. pesticide usage, from 2007 , reports that over one billion tons of pesticides are used in the U.S. every year. This is 22 percent  of the estimated 5.2 billion pounds of pesticides used worldwide.  Agricultural use accounted for 80 percent  of pesticide use in the U.S.  If you are growing your own food, you can decide what goes on, or what doesn’t go on, your produce.

And Then There Were Monocultures 

Then there’s the concern of monocropping , or growing only one type of crop in a large area of land. This common farming practice used in the United States, and in other countries, relies on government Support for commodity crop production (including wheat, corn, and soy) through the use of government subsidies. These farming practices reduce biodiversity, rely heavily on pesticides  and commercial fertilizers , involve heavily mechanized farming practices, incorporate genetically engineered seeds, and result in a loss of soil nutrients. Growing your own food allows you to avoid all of the negative repercussions that come along with monocultures, while protecting your health and the environment’s health.

Other Benefits of Growing Your Own Food

As you avoid some of the negative sides to shopping for food – including a heavy dependence on fossil fuels, carcinogenic pesticides and fertilizers, and monocultures – growing your own food can give you something you may not have considered: exercise. Planting, weeding, watering, and caring for your plants will provide you with a workout that is meaningful.

If you have children,  encourage them to join in, too. It can also be argued that growing your own food yields better-tasting food with a higher nutritional value. We’ve all had that friend with the organic garden and after trying one of their vegetables had the “Wow! That tastes so delicious and fresh!” reaction.

Additionally, growing your own food diversifies your palate and exposes your diet to healthier foods – especially if you choose to grow a variety of fruits and vegetables. To learn more about the benefits of what we like to call “eating the rainbow,” check this out.

The last and maybe most important reason for some is growing your own food can shrink your grocery bill. If you cannot afford to buy organic food , you won’t have to put your money towards industries that rely on practices that pollute and harm the environment’s health (and human health). If you buy non-hybrid , heirloom species, you can save the seeds from the best producers, dry them, and use them for the next growing season. Learning to can, dry, or preserve your summer or fall harvest will allow you to feed yourself even when the growing season is over. If you live in a part of the world that becomes cold and snowy during the winter, check out this  post on inexpensive ways to grow food in the winter!

Bringing it back to the empty jar analogy, the heaviest jar, or the jar with the largest carbon footprint, is the jar filled with the components needed for conventional methods of consuming food. By growing your own food, even if you just start with a few crops, you are contributing to a healthier you and a healthier planet.

To learn about 10 vegetables that you can grow all year round, click here.  Happy gardening!

For more Animal, Earth, Life, Vegan Food, Health, and Recipe content published daily, subscribe to the One Green Planet Newsletter ! Lastly, being publicly-funded gives us a greater chance to continue providing you with high-quality content. Please consider supporting us by donating!

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Cancel reply

You must be Login to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

hello again

• Get involved

• Supporting Food Systems Transformation Towards Sustainability and Resilience pdf (45.7 MB)

Supporting Food Systems Transformation Towards Sustainability and Resilience

August 22, 2024.

The time is now for food systems transformation. Humanity needs thriving food systems, but they are in crisis.

Food systems are interconnected across various sectors and are linked to all the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Consequently, they are crucial for achieving these goals, requiring multidimensional solutions to address them effectively.

The objective of this White Paper is to identify pivotal themes and present transformative multidimensional solutions and areas of intervention for current and future UNDP engagement. It was produced by a cross disciplinary UNDP team and underwent consultation with a broad variety of internal and external stakeholders.

Document Type

Sustainable development goals, related publications, publications, multi-speed growth is back, with a fiscal blind spot.

While 68 developing economies are currently growing at more than 4%, the projected effects on poverty are uneven. Looking forward, high levels of debt and weak ...

Finance, Integrity and Governance initiative: Internation...

This paper highlights key messages from the Finance, Integrity and Governance (FIG) Initative which provides space to examine emerging issues on financial integ...

Emerging Horizons: Youth Insights on Climate Change and B...

This paper shares insights from a participatory foresight workshop designed and facilitated by UNICEF Innocenti in the framework of the Youth4Climate: Sparking ...

Thematic bonds and how to deliver more sustainable financ...

This Development Futures Working Paper provides an overview of the thematic bonds market and a discussion of issuer incentives as well as some of the main chall...

The politics of inequality: Why are governance systems no...

Starting from a theoretical framework that conceptualizes policy outcomes as the result of complex interactions between actors, institutions and discourses, thi...

Mapping Essential Life Support Areas to Achieve the Susta...

This policy brief captures insights from this project to help policymakers use integrated spatial planning to support the achievement of SDGs, with a focus on t...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Am J Clin Nutr

Sustainable food systems and nutrition in the 21 st century: a report from the 22 nd annual Harvard Nutrition Obesity Symposium

Jessica fanzo.

Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Coral Rudie

Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Iman Sigman

Metabolism Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Steven Grinspoon

Tim g benton.

Energy, Environment and Resources Programme, Chatham House, London, United Kingdom

Molly E Brown

Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, USA

Namukolo Covic

International Food Policy Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Kathleen Fitch

Christopher d golden.

Department of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Delia Grace

Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, United Kingdom

Animal and Human Health, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

Marie-France Hivert

Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Peter Huybers

Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA

Lindsay M Jaacks

Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Security, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

William A Masters

Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA

Nicholas Nisbett

Health and Nutrition Cluster, Institute of Development Studies, Falmer, United Kingdom

Ruth A Richardson

Global Alliance for the Future of Food, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Chelsea R Singleton

Department of Social, Behavioral, and Population Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA

Patrick Webb

Walter c willett.

Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Food systems are at the center of a brewing storm consisting of a rapidly changing climate, rising hunger and malnutrition, and significant social inequities. At the same time, there are vast opportunities to ensure that food systems produce healthy and safe food in equitable ways that promote environmental sustainability, especially if the world can come together at the UN Food Systems Summit in late 2021 and make strong and binding commitments toward food system transformation. The NIH-funded Nutrition Obesity Research Center at Harvard and the Harvard Medical School Division of Nutrition held their 22 nd annual Harvard Nutrition Obesity Symposium entitled “Global Food Systems and Sustainable Nutrition in the 21 st Century” in June 2021. This article presents a synthesis of this symposium and highlights the importance of food systems to addressing the burden of malnutrition and noncommunicable diseases, climate change, and the related economic and social inequities. Transformation of food systems is possible, and the nutrition and health communities have a significant role to play in this transformative process.

Why Food Systems?

Global food systems are at a pivotal turning point, and there is increased attention to transforming food systems so that they benefit nature, ensure healthy and safe diets, provide fair wages and livelihoods, and are prosperous ( 1–5 ). In late 2021, the world will come together to discuss and commit to this transformation at the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS).

Historically, there have been many calls, summits, and goal-setting exercises to address hunger and malnutrition through food policy and dialog ( 6 , 7 ). Nevertheless, malnutrition and hunger remain unacceptably high in many parts of the world, with every country affected by some form of malnutrition ( 8 ). This year, 2021, is no exception. The UNFSS will focus its efforts to ensure that firm commitments are made by nation-states, donors, and private-sector actors to improve food systems amid increasingly alarming climate change, growing inequities, and a global pandemic. The clarion call leading up to the UNFSS is for food systems to become more sustainable while providing better nutrition and health outcomes ( 9 ). The Committee on World Food Security (CFS) Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition define sustainable food systems as, “food systems that enable food safety, food security and nutrition for current and future generations in accordance with the three dimensions (economic, social and environmental) of sustainable development. In addition, sustainable food systems must be inclusive, equitable, and resilient” ( 10 ).

Food systems encompass everything from food production (and the ecological systems that underlie it) to the processing, packaging, distribution, retail, and consumption of foods, with many critical outcomes vital to sustainable development. Such outcomes include providing diets for nutrition, supporting livelihoods, and contributing to environmental and social benefits ( Figure 1 ) ( 11 ). Many components of food supply chains and food environments influence food systems’ functionality, efficiency, and their relations with other health, education, and economic systems ( 12 ). Food systems are complex. They have many moving parts where diverse actors pull various levers and push food systems in different directions ( 13 ).

Food Systems Framework. Source: Fanzo et al. ( 162 ).

Food systems affect everyone, in that they involve ∼1.5 billion producers (with one-third being smallholder farmers managing <2 hectares of land) that feed almost 8 billion people ( 14 ). Although the number of producers is significant, there is increasingly a smaller number of actors and organizations that control the inputs to produce food (e.g., seeds, chemicals, animal breeds) and the trading, processing, packaging, distributing, and selling of food ( 15 ).

Food systems are critical to the types of foods that are available and accessible to consumers. They are the backbone of global diets and have become more connected, globalized, and efficient at moving a diversity of food worldwide. Although food systems have reaped many benefits for society, there are alarming trends that are affecting human health and the environment. As diets have become more diverse in terms of foods offered, a healthy diet remains unaffordable for many individuals ( 16 ). The composition of diets has also become increasingly made up of highly processed, packaged foods that consist of added sugars, high amounts of sodium, and unhealthy fats and chemical additives that are detrimental to human health ( 17–21 ). The quality of the world's diets influences health outcomes: the Global Burden of Disease identifies the makeup of diets as a significant risk factor for mortality and morbidity, with 11 million deaths and 255 million disability-adjusted life years attributable to dietary risk factors including high intake of sodium and low intake of whole grains and fruits ( 22 ). Diets—and the operationalization of food systems—also contribute to significant environmental degradation and climate change ( 1 , 4 , 23 , 24 ). Demand for animal-source foods is also increasing, particularly in emerging economies, which entails risks for the environment, including biodiversity loss, deforestation, and nutrient runoff into waterways, as well as animal welfare concerns ( 25 , 26 ).

Over the past decades, there have been improvements in overall human longevity as well as substantial reductions in poverty but, especially in this era of the pandemic, there is also increasing disparity in health and economic status. Many people are still being left behind—many of whom are growing our food. Many working in food systems cannot afford a healthy diet and are left vulnerable to climate change and will continue to be at risk ( 16 , 27–30 ). The prevalence of malnutrition has also not declined fast enough and, in many pockets of the planet, undernutrition, overweight, and diet-related noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and hypertension, are worsening ( 8 , 31–34 ).

Considering these challenges, the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at Harvard and the Harvard Medical School Division of Nutrition held their 22 nd annual Harvard Nutrition Obesity Symposium entitled “Global Food Systems and Sustainable Nutrition in the 21 st Century” in June 2021. This article brings together the speakers from the Symposium and presents a synthesis and summary of 3 of the world's biggest problems in the 21 st century: the burden of malnutrition and NCDs, the consequences of climate change, and the massive economic and social inequities within and among nations. All 3 are directly related to sustainable food systems that are shared collectively and globally.

What Is Inhibiting Improvements in Nutrition and Diets from a Food System Perspective?

Several key food system issues are stymieing progress to improve diets and nutrition for many populations. Although the multiple forms of malnutrition are universal and significant, systemic inequities across food systems and overall societal structures influence who has access to healthy diets and who is at risk of foodborne illnesses and zoonotic diseases.

The multiple forms of malnutrition are worsening

Malnutrition encompasses undernutrition, including childhood stunting, wasting, and micronutrient deficiencies; overweight and obesity; and diet-related NCDs. Many countries have undergone what has been called the “nutrition transition” over the past 30 y, in which countries that have become more industrialized and urbanized shift away from traditional diets to diets high in fats, sodium, and sugar, and including more meat, and increasingly sedentary lifestyles ( 35 , 36 ). This transition has resulted in populations struggling with the “double burden” of malnutrition (see below) ( 31 ).

There are some promising trends. There has been almost a 20% decline worldwide in the prevalence of stunting—or chronic undernutrition—since the 1990s ( 8 , 37 ). However, in more recent years, progress has slowed in some countries. For example, India, where one-quarter of all malnourished children worldwide live, had the slowest rate of decline in stunting (only 1%/y) among emerging countries before the COVID-19 pandemic ( 38 ). According to India's 2019 National Family Health Survey, stunting was not on a downward trend and, instead, was increasing in several states, including Kerala, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Goa ( 39 ).

The prevalence of wasting—or acute undernutrition—is much lower than stunting for children, although the number of children affected by wasting has remained essentially unchanged over the last decade ( 8 ). In Guatemala, for example, there is a high prevalence of stunting (47%) but a low prevalence of wasting (<1%) ( 8 , 40 ) and increases in overweight in both children and adults have been noted. Thus, Guatemala is an example of a country undergoing a nutrition transition in that high consumption of highly processed foods and beverages has led to poor-quality diets (and shifts away from traditional diets), stagnation in the decline of stunting, and increasing burdens of obesity ( 41 , 42 ).

Overweight and obesity have doubled since the 1980s and now exceed the proportion of the global population considered underweight as well as the proportion of adults who are of healthy weight ( 43–46 ). However, there are some regional differences in these trends. In many high-income countries, the Pacific Islands, and some regions of Latin and South America, North Africa, and the Middle East, the proportion of overweight and obesity actually exceeds those with a healthy BMI ( 45 , 46 ). In East Africa and Southeast Asia, the proportion of overweight and obesity has risen but remains less than the proportion who are underweight ( 46 , 47 ).

The global prevalence of the double burden of malnutrition—which is measured at the population level as having a prevalence of child wasting > 15%, child stunting > 30%, thinness in women > 20%, and adult overweight > 20%—has remained at ∼40% since the 1990s ( 31 ). However, there has been a regional shift. In the 1990s, the burden was mainly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Latin America, whereas in the 2010s, the prevalence declined in those regions but increased in South and South-East Asia. An increase in the prevalence of overweight drove the increases in the prevalence of the double burden in these regions ( 31 ). The reasons for the increased prevalence of the double burden and its shift to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are multifactorial; however, changing food systems, sedentary lifestyles, economic growth, and globalization trends have led to nutrition transitions in almost every country ( 20 , 21 , 31 ).

What are the consequences of this double burden? Data suggest that children born to women with a low BMI are at an increased risk of developing cardiometabolic diseases as adults ( 48 , 49 ). A recent study in Ethiopia showed that children exposed to famine early in life (including prenatally and before age 2 y) had an increased propensity of decreased adult height and increased waist-to-height ratio [a marker of abdominal obesity and increased risk of cardiometabolic disease ( 50 )], further strengthening the evidence that nutritional life cycle contributes to the developmental origins of adult diseases ( 51 ).

The economic, food, education, and health systems disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic will continue to exacerbate all forms of malnutrition. Models suggest that by 2022, COVID-19-related disruptions in LMICs could result in an additional 9.3 million wasted children, 2.6 million stunted children, 2.1 million women with anemia, 2.1 million children born to women with a low BMI, and 168,000 additional child deaths ( 34 ). In addition, in the first year of the pandemic, the proportion of those living in LMICs who could not afford a healthy diet increased from 43% to 50% ( 52 ). Food systems have been affected by the pandemic on multiple levels. In almost every country worldwide, segments of the population have lost their jobs and are relying on food assistance to feed their families. There is also an increase in comfort food eating, including fried foods and sweets high in fat, sugar, and salt, as well as increases in alcohol consumption, which could contribute to malnutrition and diet-related diseases ( 53 , 54 ).

To address the multiple forms of malnutrition, a multitude of actions across food systems must be taken that will be articulated throughout this article. Double-duty interventions and policies that are actions (e.g., exclusive breastfeeding in the first 6 mo of life) that could simultaneously reduce the risk or burden of undernutrition, overweight and obesity, and diet-related NCDs are critical ( 55 ). Some of these actions that signal food systems include reorienting agriculture policies toward producing more nutritious crops, and redesigning school meal programs ( 56 ).

Inequities exacerbate burdens of malnutrition and unhealthy diets

Socioeconomic inequities are associated with nutrition outcomes and are widening in some countries ( 8 , 57 , 58 ). However, there has been little focus on inequities beyond income levels, and attention should be broadened to include and examine social and economic differences related to gender, race, ethnicity, or disability ( 59 , 60 ). Other inequities exist beyond who people are and where they live globally. For example, in countries and cities further along on the nutrition transition spectrum, multiple deprivations in people's living environments are also associated with poor nutrition outcomes such as obesity and diet-related NCDs. There are significant power differentials between sizable private-sector entities and consumers regarding unhealthy food marketing and policy shaped by corporate lobbying ( 61 ).

The UNICEF malnutrition framework and the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health frameworks have mapped the causal factors that affect malnutrition when it is rooted in socioeconomic inequities ( Figure 2 ) ( 8 , 59 ). The immediate causes of inequities that affect nutrition are food, care, and health environments. These affect social conditions such as income, housing, water, behaviors, and practices—such as health and eating norms and attitudes. Underlying those immediate causes are structural causes and interactions such as social stratification (social positioning based on gender, race, ethnicity, age, or disability), capital, and potential. Finally, the sociopolitical context supports those structural causes and consists of institutions, actors, and ideas that influence the engine of inequity—what people experience daily and throughout their lives and across generations. These experiences perpetuate inequities such as the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities, exclusion from representation and participation, and ongoing social injustices that are both personal and geopolitical such as racism and colonialism.

Inequities across nutrition. Source: Nisbett et al. ( 163 ).

Many factors lead to nutrition inequities. They include greater vulnerability to food shocks (i.e., loss of a crop or livestock due to an extreme event such as a climate disaster, pandemic, or conflict), discrimination in accessing health services or food safety nets/social assistance, and differential exposure to unhealthy food advertising faced by disadvantaged socioeconomic and ethnic groups ( 62 , 63 ). Inequities also stem from fundamental social injustice which can take different forms in different countries: racism, casteism, patriarchy, and ableism. These forms often intersect and reinforce each other—limiting life opportunities ( 64 ) and access to essential goods, services, and education—and are associated with poor nutrition outcomes ( 65 ).

There are several recommendations to improve equity in nutrition and food systems. First, the people most affected by malnutrition and associated inequities must be involved in how food and health policies are formulated and enacted to ensure that rights, power, and sovereignty are prioritized. Second, food and nutrition actors must recognize and begin to understand some of the root causes of malnutrition ( 66 ), including some of the entrenched forms of discrimination that lie upstream from nutrition outcomes, and the power asymmetries that lie in deciding on nutrition policy, particularly that of the private sector ( 19 ). Finally, nutrition actors can support initiatives that strengthen the data used to measure and understand equity. For example, these data might incorporate determinants such as age, sex, ethnicity, education, wealth, disability, migration status, and geographic location into health, food, and nutrition surveys ( 8 ). However, given the nature of inequity, it also requires qualitative accounts of inequities at the community level to understand the root causes of malnutrition across multiple societal systems.

Healthy diets are not affordable for many people in the world

The real cost of acquiring enough nutrient-rich food to meet national dietary guidelines for a healthy diet exceeds the available income for ∼3 billion people (38% of the world's population) ( Figure 3 ) ( 32 ). Market prices fluctuate over time and vary in space, but costs per unit of dietary energy are higher for fruits and vegetables, fish, eggs, dairy, nuts, and seeds than for cereal grains and other starchy staples, vegetable oils, and raw sugar. Even if one tries to eat the cheapest form of a nutrient-adequate diet, it is still more expensive than a diet made up mainly of starchy staples, oils, and sugar. This is because nutrient-rich foods are inherently more expensive because they are more difficult to grow, store, and transport than these shelf-stable, low-cost products. A balanced diet that meets food-based dietary guidelines calls for even larger quantities of these more costly food groups than would be needed just for nutrient adequacy, owing to their many functional attributes beyond just the essential nutrients that they contain.

Global population unable to afford a healthy diet in 2017. Source: Herforth et al. ( 16 ). Map available online at: https://www.datawrapper.de/_/6LhIP .

The consistently high cost of nutrient-rich foods, combined with low and variable incomes around the world, ensures that making healthy diets affordable for all requires safety nets to supplement income when needed, and public investment to improve productivity and lower the real cost of production, storage, and distribution for popular, low-cost items in each food group. In addition, a wide range of supply chain innovations from the farm to the end-user can help reduce consumer costs while reducing the food system's environmental footprint by reducing the land, water, and energy needed per unit of the nutritious foods needed for a healthy diet ( 16 ).

Whereas ∼38% of the world's people have incomes too low to afford a healthy diet, the remaining majority could afford to do so but often consume fewer healthy items instead. Many factors drive food sales and purchases beyond the affordability of healthy foods in local markets. Even if consumers cared only about health, they would face a variety of constraints in meal preparation, including cooking time and other costs, as well as knowledge about and predictability of how much of each ingredient should be purchased and used for a low-cost healthy diet. In addition, people have many goals other than health when making food choices. Actual food consumption behavior is heavily influenced by other factors, including a person's biology of taste and satiation, family history and household circumstances, and food companies’ enormous advertising and marketing investments in the promotion of branded foods instead of generic items that come directly from farms ( 67 ). Affordability of low-cost healthy items is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for healthy diets to be consumed. As with transportation, housing, and other sectors of the economy, a wide range of policy interventions are needed to ensure that items being sold meet consumer needs safely, without causing harm to the purchaser or others.

Structural and systemic inequities paralyze progress

In addition to economic barriers, physical access to healthy foods can also significantly affect the ability to eat healthily. Food deserts—geographic areas that lack an adequate supply of affordable healthy foods, such as fresh fruit and vegetables—disproportionately affect low-income, nonwhite, and rural households in the United States ( 68 ). Despite local and federal efforts, such as the Healthy Food Financing Initiative ( 69 ), to address food deserts in the United States, the effects of the Great Recession exacerbated conditions for low-income households in the last decade ( 70 ). Food deserts are not unique to the United States and are prevalent worldwide ( 71 , 72 ). Regardless of country or global region, food deserts are more likely to affect high-poverty communities.

People living in food deserts often face structural barriers that limit access to healthy diets: an overabundance of small food stores (i.e., convenience stores, dollar stores, and liquor stores), structural racism, and community violence. As a result, many low-income communities have excess unhealthy retailers. These retailers are often called food swamps—areas where unhealthy retailers are more abundant than healthy retailers ( 68 , 73 ). However, low-income communities of color across the United States are taking steps to increase the healthfulness of their retail food environment, which include implementing novel policies that regulate the number of unhealthy retailers ( 74 ) and partnering with local growers to offer alternative options at farmers’ markets ( 75 ).

Structural racism describes systems and societal practices that oppress groups, given their race or ethnicity. This form of racism is difficult to document and measure because it is embedded in law, policy, and institutional culture. However, it is considered a root cause of racial health inequity ( 76 ) and contributes to disparities in healthy food availability. For example, redlining is an illegal and discriminatory practice of denying services (e.g., financial) to residents of certain areas based on race or ethnicity. Although it was banned in 1968 in the United States, it still takes place. Supermarket redlining occurs when a supermarket (often a national chain) closes a store in a minority community and relocates the store to a more affluent area. The closing is not prompted by economic duress or market competition but is instead driven by urban and logistical obstacles such as perceived crime, cultural biases, and profitability, often targeting minority, disadvantaged, and poor populations ( 77 ). Supermarket redlining can create food deserts and increase food insecurity rates in underserved communities ( 77 ).

Violence is widely considered a social determinant of health. Violence and threats to personal safety could be a potential deterrent to the access and purchase of healthy food options. The availability and density of certain food retailers such as liquor stores, convenience stores, fast-food restaurants, dollar stores, and supercenters (e.g., Wal-Mart) have been linked to higher violent crime rates in the United States ( 78 ). Violence may deter the retailer's customer base from patronizing the business and influence the owner's decision-making around store offerings and financial success ( 78 ). Overall, these examples demonstrate that structural barriers can increase inequities in nutrition and health.

Zoonotic and food safety risks are universal

Zoonoses—diseases transmitted from animals to humans—and foodborne illnesses are often ignored by the nutrition community, although they contribute significantly to the burden of disease. The increase in zoonoses can originate from environmental changes (e.g., climate change or pastureland change), human activity (e.g., increases in population density and pressure on landscapes), and animal ecosystem changes (e.g., mammalian biodiversity) ( 79 ). Of the 60% of human diseases shared with animals, 75% are zoonotic ( 80 ); about half of these are considered to be related to agriculture ( 81 ). There are 2 types of zoonotic diseases: neglected zoonoses (e.g., brucellosis, bovine tuberculosis, and leptospirosis) and emerging zoonoses [e.g., mad cow, bird flu, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)]. Neglected zoonoses are well-controlled in wealthy countries because they can be easily prevented with financial inputs into interventions and surveillance. However, in low-income countries, they are widely prevalent and can lead to high morbidity and mortality. Emerging zoonoses are newly arrived diseases which can spill over from a reservoir species to multiple hosts, and (based on their level of transmissibility) have significant geographical spread. These zoonoses can have a large impact on high-income countries because of a lack of preparedness for such disease emergence. These diseases can be sporadic (e.g., rabies) or sustained (e.g., SARS-CoV-2).

The frequency of zoonosis emergence is accelerated by environmental change, including agricultural expansion, increasing human population and density, changing human behavior, and intensifying livestock production to meet the growing demand for meat products driving deforestation and increased contact between humans and animals (both wild and domesticated). This increasing contact between humans and animals creates opportunities for spillover events in which infectious diseases can transfer from one species to another.

There is also growing concern about food safety, and consumers will pay more to ensure their food is safe. Younger, wealthier, town-residing supermarket shoppers are willing to pay more for safety and will not eat food that is deemed unsafe ( 82 ). In the global South and indigenous contexts, food safety concerns may drive people away from domesticated meats and lead people to consume more wildlife because of the lack of a secure cold chain. Most years of life lost from foodborne disease come from pathogens, and >50% of those cases are from zoonotic sources ( 83 , 84 ). Foodborne illnesses significantly influence individuals’ nutritional status ( 85–87 ). Diarrheal disease is a major risk factor for undernutrition, and poor nutritional status affects immunity and can predispose individuals to more severe and/or more frequent infectious diseases ( 88 , 89 ). Accidental ingestion of fecal material from food exposed to unsafe water may cause foodborne illness and contribute to enteric dysfunction, reducing the absorption of critical nutrients ( 78 , 79 ).

To remedy these threats, a One Health or planetary health approach is indicated, requiring collaborative, multisectoral, and transdisciplinary approaches—working at the local, regional, national, and global levels—to achieve optimal health outcomes recognizing the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and their shared environment ( 90 , 91 ). This approach is critical to minimize the emergence of future zoonotic disease and food safety threats. The health of humans, animals, and the environment are interdependent and self-reinforcing. Although an important strategy, this approach has been less integrated into the field of nutrition.

What Is Inhibiting Food Systems and Nutrition from Being Sustainable from Climate and Ecological Perspectives?

Climate change will continue to alter the environmental conditions under which food systems operate, reducing food production ( 92 ). At the same time, food systems have consequences for climate change through greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production and transport and alteration of soil and surface properties ( 93 ). Food systems are also reliant on a range of environmental factors and ecosystem health. At the same time, current food system practices in some parts of the world are degrading natural resources and biodiversity at an alarming rate ( 92 , 94 ). Agriculture uses 40% of arable land, 70% of freshwater resources, and contributes ≤30% of total greenhouse gas emissions ( 1 , 4 , 95 ). These emissions are wreaking havoc on the planet, particularly via global warming, rising sea levels, and climate-related natural disasters ( 92 , 96 ). The impacts of climate change also bring inequities, with low-income regions and populations being more severely affected by climate change shocks, resulting in higher risk of food insecurity and decreased capacity to respond and adapt to climate change ( 97 ).

Climate change is affecting food systems and agricultural productivity

Relative to 2005 levels, global food demand is expected to grow by 50%–100% by 2050 owing to an increase in per capita consumption ( 98 ). However, historical food production yield trends have only partially covered increased demand, such that between 2002 and 2014, for example, 85% of global soybean production and 66% of global maize production increases were attributable to expansion of the harvested crop area ( 99 ). Another important consideration is that food prices have been higher and more volatile since 2000 ( 100 ), where price spikes are at least partly attributable to a short-term reduction in supply because of adverse weather events as well as policy responses such as trade caps and biofuel prioritization ( 63 , 101 ). Increased food prices have also been accompanied by a reversal in decades of declines in undernutrition, with undernutrition prevalence increasing since 2015 in places such as India and Ethiopia ( 102 , 103 ). Increased prices of certain foods such as animal source-foods including dairy are associated with childhood stunting in LMICs ( 104 ).

Even under stable environmental agricultural conditions, the ability to meet rising food demand and ensure consistent food security is questionable. In this context, the effects of climate change are a potentially destabilizing factor in ensuring sufficient food consistently as well as the nutritional quality of crops ( 105–107 ). The global temperature has warmed by ∼1°C over the last 50 y and 1.5°C over land ( 108 ). Under a high emissions scenario, the same increment of warming is expected in the next 30 y ( 109 ). The 2021 Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change Report showed that average global temperatures have now reached 1.1°C above the historical norm and under every future scenario modeled from optimal to worst case, the world will reach a global temperature rise of 1.5°C in the next 20 y. Precipitation and soil moisture patterns are also expected to change but, whereas warming is essentially global, changes in water availability will be regional ( 110 ). A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor and, thus, can evaporate more when dry and rain more when wet, leading to enhanced extremes, and frequent droughts and floods that are already being experienced in different parts of the world. Furthermore, changes in atmospheric circulation patterns will change how moisture moves in and out of croplands.

The consequence of a warmer world with a changing hydrological cycle for food production will depend on a host of factors. In general, studies have found that higher temperatures are detrimental to crop yields ( 111 , 112 ), raising concerns that climate change will suppress the growth in yields needed to meet rising demand. Of further concern is that this is coupled with a rapidly growing population, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. The implications of changes in hydrology are less well understood, with some studies suggesting low sensitivity to precipitation and others indicating that precipitation is a poor proxy for available water supply and that soil moisture is a first-order control on yields ( 113 ). Another important consideration is the ability to adapt agriculture to altered climates, including selecting cultivars, timing of planting, and water application or retention techniques ( 114 ). There is little margin between needs and supply of food for too much of the world, and it will be essential to develop better insights into how climate change will alter food production in the coming decades.

Climate change is affecting food security, diets, and nutrition outcomes

There are different ways to understand how climate will affect food security and nutrition outcomes by pulling together different data types at different scales, including individual nutrition information ( 115 ), rainfall (precipitation), temperature data ( 116 ), and regional livelihood zones ( 117 ). Observing climate change can be performed by measuring temperature, rainfall, and vegetation through remote sensing data and models ( 118 , 119 ). Food security and nutrition outcomes can be measured by the Food Insecurity Experience Scale, food access, and anthropometric nutrition indicators ( 120 ).

A literature review of 90 studies assessed the relations between potential factors and significant indicators of child malnutrition of 107,000 children living in 19 LMICs across 6 global regions. The review determined that shocks—deviations in conditions compared with long-run average conditions due to variations in climate conditions (as measured by temperature and rainfall) and violent conflict—were consistent predictors of child malnutrition ( 121 ).

When examining the impact of precipitation and temperature extremes on children's diets in 19 countries, higher long-term temperatures were associated with lower dietary diversity, whereas higher rainfall than the long-term average was associated with higher dietary diversity ( 122 ). At the regional level, 5 of the 6 regions (Asia, Central America, North Africa, South America, Southeast Africa, and West Africa) examined had significant reductions in dietary diversity associated with higher temperatures. Conversely, 3 regions had significant increases in dietary diversity associated with higher precipitation. In some regions, the statistical effect of climate on dietary diversity was comparable with or greater than other factors such as increased access to education, improved water and toilets, and poverty reduction interventions ( 122 ).

A related study that examined 53 LMICs found that periods of minor to severe drought and severe wetness were correlated with lower height-for-age z scores (a measure of stunting) among children ( 123 ). In addition, a study found that increased temperatures and decreased precipitation was associated with low birth weight outcomes in newborns, and this relation was mediated by where a pregnant woman lived, and her income, education, and access to electricity ( 124 ). These studies show the importance of tracking and responding to climate extremes as they happen and the potential to move toward timely, targeted food security and nutrition interventions to limit malnutrition ( 121 ).

Food systems and diets are affecting climate change and environmental degradation

Many studies have demonstrated the impacts of climate change on food production, crop nutrient quality, food security, diet, and nutrition outcomes ( 93 , 125 , 126 ). At the same time, there is increasing concern about how food systems are affecting human health and planetary health. The EAT– Lancet Commission was charged with identifying a path to nourish a global population of 10 billion people by 2050 with a diet that is healthy and produced from sustainable food systems ( 1 ).

The EAT– Lancet Commission proceeded in 4 steps. It 1 ) defined a healthy reference diet using the best available evidence (controlled feeding studies, long-term cohort studies, and randomized trials) ( 127 ); 2 ) defined planetary boundaries (a set of earth system boundaries that, if transgressed, could be catastrophic for the planet and human populations) for 6 critical environmental systems and processes including greenhouse gases, cropland use, water use, nitrogen and phosphorus application, and species extinction rate ( 128 ); 3 ) applied a global food systems modeling framework to analyze what combinations of readily implementable measures are needed to stay within food production boundaries while still delivering healthy diets by 2050; and 4 ) outlined strategies to achieve the necessary changes to meet the goal of healthy diets from sustainable food systems.

Based on evidence for health outcomes, the reference diet has been described as a “flexitarian” diet because it is mainly plant-based, emphasizing whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, soy, and other legumes. It also includes optional intakes of animal-source foods in modest quantities: ∼1 serving/d of dairy and 1 serving/d of poultry, fish, eggs, or red meat (with red meat at ∼1 serving/wk). The possible ranges include the option of a vegan diet. This flexitarian dietary pattern describes the traditional Mediterranean diet, which has well-documented health benefits and is compatible with traditional diets worldwide ( 129 , 130 ).

Using 3 different modeling approaches to assess the health benefits of global adoption of the reference diet, each model predicted annual reductions of ∼11 million premature adult deaths averted from the consumption of the usual diet, or ∼19%–24% of all deaths. However, the Commission demonstrated that most of the world is quite far from consuming this diet, with some countries consuming high amounts of red and processed meats and others consuming excess intakes of starchy staples. In addition, most countries consume suboptimal amounts of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, fish, and whole grains ( Figure 4 ).

The dietary consumption of food groups regionally as compared to the EAT– Lancet reference diet. The graph shows the gap between global and regional dietary patterns in 2016 and reference diet intakes of food. The dotted line represents reference diet intakes. Data on 2016 intakes are from the Global Burden of Disease database. Source: Willett et al. ( 1 ).

By incorporating data on projected increases in population growth and dietary trends, the world is on track to exceed environmental boundaries by 2050, including greenhouse gas emissions by 2-fold if food systems do not change. However, we could stay within planetary environmental boundaries for food production by adopting the dietary reference targets, reducing food loss and waste, and improving agricultural methods using more sustainable practices ( 21 ). These changes are required to meet the Paris Climate Agreement targets ( 131 ).

Multiple actions by governments and the private sector will be needed. For example, both hard regulations (e.g., high-carbon food or soda tax; restricting marketing of unhealthy foods) and soft behavior change nudges (e.g., changes to the choice architecture of retail outlets) should be considered by governments. In addition, many food environments can be redesigned by changing the choice architecture to make changes more manageable and accessible at workplaces, schools, and hospitals. However, any nudge or behavior change may have trade-offs and not achieve positive outcomes across every spectrum of health, the environment, the social, or the economic. What is critical is that the collective aggregate of these changes result in positive outcomes. It should also be noted that some individuals and some countries need to make more significant changes toward human and planetary health than others ( 132 ). The conference did not deeply delve into behavior change and the “demand” side of food systems and there is a need for more research and focus on behavior economics related to food system transformation ( 4 ).

The cost of meeting the EAT– Lancet dietary targets will vary among countries, but the average cost is not significantly different from meeting current national dietary guidelines. In other words, consuming a sustainable diet does not add to the cost of a healthy diet because the lowest-cost items for healthy and sustainable diets include relatively few animal-source foods ( 16 ). Unsustainable and unhealthy choices can be driven by factors other than prices, such as cultural and social norms and aggressive marketing by corporations ( 67 ).

The EAT– Lancet Commission report was important in that it established global targets that governments could consider when taking action to improve food systems for both human and planetary health. The report was limited on recommendations for individuals, and specificities of local action and context, but the goal of the report was to recommend grand-scale changes that must take place over the next decade amid a rapidly changing climate.

How to Move toward Sustainable Food System Transformation?

Moving toward food system transformation.

How should food systems be transformed, and can these changes be completed in the near term? In the process leading up to the UNFSS, many involved have championed the idea that transformation must achieve appropriate levels of availability, access, and affordability to a sufficient, nutritious, desirable, and safe diet for everyone. At the same time, such diets should be produced from sustainable and resilient food systems that promote fair and equitable livelihoods and benefit nature in positive ways ( 9 ). There is no single solution to enable all nations and regions to achieve this transformation ( 5 ). What are required are end-to-end thinking and end-to-end action across the entirety of food systems. There is potential to manage this transformation through the coproduction of actors that are working on food systems. Coproduction is the collaboration of practice and research that could help reframe power, empower voices, give agency, and navigate differing world views and trade-offs ( 133 ).

Figure 5 shows the significant areas of transformation necessary across food systems and the policy entry points to do so ( 2 ). The first domain is availability : ensuring nutrient-rich and staple foods are available for everyone and produced in sustainable ways. What is currently grown on the finite arable land around the world is a mismatch with what comprises an optimal diet. Of what is grown around the world, 36% of the calories produced go to feed animals, and only 12% of those calories contribute to the human diet ( 134 ). Models suggest that if the global population were to consume the WHO-recommended amount of 400 g of fruits and vegetables per capita per day, the world currently cannot now nor in the future provide that supply of fruits and vegetables in the global supply chain ( 135 ). There is a need to rebalance the agriculture sector's research and development toward healthy crops, repurpose the sector's subsidy policies toward nutrient-rich foods, scale-up incentives for nature-positive on-farm technologies, and focus on new job creation of nonfarm rural food services. International trade is also critical—without it, there would be an increase in micronutrient deficiencies such as iron, zinc, and folate worldwide ( 136 ). However, there is a trade-off to trade. Trade also moves unhealthy foods around the world ( 137 , 138 ).

Necessary food system transformations and policy entry points. Source: Glopan ( 2 ). FBDG, food-based dietary guideline; R&D, research and development.

The second area is to improve the accessibility of food for everyone no matter where they live and who they are. The more efficiently food moves along supply chains, accessibility is improved, costs are lowered, and food losses are lessened. Readily available technologies can reduce food loss and waste. Currently, ∼9%–20% of food is lost on farms and in movement along supply chains ( 139 ). In high-income countries and settings, most food is wasted or thrown out at retail outlets, restaurants, and homes ( 140 , 141 ). In addition to bulk food wasted, 18%–41% of nutrients are lost when food is processed ( 142 , 143 ). The amount of food loss and waste varies at different stages of the supply chains. Food losses occur mainly at the food transformation and packaging level in Africa, Central and Southeast Asia, and Latin America. In Europe, North America, and Oceania, most food is wasted at the consumer level ( 144 ).

The third area is affordability . As discussed earlier, healthy diets are unaffordable for almost half of the world, and that cost does not factor in environmental sustainability traits ( 16 ). The cost of a diet of minimum nutrient adequacy can be 200% of a household's food expenditure in countries like Niger or the Democratic Republic of the Congo ( 145 ). Ultra-processed foods—highly processed foods with high amounts of added sugars, sodium, and unhealthy fats—are readily available and traded, cheap, tasty, and have a long shelf-life ( 19 ). These foods are also associated with an increased risk of NCDs and weight gain ( 146–149 ).

The fourth area is desirability . There is a need to empower people to make choices that inform and empower them toward healthy, sustainable diets. Merely making foods available and affordable does not mean that people will choose them. Although there are significant social and cultural norms to acknowledge and build on, encouragement to shift dietary norms will have to come in many forms ( 150 ). The latter will include behavioral nudges based on changes in the relative price of different food categories, use of consumer price subsidies and taxes where appropriate, informational gains through front-of-package labeling, advertising of prohealth diets and sustainability rather than cheap empty calories, and more. In other words, the various domains of food systems must work together rather than in siloes, and the many instruments of policy and investment, retail, and marketing practices must be coherent and consistently pointing toward the common goals embedded in the transformation agenda.

Managing transformation

Food systems need to be better managed and governed to ensure that food system transformation is redesigned to improve nutrition and health, ensure environments are sustainable and resilient, promote fair and equitable livelihoods, and mitigate climate change ( 2 , 151 ). The first step is to identify multiple wins across policy and investment decisions that strive for outcomes where no harm is done. One such example is the restoration of China's Loess Plateau that had benefits for poverty reduction, natural resource restoration, and more jobs ( 5 ). The second step is to make transparent, evidence-based policy decisions and investments that systematically analyze trade-offs and choices. The third step is to strengthen institutions and the capacity for implementing those relevant decisions. The fourth step is to establish feedback mechanisms by allowing for real-time adjustments to policy and process, unforeseen consequences, and changing circumstances. And the last step is to identify bundles of mechanisms for more coherent system-wide actions rather than minor changes at the margins ( 132 ).

At the country level, cross-ministerial working groups could identify ways to reconcile trade-offs across sectors, short- and long-term gains, and constituency impacts. Ministries of finance could revise calculations of national poverty lines to focus on the affordability of healthy diets to guide safety nets, minimum wages, and propoor growth policies. Subnational authorities and city leaders should explore vertical/horizontal coordinating mechanisms and ways to bring local voices to national prominence and translate national goals into local agency. Civil society should be fully engaged to build momentum across all stakeholders via constituent group dialogs, whereas business leaders and networks should commit to functional accountability mechanisms for private-sector activity across all food domains. Finally, national statistical agencies can set and support targets and metrics for food system–wide transformation.

Trade-offs (political, economic, societal) are inevitable and must be effectively managed. Examining trade-offs through coproduction as aforementioned or sustainability indexes to understand which drivers move food transformation in different directions could help navigate decisions to address those trade-offs ( 152 , 153 ). Transformation requires coherent actions (policies, investments, engagement) across the whole food system. It requires country-level and global efforts framed by a vision of the destination and the path to get there. The current UNFSS process is the first time that efforts are being framed around a shared vision of food systems transformation at country and global levels. For food systems transformation, there is a need to address realities of sectoral and interest trade-offs and limits to policy development and analytical capacity in LMICs. The UNFSS could provide some of this support, but what happens at the country level will be critical. The roadmaps and food systems transformation pathways the countries have developed will need to be informed by a shared vision to align the actions of all food systems actors. Adequate resourcing and accountability mechanisms are also essential.

Connecting up systems

There is currently sufficient food available for everyone to be well-fed and well-nourished, yet we still have many people who suffer from hunger ( 32 ). This approach could be partly due to the systemic failure in how we grow, process, distribute, market, eat, and dispose of food, disregarding equity and meeting basic human needs ( 154 ). Key components of human health are underpinned by and dependent on the determinants of health, which depend on ecological and animal health. The degradation of the underlying ecological systems that support food production can lead to adverse nutritional outcomes, and it is critical to support the social-ecological systems of food production ( 155 ).

Several factors determine whether we experience good physical and mental health and well-being, such as safe food and water, culturally respectful and nutritious diets, empowerment, and integrated government action. Underpinning all of these is the other ecological and animal health systems that include connections to climate, soil quality, water quality, biodiversity, pollination, pests and diseases, nutrient cycling, and animal welfare. Taking a multisystems approach to policy and practice ensures these relations are not underestimated or separated.

Taking a business-unusual approach

The current industrialized food systems are premised on economies of scale that reduce prices, incentivize the externalization of costs, and create growth in consumption and demand. This vicious cycle—supply creating demand leading to intensification of supply—is a classic Jevons’ paradox (wherein a technological improvement in the processing of a resource leads to increased demand for this resource) and, in turn, creates a greater need for land and intensifies competition for water, energy, and inputs ( 156 ).

Greater focus should be on the efficiency of the overall food systems transformation rather than the primary focus being on the efficiency of agricultural productivity ( 157 ). The policy focus should be broadened to, “What should we grow, in what quantities, and how?” and away from simply, “How do we grow more?” For this to happen, there needs to be greater recognition of the values associated with food and the true cost of food instead of driving to minimize food prices and maximize consumption ( 158 ). Diets based on the principles of improved nutrition, in turn, could spur more diversified and circular agriculture systems, which improve the heterogeneity of production systems (and the environmental benefits this brings) and increase the sustainability of agriculture ( 157 ).

However, getting the incentives right is vital: encouraging healthy dietary patterns with less reliance on animal-source foods; reducing food waste; allowing land use to become more sustainable; and reducing future impacts from climate change and biodiversity loss. Reorienting incentives, in essence, can create virtuous and less vicious cycles—a business- un usual approach.

Changing social narratives

Social narratives are deeply embedded mental models that influence how we think and what we do. Transformational change in food systems will not occur without a shift of narrative, mindsets, assumptions, and, most importantly, an inspirational vision of what is possible. For example, today, 1 prevailing narrative underpins and enables the current industrial food system to focus solely on the quantity of food and calories produced and is based on assumptions that we need to maximize yields by “doubling food production by 2050” ( 159 ). Efforts to minimize the social, health, or ecological costs are considered but seen as less important than the goal of increasing food production to “feed the world” ( 7 , 160 , 161 ).

This narrative shapes how food is produced, harvested, processed, distributed, marketed, disposed of, and eaten. It influences research, investments, policy priorities, and practices across the food sector, from governments and research establishments to educational curricula, investors, and businesses.  Table 1 highlights several more examples of how we need to shift the prevailing social narratives to new narratives.

Changing the prevailing social narratives 1

1 LMIC, low- and middle-income country.

In the COVID-19 context, there is an urgent need for a new narrative and vision for global food systems. Equally at the heart of this vision is that all actors actively shape and contribute to healthy, equitable, renewable, resilient, just, inclusive, and culturally diverse food systems. It is not the privilege of any single stakeholder group to determine the future of food. Such a new narrative would enable and inspire diverse actors to identify and prioritize the policies, practices, and business models that align human, ecological, and animal health outcomes.

The 22 nd annual Harvard Nutrition Obesity Symposium highlighted the importance of the nutrition and health communities in contributing to this transformative food systems agenda. Therefore, it will be necessary for these communities to engage in the UNFSS. The Summit aims to launch bold new actions to transform how the world produces and consumes food, delivering progress on all 17 Sustainable Development Goals as part of food system transformation. There are 5 main action tracks: 1 ) ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all; 2 ) shifting to sustainable consumption patterns; 3 ) boosting nature-positive production; 4 ) advancing equitable livelihoods; and 5 ) building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses. The solutions derived from these action tracks and coalitions need to address the profound global and local problems linked to food systems, widespread poor diets, and different forms of malnutrition; the climate crisis and environmental degradation; and the challenges of inequities, safety, and sustainability of livelihoods.

The ambitious aims of these action tracks reflect the urgency needed by every actor who engages with food systems; however, the nutrition community has a leadership role to play ( 4 ). Now is the time for nutrition scientists to collaborate with other sectors, disciplines, and experts to make shifts in food systems and put them on a trajectory toward lasting sustainable development.

Acknowledgments

The authors’ responsibilities were as follows—JF and CR: wrote the paper; JF and SG: had primary responsibility for the final content; SG and IS: oversaw the organization of the meeting; IS: managed the content contributions from all authors; and all authors: read an earlier draft, suggested revisions, and read and approved the final manuscript. CDG is a science advisor for Oceana. SG has consulted for Viiv and Theratechnologies, and received support from Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Theratechnologies, Viiv, and Gilead, all unrelated to the present study. PH has served as a consultant to Mahi Pono Agriculture regarding impacts of climate on crop production. NN has received support from UK Research and Innovation, the International Food Policy Research Institute, and BMGF India. CR has consulted for Alcresta Pharmaceuticals. PW declares that he has no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could appear to have influenced the work reported in this article; he is a consultant technical adviser to the Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. WCW has received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

MEB acknowledges that the work was a product of the Modelling Early Risk Indicators to Anticipate Malnutrition (MERIAM) project, funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office via Strengthening Data for Nutrition Programme contract #7442; work was also supported by subcontracts from Action Against Hunger to the University of Maryland. CDG was supported by National Science Foundation grant CNH 1826668. WAM was supported by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and UKAid grant INV-016158 for the Food Prices for Nutrition project; US Agency for International Development (USAID) grant OAA-18-LA-00003, through the Feed the Future Policy Research Consortium; and USAID grant OAA-L-10-00006, through the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Nutrition. DG was supported by Action Against Stunting Hub, funded by UK Research and Innovation through the Global Challenges Research Fund. PW was supported by USAID through Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Nutrition award AID-OAA-LA-14-00012, through the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. This symposium was a collaboration between the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at Harvard (NORC-H) through NIH grant P30 DK040561 (to SG) and the Division of Nutrition at Harvard Medical School. The symposium is available online at: http://healthcare.partners.org/streaming/Live/MGH/Endocrine/2021_NORCH_Global_Symposium.html .

CR and IS contributed equally to this work.

Abbreviations used: LMIC, low- and middle-income country; NCD, noncommunicable disease; UNFSS, UN Food Systems Summit.

Contributor Information

Jessica Fanzo, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Coral Rudie, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.

Iman Sigman, Metabolism Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Steven Grinspoon, Metabolism Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Tim G Benton, Energy, Environment and Resources Programme, Chatham House, London, United Kingdom.

Molly E Brown, Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, USA.

Namukolo Covic, International Food Policy Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Kathleen Fitch, Metabolism Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Christopher D Golden, Department of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.

Delia Grace, Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, United Kingdom. Animal and Human Health, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.

Marie-France Hivert, Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Peter Huybers, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.

Lindsay M Jaacks, Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Security, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

William A Masters, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.

Nicholas Nisbett, Health and Nutrition Cluster, Institute of Development Studies, Falmer, United Kingdom.

Ruth A Richardson, Global Alliance for the Future of Food, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Chelsea R Singleton, Department of Social, Behavioral, and Population Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA.

Patrick Webb, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.

Walter C Willett, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.

• Resident Coordinators and their Offices
• DCO at Regional Level
• DCO at Global Level
• UNSDG Secretariat
• RC System Management
• Engine of Reform
• Countries and Territories
• UNSDG Data Portal
• Resident Coordinator Statistics
• Special Purpose Trust Fund
• Joint SDG Fund
• Resident Coordinator System Funding Library
• RC System Library
• 2024 Interactive online summary
• 2024 Full Report
• 2023 Interactive online summary
• 2023 Full Report
• Previous Reports
• GA Resolution on UN Development System Reform
• GA Resolution on RC System Review
• Funding Compact
• Announcements
• Coordination Results
• Case Studies
• More Content
• Secretary-General Remarks
• Deputy Secretary-General Remarks
• About the Goals
• UN Development System in Action
• Decade of Action
• Goals Knowledge Platform
• Disability Inclusion Campaign

Game-Changers: Towards Sustainable Food Systems, How to feed, not deplete the world

'Game-Changers’ is a new editorial series from the UN Development Coordination Office (DCO) on key transitions that the UN Secretary-General has called for, to advance progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), catalyzing a more sustainable and equitable future. This series explores the progress achieved since the adoption of the SDGs in 2015 in key areas and how the UN is supporting this progress. The world needs renewed ambition and action to deliver these Goals at scale.   

Today, with one-third of all food produced globally ending up lost or wasted and more than three billion people unable to afford healthy diets, the question of how we produce, trade and consume food in a sustainable manner has come to the fore. As the global population continues to rise, this cycle, which is known as a ‘food system’, is failing in its primary purpose to end hunger and deliver food security and nutrition for all. 

As the UN  Secretary-General has said, “In a world of plenty, it is outrageous that people continue to suffer and die from hunger.”

We must transition towards a system that balances the need for food production with the urgent demand for climate action, sustainable agriculture and healthy, affordable, diets for all.   

Where was the world in 2015?

When the SDGs were adopted in 2015: 

• More than 795 million people (or  11 per cent of the global population) were facing hunger.  Hunger rates in countries enduring protracted crises were more than three times higher than elsewhere. 
• The growth and development of 159 million children , (24.6 per cent) under 5 years old  was impaired or ‘stunted’ due to poor nutrition. 

Where are we in 2023 at half-time?

• The prevalence of hunger has dropped only marginally since 2015, to 9.2 per cent of the global population.  Progress has been frustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise in climate shocks and conflict, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine which has driven up the costs of food, fuel and fertilizers.
• Last year, approximately 735 million people faced hunger, which is still well above the pre-pandemic level, and 148 million children still faced stunting from poor nutrition; just over 2 per cent decrease since 2015. 
• At the same time, not enough is being done to support developing economies adapt their food production to the impacts of climate change. Small-scale farmers from developing countries produce one third of the world’s food, yet they receive only 1.7 per cent of climate finance.    

How can a food systems transition make a difference? 

With most of the world’s extremely poor living in rural areas and relying on agriculture to survive, efforts to transform global food production go hand in hand with increasing the productivity and incomes of farmers.  Doing so would lead to the restoration of degraded land and will prevent further deforestation for food production, helping mitigate the effects of climate change.  

What is the UN doing about this? 

Under the convening of the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, the UN system, world leaders, civil society and private sectors partners gathered at the UN Food Systems Summit in Rome in 2021 and a subsequent ‘stocktaking moment’ in 2023 to transform these failing food systems. The Summit has provided a platform for countries to share their food systems journeys and led to the launch of the Secretary-General's Call to Action for accelerated Food Systems Transformation.

At the national level, this shift is being supported by UN country teams on the ground, and backed by the knowledge, expertise and convening power of the Resident Coordinator system.   

Spotlight countries: Gran Chaco Americano 

The Gran Chaco region of Latin America, which extends through areas of Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay, has the largest dry forest in the world, and is home to more than 9 million people. Yet high temperatures and prolonged droughts, make this region and its inhabitants particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and in desperate need of more resilient food systems. 

Recognizing these pressures, the UN Resident Coordinators in Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay have joined forces, along with their UN country teams to help create joint pathways for sustainable food systems to be adopted at scale. 

Earlier this year, the three Resident Coordinators set off on a joint mission through the region to engage with key members of the indigenous community, smallholder farmers, civil society and local government to design shared proposals that not only accelerate systemic climate action and boost the resilience of food production methods, but also tackle the region’s growing economic and social divides. 

Understanding that too many of today’s challenges, including those which are climate-related, know no country borders, the Resident Coordinators are helping their host governments articulate a common vision for food systems transformation and advancing shared data systems and policy pathways, to make this systemic shift a long-term reality.   

Learn more about other examples on what the UN is doing to support this transition:

Jordan’s farmers respond to water scarcity woes with innovation | United Nations DCO (un-dco.org)

Transforming Global Food Systems I Joint SDG Fund (jointsddfund.org)

Latest news and updates

YOU'RE READING

Five ways we can feed the world in 2050

Agriculture is facing an unprecedented challenge – here are five things we need to change.

A s our global population continues to rise, some estimates suggest it could reach a whopping 10 billion people by 2050 . To feed that many people, we will need to produce record quantities of food.

The scale of the challenge is epic. With only 30 seasons of planting and harvest left before the population could hit that 10 billion figure, it’s clear that agriculture as we know it has to change, if we are to have any hope of feeding the planet.

Over the past six months I’ve travelled all over Europe speaking to pioneering scientists and engineers, global thought leaders, savvy retailers and of course, knowledgeable, resilient farmers, for the BBC World News and BBC Future series, Follow the Food. The aim is to examine a truck-load of issues around food supply and find some potential solutions for our future.

This much-needed transformation – of not just agriculture but our whole food supply chain – is already under way. Here are five solutions that could help us get ready to feed the 10 billion.

Creating robot farmers

Before you scream at your screen about robots taking our jobs, hear me out. Many farmers say that time in the field, sat in a tractor for hours, is not just repetitive and boring, but robs them of time they could be spending on other key jobs they need to do to manage their business.

The Small Robot Company has created three, um, small robots: Tom, Dick and Harry. Tom takes geotagged images of plants in the fiel, which are sent back for analysis. That leads to Dick venturing out to spray – with precision – individual crops, eliminating the need for blanket spraying fields, and avoiding unnecessary polluting run-off and saving resources. Harry is the planting robot, complete with a robotic drill. Together, they carry out the monotonous tasks conventionally done by a human – with greater accuracy and less waste.

Preserving precious dirt

One reason small, mobile robots could be good news for farming is that they can replace a lot of the work done by large conventional tractors. Ordinary tractors are heavy. When they roll across the field they compact the soil. That crushes the gaps inside, reducing the size of the pores that hold air and water. This compaction significantly affects the soil’s ability to hold onto water and so a crop’s ability to take that up, along with the nutrients.

Using smaller, lighter robots to do the jobs currently performed by tractors could hugely help reduce these issues. Now, a small robot can’t pull large, heavy machinery like a tiller or cultivator. But they’re not looking to simply repeat traditional farming methods.

Giving waste a second chance

One of the most shocking facts I learned is the sheer amount of good, edible food that gets wasted. According to the United Nations, “ An estimated third of all food produced ends up rotting in the bins of consumers and retailers, or spoiling due to poor transportation and harvesting practices.”

An estimated third of all food produced ends up rotting in the bins of consumers and retailers.

One country with a big waste problem is the Netherlands – the second biggest exporter of agricultural products (by value) after the US . The sheer scale of the flow of food through the Netherlands means waste is a big issue. The Dutch government has pledged to become the first European country to halve the amount of discarded food by 2030.

There are countless brilliant ideas and initiatives hoping to help, but one approach that I thought was brilliant was using apps like “Too Good To Go”. This app enables retailers to shift food destined for the bin – but that’s still perfectly edible – to customers at a reduced cost.

Slowing the ageing process

We can’t yet turn back the clock but, at least in fruit, we can slow the dial.

The bananas I eat at home in the UK could have travelled from Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica or a field even further afield. To get to me they will have been picked green, perhaps spent 40 days on a boat, and then eventually ended up in the supermarket where, in order to be picked from the shelf, they have to be a perfect yellow, with no black spots or brown patches. That takes incredible, careful management to achieve.

If a banana ripens too early in the process, it releases ethylene gas, which triggers ripening in other bananas. It only takes one rogue ripe banana to take down 15% of a shipment. That’s a huge pile of wasted bananas.

What some scientists in Norwich, UK, are doing is editing the genome of the bananas – modifying specific letters in their DNA – so that they produce far less ethylene. This could lead to less wastage en route and extend the banana’s shelf life in the supermarket. In some parts of the world, this could translate into real supply chains. But in other places, such as the EU, gene-edited crops are very tightly regulated with a lengthy approval process.

Making smarter choices

Spending time with farmers, producers, retailers and consumers, I quickly saw how our current ways of growing, processing and selling food just aren’t scalable or sustainable.

The only way we can feed 10 billion people by 2050 is if the farming and food industries become much more sustainable. And that requires changes to the whole model of growing, processing, transporting, storing and selling. It means a lot of businesses and governments need to take action. But so too do we all.

Whether that’s going to the market and choosing the most “ugly” veg for dinner, encouraging supermarkets to change their labelling to show us the carbon or water footprint of our food (so you can choose an avocado that’s used less of our rapidly depleting fresh water supply to grow), or using new tech to avoid waste, there’s so much we can be doing to value our food and value its producers.

Building a world fed by sustainable agriculture is a daunting task. But farmers, scientists, engineers, retailers, business leaders and governments are all coming together to ensure we have enough food in the future. And I will certainly be thinking about what changes I can make on an individual level to join the effort.

Greg Foot is a presenter of the BBC World News TV series Follow the Food . These are Greg Foot's personal views and reflections.

This article is part of a new multimedia series, Follow the Food by BBC Future in collaboration with BBC World News. Follow the Food investigates how agriculture is responding to the profound challenges of climate change, environmental degradation and a growing global population.

Follow the Food traces emerging answers to these problems – both high-tech and low-tech, local and global – from farmers, growers and researchers across six continents.

Image copyright: Getty Images

Around the BBC

November 1, 2011

11 min read

Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet?

A five-step global plan could double food production by 2050 while greatly reducing environmental damage

By Jonathan A. Foley

Right now about one billion people suffer from chronic hunger. the world’s farmers grow enough food to feed them, but it is not properly distributed and, even if it were, many cannot afford it, because prices are escalating.

But another challenge looms.

By 2050 the world’s population will increase by two billion or three billion, which will likely double the demand for food, according to several studies. Demand will also rise because many more people will have higher incomes, which means they will eat more, especially meat. Increasing use of cropland for biofuels will put additional demands on our farms. So even if we solve today’s problems of poverty and access—a daunting task—we will also have to produce twice as much to guarantee adequate supply worldwide.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

And that’s not all.

By clearing tropical forests, farming marginal lands, and intensifying industrial farming in sensitive landscapes and watersheds, humankind has made agriculture the planet’s dominant environmental threat. Agriculture already consumes a large percentage of the earth’s land surface and is destroying habitat, using up freshwater, polluting rivers and oceans, and emitting greenhouse gases more extensively than almost any other human activity. To guarantee the globe’s long-term health, we must dramatically reduce agriculture’s adverse impacts.

The world’s food system faces three incredible, interwoven challenges. It must guarantee that all seven billion people alive today are adequately fed; it must double food production in the next 40 years; and it must achieve both goals while becoming truly environmentally sustainable.

Could these simultaneous goals possibly be met? An international team of experts, which I coordinated, has settled on five steps that, if pursued together, could raise by more than 100 percent the food available for human consumption globally, while significantly lessening greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity losses, water use and water pollution. Tackling the triple challenge will be one of the most important tests humanity has ever faced. It is fair to say that our response will determine the fate of our civilization.

Bumping Up against Barriers At first blush, the way to feed more people would seem clear: grow more food, by expanding farmland and improving yield—the amount of crops harvested per hectare. Unfortunately, the world is running into significant barriers on both counts.

Society already farms roughly 38 percent of the earth’s land surface, not counting Greenland or Antarctica. Agriculture is by far the biggest human use of land on the planet; nothing else comes close. And most of that 38 percent covers the best farmland. Much of the remainder is covered by deserts, mountains, tundra, ice, cities, parks and other unsuitable growing areas. The few remaining frontiers are mainly in tropical forests and savannas, which are vital to the stability of the globe, especially as stores of carbon and biodiversity. Expanding into those areas is not a good idea, yet over the past 20 years five million to 10 million hectares of cropland a year have been created, with a significant portion of that amount in the tropics. These additions enlarged the net area of cultivated land by only 3 percent, however, because of farmland losses caused by urban development and other forces, particularly in temperate zones.

Improving yield also sounds enticing. Yet our research team found that average global crop yield increased by about 20 percent in the past 20 years—far less than what is typically reported. That improvement is significant, but the rate is nowhere near enough to double food production by midcentury. Whereas yields of some crops improved substantially, others saw little gain and a few even declined.

Feeding more people would be easier if all the food we grew went into human hands. But only 60 percent of the world’s crops are meant for people: mostly grains, followed by pulses (beans, lentils), oil plants, vegetables and fruits. Another 35 percent is used for animal feed, and the final 5 percent goes to biofuels and other industrial products. Meat is the biggest issue here. Even with the most efficient meat and dairy systems, feeding crops to animals reduces the world’s potential food supply. Typically grain-fed cattle operations use 30 kilograms of grain to make one kilogram of edible, boneless beef. Chicken and pork are more efficient, and grass-fed beef converts nonfood material into protein. No matter how you slice it, though, grain-fed meat production systems are a drain on the global food supply.

Another deterrent to growing more food is damage to the environment, which is already extensive. Only our use of energy, with its profound impacts on climate and ocean acidification, rivals the sheer magnitude of agriculture’s environmental impacts. Our research team estimates that agriculture has already cleared or radically transformed 70 percent of the world’s prehistoric grasslands, 50 percent of the savannas, 45 percent of the temperate deciduous forests and 25 percent of the tropical forests. Since the last ice age, nothing has disrupted ecosystems more. Agriculture’s physical footprint is nearly 60 times that of the world’s pavements and buildings.

Freshwater is another casualty. Humans use an astounding 4,000 cubic kilometers of water per year, mostly withdrawn from rivers and aquifers. Irrigation accounts for 70 percent of the draw. If we count only consumptive water use—water that is used and not returned to the watershed—irrigation climbs to 80 or 90 percent of the total. As a result, many large rivers, such as the Colorado, have diminished flows, some have dried up altogether, and many places have rapidly declining water tables, including regions of the U.S. and India.

Water is not only disappearing, it is being contaminated. Fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are being spread at incredible levels and are found in nearly every ecosystem. The flows of nitrogen and phosphorus through the environment have more than doubled since 1960, causing widespread water pollution and enormous hypoxic “dead zones” at the mouths of many of the world’s major rivers. Ironically, fertilizer runoff from farmland—in the name of growing more food—compromises another crucial source of nutrition: coastal fishing grounds. Fertilizer certainly has been a key ingredient of the green revolution that has helped feed the world, but when nearly half the fertilizer we apply runs off rather than nourishes crops, we clearly can do better.

Agriculture is also the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions from society, collectively accounting for about 35 percent of the carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide we release. That is more than the emissions from worldwide transportation (including all cars, trucks and planes) or electricity generation. The energy used to grow, process and transport food is a concern, but the vast majority of emissions comes from tropical deforestation, methane released from animals and rice paddies, and nitrous oxide from overfertilized soils.

Five Solutions Modern agriculture has been an incredibly positive force in the world, but we can no longer ignore its dwindling ability to expand or the mounting environmental harm it imposes. Previous approaches to solving food and environmental issues were often at odds. We could boost food production by clearing more land or using more water and chemicals but only at a cost to the environment. Or we could restore ecosystems by taking farmland out of cultivation but only by reducing food production. This either-or approach is no longer acceptable. We need truly integrated solutions.

After many months of research and deliberation—based on analysis of newly generated global agricultural and environmental data—our international team has settled on a five-point plan for dealing with food and environmental challenges together.

Stop expanding agriculture’s footprint. Our first recommendation is to slow and ultimately stop the expansion of agriculture, particularly into tropical forests and savannas. The demise of these ecosystems has far-reaching impacts on the environment, especially through lost biodiversity and increased carbon dioxide emissions (from clearing land).

Slowing deforestation would dramatically reduce environmental damage while imposing only minor constraints on global food production. The resulting dip in farm capacity could be offset by reducing the displacement of more productive croplands by urbanization, degradation and abandonment.

Many proposals have been made to reduce deforestation. One of the most promising is the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) mechanism. Under REDD, rich nations pay tropical nations to protect their rain forests, in exchange for carbon credits. Other mechanisms include developing certification standards for agricultural products so that supply chains can be assured that crops were not grown on lands created by deforestation. Also, better biofuel policy that relies on nonfood crops such as switchgrass instead of food crops could make vital farmland newly available.

Close the world’s yield gaps . To double global food production without expanding agriculture’s footprint, we must significantly improve yields of existing farmlands. Two options exist: We can boost the productivity of our best farms—raising their “yield ceiling” through improved crop genetics and management. Or we can improve the yields of the world’s least productive farms—closing the “yield gap” between a farm’s current yield and its higher potential yield. The second option provides the largest and most immediate gain—especially in regions where hunger is most acute.

Our research team has analyzed global patterns of crop yields and found that much of the world has a significant yield gap. In particular, yields could increase substantially across many parts of Africa, Central America and eastern Europe. In these regions, better seeds, more effective fertilizer application and efficient irrigation could produce much more food on the same amount of land. Our analysis suggests that closing the yield gap for the world’s top 16 crops could increase total food production by 50 to 60 percent, with little environmental damage.

Reducing yield gaps in the least productive agricultural lands may often require some additional fertilizer and water. Care will have to be taken to avoid unbridled irrigation and chemical use. Many other techniques can improve yield. “Reduced tillage” planting techniques disturb less soil, preventing erosion. Cover crops planted between food-crop seasons reduce weeds and add nutrients and nitrogen to the soil when plowed under. Lessons from organic and agroecological systems can also be adopted, such as leaving crop residues on fields so that they decompose into nutrients. To close the world’s yield gaps, we also have to overcome serious economic and social challenges, including better distribution of fertilizer and seed varieties to farms in impoverished regions and improving access to global markets for many regions.

Use resources much more efficiently . To reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture, low- and high-yield regions alike must practice agriculture with vastly greater efficiency: far more crop output per unit of water, fertilizer and energy.

On average, it takes about one liter of irrigation water to grow one calorie of food, although some places use much more. Our analysis finds that farms can significantly curb water use without much reduction in food production, especially in dry climates. Primary strategies include drip irrigation (where water is applied directly to the plant’s base and not wastefully sprayed into the air); mulching (covering the soil with organic matter to retain moisture); and reducing water lost from irrigation systems (by lessening evaporation from canals and reservoirs).

With fertilizers, we face a kind of Goldilocks problem. Some places have too few nutrients and therefore poor crop production, whereas others have too much, leading to pollution. Almost no one uses fertilizers “just right.” Our analysis shows hotspots on the planet—particularly in China, northern India, the central U.S. and western Europe—where farmers could substantially reduce fertilizer use with little or no impact on food production. Amazingly, only 10 percent of the world’s cropland generates 30 to 40 percent of agriculture’s fertilizer pollution.

Among the actions that can fix this excess are policy and economic incentives, such as payments to farmers for watershed stewardship and protection, for reducing excessive fertilizer use, for improving manure management (especially manure storage, so that less runs off into the watershed during a storm), for capturing excess nutrients through recycling, and for instituting other conservation practices. In addition, restoring wetlands will enhance their capacity to act as a natural sponge to filter out nutrients in runoff.

Here again reduced tillage can help nourish the soil, as can precision agriculture (applying fertilizer and water only when and where they are needed and most effective) and organic farming techniques.

Shift diets away from meat . We can dramatically increase global food availability and environmental sustainability by using more of our crops to feed people directly and less to fatten livestock.

Globally, humans could net up to three quadrillion additional calories every year—a 50 percent increase from our current supply—by switching to all-plant diets. Naturally, our current diets and uses of crops have many economic and social benefits, and our preferences are unlikely to change completely. Still, even small shifts in diet, say, from grain-fed beef to poultry, pork or pasture-fed beef, can pay off handsomely.

Reduce food waste . A final, obvious but often neglected recommendation is to reduce waste in the food system. Roughly 30 percent of the food produced on the planet is discarded, lost, spoiled or consumed by pests.

In rich countries, much of the waste takes place at the consumer end of the system, in restaurants and trash cans. Simple changes in our daily consumption patterns—reducing oversize portions, food thrown in the garbage, and the number of takeout and restaurant meals—could significantly trim losses, as well as our expanding waistlines. In poorer countries, the losses are similar in size but occur at the producer end, in the form of failed crops, stockpiles ruined by pests, or food that is never delivered because of bad infrastructure and markets. Improved storage, refrigeration and distribution systems can cut waste appreciably. Moreover, better market tools can connect people who have crops to those who need them, such as cell-phone systems in Africa that link suppliers, traders and purchasers.

Although completely eliminating waste from farm to fork is not realistic, even small steps would be extremely beneficial. Targeted efforts—especially reducing waste of the most resource-intensive foods such as meat and dairy—could make a big difference.

Moving toward a Networked Food System In principle, our five-point strategy can address many food security and environmental challenges. Together the steps could increase the world’s food availability by 100 to 180 percent, while significantly lowering greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity losses, water use and water pollution.

It is important to emphasize that all five points (and perhaps more) must be pursued together. No single strategy is sufficient to solve all our problems. Think silver buckshot, not a silver bullet. We have tremendous successes from the green revolution and industrial-scale agriculture to build on, along with innovations in organic farming and local food systems. Let’s take the best ideas and incorporate them into a new approach—a sustainable food system that focuses on nutritional, social and environmental performance, to bring responsible food production to scale.

We can configure this next-generation system as a network of local agricultural systems that are sensitive to nearby climate, water resources, ecosystems and culture and that are connected through efficient means of global trade and transport. Such a system could be resilient and also pay farmers a living wage.

One device that would help foster this new food system would be the equivalent of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program now in place for constructing new commercial buildings sustainably. This LEED program awards increasingly higher levels of certification based on points that are accumulated by incorporating any of a wide range of green options, from solar power and efficient lighting to recycled building materials and low construction waste.

For sustainable agriculture, foods would be awarded points based on how well they deliver nutrition, food security and other public benefits, minus their environmental and social costs. This certification would help us get beyond current food labels such as “local” and “organic,” which really do not tell us much about what we are eating. Instead we can look at the whole performance of our food—across nutritional, social and environmental dimensions—and weigh the costs and benefits of different farming approaches.

Imagine the possibilities: sustainable citrus and coffee from the tropics, connected to sustainable cereals from the temperate zone, supplemented by locally grown greens and root vegetables, all grown under transparent, performance-based standards. Use your smartphone and the latest sustainable food app, and you will learn where your food came from, who grew it, how it was grown, and how it ranks against various social, nutritional and environmental criteria. And when you find food that works, you can tweet about it to your social network of farmers and foodies.

The principles and practices of our different agricultural systems—from large-scale commercial to local and organic—provide the foundation for grappling with the world’s food security and environmental needs. Feeding nine billion people in a truly sustainable way will be one of the greatest challenges our civilization has had to confront. It will require the imagination, determination and hard work of countless people from all over the world. There is no time to lose. 

Food security and nutrition and sustainable agriculture

Related sdgs, end hunger, achieve food security and improve ....

Description

Publications.

As the world population continues to grow, much more effort and innovation will be urgently needed in order to sustainably increase agricultural production, improve the global supply chain, decrease food losses and waste, and ensure that all who are suffering from hunger and malnutrition have access to nutritious food. Many in the international community believe that it is possible to eradicate hunger within the next generation, and are working together to achieve this goal.

World leaders at the 2012 Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. The UN Secretary-General’s Zero Hunger Challenge launched at Rio+20 called on governments, civil society, faith communities, the private sector, and research institutions to unite to end hunger and eliminate the worst forms of malnutrition.

The Zero Hunger Challenge has since garnered widespread support from many member States and other entities. It calls for:

• Zero stunted children under the age of two
• 100% access to adequate food all year round
• All food systems are sustainable
• 100% increase in smallholder productivity and income
• Zero loss or waste of food

The Sustainable Development Goal to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture” (SDG2) recognizes the inter linkages among supporting sustainable agriculture, empowering small farmers, promoting gender equality, ending rural poverty, ensuring healthy lifestyles, tackling climate change, and other issues addressed within the set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the Post-2015 Development Agenda.

Beyond adequate calories intake, proper nutrition has other dimensions that deserve attention, including micronutrient availability and healthy diets. Inadequate micronutrient intake of mothers and infants can have long-term developmental impacts. Unhealthy diets and lifestyles are closely linked to the growing incidence of non-communicable diseases in both developed and developing countries.

Adequate nutrition during the critical 1,000 days from beginning of pregnancy through a child’s second birthday merits a particular focus. The Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement has made great progress since its creation five years ago in incorporating strategies that link nutrition to agriculture, clean water, sanitation, education, employment, social protection, health care and support for resilience.

Extreme poverty and hunger are predominantly rural, with smallholder farmers and their families making up a very significant proportion of the poor and hungry. Thus, eradicating poverty and hunger are integrally linked to boosting food production, agricultural productivity and rural incomes.

Agriculture systems worldwide must become more productive and less wasteful. Sustainable agricultural practices and food systems, including both production and consumption, must be pursued from a holistic and integrated perspective.

Land, healthy soils, water and plant genetic resources are key inputs into food production, and their growing scarcity in many parts of the world makes it imperative to use and manage them sustainably. Boosting yields on existing agricultural lands, including restoration of degraded lands, through sustainable agricultural practices would also relieve pressure to clear forests for agricultural production. Wise management of scarce water through improved irrigation and storage technologies, combined with development of new drought-resistant crop varieties, can contribute to sustaining drylands productivity.

Halting and reversing land degradation will also be critical to meeting future food needs. The Rio+20 outcome document calls for achieving a land-degradation-neutral world in the context of sustainable development. Given the current extent of land degradation globally, the potential benefits from land restoration for food security and for mitigating climate change are enormous. However, there is also recognition that scientific understanding of the drivers of desertification, land degradation and drought is still evolving.

There are many elements of traditional farmer knowledge that, enriched by the latest scientific knowledge, can support productive food systems through sound and sustainable soil, land, water, nutrient and pest management, and the more extensive use of organic fertilizers.

An increase in integrated decision-making processes at national and regional levels are needed to achieve synergies and adequately address trade-offs among agriculture, water, energy, land and climate change.

Given expected changes in temperatures, precipitation and pests associated with climate change, the global community is called upon to increase investment in research, development and demonstration of technologies to improve the sustainability of food systems everywhere. Building resilience of local food systems will be critical to averting large-scale future shortages and to ensuring food security and good nutrition for all.

State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020

Updates for many countries have made it possible to estimate hunger in the world with greater accuracy this year. In particular, newly accessible data enabled the revision of the entire series of undernourishment estimates for China back to 2000, resulting in a substantial downward shift of the seri...

Food and Agriculture

Our planet faces multiple and complex challenges in the 21st century. The new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development commits the international community to act together to surmount them and transform our world for today’s and future generations....

Food Security and Nutrition in Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

The outcome document of Rio+20, “The Future We Want” (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, June 2012) acknowledged that SIDS remains a special case for sustainable development. Building on the Barbados Programme of Action and the Mauritius Strategy, the document calls for the conv...

Global Blue Growth Initiative and Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

Three-quarters of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans and seas which are an engine for global economic growth and a key source of food security. The global ocean economic activity is estimated to be USD 3–5 trillion. Ninety percent of global trade moves by marine transport. Over 30 percent of g...

FAO Strategy for Partnerships with the Private Sector

The fight against hunger can only be won in partnership with governments and other non-state actors, among which the private sector plays a fundamental role. FAO is actively pursuing these partnerships to meet the Zero Hunger Challenge together with UN partners and other committed stakeholders. We ...

FAO Strategy for Partnerships with Civil Society Organizations

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is convinced that hunger and malnutrition can be eradicated in our lifetime. To meet the Zero Hunger Challenge, political commitment and major alliances with key stakeholders are crucial. Only through effective collaboration with go...

FAO and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals

The Sustainable Development Goals offer a vision of a fairer, more prosperous, peaceful and sustainable world in which no one is left behind. In food - the way it is grown, produced, consumed, traded, transported, stored and marketed - lies the fundamental connection between people and the planet, ...

Emerging Issues for Small Island Developing States

The 2012 UNEP Foresight Process on Emerging Global Environmental Issues primarily identified emerging environmental issues and possible solutions on a global scale and perspective. In 2013, UNEP carried out a similar exercise to identify priority emerging environmental issues that are of concern to ...

Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom, We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for su...

Farmer’s organizations in Bangladesh: a mapping and capacity assessment

Farmers’ organizations (FOs) in Bangladesh have the potential to be true partners in, rather than “beneficiaries” of, the development process. FOs bring to the table a deep knowledge of the local context, a nuanced understanding of the needs of their communities and strong social capital. Increasing...

Good practices in building innovative rural institutions to increase food security

Continued population growth, urbanization and rising incomes are likely to continue to put pressure on food demand. International prices for most agricultural commodities are set to remain at 2010 levels or higher, at least for the next decade (OECD-FAO, 2010). Small-scale producers in many developi...

The State of Food Insecurity in the World

When the 69th United Nations General Assembly begins its General Debate on 23 September 2014, 464 days will remain to the end of 2015, the target date for achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). A stock-taking of where we stand on reducing hunger and malnutrition shows that progress in hu...

2024 SDG Global Business Forum

&nbsp;The 2024 SDG Global Business Forum will take place virtually as a special event alongside the 2024 High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), the United Nations central platform for the follow-up and review of the SDGs. The Forum will place special emphasis on the SDGs under

Expert Group Meeting on SDG2 and its interlinkages with other SDGs

The theme of the&nbsp;2024 High-Level Political Forum&nbsp;(HLPF) is “Reinforcing the 2030 Agenda and eradicating poverty in times of multiple crises: the effective delivery of sustainable, resilient and innovative solutions”. The 2024 HLPF will have an in-depth review of Sustainable Development Goa

Expert Group Meetings for 2024 HLPF Thematic Review

The theme of the 2024 High Level Political Forum (HLPF) is “Reinforcing the 2030 Agenda and eradicating poverty in times of multiple crisis: the effective delivery of sustainable, resilient and innovative solutions”. The 2024 HLPF will have an in-depth review of SDG 1 on No Poverty, SDG 2 on Zero Hu

International Workshop on “Applications of Juncao Technology and its contribution to alleviating poverty, promoting employment and protecting the environment”

According to the United Nations Food Systems Summit that was held in 2021, many of the world’s food systems are fragile and not fulfilling the right to adequate food for all. Hunger and malnutrition are on the rise again. According to FAO’s “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023

Second Regional Workshop on “Applications of Juncao Technology and its Contribution to the Achievement of Sustainable Agriculture and the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa” 18 - 19 December 2023

Ⅰ. Purpose of the Workshop At the halfway point of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the application of science and technology in developing sustainable agricultural practices has the potential to accelerate transformative change in support of the Sustainable Development Goals. In that r

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) 2023 Launch

On&nbsp;12 July 2023 from 10 AM to 12 PM (EDT), FAO and its co-publishing partners will be launching, for the fifth time, the&nbsp;State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World&nbsp;(SOFI) report at a Special Event in the margins of the ECOSOC High-Level Political Forum (HLPF). The 2023 edition

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022 (SOFI) Launch

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World is an annual flagship report to inform on progress towards ending hunger, achieving food security and improving nutrition and to provide in-depth analysis on key challenges for achieving this goal in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021 (SOFI)

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021 (SOFI 2021) report presents the first evidence-based global assessment of chronic food insecurity in the year the COVID-19 pandemic emerged and spread across the globe. The SOFI 2021 report will also focus on complementary food system solu

Committee on World Food Security (CFS 46)

Ministerial meeting on food security and climate adaptation in small island developing states.

The proposed meeting will offer SIDS Ministers and Ambassadors the opportunity to explore the implications of the SAMOA Pathway as it relates to food security and nutrition and climate change adaptation. The ultimate objective is to enhance food security, health and wellbeing in SIDS. Ministers an

• January 2015 SDG 2 SDG2 focuses on ending hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture. In particular, its targets aims to: end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round by 2030 (2.1); end all forms of malnutrition by 2030, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons (2.2.); double,by 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment (2.3); ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality (2.4); by 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed (2.5); The alphabetical goals aim to: increase investment in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks , correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets as well as adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility.
• January 2014 Rome Decl. on Nutrition and Framework for Action The Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) took place at FAO Headquarters, in Rome in November 2014. The Conference resulted in the Rome Declaration on Nutrition and the Framework for Action, a political commitment document and a flexible policy framework, respectively, aimed at addressing the current major nutrition challenges and identifying priorities for enhanced international cooperation on nutrition.
• January 2012 Future We Want (Para 108-118) In Future We Want, Member States reaffirm their commitments regarding "the right of everyone to have access to safe, sufficient and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger". Member States also acknowledge that food security and nutrition has become a pressing global challenge. At Rio +20, the UN Secretary-General’s Zero Hunger Challenge was launched in order to call on governments, civil society, faith communities, the private sector, and research institutions to unite to end hunger and eliminate the worst forms of malnutrition.
• January 2009 UN SG HLTF on Food and Nutrition Security The UN SG HLTF on Food and Nutrition Security was established by the UN SG, Mr Ban Ki-moon in 2008 and since then has aimed at promoting a comprehensive and unified response of the international community to the challenge of achieving global food and nutrition security. It has also been responsible for building joint positions among its members around the five elements of the Zero Hunger Challenge.
• January 2002 Report World Food Summit +5 The World Food Summit +5 adopted a declaration, calling on the international community to fulfill the pledge, made at the original World Food Summit in 1996, to reduce the number of hungry people to about 400 million by 2015.
• January 2000 MDG 1 MDG 1 aims at eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Its three targets respectively read: halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1.25 a day (1.A), achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people (1.B), halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger (1.C).
• January 1996 Rome Decl. on World Food Security The Summit aimed to reaffirm global commitment, at the highest political level, to eliminate hunger and malnutrition, and to achieve sustainable food security for all. Thank to its high visibility, the Summit contributed to raise further awareness on agriculture capacity, food insecurity and malnutrition among decision-makers in the public and private sectors, in the media and with the public at large. It also set the political, conceptual and technical blueprint for an ongoing effort to eradicate hunger at global level with the target of reducing by half the number of undernourished people by no later than the year 2015. The Rome Declaration defined seven commitments as main pillars for the achievement of sustainable food security for all whereas its Plan of Action identified the objectives and actions relevant for practical implementation of these seven commitments.
• January 1992 1st ICN The first International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) convened at the FAO's Headquarters in Rome to identify common strategies and methods to eradicate hunger and malnutrition. The conference was organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and was attended by delegations from 159 countries as well as the European Economic Community, 16 United Nations organizations, 11 intergovernmental organizations, and 144 non-governmental organizations.
• January 1986 Creation of AGROSTAT (now FAOSTAT) Since 1986, AGROSTAT, now known as FAOSTAT, has provided cross sectional data relating to food and agriculture as well as time-series for some 200 countries.
• January 1979 1st World Food Day World Food Day is celebrated each year on 16 October to commemorate the day on which FAO was founded in 1945. Established on the occasion of FAO Twentieth General Conference held in November 1979, the first World Food Day was celebrated in 1981 and was devoted to the theme "Food Comes First".

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 19 May 2020

Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system

• Mario Herrero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7741-5090 1 ,
• Philip K. Thornton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1854-0182 2 ,
• Daniel Mason-D’Croz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0673-2301 1 ,
• Jeda Palmer 1 ,
• Tim G. Benton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7448-1973 3 ,
• Benjamin L. Bodirsky   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8242-6712 4 ,
• Jessica R. Bogard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5503-5284 1 ,
• Andrew Hall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8580-6569 1 ,
• Bernice Lee 3 ,
• Karine Nyborg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0359-548X 5 ,
• Prajal Pradhan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0491-5489 4 ,
• Graham D. Bonnett 1 ,
• Brett A. Bryan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4834-5641 6 ,
• Bruce M. Campbell 7 , 8 ,
• Svend Christensen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1112-1954 7 ,
• Michael Clark   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7161-7751 9 ,
• Mathew T. Cook 1 ,
• Imke J. M. de Boer 10 ,
• Chris Downs 1 ,
• Kanar Dizyee 1 ,
• Christian Folberth   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6738-5238 11 ,
• Cecile M. Godde 1 ,
• James S. Gerber   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6890-0481 12 ,
• Michael Grundy 1 ,
• Petr Havlik 11 ,
• Andrew Jarvis 8 ,
• Richard King   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6404-8052 3 ,
• Ana Maria Loboguerrero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2690-0763 8 ,
• Mauricio A. Lopes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0671-9940 11 ,
• C. Lynne McIntyre 1 ,
• Rosamond Naylor 13 ,
• Javier Navarro 1 ,
• Michael Obersteiner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6981-2769 11 ,
• Alejandro Parodi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1351-138X 10 ,
• Mark B. Peoples 1 ,
• Ilje Pikaar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1820-9983 14 , 15 ,
• Alexander Popp 4 ,
• Johan Rockström 4 , 16 ,
• Michael J. Robertson 1 ,
• Pete Smith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124 17 ,
• Elke Stehfest   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3016-2679 18 ,
• Steve M. Swain   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6118-745X 1 ,
• Hugo Valin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0618-773X 11 ,
• Mark van Wijk 19 ,
• Hannah H. E. van Zanten   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5262-5518 10 ,
• Sonja Vermeulen 3 , 20 ,
• Joost Vervoort 21 &
• Paul C. West   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9024-1657 12  

Nature Food volume  1 ,  pages 266–272 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

308 Citations

340 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Science, technology and society

Future technologies and systemic innovation are critical for the profound transformation the food system needs. These innovations range from food production, land use and emissions, all the way to improved diets and waste management. Here, we identify these technologies, assess their readiness and propose eight action points that could accelerate the transition towards a more sustainable food system. We argue that the speed of innovation could be significantly increased with the appropriate incentives, regulations and social licence. These, in turn, require constructive stakeholder dialogue and clear transition pathways.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Combined innovations in public policy, the private sector and culture can drive sustainability transitions in food systems

Global food systems transitions have enabled affordable diets but had less favourable outcomes for nutrition, environmental health, inclusion and equity

Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems

Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562 , 519–525 (2018).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Frank, S. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 12 , 105004 (2017).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

van Ittersum, M. K. et al. Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , 14964–14969 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Havlík, P. et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 3709–3714 (2014).

Rosegrant, M. W. et al. Food Security in a World of Natural Resource Scarcity The Role of Agricultural Technologies (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2014).

Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478 , 337–342 (2011).

Rockström, J. et al. Planet-proofing the global food system. Nat. Food 1 , 3–5 (2020).

Google Scholar  

Gao, L. & Bryan, B. A. Finding pathways to national-scale land-sector sustainability. Nature 544 , 217–222 (2017).

Arneth, A. et. al. Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (IPCC, WMO, 2019).

Searchinger, T. et al. Creating a Sustainable Food Future: a Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050 (Agency for International Development, 2018).

Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT– Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 , 447–429 (2019).

Pikaar, I. et al. Decoupling livestock from land use through industrial feed production pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 , 7351–7359 (2018).

Walsh, B. J. et al. New feed sources key to ambitious climate targets. Carbon Balance Manag 10 , 1–8 (2015).

Bumpus, A. & Comello, S. Emerging clean energy technology investment trends. Nat. Clim. Chang 7 , 382–385 (2017).

Froggatt, A. & Wellesley, L. Meat Analogues: Considerations for the EU (Chatham House, 2019).

Hall, A. & Dijkman, J. Public Agricultural Research and Development in an Era of Transformation Vol. 1 (Independent Science Council of the CGIAR and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2019).

Selian, A. N. & McKnight, L. In The Pursuit of Human Well-Being (eds. Estes, R. & Sirgy, M.) 639–687 (Springer, 2017).

Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 20260–20264 (2011).

Davis, K. F. et al. Historical trade-offs of livestock’s environmental impacts. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 , 125013 (2015).

Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22 , 8 (2017).

Swinburn, B. A. et al. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report. Lancet 6736 , 1–56 (2019).

Mankins, J. C. Technology Readiness Levels, A White Paper (NASA, 1995).

Mankins, J. C. Technology readiness assessments: a retrospective. Acta Astronautica 65 , 1216–1223 (2009).

Hirshhorn, S. et al. Final Report of the NASA Technology Readiness Assessment Study Team (NASA, 2016).

Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision ESA Working Paper No. 12–03 (FAO, 2012).

Swedish Research and Innovation Strategy for a Bio-based Economy (Swedish Research Council for Environment Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, 2012).

National Bioeconomy Blueprint (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2012).

El-Chichakli, B., von Braun, J., Lang, C., Barben, D. & Philp, J. Policy: Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy. Nature 535 , 221–223 (2016).

System Innovation: Synthesis Report (OECD, 2015).

Sánchez-Mejía, M. in Globalization and Health Inequities in Latin America (Malagón de Salazar, L. & Luján Villar, R.) 205–218 (Springer International Publishing, 2018).

Philp, J. The bioeconomy, the challenge of the century for policy makers. Nat. Biotechnol. 40 , 11–19 (2018).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Building the Bioeconomy 4th edn (Pugatch Consilium, 2017).

Noack, A.-L. & Pouw, N. R. M. A blind spot in food and nutrition security: where culture and social change shape the local food plate. Agric. Human Values 32 , 169–182 (2015).

Wellesley, L., Happer, C. & Froggatt, A. Changing Climate , Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption (Chatham House, 2015).

Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354 , 42–43 (2016).

Greaker, M. & Midttømme, K. Network effects and environmental externalities: do clean technologies suffer from excess inertia? J. Public Econ. 143 , 27–38 (2016).

Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M. & Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 67 , 44–57 (2017).

Stilgoe., J., Owen, R. & McNaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42 , 1568–1580 (2013).

Mytelka, L. K. Competition, Innovation and Competitiveness in Developing Countries (OECD, 1999).

Snowden, D. J. The Cynefin Framework (Cognitive Edge, accessed 22 December 2018); https://cognitive-edge.com/

Asheim, G. B. et al. The case for a supply-side climate treaty. Science 365 , 325–327 (2019).

Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U., Hanley, D. & Kerr, W. Transition to clean technology. J. Polit. Econ. 124 , 52–104 (2016).

Harstad, B., Lancia, F. & Russo, A. Compliance technology and self-enforcing agreements. J. Europ. Econ. Assoc 17 , 1–29 (2019).

Ashford, N. in The Steilmann Report: The Wealth of People: An Intelligent Economy for the 21st Century 233–274 (2001).

Dempwolf, C. S., Auer, J. & D’Ippolito, M. Innovation Accelerators: Defining Characteristics among Start-Up Assistance Organisations (Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Univ. Maryland, 2014).

Bryant, C. & Barnett, J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review. Meat Sci. 143 , 8–17 (2018).

de Boer, J. & Aiking, H. Prospects for pro-environmental protein consumption in Europe: cultural, culinary, economic and psychological factors. Appetite 121 , 29–40 (2018).

Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E. J., Gellynck, X. & Verbeke, W. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 62 , 7–16 (2013).

Preston, F. & Lehne, J. A Wider Circle? The Circular Economy in Developing Countries (Chatham House, 2017).

Mazzucato, M. From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Ind. Innov 23 , 140–156 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.H., D.M.-D., J.P.J., J.R.B., G.D.B., M.T.C., C.D., C.M.G., M.G., C.L.M., J.N., M.B.P., M.J.R. and S.M.S. acknowledge funding from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; P.T., B.M.C., A.J. and A.M.L. acknowledge funding from the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements (see https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors ). The views expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these organizations. B.L.B. acknowledges funding from the NAVIGATE project of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 821124, and by the project SHAPE, which is part of AXIS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and funded by FORMAS (SE), FFG/BMWFW (AT), DLR/BMBF (DE, grant no. 01LS1907A-B-C), NWO (NL) and RCN (NO) with co-funding by the European Union (grant no. 776608); P.P. acknowledges funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant agreement no. 01DP17035); M.C. acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People), award number 205212/Z/16/Z; J.S.G., P.S. and P.C.W. acknowledge funding from the Belmont Forum/FACCE-JPI DEVIL project (grant no. NE/M021327/1); A.P. acknowledges funding from the NAVIGATE project of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 821124, and by the project SHAPE, which is part of AXIS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and funded by FORMAS (SE), FFG/BMWFW (AT), DLR/BMBF (DE, grant no. 01LS1907A-B-C), NWO (NL) and RCN (NO) with co-funding by the European Union (grant no. 776608).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia https://www.csiro.au

Mario Herrero, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, Jeda Palmer, Jessica R. Bogard, Andrew Hall, Graham D. Bonnett, Mathew T. Cook, Chris Downs, Kanar Dizyee, Cecile M. Godde, Michael Grundy, C. Lynne McIntyre, Javier Navarro, Mark B. Peoples, Michael J. Robertson & Steve M. Swain

CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

Philip K. Thornton

The Royal Institute for International Affairs, Chatham House, London, UK

Tim G. Benton, Bernice Lee, Richard King & Sonja Vermeulen

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

Benjamin L. Bodirsky, Prajal Pradhan, Alexander Popp & Johan Rockström

Department of Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Karine Nyborg

Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia

Brett A. Bryan

Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Fredriksberg, Denmark

Bruce M. Campbell & Svend Christensen

CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cali, Colombia

Bruce M. Campbell, Andrew Jarvis & Ana Maria Loboguerrero

Livestock, Environment and People, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Michael Clark

Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

Imke J. M. de Boer, Alejandro Parodi & Hannah H. E. van Zanten

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

Christian Folberth, Petr Havlik, Mauricio A. Lopes, Michael Obersteiner & Hugo Valin

Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St Paul, USA

James S. Gerber & Paul C. West

Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Rosamond Naylor

The School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Ilje Pikaar

Advanced Water Management Centre, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Institute of Environmental Science and Geography, Universität Potsdam, Campus Golm, Potsdam-Golm, Germany

Johan Rockström

Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, Netherlands

Elke Stehfest

International Livestock Research Institute, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Nairobi, Kenya

Mark van Wijk

CGIAR System Management Organisation, Montpellier, France

Sonja Vermeulen

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

Joost Vervoort

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C., J.P. and J.B. designed the research. M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C., J.P., A.H., B.L. and K.N. wrote the manuscript. M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C. J.P., J.B., C.G., K.D. and J.N. analysed data. All authors contributed data and edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Herrero .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary methods, discussion and Tables 1,2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat Food 1 , 266–272 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

Download citation

Received : 09 August 2019

Accepted : 13 April 2020

Published : 19 May 2020

Issue Date : May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Modelling six sustainable development transformations in australia and their accelerators, impediments, enablers, and interlinkages.

• Cameron Allen
• Annabel Biddulph
• Shirin Malekpour

Nature Communications (2024)

Maize yield prediction and condition monitoring at the sub-county scale in Kenya: synthesis of remote sensing information and crop modeling

• Harison K. Kipkulei
• Sonoko D. Bellingrath-Kimura
• Stefan Sieber

Scientific Reports (2024)

Assessing and addressing the global state of food production data scarcity

• Endalkachew Abebe Kebede
• Hanan Abou Ali
• Kyle Frankel Davis

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2024)

Interventions to increase circularity and reduce environmental impacts in food systems

• Benjamin van Selm
• Hannah H. E. van Zanten
• Imke J. M. de Boer

Ambio (2024)

Fish Waste to Valuable Products: Nanotechnological Approach

• Ahmet Faruk Yesilsu
• Esen Alp-Erbay
• İlhan Aydin

BioNanoScience (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Feeding the world sustainably

A burst of technology in the 1960s— the Green Revolution—raised agricultural output significantly across developing economies. Since then, rising incomes have boosted protein consumption worldwide, and elevated new challenges: greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture are increasing (more than a fifth of all emissions worldwide), while a host of practices, from waste to overfishing, threaten the sustainability of food supplies. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought these concerns to the fore: the disease has disrupted supply chains and demand, perversely increasing the amount of food waste in farms and fields while threatening food security for many.

As agriculture gradually regains its footing, participants and stakeholders should be casting an eye ahead, to safeguarding food supplies against the potentially greater and more disruptive effects of climate change. Once again, innovation and advanced technologies could make a powerful contribution to secure and sustainable food production. For example, digital and biotechnologies could improve the health of ruminant livestock, requiring fewer methane-producing animals to meet the world’s protein needs. Genetic technologies could play a supporting role by enabling the breeding of animals that produce less methane. Meanwhile, AI and sensors could help food processors sort better and slash waste, and other smart technologies could identify inedible by-products for reprocessing. Data and advanced analytics also could help authorities better monitor and manage the seas to limit overfishing—while enabling boat crews to target and find fish with less effort and waste. Agriculture is a traditional industry, but its quest for tech-enabled sustainability offers valuable lessons.

JUMP TO A SECTION

Agriculture takes center stage in the drive to reduce emissions, using artificial intelligence in the fight against food waste, making fisheries sustainable—and profitable—with advanced analytics, the quest for sustainable proteins.

Cross-sector investment opportunities will lead the way.

More than one-fifth of the world’s greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions stem from agriculture—over half from animal farming. 1 Does not include land use, land-use change, and forestry. Non-CO 2 emissions converted using 20-year global-warming-potential (GWP) values based on the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Unless these emissions are actively addressed, they will probably increase by 15 to 20 percent by 2050 as the Earth’s population rises and the need for food continues to grow. Limiting the impact of climate change will require shifts in what we eat, how much we waste, and how we farm and use our land.

There is no clear path to fully eliminating agricultural emissions. Nonetheless, a wave of transformation is within reach of the food industry and the broader agricultural market. Historically, agricultural innovation has arisen at points of intersection with other industries as creative firms borrowed and built on advances in areas such as human health, chemicals, advanced engineering, software, and advanced analytics. Cross-cutting opportunities portend the next wave of innovation to reduce agricultural emissions by capturing food-process efficiencies (exhibit).

While the abatement costs vary and the market opportunities continue to evolve, mitigation measures could reduce emissions  by about 20 to 25 percent by 2050. In this article, we highlight the top three cost-negative or cost-neutral measures in which business actors will play a critical role. Scaling up these solutions will require investment, technological innovation, and behavioral change—particularly among farmers around the world.

Zero-emissions farm equipment

The largest amount of emissions abatement from a single measure can be achieved by shifting from traditional fossil-fuel equipment—such as tractors, harvesters, and dryers—to their zero-emission counterparts. This transition alone would realize cost savings of $229 per ton of carbon-dioxide equivalent (tCO 2 e) 2 Used to compare emissions of greenhouse gases. and transform the $139 billion global agricultural-equipment industry.

Unfortunately, the current market penetration of zero-emission equipment is lower in farming than it is in consumer vehicles: market leaders are only at the stage of piloting proofs of concept. The right investments by machinery manufacturers  would make it possible to achieve total-cost-of-ownership parity between, for example, tractors powered by internal-combustion engines and tractors powered by zero-emissions sources (such as battery electric power) by around 2030. Like early investors in passenger electric vehicles (EVs), investors in agricultural EV technology are now poised to benefit from first-mover advantage. AGCO’s Fendt, Rigitrac, and Escorts’ Farmtrac each showcase electric-tractor models, and John Deere has battery-run and corded electric-tractor prototypes. If electric farm equipment captured just 10 percent of the 2030 market, this would represent an opportunity of $13 billion.

Battery capacity and charging speeds have been the main obstacles to the adoption of electric farm equipment. However, battery weight is less problematic for farm equipment than for passenger vehicles. A rapid reduction in prices for batteries, which alone account for up to 40 percent of tractor-component costs, will help further overcome adoption barriers. 3 See Markus Forsgren, Erik Östgren, and Andreas Tschiesner, “Harnessing momentum for electrification in heavy machinery and equipment,” April 2019. 

Animal health monitoring

As our colleagues have noted, achieving a 1.5-degree warming pathway 4 A 1.5-degree pathway is an estimate of the extent of change required by each sector of the global economy to curb increases in greenhouse-gas emissions sufficiently and limit temperature increases in the years ahead to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—a level of increase that, scientists estimate, would reduce the odds of initiating the most dangerous and irreversible effects of climate change. would require a significant reduction in human consumption of animal protein (for more, see “ Climate math: What a 1.5-degree pathway would take .”) The agricultural sector has a major role to play by meeting the world’s animal-protein needs with fewer, healthier animals that generate lower emissions from enteric fermentation and by improving manure management. These steps could reduce emissions by more than 400 million tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent (MtCO 2 e) by 2050 (realizing savings of $5 per tCO 2 e) and generate productivity benefits that would improve agricultural economics.

Emerging biological technologies and computational capabilities, such as gene sequencing and artificial intelligence, enable farmers to detect disease early—and even prevent it—by applying predictive algorithms to existing and new sources of data. For example, Moocall, an Irish company collaborating with Vodafone, aims to reduce cow mortality rates from birth-related complications by up to 80 percent by placing (on the animal’s tail) a palm-sized sensor alerting farmers to how long a cow has been calving. In North America, which has the third-largest cow inventory (after Brazil and China), overall cattle-herd productivity improvements could reach 8 percent. 5 “Study to model the impact of controlling endemic cattle diseases and conditions on national cattle productivity, agricultural performance and greenhouse gas emissions,” ADAS, February 2015, randd.defra.goc.uk.

However, implementing these technologies has proved to be expensive, and they are not yet well understood or embraced by farmers. Moreover, health challenges vary greatly by region and species, so a silver bullet is unlikely. Innovative business models and commercial investment will be required to overcome these barriers: for example, the global technology company Fujitsu has developed an algorithm-based “connected cow” service to make milk production more profitable. 6 “Akisai Food and Agriculture Cloud GYUHO SaaS (cattle breeding support service),” Fujitsu, fujitsu.com. We expect more commercial investment in coming years, given the continued decline in the cost of such technologies and their multiple applications, including new vaccinations and advanced diagnostics.

Achieving a 1.5-degree-warming pathway would require a significant reduction in human consumption of animal protein.

GHG-focused breeding

New breeding programs using sophisticated genetic-selection capabilities can help curb enteric fermentation, potentially reducing overall emissions by 500 MtCO 2 e at virtually no cost by 2050. Today, breeding for methane efficiency has achieved a 20 percent variation in methane production. More GHG-focused programs will be possible as increasing demand for animal protein continues to drive growth in the animal genetic-products market (worth $4.2 billion in 2018).

While genetic-breeding programs are still in their infancy, government and industry are leading the effort to drive adoption. In November 2019, a consortium funded by the New Zealand agricultural sector and the country’s government launched a “global first” genetics program to breed sheep that produce less methane per mouthful of grass. 7 “Sheep farmers now able to breed ‘low-methane’ sheep,” Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, pggrc.co.nz. Even with such programs, large-scale adoption throughout the industry will require economic incentives: market payments or credits for methane reductions.

To implement solutions at scale, additional investments will be needed in genetic-selection capabilities to address the immaturity and lack of breed-specificity of most genetic programs. New breeding techniques, such as those using CRISPR-Cas9, 8 A new technology that allows editing of DNA sequences. could lower barriers to entry for innovators and allow for more specificity.

A new agricultural ecosystem will be needed to mitigate the increase in agricultural GHG emissions while meeting the world’s food needs. In the near term, the reduction of emissions will depend largely on today’s technologies and opportunities. But next-horizon technologies (such as gene editing, novel feed additives, and aerobic rice) are also needed. Players in industries ranging from automotive and energy to pharmaceuticals have important roles to play. It will take a village to feed our global village.

For the full report on which this article is based, see “ Reducing agriculture emissions through improved farming practices .”

About the authors

Daniel Aminetzah is a senior partner in McKinsey’s New York office, Joshua Katz is a partner in the Stamford office, and Peter Mannion is a consultant in the Dublin office.

AI can help accelerate the move toward a circular economy in the agricultural sector.

Roughly one-third of all food is wasted before it is consumed by people. The methane emissions that result are 86 times more potent in driving temperature increases than CO 2 emissions are, when looking over a 20-year time frame. 9 Francois-Marie Breon et al., “Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing,” AR5 climate change 2013: The physical science basis, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013, fifth assessment report, Chapter 8, ipcc.ch. Emerging applications for artificial intelligence (AI) are helping to create opportunities for “designing out” food waste in the value chain: from farming, processing, and logistics to consumption. In effect, AI can accelerate the transition to an agricultural circular economy, in which growth is decoupled from the consumption of finite resources. Circular-economy principles, which historically have taken root slowly and gradually, rest on designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems. Here are three areas where AI has the potential to jump-start a circular economy in agriculture, while potentially unlocking more than $100 billion in value for players globally. 10 For more, see Sustainability blog, “How AI can unlock a $127B opportunity by reducing food waste,” blog entry by Clarisse Magnin, March 27, 2019.

Efficient farming practices

AI can help farmers avoid expensive and time-consuming field trials by identifying the best-performing regenerative agriculture practices. For example, CiBO Technologies uses data analytics, statistical modeling, and AI to simulate field trials and agricultural ecosystems under different conditions. Global stakeholders could learn to improve profitability and sustainability by exploring possible outcomes virtually without the risk of damaging the environment or sacrificing yield. Combining AI algorithms with robotic technologies can further automate and increase control in the farming process. For instance, AI can be used to interpret images of crops, such as strawberries, to help determine when food should be harvested; the harvesting, in addition, can be done with autonomous robots. This might reduce food waste in the field, and it could enable more accurate yield forecasting by improving information along the supply chain and by maximizing storage and cooling facilities.

Reducing food waste

AI algorithms can help with food sorting during processing by analyzing images and data from cameras, X-rays, lasers, and near-infrared spectroscopy. The ability to automatically sort nonuniform produce, such as carrots and potatoes, can reduce waste by sorting for best use, size, shape, and quality, removing a manual process that can be time consuming, expensive, and inaccurate. Some companies, such as Wasteless, are helping supermarkets and other retailers sell food before the expiration date by using AI-enabled tracking and dynamic pricing. In institutional and restaurant settings, new tools are now being used to capture, track, and categorize data on food waste. What’s more, algorithms can forecast and predict sales, enabling restaurants, retailers, and other hospitality institutions to connect supply to demand more effectively.

Repurposing inedible nutrients

Even if all surplus food were redistributed, a large volume of inedible by-products, along with food waste, would continue to be generated. Could these organic materials contain value that could be repurposed? The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Senseable City Lab and the Alm Lab, for instance, are offering a glimpse of the potential with their Underworlds prototype smart-sewage platform. The platform combines physical infrastructure and bio-chemical measurement technologies with artificial intelligence to interpret and act on findings about the pathogens in human sewage; eventually this knowledge could repurpose sewage for use in regenerative food systems.

AI is poised to play an important role for agriculture in the transition to a circular food system. It could revolutionize the way food is grown, harvested, distributed, and enjoyed. As more data sources become available and as computational capabilities grow, AI could help match food supply and demand more effectively, improve supply-chain efficiency, and curb overproduction, overstocking, and waste.

This article is based on the report Artificial intelligence and the circular economy: AI as a tool to accelerate the transition , written in collaboration with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and Google, with research and analytical support provided by McKinsey & Company.

Anna Granskog is a partner in McKinsey’s Helsinki office, Eric Hannon is a partner in the Frankfurt office, and Chirag Pandya is an associate partner in the London office.

Data and digital technologies could transform a traditional industry while helping stem the damage to ocean ecosystems.

Gathering data and applying the power of advanced analytics can help tackle problems in surprising ways. The distressed state of the oceans is a case in point. Decades of overfishing is depleting the oceans at an alarming rate, at a time when the emerging world increasingly depends on seafood for protein. Finding a more sustainable means of fishing while preserving ocean ecosystems is a sprawling problem. The fishing industry is feeling the effects: today, it takes five times the effort to haul in a catch as it did in 1950. 11 Measured in kilowatt-hours expended. We looked at how fisheries, government authorities, and food companies could deploy advanced analytics to improve monitoring and raise the efficiency of their operations. In addition to giving the fishing industry new tools for more profitable, sustainable operations, there’s also a climate bonus: reeling in a ton of fish protein has less than a tenth of the greenhouse-gas intensity of equivalent protein harvested from ruminant livestock.

Oceans in danger

Recognizing the threats, national governments have moved to strengthen and improve management and regulation. Yet regional gains often are negated by overfishing or illegal catches in adjacent zones. Many of today’s efforts, including reporting of catches, industry information sharing, and regulatory enforcement, could be bolstered by tighter collaboration.

A bounty of data

Much like agriculture onshore, the fishing industry is geographically dispersed with operators large and small. Farmers plow their fields guided by data on weather and soil conditions. While most fisheries still operate in a traditional way, something similar is starting to take shape in fishing. Radar and optical sensors on satellites can pick up patterns in the ocean environment such as temperature and signals of fish movements. While that information is valuable for fisheries, it also helps authorities track boat locations and movement. Camera-equipped drones, meantime, operating not only in the air but undersea, give some boats today a more comprehensive view of nearby fishing conditions. Looking forward, advanced sensors and monitors could automatically collect data on the gear used, species caught or discarded, volume of hauls, and more that’s often done by fishermen. Governments, meanwhile, have pushed for better data to help keep watch on illegal fishing, mandating that larger vessels be equipped with monitoring systems that transmit location, speed, and direction.

Over time, much more information could be integrated with Internet of Things technologies that link sensors to satellite- and land-based communications networks. Crunching the data by using advanced analytics and machine learning would ultimately help balance competing interests—helping fisheries manage a risky, volatile business while providing authorities with better information for policing and shaping sustainability policies.

Turning the tide with analytics

Let’s look on deck. Boat captains with larger commercial fisheries have used technologies such as sonar, though many still rely on intuition, experience, and basic observations to navigate and detect fish. Contrast that with what’s potentially ahead: fish detection supported by targeted analytic models that could provide daily forecasts for entire fishing territories, helping to track species that are in high demand. And Internet of Things sensors that monitor ocean conditions could help boats define optimal, energy-efficient routes.

Then there’s the catch itself. Fishermen often have low visibility into what’s in their nets until it’s pulled onboard—leading to waste. Intelligent sensors of the future will allow crews to automatically and continually monitor parameters such as species and fish size. One analytics tool that larger companies already are using factors in sea temperatures and plankton clusters to model where fish will be, lowering costs for targeting desired species and reducing waste. Poorer regions stand to benefit as well. Fishermen in emerging markets are already gaining greater access to market information by using their cell phones.

On shore, fisheries managers often plan operations hobbled by data scarcity—using landed catches that furnish little forward visibility. Analytics tools promise to offer a more dynamic view of fleets, allowing managers to guide boats and continually monitor stocks. Automatic scanning and intelligent systems that monitor product quality could replace manual sorting of catches. Quality and traceability loom large, as sustainability-conscious consumers demand greater transparency into how and where fish are caught. What’s ahead? Researchers are investigating tagging fish using radio frequency identification (RFID) and certifying catches with distributed ledger technologies (blockchain).

For authorities, analytics can help bridge a different gap. Information on fishing activity is partial at best, and coordination among multiple stakeholders—governments, industry, and NGOs—is challenging. That said, sharing the flow of information from advanced monitoring technologies would give authorities a real-time vision of global fishing activities. It would also help them design more efficient surveillance plans across territorial waters. Decentralized, reliable information-management systems requiring little human intervention could ease adoption. One example: analytics-software tools can flag when a boat slows down in a no-take zone, alerting authorities to the suspicious behavior. NGOs are helping to change mind-sets. To promote sustainability research, Global Fishing Watch distributes information gleaned from government and satellite data on more than 65,000 fishing vessels. Over time, shared, detailed catch data from cameras and image-recognition software powered by artificial intelligence will help governments fine-tune regulations and fishing quotas more dynamically to manage ocean resources.

Looking ahead

Our modeling research suggests that for fisheries, there are financial incentives for analytics-guided strategies. We found that optimizing fishing activity over an entire season, monitoring of equipment to minimize downtime, identifying fuel economies from analyzing navigation data, and implementing information-based labor efficiencies could reduce industry costs by $11 billion, or just under 15 percent of today’s spending.

For governments, one obstacle will be confronting geopolitical challenges. Some bad actors will continue efforts to game a system where the regulatory map has gaps and where some nations benefit by turning a blind eye to wayward fisheries. Better data and analytics capabilities should move the enforcement needle, helping pinpoint hot spots where illegal fishing continues and identifying chronic offenders for enforcement action. The benefits of data sharing and better analytics tools, meanwhile, will continue to align the interests of fisheries and governments for better resource management. An era of precision fisheries will be key to sustaining the oceans’ riches.

For more, see “ Precision fisheries: Navigating a sea of troubles with advanced analytics .”

Julien Claes is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Brussels office, where Antoine Stevens is a specialist; Elin Sandnes is a partner in the Oslo office.

The authors wish to thank Anupama Agarwal, Philip Christiani, Michael Chui, and Bryce Hall for their contributions to this article.

Concerns about health, animal welfare, and climate are bolstering interest in a range of alternative proteins.

Meat has always been a protein mainstay for human beings—the main source in developed markets and a rising one in developing markets as they get richer. In recent years, meanwhile, consumer awareness and interest in alternative-protein sources has grown steadily. That’s particularly true in wealthier countries, where a desire for better health and animal welfare, along with environmental concerns, are shaping preferences. On the last point, our colleagues have shown that proteins produced from ruminant livestock (cows and sheep) are 30 times more greenhouse-gas intensive than those from vegetable proteins. In fact, if cows were classified as their own country, they would emit more greenhouse gases than any country except China .

Sources of alternative proteins include a mix of plant-based proteins (soy, pea), new animal sources (insects), biotechnological innovations (lab-cultured meat), and mycoproteins (derived from fungi). Several entrants in the alternative-protein industry are rolling out new technologies and ingredients, looking to lock in leading positions in a growing market. (For interviews with executives and entrepreneurs at companies breaking ground in alternative-proteins, see “ The future of food: Meatless? ”) Consumers tend to find the recent protein innovations appetizing, and companies are fueling awareness with aggressive marketing efforts.

If cows were classified as their own country, they would emit more greenhouse gases than any country except China.

While aggregate consumption of meat-based proteins worldwide continues to grow, a shift in preferences may be one reason (among several) why meat’s overall growth rate is expected to decline by half over the next decade . Sales of plant-based food (the largest source of alternative protein) rose 17 percent in the United States in 2018, 12 Caroline Bushnell, “Newly released market data shows soaring demand for plant-based food,” the Good Food Institute, September 12, 2018, gfi.org. and the use of alternative protein as a food ingredient is predicted to continue growing. Alternative proteins, of course, are still a small slice of the market for meat ($2.2 billion compared with approximately $1.7 trillion, respectively 13 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, June 3, 2019, fao.org. ). But innovation is rife. The share of new products released with an alternative-protein claim grew from 2 percent to more than 5 percent of the market from 2007 to 2016, according to market researcher Mintel, while consumer interest in alternative-protein products and diets, as measured by online-search results, has increased markedly in many cases.

A look at four types of alternative proteins highlights trends in demand and innovation and suggests where meat protein trends might be heading.

Pea protein

Pea protein is expected to lead the alternative-protein market in the short and medium term, though the product faces certain challenges. The past few years witnessed a limited supply of pea protein caused by a shortage in processing capacity. Producers of mainstream products such as veggie burgers will likely use soybean protein, where input costs are lower and supplies are more stable. However, high-end products will likely use pea protein to cater to consumer expectations of a niche ingredient, which is a product that touts health claims and is for sale at a premium price.

Cultured meat

Lab-grown cultured meat seeks to mimic the muscle tissue found in animals and has the same protein profile (and taste). The industry has received funding from a variety of sources including industry players. The cultured-meat industry is well positioned for the future, even with major technical challenges to overcome, including the difficulties in the development of an immortal cell line and recycling of blood ingredients, both of which help keep costs down. Scientists have been working on this protein since 2013, when the first lab-grown burger made its public debut. The price of cultured meat has already decreased significantly in the past nine years (the first lab-grown hamburger cost $325,200 in 2013 and then decreased to around $11 in 2015, with estimates from some cultured-meat companies indicating that costs will drop to less than $10 per pound by 2022 ).

Insect and mold protein

Crickets are the most common source of edible insects and a good source of protein. They have long been a dietary staple in many areas of Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Some producers are milling crickets for flour. However, it is currently cost prohibitive to isolate protein from the flour as the cost of the crickets is high, making the process difficult to scale. Some food producers are exploring grasshoppers as an edible protein , and a range of insect proteins are likely to be suitable for use in animal feed. Mold protein, meanwhile—or mycoprotein—is typically composed of whole, unprocessed, filamentous fungal biomass, commonly known as mold. It is mixed with eggs to create a meat-like texture for commercial products. It has been around since the 1980s and is produced through fermentation of biological feedstock. Mycoproteins are sold as a meat substitute primarily in Europe, and interest is growing in the US market as well, though consumer interest is still dampened by negative perceptions.

Animal protein will likely continue to dominate the market, driven by key advantages such as customer familiarity. However, there is room at the table for plant-based products, as evidenced by growing shifting customer concerns around traditional meat protein.

For more, see “ Alternative proteins: The race for market share is on .”

Jordan Bar Am is an associate partner in McKinsey’s New Jersey office, Zafer Dallal Bashi is a specialist in the Denver office, and Liane Ong is an associate partner in the Chicago office.

Related Articles

Reducing agriculture emissions through improved farming practices

Climate math: What a 1.5-degree pathway would take

Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

Sustainable Management of Food Basics

On this page:

What is Wasted Food and Where Does it Come From?

Conserving resources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, helping people, saving money, sources of statistics, what is sustainable management of food.

Sustainable Management of Food is an approach that seeks to reduce wasted food and its associated impacts over the entire life cycle, starting with the use of natural resources, manufacturing, sales, consumption, and ending with decisions on recovery or final disposal. 

EPA works to promote innovation and highlight the value and efficient management of food as a resource. Through the sustainable management of food, we can conserve resources for future generations, reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, help businesses and consumers save money, and provide access to food for those who do not have enough to eat. To build a circular economy for all, EPA seeks to highlight opportunities to use raw materials more efficiently, enable those resources to be used for their highest value, and recover valuable resources from discarded materials in ways that address climate change, are inclusive of all communities, address environmental justice concerns, and help spur new innovation and economic growth. 

The term “ wasted food ” describes food that was not used for its intended purpose and is managed in a variety of ways described below. EPA uses the overarching term “wasted food” instead of “food waste” for food that was not used for its intended purpose because it conveys that a valuable resource is being wasted, whereas “food waste” implies that the food no longer has value and needs to be managed as waste.

• Wasted food is an overarching term to describe food that was not used for its intended purpose and is managed in a variety of ways, such as donation to feed people, creation of animal feed, composting, anaerobic digestion, or disposal in landfills or combustion facilities. Examples include unsold food from retail stores; plate waste, uneaten prepared food, or kitchen trimmings from restaurants, cafeterias, and households; or by-products from food and beverage processing facilities. The term wasted food can be used to refer to both excess food and food waste.
• Excess food (or surplus food) often refers to food that is donated to feed people.
• Food waste often refers to food not ultimately consumed by humans that is discarded or recycled, such as plate waste (i.e., food that has been served but not eaten), spoiled food, or peels and rinds considered inedible. For purposes of Sustainable Development Goal Target 12.3, food waste occurs at the retail, food service, and residential levels and is managed by landfill; controlled combustion; sewer; litter, discards and refuse; co/anaerobic digestion; compost/aerobic digestion; and land application.
• Food loss often refers to unused product from the agricultural sector, such as unharvested crops. For purposes of Sustainable Development Goal Target 12.3, food loss occurs from production up to (and not including) the retail level.

EPA encourages anyone managing wasted food to reference the Wasted Food Scale , which prioritizes actions that can be taken to prevent and divert wasted food from disposal. The most preferred pathways – prevent wasted food, donate and upcycle food – offer the most benefits to the environment, to communities, and to a circular economy.

Why is Sustainable Management of Food Important?

Wasted food is both a growing problem and an untapped opportunity.  In 2019 alone, EPA estimates that about 66 million tons of wasted food were generated in the food retail, food service, and residential sectors, and most of this waste (about 60%) was sent to landfills. EPA estimated that in 2018 in the U.S., more food reached landfills and combustion facilities than any other single material in our everyday trash (24 percent of the amount landfilled and 22 percent of the amount combusted with energy recovery). Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that in 2010, 31 percent or 133 billion pounds of the 430 billion pounds of food available at the retail and consumer levels was not eaten, valued at almost $162 billion. 1   Globally, the United Nations estimates that approximately one-third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted – 13 percent of food is lost before reaching retail, and 19 percent is wasted from retail to consumer. 2 , 3 At the same time, food loss and waste generates 8-10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. 4

When food is wasted, so is the opportunity to nourish people. When food is wasted, so are all the resources that went into producing, processing, distributing, and preparing that food.

Taking simple steps in your everyday life can make a difference in addressing this issue. Reducing wasted food is a triple win; it's good for the environment, for communities, and for the economy.

Reducing wasted food does great things for the environment:

• Saves Resources – When food is wasted, it also wastes the resources – such as the land, water, energy, and labor – that go into growing, storing, processing, distributing, and preparing that food. Each year, food loss and waste take up an area of agricultural land the size of California and New York combined. This is enough energy to power 50 million U.S. homes for a year, and generate emissions (excluding landfill emissions) equal to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of 42 coal-fired power plants. 5
• Reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from wasted food results from activities prior to disposal, including production, transport, processing, and distribution. Once food goes uneaten, it must be managed through one of various pathways, such as donation, upcycling, composting, anaerobic digestion, or landfilling – all of which also produce greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce these emissions, we need to prevent food from being wasted in the first place and sustainably manage what wasted food cannot be prevented.
• Reduces Methane from Landfills – When wasted food goes to a landfill, the nutrients in the food never return to the soil. The wasted food rots and produces methane, a greenhouse gas 28 times as powerful as CO 2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. EPA estimates that wasted food is responsible for 58% of landfill methane emissions to the atmosphere. 6     Check out a fact sheet on the connection between food waste and methane from USDA and EPA (pdf) (2.15 MB) .
• Returns Nutrients to the Soil – Even when we take all actions to use wasted food, certain inedible parts remain and can be turned into compost to feed and nourish the soil. Composting these wastes  creates a product that can be used to help improve soils, grow the next generation of crops, and improve water quality.
• Supports a Circular Economy – Preventing food from being wasted, using food for its highest value which is to nourish humans, and recovering valuable nutrients from wasted food are all activities that support a circular economy by reducing stress on natural resources, empowering communities, growing local economies, and spurring innovation.

In 2021, the EPA released the first of two reports in a series on the environmental impacts of wasted food to inform domestic policymakers, researchers, and the public about the environmental benefits that can be achieved by reducing U.S. food loss and waste. The Part 1 report, From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste , examines the environmental impacts of wasted food from production to consumption. EPA released Part 2,  From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impacts of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways, in 2023, which completes the analysis by examining the different ways wasted food is managed. The results of this research are the basis for EPA’s Wasted Food Scale.

Preventing and sustainably managing wasted food and recovering wholesome, nutritious food can help you make a difference in your community:

• Feed Children – The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that five million children lived in food-insecure households in 2021. 7 By redirecting food that would otherwise be wasted to homes and schools, we can help feed our country’s children.
• Build Cleaner Communities – Reducing waste and improving waste management can help create cleaner communities. Equitable access to food and processing wasted food into soil amendments can improve soil health, generate renewable energy, and keep economic and job benefits of organics recycling in those communities.
• Create Job Opportunities – Recovering and recycling wasted food through donation, salvaging, processing, anaerobic digestion, and composting strengthens infrastructure and creates jobs. Food recycling in these sectors employs more than 36,000 people, supporting local economies and promoting innovation. 8
• Feed the World – According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, from between 702 and 828 million people were affected by hunger in 2021. 9 They predict that by eliminating food loss and wasted food we would have enough food to feed all the chronically undernourished. They also expect that we would not have to increase food production or put additional pressure on our natural resources to do so. 10

When we waste food, we’re not just creating a problem, we’re also missing an opportunity to save businesses and consumers money:

• Waste Less and Spend Less – You or your organization can spend less and waste less by buying only the food you will use. Preventing wasted food can also reduce energy and labor costs associated with throwing away good food. 
• Pay Less for Trash Pickup – Organizations might pay less for trash pickup by keeping wasted food out of the garbage. Some haulers lower fees if wasted food is separated from the trash and sent to an organics recycling facility instead of the landfill.
• Receive Tax Benefits by Donating – If you donate healthy, safe, and edible food to hungry people, your organization can claim tax benefits. The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Act protects food donors from legal liability.
• United States Department of Agriculture,  The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States .
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction (pdf) (13.2 MB, 2019) . 
• United Nations Environment Programme, Food Waste Index Report 2024 .
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Food wastage footprint & Climate Change (pdf) (5.4 MB, 2015) .
• United States Environmental Protection Agency, From Farm to Kitchen: The Environmental Impacts of Food Waste (pdf) (11.8 MB, 2021) . 
• United States Environmental Protection Agency, Quantifying Methane Emissions from Landfilled Food Waste (PDF)   (1.77 MB, 2023)
• United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Food Security in the U.S.: Key Statistics & Graphs .
• United States Environmental Protection Agency, Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2016 Recycling Economic Information Report Methodology (pdf) (2.4 MB, 2016) .
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Fund for Agriculture Development, the World Food Programme, and the World Health Organization, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable .
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Fund for Agriculture Development and the World Food Programme, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition (pdf) (3 MB, 2014) .
• Sustainable Management of Food Home
• Wasted Food Scale
• Prevention through Source Reduction
• Donating Food
• Anaerobic Digestion
• Preventing Wasted Food at Home
• Tools for Preventing and Diverting Wasted Food
• Funding Opportunities and EPA Programs Related to the Food System
• Local and Regional Resources
• Data on Wasted Food in the U.S.

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Thanks for signing up as a global citizen. In order to create your account we need you to provide your email address. You can check out our Privacy Policy to see how we safeguard and use the information you provide us with. If your Facebook account does not have an attached e-mail address, you'll need to add that before you can sign up.

This account has been deactivated.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you would like to re-activate your account.

The global food system has a lot of problems. Powerful companies dominate the market — from seeds to supermarkets — and dictate what farmers grow, how much they're paid, and what consumers eat.

In addition, in recent years, there has been a rise of ultra-processed foods in our diets, which has been linked to poor health outcomes  including a higher risk of obesity, heart disease, stroke, type-2 diabetes, cancer, frailty, depression, and death. According to a report by the Food System Economics Commission, the global food system is responsible for about one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, which when combined with other greenhouse gas emissions could lead to a 2.7 degrees Celsius warming by the end of the century. To make matters worse, climate-related disasters such as droughts and flooding threaten up to one-third of the world's food production . 

Reading this list of the problems with the world’s current food industry may make you feel uneasy. However, there is hope. We still have time to transform our current global food system. A study by the Food System Economics Commission, " The Economics of the Food System Transformation ," suggests that transitioning to a more sustainable food system could result in up to $10 trillion ( £7.9 trillion ) in benefits annually. This change could also promote better human health and contribute to mitigating the global climate emergency .

But what exactly does a sustainable food system entail? The report defines it as a system that involves making changes to different aspects of the current global food system from production to consumption that work together to achieve inclusive, health-enhancing, and environmentally sustainable  outcomes.

As consumers, we can also play a role in transforming the global food system. One solution that puts us in control is growing our own food. This not only benefits the environment but also promotes healthier living. It's time to take action and make a difference. 

To achieve this goal, non-profit organization Big Green is on a mission to revolutionize North America’s food system by empowering everyone to grow food in their neighborhood. To date, they’ve helped over half a million people by providing garden beds to 775 schools and 1,660 families , and have given over $5.44 million in grants to grassroots nonprofits and schools . 

This year, Big Green is embarking on its next mission: the "Grow Together" Bus Tour. The tour will travel across several cities, including Texas, San Antonio, Memphis, Atlanta, Savannah, and Minneapolis, to unite communities through the transformative power of growing food over food and gardening events , by sharing gardening knowledge and giving away gardening kits . Big Green is partnering with over 10 organizations from across the US, and will also showcase the efforts of change-makers and communities who have used food to champion healthier and sustainable living within their cities.

Global Citizen spoke with Big Green's Vice President of Advancement, Madeleine Nelson, about the bus tour and the impact the organization has had over the last 12 years empowering communities, schools, and families to grow their own food as well as the physical, mental, social, and economic benefits of growing your own food, how the current food system in the US has disconnected people from their food and how Big Green is on a mission to combat this through the power of gardening. 

A wide shot of Big Green's tour bus. Featuring a mural designed by Ver Sands, an illustration, and design studio. April 2023. Image: Courtesy of Big Green

What inspired Big Green to launch this bus tour and what outcome are you hoping for when the tour ends?

We really hope to inspire people to start growing food. So the bus is big and loud and colorful and really eye-catching. And we're really excited to pull up to community spaces and community events throughout this tour. We have about 1,000 gardens to give away over the course of the tour and then tons and tons of seeds and other gardening supplies. So we really want to provide people with the tools to start growing their own food so they can experience how easy and how satisfying and rewarding it is.

Can you tell us more about the core functions of the bus?

It has a podcast studio. We have been beginning to use podcasting as a way for the organizations that we work with to start telling their stories and start sharing the wealth of knowledge that they have about growing food, anything from land access to grant seeking and all the different ways that they are advancing their missions and using this as a tool to share their knowledge with rest of the community. The bus also has what I lovingly call an “ice cream truck window,” sort of like a food service window. So we'll be able to hand gardens off of the bus as though we were giving kids popsicles. We have these really cool five-gallon-sized cloth pots that are a really easy way to get started with growing food. And so we have in a little tote, everything a person needs for two seasons of growing. We'll have things like lettuces, I think we're giving away radishes and beans. So lots of interesting things, really kid-friendly things that they can pop off of a plant and enjoy, maybe for the first time.

An image of Big Green's DAO Community members participating on volunteer day at Firdous Gardens in Atlanta, GA. April 2023. Image: Courtesy of Big Green

Can you tell us why Big Green is focusing on helping people reconnect with their food through gardening? 

I think fundamentally Big Green believes that people are disconnected from our food. So from you know, whether that is from where it comes from or the effects that it is having on our bodies or how it makes us feel. We believe that there's a rise in convenience, the rising cost of groceries and the distance our food is traveling to us. We're just increasingly disconnected from fundamentally where it comes from and what it does for us. So when we say we believe that growing food changes lives, we believe that it has the power to improve our nutrition security, so the consistent, predictable, and affordable access to healthy food. That has myriad mental health benefits getting us out into nature and the soothing effects of gardening and being connected with our food in that way. It is a connection to nature and a connection to the climate and nothing will remind you of our collective impact on the climate other than watching your garden shrivel up in July because it is 10 degrees hotter than you're expecting it to be and no rain is coming. And it also has the power to positively impact economic mobility for people, as the return on investment for gardening is massive. Not to mention the quality, variety and locality of food that people are able to access when they grow it themselves or when they source it locally.

What positive impact have Big Green’s programs had over the years? 

Madeleine Nelson from Big Green has witnessed first hand over the years the positive impact Big Green’s programmes have had on families and communities, including inspiring a young man in Indianapolis who was experiencing food insecurity to transform an empty lot into a community garden, to helping a young woman from Chicago manage her diabetes through growing her own food, to helping to foster intergenerational connections between grandparents and grandchildren in passing down food and gardening traditions.

Image of participants at a community garden in partnership with non-profit organisation Big Green. Image: Courtesy of Big Green

What has been the response so far regarding the bus tour?

Rev. Dr. W. Raymond Bryant Sr., Presiding Elder of The San Antonio District of The African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME), partnered with Big Green for a recipe demo day during the bus tour. He shared his thoughts on the tour: “In our tradition, almost everything we do is centered around food, but not necessarily healthy food. Through our relationship with Big Green, we’ve learned to cook things differently, and prepare different healthy recipes. We do cooking demonstrations together and teach people to read nutrition labels. We know that food is medicine and that growing food changes lives, without a doubt.” 

Bobby and Derravia Rich, founders of Black Seeds Urban Farms, also shared their appreciation for Big Green's bus tour: “Communities need a central point that they can trust and go to, to learn about agriculture and their food. Traditional nonprofit and philanthropy don't get a chance to have the relationship that we have with Big Green. We can grow more food for more people. We wouldn’t be able to tap into this change without the love from Big Green.” 

How can people get involved with Big Green and support your mission?

We would love for people to follow along for the bus tour . There's also a feature for people to invite the bus to come to their city and to explore the food system and explore the changemakers who are local to their community. Then we think that gardening is as easy as planting a seed. So we would invite people to just try it. Just find an interesting seed packet. Find a container, you don't have to have land, you don't have to have a green thumb. You just have to have sun, water and soil. So we would invite people to just try it and see how easy it can be and how satisfying it can be to grow your own food.

Global Citizen Asks

Defeat Poverty

Why People Across the US Are Growing Their Own Food – And Why You Should Too

April 25, 2024