Global Food Systems Diets And Nutrition Linking

Science Economics And Policy Jessica Fanzo

download

https://ebookbell.com/product/global-food-systems-diets-and-
nutrition-linking-science-economics-and-policy-jessica-
fanzo-38075286

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Global Food Systems Diets And Nutrition Linking Science Economics And
Policy Palgrave Studies In Agricultural Economics And Food Policy
Fanzo

https://ebookbell.com/product/global-food-systems-diets-and-nutrition-
linking-science-economics-and-policy-palgrave-studies-in-agricultural-
economics-and-food-policy-fanzo-34015842

Food Systems Failure The Global Food Crisis And The Future Of
Agriculture 1st Edition Christopher Rosin

https://ebookbell.com/product/food-systems-failure-the-global-food-
crisis-and-the-future-of-agriculture-1st-edition-christopher-
rosin-5231646

Transformations Of Global Food Systems For Climate Change Resilience

Addressing Food Security Nutrition And Health 1st Preety Gadhoke

https://ebookbell.com/product/transformations-of-global-food-systems-
for-climate-change-resilience-addressing-food-security-nutrition-and-
health-1st-preety-gadhoke-50732188

Towards Sustainable Global Food Systems Conceptual And Policy Analysis

Of Agriculture Food And Environment Linkages Ruerd Ruben Jan Verhagen

https://ebookbell.com/product/towards-sustainable-global-food-systems-
conceptual-and-policy-analysis-of-agriculture-food-and-environment-
linkages-ruerd-ruben-jan-verhagen-36480702
Food Leadership Leadership And Adult Learning For Global Food Systems
Transformation Etmanski

https://ebookbell.com/product/food-leadership-leadership-and-adult-
learning-for-global-food-systems-transformation-etmanski-22031912

Agriculture Food Systems To 2050 Global Trends Challenges And

Opportunities Rachid Serraj

https://ebookbell.com/product/agriculture-food-systems-to-2050-global-
trends-challenges-and-opportunities-rachid-serraj-48407540

The Global Restructuring Of Agrofood Systems Philip D Mcmichael Editor

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-global-restructuring-of-agrofood-
systems-philip-d-mcmichael-editor-51938314

Food Security And Climatesmart Food Systems Building Resilience For

The Global South Mohamed Behnassi

https://ebookbell.com/product/food-security-and-climatesmart-food-
systems-building-resilience-for-the-global-south-mohamed-
behnassi-38475522

Food Policy For Developing Countries The Role Of Government In Global

National And Local Food Systems Per Pinstrupandersen Derrill D Watson
Ii Soren E Frandsen Arie Kuyvenhoven Joachim Von Braun

https://ebookbell.com/product/food-policy-for-developing-countries-
the-role-of-government-in-global-national-and-local-food-systems-per-
pinstrupandersen-derrill-d-watson-ii-soren-e-frandsen-arie-
kuyvenhoven-joachim-von-braun-51832706
 GLOBAL FOOD
SYSTEMS, DIETS,
AND NUTRITION
Linking Science, Economics, and Policy

Jessica Fanzo
Claire Davis
Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food
Policy

Palgrave Textbooks in Agricultural Economics

and Food Policy

Series Editor
Christopher B. Barrett, Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics &
Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
This book series provides instructors and students with cutting-edge textbooks in
agricultural economics and food policy.

More information about this subseries at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/16444

Jessica Fanzo · Claire Davis

Global Food Systems, Diets,

and Nutrition
Linking Science, Economics, and Policy
Jessica Fanzo Claire Davis
Nitze School of Advanced International Berman Institute of Bioethics
Studies Johns Hopkins University
Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD, USA
Washington, DC, USA
Berman Institute of Bioethics
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD, USA
Bloomberg School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD, USA

ISSN 2662-3889 ISSN 2662-3897 (electronic)

Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy
ISSN 2662-5474 ISSN 2662-5482 (electronic)
Palgrave Textbooks in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy
ISBN 978-3-030-72762-8 ISBN 978-3-030-72763-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72763-5

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Bartosz Hadyniak/getty images

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Chris Barrett for the opportunity to contribute to this
outstanding food policy series. We are also grateful to our colleagues at Johns
Hopkins University, especially those involved in the Global Food Ethics and Policy
Program, the Berman Institute of Bioethics, and the Nitze School of Advanced Inter-
national Studies for their contributions to our thinking and scholarship in the area of
food systems. We are grateful to the many scientists and experts whose work has been
highlighted throughout the book. A special thanks to Michaela Paugh for helping us
with early drafts. Jess would like to thank the UN Committee on Food Security’s
High Level Panel of Experts for the opportunity to work on the Food Systems and
Nutrition report, which contributed to the conceptualization of this book, particularly
Patrick Caron, Eileen Kennedy, and Lawrence Haddad. And finally, Jess would like
to acknowledge with much gratitude the unending support of her husband, Derek,
who not only keeps her inspired, but provides her nourishment (literally) every day.
Claire is grateful to her partner, Walker, for his generous support, encouragement,
and thoughtful insights on the content of this book throughout its evolution.

v
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Part I Introduction to Major Concepts and Frameworks

2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior . . . . . . 9
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Food and Its Role in Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
What Are Food Systems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
What Are Food Systems Meant to Do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Who Influences and Engages with Food Systems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Components of Food Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Key Messages and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3 Food Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
What Is Food Policy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
What Is Food Governance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Who Influences Food Policy and Governance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Historical Transitions Toward a Holistic Food Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Key Messages and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Part II Changing Food Systems and Diets for Nutrition

4 Nutritious Foods, Healthy Diets, and Contributions to Health . . . . . 41
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
What Are Diets? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Health Consequences of Suboptimal Diets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Key Messages and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

vii
viii Contents

5 The Multiple Burdens of Malnutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Malnutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Causes of Malnutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Consequences of Malnutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Intergenerational Cycle of Malnutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Key Messages and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
6 Transformations Across Diets and Food Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Changing Diets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Food System Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Key Messages and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7 Drivers Shaping Food Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Biophysical and Environmental Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Sociocultural Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Political and Economic Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Demographic Drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Innovation, Technology, and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Key Messages and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Part III The Influence of Food Policy on Diets and Nutrition

8 Policies Affecting Food Supply Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Ideal Food Supply Chains for Diets and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Policies that Shape Food Supply Chains and Their Impacts
on Diets and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Key Messages and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
9 Policies Affecting Food Environments and Consumer Behavior . . . . 131
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
How Food Environments Affect the Food Supply and Consumer
Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Ideal Food Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Why Physical Spaces and Places Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Policies That Focus on Food Environments and Consumer
Demand to Better Shape Diets and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Contents ix

Key Messages and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Part IV New Challenges to Achieving Healthy Diets for Nutrition

10 Sustainable Diets: Aligning Food Systems
and the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
The Agriculture–Environment Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
The History of Sustainable Diets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
The EAT-Lancet Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Health and Environmental Implications of Sustainable Diets . . . . . . . . . . 160
The Sustainable Diet Conundrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Research Limitations and Policy Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Key Messages and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
11 The Future of Food: Shaping Diets and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Agriculture 4.0: Revolutionizing Food Supplies for Better Diets . . . . . . . 169
The Disappearing Grocery Store, Restaurant, and Kitchen . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Changing Palates, Changing Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
The Implementation of Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
Key Messages and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
12 Conclusion and Ways Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Importance of Food Policy for Diets and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Challenges Remain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
With Challenges Come Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Abbreviations

ASF Animal Source Foods

BMI Body Mass Index
BOP Back-of-Package
CAFO Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
DALY Disability-Adjusted Life Years
DBM Double Burden of Malnutrition
DR-NCD Diet-Related Noncommunicable Disease
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FBDG Food-Based Dietary Guidelines
FDA Food and Drug Administration
FOP Front-of-Package
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHGe Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GM Genetic Modification
GMO Genetically Modified Organisms
LBW Low Birth Weight
LMIC Low-and Middle-Income Countries
NCD Noncommunicable Disease
SBCC Social and Behavior Change Communication
SSB Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WHO World Health Organization

xi
List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Role of food (Source Created by authors, not previously

published) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fig. 2.2 Conceptualization of a food system in its simplest form [7] . . . . 11
Fig. 2.3 Food supply chains [37] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Fig. 2.4 Consumer engagement with the built environment (Source
Created by authors, not previously published) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Fig. 2.5 Food environment [89] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Fig. 3.1 Various types of food policies enacted around the world [3] . . . . 31
Fig. 3.2 Food system stakeholders (Source Created by authors,
not previously published) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Fig. 3.3 Washington, DC 2020 Food Policy [23] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Fig. 3.4 Holistic proposed food policy for the European Union [24] . . . . 37
Fig. 4.1 a and b Suboptimal infant and young children’s diets [12] . . . . . 44
Fig. 4.2 Suboptimal adult diets, globally and regionally [17] . . . . . . . . . . 45
Fig. 5.1 Food insecurity and its impacts [12] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Fig. 5.2 Malnutrition burden switch in children under five [16] . . . . . . . . 57
Fig. 5.3 Double burden of malnutrition shift from high-
to low-income quintiles over the last 30 years [30] . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Fig. 5.4 UNICEF framework on undernutrition [42] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Fig. 5.5 Malnutrition impacts opportunities throughout the entire
life cycle [7] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Fig. 6.1 Trends and patterns in per capita packaged food category
sales by region, 2005–2017 [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Fig. 6.2 The nutrition transition and patterns [15] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Fig. 7.1 Effects of climate change on the food supply chain [20] . . . . . . . 87
Fig. 7.2 Impacts of trade on food systems and diets [61] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Fig. 7.3 Global population growth, 1950–2050 [96] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Fig. 7.4 Percentage of the world’s population residing in urban
areas, 1950–2050 [96] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Fig. 8.1 Entry and exit points for nutrition along food supply chains
[1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Fig. 8.2 Food supply policy levers [28] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
xiii
xiv List of Figures

Fig. 8.3 What we produce to what we eat [33] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Fig. 8.4 Fortification legislation around the world [100] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Fig. 9.1 The social determinants of healthy eating [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Fig. 9.2 Areas where policies can shape food environments [24] . . . . . . . 135
Fig. 9.3 Overall effects of fiscal instruments on consumer behavior
and industry [49] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Fig. 9.4 Impact of different fiscal instruments on diets and disease
outcomes [49] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Fig. 9.5 Policy actions to support enhanced consumer behavior
for high-quality diets [71] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Fig. 10.1 Food systems contribute to climate change [3] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Fig. 10.2 Impact of food groups on five environmental pressures [64] . . . . 161
Fig. 11.1 Technologies and their readiness for markets [6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Fig. 11.2 Technological innovations across the food system [57] . . . . . . . . 179
List of Tables

Table 2.1 Classification by degree of processing of food and beverage

products [72, 73] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 3.1 History of nutrition policy and politics [21] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

xv
List of Boxes

Box 2.1 Golden Rice, a vision unrealized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Box 2.2 Quinoa, an indigenous crop of the Andes, goes mainstream . . . . 16
Box 3.1 Food system stakeholders and the elimination of trans fats . . . . . 33
Box 4.1 Components of diet quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Box 4.2 Disappearing traditional diets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Box 5.1 Different forms of malnutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Box 5.2 Ethiopia’s astounding efforts to tackle stunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Box 5.3 India’s challenge in dealing with the double burden of
malnutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Box 5.4 Born undernourished to die overnourished . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Box 6.1 Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on food systems . . . . . . . . . 75
Box 6.2 The globalization of food environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Box 7.1 What are ecosystem services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Box 7.2 Trade policies to reduce unhealthy meat consumption in
Fiji, Samoa, and Tonga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Box 7.3 The effects of war on nutrition and food security in South
Sudan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Box 8.1 Impact of agricultural subsidies on nutrition in the United
States and Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Box 8.2 How reformulation improves the nutrient content of
different food products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Box 8.3 Sodium reformulation in the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Box 9.1 Policy actions for food environments that enable healthy
eating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
Box 9.2 Taxation of unhealthy foods in Denmark and Mexico . . . . . . . . . 139
Box 9.3 Regulation of marketing, labeling, and the school
environment in Chile: A comprehensive policy to tackle
obesity and improve the food system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Box 10.1 The burning of the Amazon: Threats to human diets and
health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Box 11.1 Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on online food
shopping and delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
xvii
Chapter 1
Introduction

Food is highly valued by society for many different reasons. Not only is food critical
to human survival, but it is also important for nourishment and health, livelihoods
dependent on food systems, economies growing through shared food supply chains
and trade, peace and prosperity, and thriving cultures and traditions. Food comes from
“food systems,” which encompass everything from food production to its consump-
tion. Food systems are shaped by actors and policies that determine their functionality
and priorities.
Food systems vary dramatically—some move food to the far reaches of the world
in what are termed “globalized food systems,” while others utilize very localized
farm to fork-type community systems. Regardless, everyone, every day engages with
the food system and makes choices that shape them in different ways. The means by
which food systems function are not only shaped by people. Food systems are shaped
by governments and policies, global shocks and trends, and relationships between
countries and regions. Looking broadly, one could say that food systems have become
incredibly efficient at moving and delivering food—lots of it and many types—around
the world to feed a massive population. However, closer inspection reveals cracks
and fissures in food systems that give rise to insufficiencies and inequities [1].
Constraints on food systems cause some of these fractures. The global popu-
lation is rapidly expanding, with the expectation that our planet will be home to
9.7 billion people by 2050 [2]. Along with this growing human population, urban-
ization, changing diets, environmental degradation, and, most worryingly, climate
change place unprecedented stresses on food systems that threaten food security,
diets, and nutrition [3]. At the time of this writing, the world is also grappling with
the COVID-19 pandemic, a global health system shock that has affected the func-
tionality of many world systems, including food systems, and further exacerbated
geopolitical strife, world disorder, and economic decline [4, 5].
Given these risks and constraints, the creation, implementation, and investment
in effective policies are critical to support healthy, equitable, and sustainable food
systems for improved diets and nutrition. Policy action is vital and indispensable,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 1

J. Fanzo and C. Davis, Global Food Systems, Diets, and Nutrition,
Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72763-5_1
2 1 Introduction

because the world must contend with a universal, complex burden of malnutrition
from which no country is immune. Every country’s population struggles with one or
more forms of malnutrition—hunger, undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, or
obesity—with some countries facing two, three, or even four forms of malnutrition
[6]. The multiple burdens of malnutrition are rapidly rising in low-and middle-income
countries [7]. At the same time, malnutrition in all its forms contributes to a significant
proportion of global ill-health, with malnutrition as the leading cause of morbidity
and mortality in the world [8].
Globally, 1 in every 11 people suffer from hunger and about 25% of the world’s
population experience food insecurity [9]. Given the vast economic growth expe-
rienced in our modern era, it seems unfathomable that people still struggle to put
enough food on the table to feed their families. Children under the age of five represent
an important marker of the overall population’s health. Of this age group, 20% are
chronically undernourished (stunted), while 6% are overweight worldwide [6, 10].
In recent decades, the prevalence of stunting has been on the decline, but overweight
prevalence is rising within this age group. Micronutrient deficiencies, particularly
vitamin A, iodine, iron, and zinc, affect billions of people around the world [11].
Although the true extent of micronutrient deficiencies is poorly understood, the link
between deficiencies and disease is well established. The prevalence of overweight
and obesity in adults has grown significantly in recent decades, with a staggering 2
billion adults affected by overweight and 678 million with obesity [6].
Diets are one of the major causes of malnutrition and its subsequent health
outcomes. Food systems shape the types of foods people consume, which make up
their overall diets [12]. Unfortunately, diets are moving in the wrong direction across
a suite of metrics and trending toward unhealthy, unsustainable, and inequitable
patterns [13]. Healthy diets are also proving to be unattainable for large segments
of the world’s population because of geographic and economic barriers to access.
Systemic and societal justice issues also marginalize populations and prevent them
from engaging with food systems, which results in catastrophic inequities in food
availability, accessibility, and utilization [9].
Unhealthy diets are now one of the top risk factors globally for deaths and
disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost. The risks posed by unhealthy diets
surpass those of air pollution, tobacco smoking, and high blood pressure [14].
Unhealthy diets do not typically contain sufficient health-promoting foods, such
as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts and seeds, milk, seafood, and aquatic foods
high in omega-3 fatty acids. Instead, unhealthy diets consist of foods like red meat,
processed meat (smoked, cured, salted or chemically preserved), sugary drinks [15],
and highly-processed foods characteristically high in salt, trans fats, added sugars,
and additives with health effects that are less well known [16]. These diets, some-
times referred to “Western diets,” increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes, some
forms of cancer, and stroke [7], and put 11 million people at risk for death on an
annual basis [14]. These dietary changes have largely occurred over the last 30 years
as a result of lifestyle changes, migration to urban areas, shifting livelihoods, and
economic growth [17]. In some parts of the world, diets are still insufficient in calo-
ries and/or diversity of foods, which serve as a risk factor for food insecurity, and
1 Introduction 3

child and maternal undernutrition [8, 14]. The COVID-19 pandemic will exacerbate
these dietary insufficiencies [18].
This book aims to provide readers with an understanding of the landscape of food
systems in high-, middle-, and low-income countries, and explain how food policies
and interconnected food systems affect the diets and nutrition of populations all over
the world. Ensuring food security and nutrition for the global population is a grand
challenge fraught with many contentious issues. For the global population to be food
secure, there is a need for functional, healthy, and sustainable food systems and
policies that support those systems. Food systems and policies are contingent on a
complex network of individuals and institutions. Depending on the policies enacted,
food systems can direct and determine the availability, affordability, and nutritional
quality of the food supply, which influences the amount and variety of foods that
people are willing and able to consume.
The creation and implementation of public policies are influenced by the
agriculture-led economic growth of countries, health and nutrition of populations, and
environmental sustainability of landscapes [19]. Conflicts about land, technology,
natural resources, subsidies, inequity, and trade all play out in the food policy arena.
By choosing to read this book, you, the reader, will become familiar with both
domestic and international food policy processes and typologies, along with the key
players in the international food security landscape. This book empowers its readers
to critically analyze and debate how policy and science interact to influence regarding
nutrition outcomes.
Part I of this book, “Introduction to Major Concepts and Frameworks,” lays the
groundwork for understanding the changing landscape of food systems, diets, and
malnutrition. Chapter 2 outlines the necessary concepts and frameworks that frame
this landscape. Food systems, food supply chains, food environments, and other food
policy terminology are delineated. The food system gathers all the elements—envi-
ronment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions, etc.—and activities
that relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation, and consumption
of food, as well as the outputs of these activities, including health and nutrition,
socioeconomic, and environmental outcomes.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of food policy and food politics. Making invest-
ments that orient food systems and food environments toward nutrition and health
outcomes is a challenging task due to their complexity and trade-offs. Policymakers
need access to the latest and most rigorous evidence when formulating policies that
will best address malnutrition burdens and unhealthy diets. Instead, they are often
functioning “in the dark,” with limited data on what works for a specific context.
Policymakers may be able to identify the core set of interventions needed for certain
outcomes, but the path to implementing these interventions and achieving desired
outcomes is riddled with uncertainties.
Part II, “Changing Food Systems and Diets for Nutrition,” delves into the complex
relationship between diets, nutrition, and health. Chapter 4 introduces the concept of
diets and explains how diets affect health. Diets are composed of foods that range in
healthfulness and nutrition. Many different factors influence a person’s diet. Healthy
diets meet an individual’s nutritional needs and support overall health. Dietary
4 1 Introduction

patterns vary by region, but global diets are less than optimal. These suboptimal
diets directly affect nutrition and health outcomes. Poor diets are now considered a
top risk factor for death and disability.
Chapter 5 presents “the big picture” of malnutrition, starting with the historical
context of the current nutrition situation. This chapter delineates the global burden
of malnutrition, the causes, and the consequences for health. Malnutrition takes
different forms: undernutrition (underweight, stunting, and wasting); micronutrient
deficiencies; and overweight and obesity. These forms of malnutrition affect all
countries, whether developed or developing, and can also co-exist within countries,
communities, households, and individuals.
Chapter 6 provides an overview of global dietary patterns, explaining how demand
has shifted dietary choices and affected nutrition. The chapter describes the “nutri-
tion transition” and explains how various factors have influenced its evolution. The
impacts of globalization, trade, and urban migration are also considered. The choices
that individual consumers make are influenced by individual preferences and habits,
culture, marketing, food availability, and price. These choices are important for
shaping food systems, which have secondary effects on economies and the envi-
ronment. Changing diets and consumption patterns have been influenced by many
factors, including changes in demography and urbanization, unfriendly built environ-
ments that allow for less physical activity, food environments that are often unhealthy
and misleading, and barriers to nutritious food access, such as food deserts and high
food prices.
Chapter 7 describes the many drivers of food system change that influence nutri-
tion and diets. These include biophysical and environmental factors; innovation,
technology and infrastructure; and political and economic; sociocultural; and demo-
graphic influences. These drivers can shape food systems in both positive and negative
ways, some of which are predictable, while others come as disruptive shocks.
Part III of the book, “The Influence of Food Policy on Diets and Nutrition,” focuses
on the food policy landscape and its influence on diets and nutrition. Chapter 8
focuses specifically on food supply chain policies. Food supply policies shape the
way that food is produced, moved, traded, and consumed. However, political agendas
and power struggles can influence supply chain policies and interventions. This
chapter highlights risks for food policies that often result in contentious debates about
how to feed the world well while ensuring economic growth. Key policy issues are
discussed, including rising food prices, food assistance, agricultural subsidies, and
trade policies.
Chapter 9 focuses on policies that impact the food environment, which is where
people engage with food systems through local outlets or public procurement estab-
lishments. The chapter discusses “food politics” and the influence of trans-and multi-
national food and beverage companies and other private sector entities on regulations
and guidelines that affect nutrition outcomes. It also delves into policies that inform
and guide consumers toward healthier eating. Some countries have dietary guidelines
that make recommendations about what types of foods to consume within a person’s
dietary pattern. These rarely align with what the food system can supply and are
1 Introduction 5

often pitted against environmental and sustainability limits. These guidelines do not
always have a meaningful impact on consumer behavior or nutrition literacy.
Part IV of the book, “New Challenges to Achieving Healthy Diets for Nutrition,”
focuses on emerging challenges for food systems. Chapter 10 examines diets through
the lens of environment and climate change. The global food system uses 40% of the
earth’s land, 70% of its freshwater, and many other natural resources. It contributes
11–24% of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as other air and water pollutants.
This chapter considers the environmental impacts of food systems, the bidirectional
relationship between food system activities and climate change, and the potential for
climate-smart food systems to address these issues.
Chapter 11 focuses on new technologies across food systems that are shaping
access to healthy diets. Emerging technologies hold the potential to improve storage,
packaging, and preservation of foods, particularly perishable foods (often those
considered healthy foods, like animal source foods, fruits, and vegetables) in trans-
port and storage. Technology can also help consumers access food in different ways
through smartphone apps, “walk in/walk out” technology, and shared economies. The
chapter discusses how these technologies can shape diets and, ultimately, nutrition.
At the end of this book, we hope that the reader will have a deeper understanding
of how food systems influence the types of diets that people consume and how critical
food policy is to achieving benefits for human health, equity, and the environment.
This book aims to convey the significance of food and diets for human health and
nutrition, as well as their fundamental importance for the 2030 Sustainable Devel-
opment Goals, the roadmap of 17 goals to guide nations toward future prosperity for
people and the planet.

References

1. Béné C, Oosterveer P, Lamotte L, Brouwer ID, de Haan S, Prager SD, et al. When food
systems meet sustainability – Current narratives and implications for actions. World Dev. 2019
Jan 1;113:116–30.
2. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Popu-
lation Prospects 2019: Highlights [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://population.un.org/
wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf
3. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. Future Food Systems: For people,
our planet, and prosperity [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.glopan.org/wp-con
tent/uploads/2020/11/Foresight-2_WEB_2Nov.pdf
4. Fanzo J. No food security, no world order. In: Brands H And Gavin F, editor. COVID-19 and
World Order: The Future of Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation. 2020.
5. World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2019, 14th Edition. 2019.
6. Global Nutrition Report - Global Nutrition Report [Internet]. Global Nutrition Report. 2020
[cited 2020 Jul 27]. Available from: https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/2020-global-nut
rition-report/.
7. Popkin BM, Corvalan C, Grummer-Strawn LM. Dynamics of the double burden of malnutrition
and the changing nutrition reality. Lancet. 2020 Jan 4;395(10217):65–74.
6 1 Introduction

8. Murray CJL, Aravkin AY, Zheng P, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi-Kangevari M, et al. Global
burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for
the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1223–49.
9. Fao Ifad Unicef Wfp. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming
food systems for affordable healthy diets. FAO; 2020.
10. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization, International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Levels and trends in child malnutrition:
Key Findings of the 2020 Edition of the Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates. 2020.
11. Ritchie H, Roser M. Micronutrient deficiency [Internet]. Our World in Data. 2017. Available
from: https://ourworldindata.org/micronutrient-deficiency
12. HLPE. Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Secu-
rity and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security [Internet]. HLPE; 2017. Report No.
12. Available from: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_R
eports/HLPE-Report-12_EN.pdf
13. Fanzo J, Davis C. Can Diets Be Healthy, Sustainable, and Equitable? Curr Obes Rep. 2019
Dec;8(4):495–503.
14. Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA, Cornaby L, Ferrara G, Salama JS, et al. Health effects of dietary
risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease
Study 2017. Lancet [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 May 20]; Available from: https://www.fabres
earch.org/viewItem.php?id=12559
15. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the
Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems.
Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):447–92.
16. Baker P, Machado P, Santos T, Sievert K, Backholer K, Hadjikakou M, et al. Ultra-
processed foods and the nutrition transition: Global, regional and national trends, food systems
transformations and political economy drivers. Obes Rev. 2020 Dec;21(12):e13126.
17. Popkin BM. Relationship between shifts in food system dynamics and acceleration of the global
nutrition transition. Nutr Rev. 2017 Feb 1;75(2):73–82.
18. Osendarp S, Akuoku J, Black R, Headey D, Ruel M, Scott N, et al. The potential impacts of
the COVID-19 crisis on maternal and child undernutrition in low and middle income countries
[Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 7]. Available from: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/
rs-123716/v1
19. Barrett CB, Benton TG, Cooper KA, Fanzo J, Gandhi R, Herrero M, et al. Bundling innovations
to transform agri-food systems. Nature Sustainability. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):974–76.
 Part I
Introduction to Major Concepts
and Frameworks
Chapter 2
Food Systems, Food Environments,
and Consumer Behavior

Introduction

Food is critical to good nutrition and health, but it is also an essential part of culture,
society, tradition, religion, and individual values. Food systems consist of everybody
and everything involved in bringing food from “farm to fork.” This chapter provides
an overview of food systems and the key concepts necessary to understand how food
systems function. Food systems consist of all the components and activities related
to the production, processing, distribution, preparation, and consumption of food.
Farmers and other food producers, consumers, businesses, civil society groups, and
governments play major roles in the food system. These actors influence, direct,
and engage with food systems in different ways. Food system activities affect health
and nutrition outcomes, as well as socioeconomic status and the environment. Food
supply chains, food environments, and consumer behavior represent three major
components of food systems.

Food and Its Role in Society

In choosing what food to eat every day, people make decisions that extend beyond
their immediate survival needs to participate in something much grander. The daily
necessity to eat binds people to their food and dietary choices. Food is also integral
to people’s values, traditions, cultures, religions, and the everyday structures that
comprise societies. The choice of food helps define a person’s identity, habits, and
aspirations. People make food choices based on their beliefs and values, preferences
and desires, and relationship to the origins of food.
Food plays many roles in every aspect of society and culture. Food nourishes us and
fuels our economies. It represents traditions and sustains heritages through culinary
knowledge and eating practices. Food serves human life by providing sustenance

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 9

J. Fanzo and C. Davis, Global Food Systems, Diets, and Nutrition,
Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72763-5_2
10 2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior

Fig. 2.1 Role of food

(Source Created by authors, Non-
not previously published) Human
human
Life
animals

Food

Nature Culture

and facilitating relationships with others. It fosters relationships with food producers,
sellers, sociocultural organizations, nature, and others. As Fig. 2.1 shows, food is vital
to health, as well as connections to culture, non-human animals, and the environment.
Our dietary patterns consist of the foods and ingredients we regularly consume.
These foods are made up of macronutrients, such as fats, proteins, and carbohy-
drates, and micronutrients, such as vitamins and minerals. These foods also contain
chemicals that, when combined, can promote or impair health. Diets are shaped by a
person’s choices, habits, and lifestyle. The cost, convenience, desirability, and texture
of certain foods also influence diets [1].
Healthy diets provide a sufficient quality and quantity of food, meaning that they
are rich in both nutrients and energy. They also contain a diverse range of foods and
are safe from foodborne pathogens. These diets should be affordable, accessible, and
culturally acceptable [2, 3]. However, the ideal is not the norm. While the causes of
malnutrition are multifaceted and complex, suboptimal dietary patterns contribute
significantly to global malnutrition in all its forms [4].

What Are Food Systems?

Food systems consist of everybody and everything involved in bringing food from
“farm to fork.” This definition includes people who play a role in producing food, such
as farmers and retailers, as well as people who are influenced by these activities, such
as shoppers at a grocery store or market [5]. In addition to individuals, institutions and
organizations are critical components of food systems. Food systems also include the
environment; agricultural inputs, such as fertilizer and water; and infrastructure, such
as roads, stores, and machinery on farms. Through the many activities and processes
of the food system, food can be grown and produced, processed, distributed, prepared,
and, ultimately, consumed [6].
Food systems are highly interconnected—any intervention or policy that addresses
one part of the system will affect other parts. Health, politics, society, the economy,
and the environment all intersect with food systems. As a result of this intercon-
nectedness, any action can lead to unintended consequences. Figure 2.2 shows a
What Are Food Systems? 11

Food production

Farm Processing &

Inputs Manufacturing

IMPACTS

Social
Economic
Environmental
Diets and Health

Food Access & Distribution &

Nutrition Storage

Local Food Outlets

(Food Environments)

Fig. 2.2 Conceptualization of a food system in its simplest form [7]

conceptual diagram of a general food system.

There are three major definitions of the food system [8]:
• The Food System: “the interconnected system of everything and everybody that
influences, and is influenced by, the activities involved in bringing food from farm
to fork” [8].
• A Food System: the food system in a specific region or context.
• Food Systems: the entirety of all different forms and types of food systems in
different regions and contexts. The concept of food systems describes the full
diversity of food systems whose characteristics and operational scales vary.
A “food systems approach” is a departure from traditional approaches, which
tend to be sectoral with a narrowly defined focus and scope. Instead, a food systems
approach uses a holistic, comprehensive view of the entire system. This approach
includes the actors within the food supply chain and governance mechanisms that
shape their roles. A food systems approach requires “food systems thinking,” which
identifies and describes the influences, or “drivers,” and relationships in the systems.
Food systems thinking also considers how these influences intersect with each other
in both positive and negative ways [8].
12 2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior

In order to implement this approach, it is important to understand the major compo-

nents of food systems that shape their existence and direction. These components,
which are a significant focus of this book, are food supply chains, food environments,
and consumer behavior [3].

What Are Food Systems Meant to Do?

Food systems involve far more than producing enough food to feed the world.
Through diets, they contribute to nutrition and health outcomes. Healthy diets are
essential for preventing malnutrition in all its forms, which include undernutri-
tion, micronutrient deficiencies, and overweight and obesity [9, 10]. Malnutrition
contributes to poor health outcomes and diet-related noncommunicable diseases
(DR-NCDs), such as diabetes, coronary heart disease, cancer, and stroke [11, 12].
The relationship between food systems and the environment is complex and bidi-
rectional. Food systems depend on the environment and natural resources, but food
system activities can degrade and impair these resources [13]. Food production alone
is the largest cause of global environmental change [14]. The demand for certain
foods and diets contributes to unsustainable water and land use, biodiversity loss, and
increased greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) [14, 15]. Current food system activities
place unprecedented pressure on natural resources and lead to fundamental changes
in ecosystems worldwide [14].
Food systems are also central to the lives of people around the world. Food systems
improve social and gender equality and reduce rural poverty. They also help improve
the resilience and livelihoods of vulnerable populations affected by conflict and
natural disasters. Food systems provide income and employment for millions of
people, particularly smallholders and poor people in rural areas. The agriculture
sector employs an estimated one billion people worldwide, of whom 97% live in
developing countries [16]. Food systems also impact social and cultural outcomes
[17].

Who Influences and Engages with Food Systems?

Many different actors play a role in the food system: farmers and other food producers,
governments, businesses, civil society, institutions, and consumers. Some actors are
responsible for producing food, while others process, transport, sell, and prepare
food products. Some actors may implement policies and take actions that directly
affect the food system, while the influences and interests of other actors may be more
subtle [8].
Collectively, these actors influence how food gets from farm to fork. They
contribute to society’s health and environmental sustainability issues, but they are
also critical to solving these problems. Food system actors may be driven by different
Who Influences and Engages with Food Systems? 13

motivations: some act altruistically to help others and strengthen society, while others
operate under political or financial incentives [18]. Some may be unaware that their
actions have any influence on or consequence for the food system.
Within the food supply chain, the distribution of food system actors can be visu-
alized as a misshapen hourglass. At one end of the hourglass, there are 1.5 billion
producers. More than 70% of these producers operate on a small scale. The world’s
7 billion consumers are at the other, wider end of the hourglass. The hourglass’s
narrow neck contains the system’s food processing companies, traders, and retailers.
The activity of transporting, processing, packaging, enhancing, and pricing food is
concentrated among a few large private sector actors [19].
Farmers, livestock producers, and fishers: The global community of food
producers is extremely diverse. Around the world, there are more than 570 million
farms. Most of these farms are small and family-operated [20]. By some estimates,
small and family farms manage 53% of the world’s agricultural land and account
for more than 50% of global agricultural production [20, 21]. Globally, 135 million
people engage in fishing, aquaculture, and other related activities, such as processing
and trading, as a source of employment. Most of the world’s fishers and fish farmers
are small-scale producers [22, 23]. Small-scale farms and fishers play an important
role in food production and security.
Private sector: The private sector is highly influential within the food system: it
affects food production, pricing and affordability, consumer attitudes and percep-
tions, and public policy. This sector includes the agriculture industry, food and
beverage companies, food service, and retailers. Within this sector, small, mid-sized,
and large enterprises operate at the local and global levels. Companies in the agri-
food industry provide agricultural inputs, trade goods, process and package foods,
and prepare and sell the final product to consumers. These businesses are involved
in every stage of the food supply chain [8, 24, 25].
Consumers: Consumers influence food systems through their buying choices.
Consumers are a diverse group that ranges in age, race, sex, geographic location,
socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and culture, among other attributes. Food access,
availability, price, and other contextual factors can affect consumer behavior and
demand. As citizens, consumers can also express their beliefs and preferences about
food system policies by voting, organizing, and engaging in other forms of civic
activity [26].
Governments: Good governance is critical to building healthy, sustainable food
systems. Governments develop and implement policies, enforce regulations, and offer
incentives to different stakeholders to achieve desired outcomes. In some countries,
governments directly manage and even participate in food production, while in other
countries, the state regulates and facilitates the activities of food systems through
policy. Food policies and programs include consumer and farm subsidies, food safety
regulations, resource management, and trade policies, among others. These activities
influence both the private sector and consumers. One government’s food policies can
also affect the activities of other countries, especially regarding trade [8, 18, 27].
Civil society: Around the world, many civil society groups act to promote food
system goals. These non-governmental organizations may operate at the local or
14 2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior

global level to support positive nutrition, health, and environmental outcomes. These
groups can help initiate changes to food systems and shape public policy. The mission
of these groups may differ—some focus on empowering women or small-scale
farmers, while others advocate for health or the environment—but these varying goals
are all connected to the food system. Civil society groups help to influence govern-
mental policy and industry actions through advocacy, cooperation, and accountability
[3, 18].
Collaboration between different food system actors can be critical to ensuring
a well-functioning system. Effective partnerships require an understanding of the
motivations and perspectives of different parties. Without this awareness, even well-
intentioned pursuits can falter, as shown by the case of Golden Rice (Box 2.1). The
failure of Golden Rice also illustrates the complex concerns that underpin people’s
decisions about what and how to eat.

Box 2.1 Golden Rice, a vision unrealized

In the 1990s, the Rockefeller Foundation funded the International Rice
Research Institute and Syngenta to develop technologies that would address
the scourge of vitamin A deficiency. At the time, vitamin A deficiency was
causing death and blindness among women and children in many parts of the
world [28]. The Rockefeller Foundation’s vision was singular—use cutting-
edge genetic plant breeding technology to insert beta carotene (a vitamin A
precursor) into kernels of rice, a food highly consumed around the world.
Golden Rice was the result of this genetic modification (GM). Through
various field trials, the new breed of fortified rice was found to be effective in
reducing vitamin A deficiency [29]. While the technology worked miracles,
the GM rice was met with significant resistance by countries and communities
[30, 31].
Twenty years later, the controversies remain. There has been strong objec-
tion to GM technology in many parts of the world, and in places such as the
Philippines, non-governmental agencies advocating for farmer and consumer
rights groups destroyed Golden Rice crops. Both “top-down” government and
policy dialogue and “bottom-up” community engagement are critical to ensure
acceptance of such an intervention [30]. In the case of Golden Rice, policy
engagement with various food system actors was not effectively done [32].
Instead, countries have tried to ban or postpone the technology, leaving Golden
Rice mired in regulatory battles [33].
Components of Food Systems 15

Components of Food Systems

Food Supply Chains

Food supply chains involve all the activities needed to bring food from farm to
fork. These activities include producing, storing, distributing, processing, packaging,
marketing, and selling food, as well as consuming it and disposing of food waste
[34]. Actors in the public and private sectors play a role at every step in the food
supply chain [35].
The structure and operation of food supply chains depends on local context. Some
supply chains are long and engage many actors, while others are short and involve
fewer actors [36]. In some places, food supply chains have become both longer and
more efficient because of increasing urbanization, income growth, and globalization.
Figure 2.3 shows the different steps of the food supply chain, along with the various
actors engaged at each stage.
Like food systems, food supply chains are highly interconnected. The word
“chain” implies that activities are closely connected. An individual actor’s deci-
sions at one stage in the chain can affect the actions of someone at a different stage
in the chain. These decisions affect the way that food is produced and processed
along the supply chain, all of which has consequences for food security, safety, and
nutritional value [38].
Most of the world’s food is produced on farms. Around the world, there are more
than 570 million farms [39]. Nearly 40% of the world’s labor force is engaged
in agriculture [40]. Farming systems, or “agroecosystems,” differ in their size,
capacity, and methods. Some systems have a global reach, while others cater to

UPSTREAM
Inputs and production Aggregation

seeds fertilizer finance knowledge farming Farmer organizers small traders transporters

MIDSTREAM
Trading Processing

cooperatives wholesalers drying packaging milling

DOWNSTREAM Consumers
Retailing

traditional markets supermarkets restaurants

Fig. 2.3 Food supply chains [37]

16 2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior

local markets. Production methods are diverse and may include organic, conven-
tional, and biodynamic approaches. Some producers grow only one type of crop,
known as monocropping, while others grow a mixed set of crops.
Livestock production systems, aquatic ecosystems, fisheries, and aquaculture are
also important for diets and nutrition. This sector represents an estimated one-third
of global agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) and employs an estimated 1.3
billion people [40]. Animal products are an important source of protein and essen-
tial micronutrients for the world’s population: meat, milk, and eggs provide at least
31% of dietary protein, and aquatic animal products like fish provide at least 16%
of protein [41, 42]. Animal source foods (ASF) are produced in a wide range of
farming systems that include grazing systems, concentrated animal feeding oper-
ations (CAFOs), fishing, and aquaculture. These production methods have serious
implications for the environment: producing ASF requires more than three-quarters
of the world’s agricultural land and generates 14–20% of total GHGe [43].
The vast array of farming systems can be envisioned as a spectrum with industrial
agricultural systems at one end and small-scale, subsistence farming at the other end.
Industrial agricultural systems often involve the large-scale, intensive production of
monoculture crops or livestock [44]. These systems tend to maximize yields and
labor productivity through equipment and mechanization that operate at economies of
scale. “Scale economies” mean that, given the production expenses, such methods are
only economical when used in large operations. Industrial systems also extensively
use external inputs like synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and antibiotics [44]. While
there are variations across industrialized systems, these systems typically have the
capacity to quickly and efficiently produce a significant amount of food [45–49].
Small-scale farming is practiced by millions of smallholders and family farms
throughout the world. Many different definitions exist for “smallholder agriculture,”
“family farms,” and “subsistence agriculture,” but most concur that small-scale farms
operate on less than two hectares of land [20, 21, 50, 51]. Small and family farms
can be highly efficient and are important for protecting natural resources. These
farms produce more than half of the world’s agricultural products and manage an
equal proportion of the world’s agricultural land [20, 21]. In the United States, small
family farms account for nearly half of the country’s farmland [52]. Small-scale farms
are predominantly located in Asia and Africa, where they contribute significantly to
food security and poverty reduction [50]. Box 2.2 describes the role played by small-
scale Andean farmers in producing quinoa, an ancient staple grain that has become
increasingly popular around the world.

Box 2.2 Quinoa, an indigenous crop of the Andes, goes mainstream

For thousands of years, small-scale farmers in the Andes have been growing a
nutritious grain called quinoa. This protein-rich staple carries great importance
for farmer families in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.
Until a decade ago, quinoa was largely unknown to the rest of the world.
Quinoa’s popularity rose rapidly and demand for the “superfood” began to
Components of Food Systems 17

grow in places like the United States and Europe. Imports of quinoa to the
United States grew ten-fold and its price tripled [53].
As quinoa became increasingly sought-after around the world, some worried
about the Andean farmers who grew the staple grain. Would Andean farmers
see the financial benefits of quinoa going mainstream? Would they continue to
consume the food themselves? Fortunately, the answer to both questions was
“yes.” Studies suggest that not only did quinoa farmers in the Andes continue
to consume the food as part of their diet, but they also benefited from the growth
of the commodity in international markets [53].
Despite its growing popularity, there are regulations and restrictions on
how quinoa seeds and germplasm are traded across countries. As a result,
Andean smallholder farmers remain responsible for conserving the biodiversity
of quinoa species and their cultivation [54].

Mixed crop-landscape systems combine crop agriculture with livestock or aqua-

culture. Also known as “diversified farming,” this integrated system can produce a
diverse range of different foods [55]. Mixed or diversified systems produce approxi-
mately half of the world’s food and more than half of the nutrients in the global food
supply [56, 57]. Producers in these systems often grow many different crop species
and varieties that include protein-rich crops, such as lentils; traditional foods, such as
leafy greens; and underutilized crops, such as fonio and sorghum [3]. These systems
can have a reduced impact on the environment and natural resource base, but may
face many challenges, such as low productivity and limited connection to markets
[58, 59].
Organic farming aims to promote agro-ecological balance and biodiversity. This
production method uses few, if any, synthetic chemical inputs, such as pesticides,
insecticides, and herbicides, in order to protect natural resources [60]. Some argue
that organic foods have fewer pesticides and chemical residues than conventionally-
grown products [61], a claim that is supported by several systematic review studies
[62, 63]. Research on the nutritional value of organic foods has led to mixed results,
and the long-term health benefits of diets high in organic foods remain unclear [63–
66]. The demand for organic food has increased in recent decades, although these
products are often much more expensive than conventionally-grown foods [67, 68].
After the initial production stage, most food products move to the processing and
packaging stage of the supply chain. Food that is not immediately consumed by the
producer must be stored for later consumption or distributed. First and foremost,
food processing can help extend shelf life and avoid food loss. Processing can also
contribute to nutrition outcomes by improving nutritional qualities, increasing the
bioavailability of nutrients, and improving the sensory characteristics and functional
properties of foods. It can also eliminate toxins that are harmful to health, such as
foodborne microbes [69–71]. Common means of food processing include milling,
cooling or freezing, smoking, heating, canning, fermenting and extrusion cooking
18 2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior

Table 2.1 Classification by degree of processing of food and beverage products [72, 73]
Category Definition Examples
Unprocessed or Fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables, milk, eggs, fresh
Single foods, no or very slight modifications
minimally processed fish, fresh meat

Single foods, processed as isolated food Sugar, oil, unsweetened canned fruit, unsalted canned
Basically processed
components or modified by preservation methods vegetables, white rice, flour, pasta

Sweetened canned fruit, salted canned vegetables,

Moderately
Single foods with the addition of flavour additives salted nuts, whole-grain bread, cereals with no added
processed
sugar

Sugar-sweetened beverages, salty snacks such as

Highly chips and crackers, cookies, cakes, candy, refined-grain
Multi-ingredient, industrially formulated mixtures
processed bread, ready-to-eat cereals with added sugar, pre-
prepared meals, margarine, ketchup, mayonnaise

Source Created by authors, not previously published

[71]. Table 2.1 illustrates the different categories of processed foods and examples
of those foods.
Food value chains are a specialized type of supply chain. Although “food value
chain” is often used synonymously with “food supply chain,” there is a clear distinc-
tion between the two terms. Food value chains refer to the more specific process of
adding value to a food product. In a food value chain, a product’s value increases as
it moves through each stage of the chain. This value can be achieved by improving
the food product’s functionality, safety, or nutritional value through processing. This
change is then often reflected in the price of the product [74].
After the processing stage, food products are transported to markets and retail
outlets. These spaces may be formal, such as stores, or informal, such as street
vendors [75]. Informal markets are an important source of food for poor populations
in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), but supermarkets and fast-food chains
have expanded significantly to reach the mass market in these countries [76, 77]. The
retail landscape directly affects the food environment where consumers make their
purchasing decisions [40].

Food Environments

Food environments are the places where people engage with food. These environ-
ments are where consumers make decisions about what to order, buy, or consume.
These environments include the physical, economic, political, and sociocultural
contexts that affect people’s food choices. In addition, food environments include
opportunities and conditions, all of which can influence dietary preferences, food
choices, and nutritional status [78, 79].
For many communities, the food environment consists of the foods they produce
and those they purchase from their local markets. For others, the food environment
is more global, with increasingly interconnected local, regional, and international
Components of Food Systems 19

markets. Over time, food environments have become more complex as more actors
shape food systems [80–82]. Fifty years ago, most food was grown for household
consumption by small-scale producers in rural areas. Now, supermarkets that sell
food grown in far-away locales are increasingly common [83, 84].
The food environment involves many different types of interactions. “Food entry
points” are one type of interaction that represent opportunities—physical or other-
wise—to support diets and nutrition along the food supply chain [38]. The built
environment allows people to access these opportunities. It includes the human-
made surroundings and infrastructure where people live, work, and play. Consumer
engagement with the built environment depends on a range of factors, as shown in
Fig. 2.4 [85]. Political, social, and cultural norms also play a role in food environments
by influencing people’s choices [86].
Interactions with the food environment can also be understood to occur in “exter-
nal” or “personal” domains. As Fig. 2.5 shows, the external environment provides
the available foods, their prices, properties, and marketing. The personal environ-
ment consists of a person’s access to markets or the external food environment, their
willingness or ability to pay for food, and the convenience and desirability of those
foods [87, 88].
The availability and accessibility of food significantly influences the quality of
diets. Food availability involves having a sufficient amount of high-quality food to
satisfy a person’s dietary needs. This food should be free of adverse substances and
culturally acceptable [90]. Food access involves having the financial means to acquire
food in a way that does not threaten or compromise other basic needs. Access means
that adequate food is obtainable by all people, including vulnerable individuals and
groups [90]. Food access includes both physical and economic access.
Physical access to food depends on the built environment. The lack of appropriate
infrastructure in some LMICs can limit availability and access to foods, especially
perishable foods. In addition, “food deserts” and “food swamps” can be found in all

Distance to food Available means

entry points Mobility
of transportation

Consumer Engagement
Disability
conditions
Health with the Built Purchasing power
Environment

Time

Kitchen facilities and

Resources needed to prepare food
equipment
Knowledge and skills

Fig. 2.4 Consumer engagement with the built environment (Source Created by authors, not
previously published)
20 2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior

Food System
Food Environment
External domain Personal domain
Availability Accessibility
Presence of food sources or products Physical distance, time, space, place,
Production, individual activity, mobility
Prices Acquisition
Storage,
Monetary value of food products Affordability and
Transformation,
Purchasing power Consumption
Transportation Vendor and Product Properties
Vendor properties (types, hours of Convenience
operation), product properties (quality, Relative time and effort of preparing,
composition, safety, shelf-life) cooking and consuming foods, time
allocation
Marketing and Regulation
Promotional information, branding, Desirability
advertising, sponsorship, labeling Preferences, acceptability, desires,
attitudes, culture, knowledge and skills

Fig. 2.5 Food environment [89]

countries. Food deserts are geographic areas where access to food is restricted or non-
existent due to the absence or low density of food entry points within a reasonable
distance. Food swamps are areas where there is an overabundance of unhealthy foods
but little access to healthy foods, especially fresh produce and minimally processed
foods. Evidence from some high-income countries indicates that food deserts and
food swamps are often found in low-income, underserved areas [91–93].
Economic access to food refers to food affordability and pricing. A household’s
income and purchasing power can be compared with the relative cost of food to
understand their economic access to food [94–96]. Around the world, fresh and
nutritious foods tend to be more expensive and less economically accessible than less
nutritious, high-calorie foods [97]. In LMICs, people typically spend a significant
proportion of their household budget on food [98, 99]. Relative food expenditures in
high-income countries tend to be much lower, but low-income households in these
countries spend a greater proportion of their income on food [100, 101]. Food prices,
taxes, subsidies, and trade policies affect the affordability of food and influence
consumption patterns [96].
Food safety refers to food handling, storage, and preparation practices that prevent
contamination and foodborne illness. Contamination with pathogens or chemicals
may occur during the production, processing, storage, transport or distribution stages,
as well as in the household [102, 103]. More than 50% of all foodborne illness and
75% of related deaths occur in LMICs in Africa and Asia [104]. Standards and
controls, policies, interventions, and investments at the national or global level can
significantly influence food safety outcomes [104].
Components of Food Systems 21

Consumer Demand

Consumer preference helps determine demand for certain foods and diets. This
demand reflects people’s choices about what foods to acquire, store, prepare, and
eat, and how to share food within the household [105]. Income, education, taste pref-
erence, convenience, tradition, culture, and values determine consumer preferences
and choices [106–108]. The external food environment also influences preference
through various means of selecting, purchasing, preparing, and presenting food for
consumption [78, 89].
Food purchasing and consumption decisions are influenced by information that
people receive from advertising and marketing, labeling, and dietary guidelines. Food
companies use branding, social media marketing, and advertisements to promote
their food products. Product placement and signage in retail stores also influences
dietary behavior. These promotional methods affect food acceptability, consumer
preference, purchasing decisions, and consumption [109–112]. Labels, declarations,
or warnings on food packaging, in food retail outlets, and on menus are other ways
to inform consumers [113–115]. National food-based dietary guidelines provide
recommendations on healthy diets that are adapted to the national context [116].
These guidelines can influence consumer preferences and inform both food supply
chain actors and policymakers [117].
Convenience and preference are also critical to consumer decision-making.
Sensory appeal and desirability are linked to the quality, safety, and familiarity of
the food product, as well as the individual’s own personal ideology, aspirations, and
habits [118]. “Food quality” refers to the attributes of a food product that influence its
value and enhance its acceptability to the consumer [103]. Social interactions, avail-
ability, and time constraints can affect a consumer’s perceptions of convenience [118].
Other attributes that affect preference include the size, shape, and color of a food item
or its presentation, the food’s texture, flavor, odor, freshness and safety, ingredient
and nutrient composition, production method (e.g., “organic” or “cage-free”), and
level of processing [119].
Life events and personal experiences also influence food choice. Throughout life,
people continuously consider and adjust their food values, preferences, and routines,
though these deliberations are not necessarily conscious. These experiences affect
consumer interactions with the food environment and guide eating behavior [120].
In turn, food choices influence nutritional status, health, and perceptions of identity,
all of which can affect life experience [120].

Key Messages and Conclusions

Food systems are highly complex and interconnected. All the world’s people interact
with the food system: whether these interactions involve producing food on a farm,
processing and selling it, monitoring safety and regulating, or buying and cooking
22 2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior

food, everyone has a role to play. Food supply chains encompass all the disparate
activities of the food system, while food environments represent places where people
make decisions about what to buy and eat.
Food systems help to feed the world, but they also do so much more. These systems
are interwoven with human society and the natural world. Food is critical to diets,
nutritional status, and health, but it also carries importance for culture and tradition.
Food systems provide employment and opportunity to millions of people around
the world. Successful food production depends on the environment, but agriculture
can also degrade and deplete natural resources, especially in the context of climate
change.
Food systems must meet the increasing and evolving dietary needs of a growing
global population in a sustainable way. Despite this daunting challenge, there is
a tremendous opportunity to address food security and nutrition along with social
justice and equality. To do this, a collective and integrated approach is imperative.
Food systems need to become more inclusive, transparent, sustainable, and focused
on providing healthier foods. Later chapters will discuss the importance of these
goals and explore potential means of achieving them.

References

1. Mozaffarian D. Diets from around the world—Quality not quantity [Internet]. Vol. 378, The
Lancet. 2011. p. 759. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61362-7
2. Macdiarmid J. Healthy and sustainable diets [Internet]. Healthy and Sustainable Food
Systems. 2019. pp. 125–34. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351189033-11
3. HLPE. Nutrition and food systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security [Internet]. HLPE; 2017.
Report No.: 12. Available from: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_docu
ments/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-12_EN.pdf
4. Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA, Cornaby L, Ferrara G. Health effects of dietary risks in 195
countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.
Lancet [Internet]. 2019; Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0140673619300418
5. Parsons, K., Hawkes, C., Wells, R. What is the food system? A Food policy perspective
[Internet]. Centre for Food Policy; 2019. Available from: https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/
assets/pdf_file/0008/471599/7643_Brief-2_What-is-the-food-system-A-food-policy-perspe
ctive_WEB_SP.pdf
6. HLPE. Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems. High Level Panel
of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security; 2014.
7. Food Systems | MNCFC [Internet]. Maine network of community food councils. 2020.
Available from: https://www.mainefoodcouncils.net/food-systems
8. Hawkes C, Parsons K. Brief 1: Tackling food systems challenges: The role of food policy
[Internet]. London: City University of London; 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 14]. Available from:
https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/22793/
9. Hawkes C, Ruel MT, Salm L, Sinclair B, Branca F. Double-duty actions: Seizing programme
and policy opportunities to address malnutrition in all its forms. Lancet. 2020 Jan
11;395(10218):142–55.
10. Webb P, Stordalen GA, Singh S, Wijesinha-Bettoni R, Shetty P, Lartey A. Hunger and
malnutrition in the 21st century. BMJ. 2018 Jun 13;361:k2238.
References 23

11. Hawkesworth S, Dangour AD, Johnston D, Lock K, Poole N, Rushton J, et al. Feeding the
world healthily: the challenge of measuring the effects of agriculture on health. Philos Trans
R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Sep 27;365(1554):3083–97.
12. Swinburn BA, Kraak VI, Allender S, Atkins VJ, Baker PI, Bogard JR, et al. The global
syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: The Lancet Commission report.
Lancet. 2019 Feb 23;393(10173):791–846.
13. 13. Ericksen PJ. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research.
Glob Environ Change. 2008 Feb 1;18(1):234–45.
14. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the
Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems.
Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):447–92.
15. Clark MA, Springmann M, Hill J, Tilman D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of
foods. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Nov 12;116(46):23357–62.
16. International Labour Organization. ILOSTAT database [Internet]. 2020. Available from:
https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/
17. Allen T, Prosperi P. Modeling sustainable food systems. Environ Manage. 2016
May;57(5):956–75.
18. Pinstrup-Andersen P, Watson DD II. Food policy for developing countries: The role of
government in global, national, and local food systems. Cornell University Press; 2011. 424
p.
19. IPES-Food. TOO BIG TO FEED Exploring the impacts of mega-mergers, consolidation and
concentration of power in the agri-food sector. IPES Food; 2017.
20. Lowder SK, Skoet J, Raney T. The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms,
and family farms worldwide. World Dev. 2016 Nov 1;87:16–29.
21. Graeub BE, Chappell MJ, Wittman H, Ledermann S, Kerr RB, Gemmill-Herren B. The state
of family farms in the world. World Dev. 2016 Nov 1;87:1–15.
22. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture 2020. FAO; 2020.
23. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of World Fisheries and
Aquaculture. FAO; 2012.
24. Glopan. Improving diets in an era of food market transformation: Challenges and opportunities
for engagement between the public and private sectors. Policy Brief No. 11. London, UK:
Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. 2018.
25. KPMG. The agricultural and food value chain: Entering a new era of cooperation. KPMG
International; 2013.
26. Lusk JL, McCluskey J. Understanding the impacts of food consumer choice and food policy
outcomes. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2018 Feb 16;40(1):5–21.
27. von Braun J, Birner R. Designing global governance for agricultural development and food
and nutrition security. Rev Dev Econ. 2017 May 18;21(2):265–84.
28. Stokstad E. After 20 years, golden rice nears approval. Science. 2019 Nov 22;366(6468):934.
29. Stein AJ, Sachdev HPS, Qaim M. Can genetic engineering for the poor pay off?: An ex-
ante evaluation of Golden Rice in India [Internet]. University of Hohenheim – Centre for
Agriculture in the Tropics and Subtropics Institute of Agricultural Economics and Social
Sciences in the Tropics and Subtropics; 2008 Mar [cited 2021 Jan 8]. Available from: http://
opus.uni-hohenheim.de/volltexte/2008/261/
30. Glass S, Fanzo J. Genetic modification technology for nutrition and improving diets: An
ethical perspective. Curr Opin Biotechnol [Internet]. 2017; Available from: https://www.sci
encedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958166916302488
31. Dubock A. Golden Rice: To combat vitamin a deficiency for public health. In: Zepka LQ, de
Rosso VV, Jacob-Lopes E, editors. Vitamin A. Rijeka: IntechOpen; 2019.
32. Kettenburg AJ, Hanspach J, Abson DJ, Fischer J. From disagreements to dialogue: Unpacking
the Golden Rice debate. Sustainability Sci. 2018 May 17;13(5):1469–82.
33. Wight AJ. The precautionary tale of golden rice. Science. 2019 Oct 11;366(6462):192–192.
24 2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior

34. Hawkes C, Ruel MT, Others. Value chains for nutrition. Reshaping agriculture for nutrition
and health. 2012;73–82.
35. Porter ME, Millar VE, Others. How information gives you competitive advantage [Internet].
Harvard Business Review Reprint Service; 1985. Available from: https://www.gospi.fr/IMG/
pdf/how_information_gives_you_competitive_advantage-porter-hbr-1985.pdf
36. 36. Renting H, Marsden TK, Banks J. Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the
role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ Plan A. 2003 Mar 1;35(3):393–
411.
37. Reardon T. Growing Food for Growing Cities. Chicago Council on Global Affairs; 2016.
38. Fanzo JC, Downs S, Marshall QE, de Pee S, Bloem MW. Value chain focus on food and
nutrition security [Internet]. Nutrition and Health in a Developing World. 2017. p. 753–70.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43739-2_34
39. Lowder SK, Skoet J, Singh S. What do we really know about the number and distribution of
farms and family farms in the world? Background paper for The State of Food and Agriculture
2014. 2014; Available from: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/288983/
40. High Level Panel of Experts. Sustainable agricultural development for FSN: what roles for
livestock? 2016.
41. Béné C, Barange M, Subasinghe R, Pinstrup-Andersen P, Merino G, Hemre G-I, et al. Feeding
9 billion by 2050–Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security. 2015;7(2):261–74.
42. Tacon AGJ, Metian M. Fish matters: Importance of aquatic foods in human nutrition and
global food supply. Rev Fish Sci. 2013 Jan 1;21(1):22–38.
43. Ranganathan J, Vennard D, Waite R, Searchinger T, Dumas P, Lipinski B. Shifting diets:
Toward a sustainable food future. In IFPRI; 2016. (2016 Global Food Policy Report,
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)).
44. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Farm Size and the
Organization of U.S. Crop Farming. United States Department of Agriculture; 2013.
45. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, et al. Solutions
for a cultivated planet. Nature. 2011 Oct 12;478(7369):337–42.
46. Garnett T, Appleby MC, Balmford A, Bateman IJ, Benton TG, Bloomer P, et al. Agri-
culture. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science. 2013 Jul
5;341(6141):33–4.
47. Sachs JD, Remans R, Smukler SM, Winowiecki L, Andelman SJ, Cassman KG, et al. Effective
monitoring of agriculture: A response. J Environ Monit. 2012 Mar;14(3):738–42.
48. 48. Pingali PL. Green revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc Natl Acad Sci U
S A. 2012 Jul 31;109(31):12302–8.
49. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, et al. Biodiversity
loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 2012 Jun 6;486(7401):59–67.
50. Hazell P. Five big questions about five hundred million small farms. In: Conference on New
Directions for Smallholder Agriculture. researchgate.net; 2011. pp. 24–5.
51. High Level Panel of Experts. Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. HLPE;
2013.
52. United States Department of Agriculture. America’s Diverse Family farms [Internet].
2019. Available from: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/95547/eib-214.pdf?
v=2023.2
53. Bellemare MF, Fajardo-Gonzalez J, Gitter SR. Foods and fads: The welfare impacts of rising
quinoa prices in Peru. World Dev. 2018 Dec 1;112:163–79.
54. Bazile D, Jacobsen S-E, Verniau A. The global expansion of Quinoa: Trends and limits. Front
Plant Sci. 2016 May 9;7:622.
55. Kremen C, Iles A, Bacon C. Diversified farming systems: An agroecological, systems-based
alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol Soc [Internet]. 2012;17(4). Available from:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269193
56. Herrero M, Thornton PK, Notenbaert AM, Wood S, Msangi S, Freeman HA, et al. Smart
investments in sustainable food production: Revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems. Science.
2010 Feb 12;327(5967):822–5.
References 25

57. Herrero M, Thornton PK, Power B, Bogard JR, Remans R, Fritz S, et al. Farming and the
geography of nutrient production for human use: A transdisciplinary analysis. Lancet Planet
Health. 2017 Apr;1(1):e33–42.
58. Chand R, Prasanna PAL, Singh A. Farm size and productivity: Understanding the strengths
of smallholders and improving their livelihoods. Econ Polit Wkly. 2011;46(26/27):5–11.
59. van Tilburg A, Obi A. Factors unlocking markets to smallholders: Lessons, recommendations
and stakeholders addressed [Internet]. Unlocking markets to smallholders. 2012. p. 243–54.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-168-2_11
60. Darnhofer I, Lindenthal T, Bartel-Kratochvil R, Zollitsch W. Conventionalisation of organic
farming practices: from structural criteria towards an assessment based on organic principles.
A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2010;30(1):67–81.
61. Crinnion WJ. Organic foods contain higher levels of certain nutrients, lower levels of
pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer. Altern Med Rev. 2010
Apr;15(1):4–12.
62. United States Department of Agriculture. Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program Fiscal Year
2016 Pesticide Report. 2016; Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/Foodbo
rneIllnessContaminants/Pesticides/UCM618373.pdf
63. Barański M, Srednicka-Tober D, Volakakis N, Seal C, Sanderson R, Stewart GB, et al. Higher
antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in
organically grown crops: A systematic literature review and meta-analyses. Br J Nutr. 2014
Sep 14;112(5):794–811.
64. Dangour AD, Dodhia SK, Hayter A, Allen E, Lock K, Uauy R. Nutritional quality of organic
foods: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Sep;90(3):680–5.
65. Smith-Spangler C, Brandeau ML, Hunter GE, Bavinger JC, Pearson M, Eschbach PJ, et al.
Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives?: A systematic review. Ann
Intern Med. 2012 Sep 4;157(5):348–66.
66. Mitchell AE, Hong Y-J, Koh E, Barrett DM, Bryant DE, Denison RF, et al. Ten-year compar-
ison of the influence of organic and conventional crop management practices on the content
of flavonoids in tomatoes. J Agric Food Chem. 2007 Jul 25;55(15):6154–9.
67. Li J, Zepeda L, Gould BW. The demand for organic food in the US: An empirical assessment.
Journal of Food Distribution Research. 2007;38(856-2016-57840):54–69.
68. Martin A, Severson K. Sticker Shock in the Organic Aisles. The New York Times [Internet].
2008 Apr 18 [cited 2019 May 20]; Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/bus
iness/18organic.html
69. van Boekel M, Fogliano V, Pellegrini N, Stanton C, Scholz G, Lalljie S, et al. A review on
the beneficial aspects of food processing. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2010 Sep 19;54(9):1215–47.
70. Weaver CM, Dwyer J, Fulgoni VL 3rd, King JC, Leveille GA, MacDonald RS, et al. Processed
foods: Contributions to nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Jun;99(6):1525–42.
71. Augustin MA, Riley M, Stockmann R, Bennett L, Kahl A, Lockett T, et al. Role of food
processing in food and nutrition security. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2016 Oct 1;56:115–25.
72. Poti JM, Mendez MA, Ng SW, Popkin BM. Is the degree of food processing and convenience
linked with the nutritional quality of foods purchased by US households? Am J Clin Nutr.
2015 Jun;101(6):1251–62.
73. Moubarac J-C, Parra DC, Cannon G, Monteiro CA. Food classification systems based on food
processing: Significance and implications for policies and actions: A systematic literature
review and assessment. Curr Obes Rep. 2014 Jun;3(2):256–72.
74. Haq ZU. Food Value chain analysis: A review of selected studies for Pakistan and Guidelines
for Further Research [Internet]. Working Paper; 2012. Available from: http://www.academia.
edu/download/46134728/FVA.pdf
75. Food and Agriculture Organization. The informal food sector. FAO; 2003. Report No.: “Food
in Cities” Collection, No. 4.
76. Resnick D. Governance: Informal food markets in Africa’s cities. In: International Food Policy
Research Institute, editor. 2017 Global Food Policy Report. 2017.
26 2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior

77. Reardon T, Gulati A. The rise of supermarkets and their development implications. Interna-
tional experience relevant for India [Internet]. 2008; Available from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.
edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.141.1088&rep=rep1&type=pdf
78. Herforth A, Ahmed S. The food environment, its effects on dietary consumption, and poten-
tial for measurement within agriculture-nutrition interventions. Food Security. 2015 Jun
1;7(3):505–20.
79. Kraak VI, Swinburn B, Lawrence M, Harrison P. An accountability framework to promote
healthy food environments. Public Health Nutr. 2014 Nov;17(11):2467–83.
80. Reardon T, Timmer CP. The economics of the food system revolution. Annu Rev Resour
Econ. 2012 Aug 1;4(1):225–64.
81. Reardon T, Peter Timmer C. Transformation of the agrifood industry in developing countries
[Internet]. Oxford Handbooks Online. 2014. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxf
ordhb/9780195397772.013.026
82. Swinnen JFM. The dynamics of vertical coordination in agri-food supply chains in transition
countries [Internet]. Global supply chains, standards and the poor: How the globalization of
food systems and standards affects rural development and poverty. p. 42–58. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1079/9781845931858.0042
83. Popkin BM, Reardon T. Obesity and the food system transformation in Latin America. Obes
Rev. 2018 Aug;19(8):1028–64.
84. Minten B, Reardon T. Food prices, quality, and quality’s pricing in supermarkets versus
traditional markets in developing countries. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. 2008 Oct 1;30(3):480–
90.
85. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division,
Food and Nutrition Board, Roundtable on Obesity Solutions. Advancing obesity solutions
through investments in the built environment: Proceedings of a workshop. National Academies
Press; 2018. 100 p.
86. Swinburn B, Vandevijvere S, Kraak V, Sacks G, Snowdon W, Hawkes C, et al. Monitoring
and benchmarking government policies and actions to improve the healthiness of food envi-
ronments: A proposed Government Healthy Food Environment Policy Index. Obes Rev.
2013;14:24–37.
87. Caspi CE, Sorensen G, Subramanian SV, Kawachi I. The local food environment and diet: A
systematic review. Health Place. 2012 Sep;18(5):1172–87.
88. Hawkes C, Smith TG, Jewell J, Wardle J, Hammond RA, Friel S, et al. Smart food policies
for obesity prevention. Lancet. 2015 Jun 13;385(9985):2410–21.
89. Turner C, Aggarwal A, Walls H, Herforth A, Drewnowski A, Coates J, et al. Concepts and
critical perspectives for food environment research: A global framework with implications for
action in low- and middle-income countries. Global Food Security. 2018 Sep 1;18:93–101.
90. High Level Panel of Experts. Multi-stakeholder partnerships to finance and improve food
security and nutrition in the framework of the 2030 Agenda [Internet]. HLPE; 2020. Available
from: http://www.fao.org/3/CA0156EN/CA0156en.pdf
91. Walker RE, Keane CR, Burke JG. Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States:
A review of food deserts literature [Internet]. Vol. 16, Health & Place. 2010. p. 876–84.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.04.013
92. Beaulac J, Kristjansson E, Cummins S. A systematic review of food deserts, 1966-2007. Prev
Chronic Dis. 2009 Jul;6(3):A105.
93. Rose D, Bodor JN, Swalm CM, Rice JC, Farley TA, Hutchinson PL. Deserts in New Orleans?
Illustrations of urban food access and implications for policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan National Poverty Center/USDA Economic Research Service Research [Internet].
2009; Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.189.2333&
rep=rep1&type=pdf
94. Gibson J, Kim B. Do the urban poor face higher food prices? Evidence from Vietnam
[Internet]. Vol. 41, Food Policy. 2013. p. 193–203. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodpol.2013.05.003
References 27

95. Powell LM, Chaloupka FJ. Food prices and obesity: Evidence and policy implications for
taxes and subsidies. Milbank Q. 2009 Mar;87(1):229–57.
96. Powell LM, Chriqui JF, Khan T, Wada R, Chaloupka FJ. Assessing the potential effectiveness
of food and beverage taxes and subsidies for improving public health: A systematic review
of prices, demand and body weight outcomes. Obes Rev. 2013;14(2):110–28.
97. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020
[Internet]. 2020. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/ca9692en/CA9692EN.pdf
98. Headey DD, Alderman HH. The relative caloric prices of healthy and unhealthy foods differ
systematically across income levels and continents. J Nutr [Internet]. 2019 Jul 23 [cited 2019
Jul 23]; Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jn/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/jn/nxz
158/28951648/nxz158.pdf
99. Clements KW, Si J. Engel’s law, diet diversity, and the quality of food consumption. Am J
Agric Econ. 2017;100(1):1–22.
100. Smith LP, Ng SW, Popkin BM. Trends in US home food preparation and consumption: analysis
of national nutrition surveys and time use studies from 1965–1966 to 2007–2008. Nutr J. 2013
Apr 11;12(1):45.
101. Nord M. Food spending declined and food insecurity increased for middle-income and low-
income households from 2000 to 2007. DIANE Publishing; 2009. 19 p.
102. Grace D. Food safety in low and middle income countries. Int J Environ Res Public Health.
2015 Aug 27;12(9):10490–507.
103. World Health Organization. Diet, nutrition, and the prevention of chronic diseases: Report of
a joint WHO/FAO expert consultation. World Health Organization; 2003. 149 p.
104. Jaffee S, Henson S, Unnevehr L, Grace D, Cassou E. The safe food imperative: Accelerating
progress in low-and middle-income countries. The World Bank; 2018.
105. Perry BD, Grace DC. How growing complexity of consumer choices and drivers of consump-
tion behaviour affect demand for animal source foods. Ecohealth. 2015;12(4):703–12.
106. Glanz K, Basil M, Maibach E, Goldberg J, Snyder D. Why Americans eat what they do: Taste,
nutrition, cost, convenience, and weight control concerns as influences on food consumption.
J Am Diet Assoc. 1998 Oct;98(10):1118–26.
107. Furst T, Connors M, Bisogni CA, Sobal J, Falk LW. Food choice: A conceptual model of the
process. Appetite. 1996 Jun;26(3):247–65.
108. Bisogni CA, Connors M, Devine CM, Sobal J. Who we are and how we eat: A qualitative
study of identities in food choice. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2002 May;34(3):128–39.
109. Mazariegos S, Chacón V, Cole A, Barnoya J. Nutritional quality and marketing strategies of
fast food children’s combo meals in Guatemala. BMC Obes. 2016 Dec 8;3:52.
110. Popkin BM, Hawkes C. Sweetening of the global diet, particularly beverages: Patterns, trends,
and policy responses. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016 Feb;4(2):174–86.
111. Hawkes C, Harris JL. An analysis of the content of food industry pledges on marketing to
children. Public Health Nutr. 2011 Aug;14(8):1403–14.
112. Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G, Caraher M. Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature,
extent and effects of food marketing to children. A retrospective summary. Appetite. 2013
Mar;62:209–15.
113. Pomeranz JL, Wilde P, Mozaffarian D, Micha R. Mandating front-of-package food labels in
the U.S. – What are the First Amendment obstacles? Food Policy. 2019 Jun 19;101722.
114. Singla M. Usage and understanding of food and nutritional labels among Indian consumers
[Internet]. Vol. 112, British Food Journal. 2010. p. 83–92. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/00070701011011227
115. Levy AS, Fein SB. Consumers’ ability to perform tasks using nutrition labels. J Nutr Educ.
1998;30(4):210–7.
116. Herforth A, Arimond M, Álvarez-Sánchez C, Coates J, Christianson K, Muehlhoff E. A global
review of food-based dietary guidelines. Adv Nutr [Internet]. 2019 Apr 30; Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmy130
117. Dwyer JT. The importance of dietary guidelines [Internet]. Reference Module in Food Science.
2019. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-100596-5.22519-5
28 2 Food Systems, Food Environments, and Consumer Behavior

118. Pollard J, Kirk SFL, Cade JE. Factors affecting food choice in relation to fruit and vegetable
intake: A review. Nutr Res Rev. 2002 Dec;15(2):373–87.
119. Grunert KG. Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. Eur Rev Agric Econ.
2005 Sep 1;32(3):369–91.
120. Sobal J, Bisogni CA. Constructing food choice decisions [Internet]. Vol. 38, Annals of
Behavioral Medicine. 2009. p. 37–46. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-
9124-5
Chapter 3
Food Policy

Introduction

This chapter introduces the concepts of food policy and governance. Food policy
affects how food systems operate and how consumers, producers, and other stake-
holders make decisions. Policy acts as a mechanism for governance by providing
guidance for decision-making and measures for accountability. Food governance
involves making and implementing policy decisions. Governments, consumers,
producers, businesses, non-governmental organizations, civil society, and many
others play a role in developing, implementing, and participating in food policy
and governance. Food policy has changed significantly in recent decades to reflect
emerging global trends. Consumer and civil society groups increasingly advocate for
holistic food policies that integrate policy across different areas and sectors relevant
to the food system.

What Is Food Policy?

Food policies are plans that affect the institutions, organizations, and actors working
in food systems. These policies represent the collective efforts of governments to
influence the operation of the food system and thus further social objectives. Food
policies are meant to shape the decision-making environment of food producers,
consumers, and retailers [1, 2].
Collectively, food policy affects who eats what, when, where, and at what cost. It
affects nutrition and health, livelihoods and communities, urban and rural settings,
and the environment and climate—now and into the future. Food policy is important
for consumers as well as the people who grow, transport, process, and sell food:
“Because everybody eats, food policy affects everyone” [3, p. 2].

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 29

J. Fanzo and C. Davis, Global Food Systems, Diets, and Nutrition,
Palgrave Studies in Agricultural Economics and Food Policy,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72763-5_3
30 3 Food Policy

Most often, food policies are closely connected to governmental actions. The
policies of the private sector and civil society are also important for the food system [1,
4]. By setting regulations or changing stakeholder incentives, food policy is meant to
shift the food system’s structure and functionality toward a given country’s intended
goals.
Policy success is measured over time, though evaluating the direct impacts of
policies is not always possible given the complexity of contributing factors. The
success of a given policy can be assessed by its implementation within a specific
context, achievement of intended effects, effective maintenance, and scalability over
the long-term to improve diets and health of larger populations [5]. Despite policy-
makers’ best intentions, sometimes actions can lead to unintended consequences or
cause harm instead of improving the food system [4, 6].
Like any field of policy, food policy can be delivered at multiple levels from
the local to the global. It can be highly specific or a general overarching approach.
Food policies often involve a complex web of institutions, infrastructure, people,
and processes [3]. Figure 3.1 shows the many types of food policies that exist. Some
policies focus primarily on agriculture, while others concern urban food systems.
Food policies can focus on very specific actions, such as food labeling or advertising,
or provide broader guidance on diets for their populations.
Policies can be translated into action by using objectives that align with a country’s
needs, budgets, and specific, measurable targets. Thus, it is important for policies
to be implemented as programs, such as national school meals or social protection
programs, like food safety nets, or as helpful guidelines for the public, such as
food-based dietary guidelines [7].
Laws and regulations also influence food policies. In the United States, for
example, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 allowed the government to
enforce food and drug regulations. The Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspec-
tion Act, and Egg Products Inspection Act are three major federal laws that govern
adulterated foods. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA) are the two major regulatory bodies that are responsible
for enforcing these laws and regulations. The FDA oversees the regulation of 80%
of the U.S. food supply. This agency has jurisdiction over domestic and imported
foods, and it regulates all foods and food ingredients introduced into or offered for
sale in interstate commerce. The USDA shares in the regulation of meat, poultry, and
certain processed egg products.

What Is Food Governance?

Governance encompasses the process of making and implementing decisions. It also

includes the structures through which these processes occur [8]. More specifically,
food governance involves the effective delivery of food security and nutrition to all
members of society, especially the most vulnerable. In countries with strong food
 In 2016, the French government
passed a law banning supermarkets
from destroying food waste and
requiring them to donate it to food
charities
What Is Food Governance?

Mexico’s 1997 cash transfer China’s 2017 National Nutrition Policy

program provides cash to low- Qatar’s 2015 dietary guidelines includes targets to reduce stunting,
income women who participate in provide guidance on food obesity, anemia and folate deficiency
diet and nutrition education The 2015 Fisheries Act in choices that benefit both human
programs Senegal reformed policies and planetary health
to manage and protect
fish stocks

Kenya’s 2015 Urban Agriculture

Promotion Act allows food to be
grown in Nairobi and set
standards for organic waste
Chile’s 2015 food law management and food safety
instituted warning labels on
unhealthy foods and taxes on
sodas

Fig. 3.1 Various types of food policies enacted around the world [3]
31
32 3 Food Policy

governance, governments commit to national food plans as part of the national devel-
opment strategy. These countries convene intersectoral coordinating committees and
maintain regular surveys and data collections. They also allocate funding in their
budgets for food strategies and plans, among other criteria [9].
Policies are a critical component of governance. Food and nutrition policies are
multisectoral, which means that successful policy development and implementa-
tion requires collaboration between different individuals, institutions, and systems.
Effective policies require an understanding of which actors are “pulling the levers,”
or influencing outcomes in order to drive food system change. Interactions between
actors can also influence the effectiveness of policy. Context also affects how well
actors work together to develop and implement policies. In “enabling environments,”
actors share political will, coordination, and accountability [10].
A political economy approach to food governance focuses on actors and their
power relationships. Over the years, many explanatory frameworks have been used
to address challenges in the food system. Other approaches focus on the natural
sciences, especially agronomy, or on the economics of supply and demand. Unlike
these other approaches, a political economy approach focuses on how policies cause
certain outcomes across food systems [11]. This approach considers the institutional
framework in which actors operate, and it assesses how individual actors contribute
to policy impacts [11, 12].

Who Influences Food Policy and Governance?

Food policies are subject to the influences and interests of many different stake-
holders. There may be significant overlap between food system stakeholders and
actors, but stakeholders have a stronger interest in how food systems function. These
parties compete for a role in shaping policy and governance [3]. Stakeholders may
be individuals, organizations, or unorganized groups. In most cases, food system
stakeholders fall into one or more of the categories shown in Fig. 3.2.
The stakeholder groups shown in Fig. 3.2 are very diverse. A vegetarian and
an omnivore may both be consumers, but their policy preferences might be very
different. Likewise, the preferences of an urban factory worker differ from those of
a rural farm laborer. Within a household, demographics and gender roles can also
affect policy interests [13].
Food policy is meant to address the challenges of a highly complex food system.
Given the enormity of this task, food policies may not meet every stakeholder’s needs
and interests. Food policies are negotiated between government agencies, which
include ministries of finance, agriculture, health, commerce, trade, environment, and
foreign affairs. Various bureaucracies and lobbying groups often attempt to shape
policy negotiations. Because of these different influences, government action is likely
to include conflicting goals and policy measures that may contradict each other.
Policies may be influenced by certain parties that hold considerable power within
food systems [13]. Box 3.1 describes how policies and interventions to eliminate trans
fats from the food supply require the participation of many different stakeholders.
Who Influences Food Policy and Governance? 33

Political
decision
makers International
Consumers actors

Farmers &
agricultural Public sector
workers agencies
Food System
Stakeholders

Civil Organized
society interest
groups groups

Nonprofit For-profit
organizations businesses

Fig. 3.2 Food system stakeholders (Source Created by authors, not previously published)

Box 3.1 Food system stakeholders and the elimination of trans fats
Trans fats are an artificial product contained in partially hydrogenated oils.
In the early 1990s, trans fats entered the food supply as a key ingredient in
processed foods due to their low cost and long shelf life. Consumption of
trans fats, even at low levels of intake, is a major risk factor for cardiovascular
disease, which is the leading cause of death globally and accounts for one in
every three deaths [14]. Trans fats also increase the risk of other diseases, such
as diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer’s disease [14, 15]. Removing trans fats from
the food supply is an effective way to prevent cardiovascular disease.
Over time, many countries and jurisdictions have implemented policies to
eliminate trans fats. Of these interventions, the most successful have been
multicomponent approaches that involve different stakeholders. Since 1993,
Denmark has attempted to reduce trans fat consumption through increasingly
progressive strategies, which include food labeling and voluntary collaboration
with industry. In 2003, the country implemented a ban on the use of industrially
produced trans fats in food. As a result of these efforts, deaths from cardiovas-
cular disease declined 3.2% more than in similar countries without trans fat
restrictions. In the United States, Canada, and Costa Rica, multi-stakeholder
interventions that involved food labeling and voluntary reformulation have also
reduced the availability of trans fats and improved health outcomes, although
to a lesser extent than strategies that involved legislation [15–19].
34 3 Food Policy

In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the REPLACE

initiative to eliminate trans fats from the global food supply by 2023. Achieving
this goal requires the participation of many different food system stakeholders.
Policymakers need to implement and enforce regulation on trans fats, and
governments must collaborate to monitor trans fat content in food products.
Food companies need to work together with governments to reformulate their
products and replace trans fats with healthier oils and fats [14]. By 2021, the
WHO reports that 58 countries will have introduced legislation to reduce or
eliminate trans fats from the food supply [20]. Despite this progress, two-
thirds of the world’s people remain unprotected from trans fats. The most
comprehensive reforms have occurred in high-income countries, although low-
and middle-income countries (LMICs) experience far more deaths associated
with trans fat intake [14]. Without further action, trans fat intake will likely
remain high among poor populations that consume more processed, packaged
foods [15].

Historical Transitions Toward a Holistic Food Policy

Food policy has evolved significantly in recent decades to reflect changes in our
world. Thirty years ago, food policies focused on reducing hunger, addressing rural
needs, and increasing food productivity. Now, food policies focus more on urbanism,
obesity, and global trade issues [13]. For example, nutrition policy has evolved from
the 1970s, when nutrition policy focused on singular approaches that lacked intersec-
toral collaboration. In more recent years, nutrition policy became much more holistic,
as Table 3.1 shows. The international development community has increasingly
recognized the importance of nutrition, which has facilitated more cross-sectoral
attention and an increasingly holistic view of nutrition [21].
Most food policies are intended to address specific aspects of the food system,
instead of more comprehensively addressing challenges through a holistic food
system policy. Existing policies are relatively narrow and focused in their scope:
examples include dietary guidelines, subsidies, trade, taxes, and labeling schemes.
However, many communities have advocated for a “systems approach” that would
integrate relevant food policies. A “systems approach” to food systems explores how
the entire system is connected in order to understand the influence of different activ-
ities across the system and the need for improved feedback mechanisms. A systems
approach to food policy involves making these connections across discrete policy
areas and different levels of government, as well as between the public and private
sectors [22].
Holistic, integrated food policies have been implemented in some cities and
regions around the world. In Washington, DC, for example, policy is integrated
across the various food outcomes and actors that are needed to shape food systems
Historical Transitions Toward a Holistic Food Policy 35

Table 3.1 History of nutrition policy and politics [21]

Evolution of nutrition policy and politics

From the protein era From multi-sectorality

to multi-sectoral to nutrition Micronutrient From obscurity Increasing
planning isolationalism era to global priority momentum
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

International Conference UNICEF conceptual MDG 1 SUN Movement

on Nutrition, National framework (1990) (underweight target) (2010 onwards)
Development and
Planning (1971) Sen on entitlements World Bank-UNICEF
World Summit for
(1981) collaborations Mainstreaming
Berg: “The Children (1990)
(Gillespie et al 2003) Nutrition Initiative
Nutrition Factor” Iringa Programme (2011)
(1973) (Tanzania, 1985) International
Conference on Nutrition Capacity focus
McLaren: “The Field (1987) (1992) (Heaver 2005)
Nutrition4Growth
Great Protein Summit (2013)
Fiasco” (1974)
Micronutrient Lancet Nutrition Series
Focus on micronutrient Lancet Nutrition
Initiative formed (2008)
supplementation and Series (2013)
World Food Conference (1993)
breastfeeding
(1975) Food price spikes (2007-8)

1976 World Bank study Copenhagen Consensus

(2008)
Nutrition planning cells
(mandate without power) Increased focus on the
“double burden”

for urban residents (Fig. 3.3). The policy focuses not only on better diets, but also
on more equitable access, livelihoods, and sustainability.
The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems established
a Common Food Policy that the European Union region could use to develop a
more holistic food policy and align relevant policies that impact food. The proposed
policy would implement a new “governance architecture” for policies related to food
production, processing, distribution, and consumption, as shown in Fig. 3.4. The
Common Food Policy aims to support the development of a more sustainable food
system for the region.
The Common Food Policy recommends policy integration to resolve the inef-
ficiencies of the current policy space. The policy’s authors argue that the ad hoc
development of Europe’s current food policies have resulted in confusion. They
advocate for integration across policy areas and governance levels, as well as across
government levels. The authors suggest that policies should consider long-term solu-
tions and ways in which holistic food systems can incorporate sustainability. This
proposed policy would also involve democratic decision-making to reclaim public
policies for the good of public health and manage the influence of powerful interest
groups [24].

Key Messages and Conclusions

Food policy and governance play a critical role in determining how food systems
operate. Policymakers use policy to address the challenges of a highly complex food
36 3 Food Policy

Food Access and Equity

Sustainable Supply Chain Create a DC Good Food Investment
Determine how District food policy can Fund to invest in locally-owned food
address climate change and increase business serving DC neighborhoods
DCís preparedness for severe weather with low access to healthy food
events Promote programs that explore how
Publish the centralized kitchen study nutritious food can improve health
Develop best practices for institutional Increase awareness of new grocery
food procurement in DC options in DC

Enhancing health,
equity, and Nutrition and Food
Urban Agriculture sustainability by Systems Education
Expand the Urban Land Lease engaging diverse Conduct a DC nutrition education
Program and Urban Agriculture landscape analysis
Tax Credit in collaboration with the voices Enhance collaboration among DC
DC Director of Urban Agriculture nutrition education
Explore funding opportunities for Increase connections between the
an Urban Agriculture Infrastructure healthcare sector and nutrition
Fund and food system education

Entrepreneurship
and Food Jobs
Identify strategies to increase affordable
commercial kitchen space, storefronts, &
retail opportunities for DC food
entrepreneurs
Deploy innovative strategies for food
businesses to support high-quality food
careers
Identify DC regulations that present
challenges for small businesses

Fig. 3.3 Washington, DC 2020 Food Policy [23]

system. Governments, consumers, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and

many others influence the development and implementation of food policy. These
policies matter for everybody, because everybody eats.
Over the years, food policy has evolved to focus on obesity, urbanization, and
global trade. A holistic policy approach is increasingly needed to address the complex
challenges within the food system. Investments are needed to orient food systems
toward better diets, nutrition, and health outcomes. Yet making these investments is a
challenging task, because of the inherent complexity of implementation and potential
trade-offs [25]. Policymakers need access to the latest and most rigorous evidence
to best address food system challenges, but they are often forced to deliberate with
limited data about what works in a specific context [26]. They may be aware of the
core set of interventions needed to achieve a certain set of outcomes, but the path
to implementing these interventions is full of uncertainties due to factors outside of
their control [27].
Key Messages and Conclusions 37

ENSURING ACCESS TO LAND,

WATER AND HEALTHY SOILS
• Extractive to regenerative land & REBUILDING CLIMATE-RESILIENT,
resource use HEALTHY AGRO-SYSTEMS
• Soil degradation to living soil • Top down techno fixes to
• Unsustainable land development bottom-up, farmer-led
to farming first innovation
• Agribusiness dependence on
farmer autonomy
• Chemical-intensive
monocultures to diversified
agroecological systems
PUTTING TRADE IN THE SERVICE OF
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
A NEW GOVERNANCE
• Free trade agreements to sustainable ARCHITECTURE FOR
trade agreements
SUSTAINABLE
• Investor Protections to citizen
protections and corporate AGRICULTURE
accountability
• Export orientation and commodity PROMOTING SUFFICIENT, HEALTHY &
specialization to diversified, territorial
markets
SUSTAINABLE DIETS FOR ALL
• Obesogenic environments to healthy
food environments
• Low-cost to true-cost food systems
• Making the healthiest option the
BUILDING FAIRER, SHORTER, & easiest
CLEANER SUPPLY CHAINS
• Volume to value
• Designing low-waste, low-
plastic food systems
• Exploitative conditions to
sustainable livelihoods

Fig. 3.4 Holistic proposed food policy for the European Union [24]

References

1. Buse K, Walt G. Globalisation and multilateral public-private health partnerships: Issues for
health policy. Health Policy in a Globalising World. 2002;41–62.
2. Haddad L, Hawkes C, Waage J, Webb P, Godfray C, Toulmin C. Food systems and diets: Facing
the challenges of the 21st century. London, UK: Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems
for Nutrition; 2016.
3. Hawkes C, Parsons K. Brief 1: Tackling food systems challenges: The role of food policy
[Internet]. London: City University of London; 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 14]. Available from:
https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/22793/
4. Swinburn B, Kraak V, Rutter H, Vandevijvere S, Lobstein T, Sacks G, et al. Strengthening of
accountability systems to create healthy food environments and reduce global obesity. Lancet.
2015 Jun 20;385(9986):2534–45.
5. Peeters A. Obesity and the future of food policies that promote healthy diets. Nat Rev
Endocrinol. 2018 Jul;14(7):430–37.
6. Haddad L. Reward food companies for improving nutrition. Nature. 2018 Apr 5;556(7699):19–
22.
7. Mozaffarian D. Dietary and policy priorities for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity:
A comprehensive review. Circulation. 2016 Jan 12;133(2):187–225.
8. Srivastava M. Good Governance - Concept, meaning and features: A detailed study [Internet].
2009 [cited 2020 Feb 2]. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1528449
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
P. S. Jauary 8th, 1782. Since writing this letter, I have seen Mr
Alexander, and shall see him from time to time to communicate with
him. I do not suppose I shall have an answer from Lord North till the
preliminary points are so settled, as to enable him to give an answer
in form. The Ministry might undoubtedly give a short negative, if
they thought proper; but I do not expect that. You may be assured,
that I have and shall continue to enforce every argument in the most
conciliatory manner to induce a negotiation. I am very sorry for Mr
A.'s confinement, on his own account, and on that of his friends, and
because probably in the future state of this business his personal
exertions may be very serviceable in the cause of peace. Every
assistance and every exertion of mine will always be most heartily
devoted to that cause. I have nothing further to add, either upon my
own reflections or from my subsequent conversations with Mr
Alexander, to what I have stated in the foregoing letter. If we once
make a good beginning upon the plan there stated, I should hope
that such a negotiation, founded on such principles, would promise
fair to produce every salutary and pacific concequence in the event.
D. H.

REMARKS ON THE CONCILIATORY BILL

In the title and preamble of the bill, the words Provinces of North
America are used as general words, neither implying dependence or
independence.
Clause I. The Truce is taken from the Conciliatory Act of 1778, and is
indefinite as to the proposed duration of the truce. Under this clause
it might be proposed to negotiate three points, viz. the removal of
the British troops from the Thirteen Provinces of North America, and
connectedly with this article, a stipulation for the security of the
friends of the British government. The third article might be a
stipulation, that the respective parties, during the continuance of the
truce, should not either directly or indirectly give assistance to the
enemies of each other.
Clause II. Articles of Intercourse and Pacification. Under this clause
some arrangements might be settled, for establishing a free and
mutual intercourse, civil and commercial, between Great Britain and
the aforesaid Provinces of North America.
Clause III. Suspension of certain Acts of Parliament. By this clause a
free communication may be kept open between the two countries,
during the negotiation for peace, without stumbling against any
claim of rights, which might draw into contest the question of
dependence or independence.
Clause IV. The Ratification by Parliament. The object of this clause is
to consolidate peace and conciliation, step by step, as the
negotiation may proceed; and to prevent, as far as possible, any
return of war, after the first declaration of a truce. By the operation
of this clause, a temporary truce may be converted into a perpetual
and permanent peace.
Clause V. A Temporary Act. This clause, creating a temporary act for
a specific purpose of negotiation in view, is taken from the act of
1778.

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO B. FRANKLIN.

Philadelphia, January 7th, 1782.
Dear Sir,
As it does not appear improbable, that the humiliation and
misfortunes of Great Britain may produce the same sentiments,
which a spirit of moderation dictates to the other belligerent powers,
and lead her to concur with them in their wishes for peace, it cannot
be improper to acquaint you with the objects America most wishes
to attain, and to furnish you with the arguments on which they
found their claim to them. For such is the confidence, not only in the
justice of His Most Christian Majesty, but in his friendship, that they
firmly persuade themselves, that he will not only preserve for them
their undoubted rights, but that he will even go so far as to procure
for them those advantages they may reasonably demand, on the
close of a successful war; and I am perfectly satisfied, that the loose
hints that a detail of their sentiments may afford you, and our other
Commissioners, will be strengthened and improved by your lights in
such manner, as to come before his Majesty in the most
advantageous form.
The first point of discussion will be the limits of the United States.
The instructions given Mr Adams on the —— day of —— last, explain
the wishes of Congress on that subject, nor can they admit of many
doubts, except so far as they relate to our southern extent. The
boundary between us and Canada being very well ascertained by
grants, charters, proclamations, and other acts of government, and
more particularly by the settlements of people, who are engaged in
the same cause with us, and who have the same rights with the rest
of the subjects of the United States.
Our western and northwestern extent will probably be contested
with some warmth, and the reasoning on that subject be deduced
from general principles, and from proclamations and treaties with
the Indians.
The subject is undoubtedly intricate and delicate, yet, upon candid
investigation, I believe it will appear, that our extension to the
Mississippi is founded in justice; and that our claims are at least such
as the events of the war give us a right to insist upon. Your
situation, furnishing you amply with the various documents on which
Great Britain founded her claim to all the country east of the
Mississippi previous to the treaty of Paris, I will not trouble you with
references to them, which would at any rate be imperfect, from the
want which prevails here of books and papers. Taking it for granted,
that the King of Great Britain was entitled to that extent of country,
(which he at least cannot contravene) it only remains to examine
how far he considers it as within the limits of some of the United
States, because he can no more pretend to abridge those limits,
than claim any other right of which the United States are in
possession.
His idea of these limits is apparent from charters granted by the
crown, and from recent grants made by its representatives in several
of the States, it appears that they considered their authority to grant
lands to the westward, as coextensive with the right of Great Britain,
unless they were restricted by their interference with other
governments. Upon this principle, the servants of the crown in New
York granted land on the borders of Lake Erie, to the westward of
Niagara. And Virginia, even after the proclamation in 1763, patented
considerable tracts upon the Ohio, far beyond the Appalachian
mountains. It is true, the several governments were prohibited at
different times from granting lands beyond certain limits, but these
were clearly temporary restrictions, which the policy of maintaining a
good understanding with the natives dictated, and were always
broken through after a short period, as is evinced by the grants
abovementioned, made subsequent to the proclamation in 1763.
And indeed the proclamation itself furnishes a substantial argument
of the opinion of Britain, with respect to the right which some of the
States had to extend to the westward of the limits it prescribed,
otherwise it would not have been necessary to prohibit their
governors from granting, as their patents would, in such cases, have
been invalid, and themselves subjected to the censure of their
master upon whom they were dependent. Unless, therefore, these
proclamations absolutely destroyed the right, they must be
considered as proofs of its existence at least, and after they were
issued. The slightest examination of them shows, that they did not
take away, but restrained an existing right, and the subsequent
grants by the governors evidence that they were, as is before
asserted, mere temporary restrictions. The same reasoning applies
to the treaty at Fort Stanwix, and to other agreements taken from
treaties with the Indians. Strong evidence in our favor is also found
in the map made by the King's geographer, in which Virginia and the
Carolinas are laid down as extending to the Mississippi, shortly after
the last war. Arguments may be drawn against us by the Quebec Bill,
but as this is one of the laws that occasioned the war, to build
anything upon it would be to urge one wrong in support of another.
But this matter may perhaps be seen in a different light, and our
pretensions placed upon a more extensive basis by recurring to
general principles, and asking whence Great Britain derived her right
to the waste lands in America.
Evidently, from the allegiance which a subject is supposed to carry
with him wherever he goes, even though he dislikes his constitution
and seeks one that pleases him better, upon this false principle, the
oppressed subjects of Great Britain, seeking freedom in the wilds of
America, were supposed to extend to it the sovereignty of the
kingdom they had left. The rights of the King of Great Britain then to
America were incident to his right of sovereignty over those of his
subjects that settled America, and explored the lands he claims. For
the idea of right derived from mere discovery, and the vain
ceremony of taking possession without planting and continuing that
possession, is now fully exploded. If then we admit what is
necessary to our independence, that the right of sovereignty over
the people of America is forfeited, it must follow, that all rights
founded in that sovereignty are forfeited with it; and that upon our
setting up a new sovereign in America, the rights which the first
claimed as such, devolve upon the second. Upon this principle, Great
Britain is left without a foot of land in America beyond the limits of
those governments which acknowledge her jurisdiction.
It is in vain to say, that the King of Great Britain holds these back
lands by a cession from other powers. Since those cessions were
grounded upon a prior claim, derived through the people of America,
and only served to confirm the right which they gave the King of
Great Britain while he was their sovereign, and which he loses with
his sovereignty over them. This mode of reasoning is warranted by
the practice Great Britain uniformly held of treating with the Indian
nations through their American governors, who have frequently
executed with them the most solemn acts, and sometimes extended
the King's protection to the nations who occupy the waste lands,
which are the subject of our present claim. The expense of retaining
these in friendship, almost always devolved upon the respective
States, who, till lately, particularly in New York, voted the sums
necessary to support smiths among them, and to procure the
presents which were annually made them. From hence, then, it
follows, that if the King of Great Britain has any right over the back
lands in America, it must be as King of the people of America;
ceasing to be King of those people, his right also ceases. If he has
no right over the back lands, but merely as protector of the savage
nations that inhabit them, that connexion and duty also devolve
upon us, since they evidently claimed that protection from him as
King of the Colonies, and through the governors of those Colonies,
and not as sovereign of a country three thousand miles from them.
This country having chosen a new sovereign, they may rightfully
claim its protection.
There is some reason to believe, that Great Britain considered their
rights in many instances as extending no further than their right of
preemption and protection, as may be inferred from passages in the
negotiations for a peace with France in the year 1761, referred to in
the margin. This suggests a new idea, which, however, I am not
warranted by any act of Congress in mentioning, and therefore you
will only consider it as the sentiment of an individual. If the
mediators should not incline to admit our claim, but determine on
restricting our limits, either by the extent of our grants, the course
of the mountains, the sources of the rivers, or any other of those
arbitrary rules that must be sought for when solid principles are
relinquished, perhaps it would not be difficult to bring them to
agree, that the country beyond those limits belongs to the nations
which inhabit it; that it should enjoy its independence under the
guarantee of France, Spain, Great Britain, and America, and be open
to the trade of those whose lands border upon them.
This, though restrictive of our rights, would free us from the well
grounded apprehensions, that the vicinity of Great Britain and her
command of the savages would give us. They already possess
Canada and Nova Scotia; should that immense territory, which lies
upon the rear of the States, from the Gulf of St Lawrence to the Gulf
of Mexico, be acknowledged to be vested in Great Britain, it will
render our situation truly hazardous. The lands, as you know, are
infinitely better than those on the coast; they have an open
communication with the sea by the rivers St Lawrence and the
Mississippi, and with each other by those extensive inland seas with
which America abounds. They will be settled with the utmost rapidity
from Europe, but more particularly from these States. Attachment to
the government, freedom from taxes, a prospect of bettering their
fortunes, and the fertility of the soil, will invite numbers to leave us.
This, co-operating with the leaven of dissatisfaction, which will
continue to work here for many years, may produce the most
dangerous effects, especially upon the Southern States, which will,
from the nature of their soil and husbandry, be thinly settled for
many years, while the lands, which lie near them beyond the
mountains, will soon be filled with a hardy race of people inimical to
them, who to their own strength will be enabled to join that of the
savages, subject to their command.
If it is an object with the maritime powers to lessen the power, and
by that means diminish the dangerous dominion that Great Britain
has in some measure usurped over the ocean, they must prevent
her possessing herself of the country in question, since, besides the
whole fur and peltry trade, that she will thereby engross, the
demands of this great country will give a new spring to her
manufactures, which, though the Floridas should be ceded to Spain,
will find their way into it by the river St Lawrence, and through the
numerous lakes and rivers which communicate with it. Add to this,
that settlements are already formed beyond the Appalachian
mountains by people who acknowledge the United States, which not
only give force to our claims, but render a relinquishment of their
interest highly impolitic and unjust. These, and a variety of other
reasons, which will suggest themselves to you and the gentlemen
joined in the commission with you, will doubtless be urged in such
terms as to convince the Court of France, that our mutual interests
conspire to keep Great Britain from any territory on this continent
beyond the bounds of Canada. Should the Floridas be ceded to
Spain, she will certainly unite with you on this point, as the security
of that cession will depend upon its success.
The Fisheries will probably be another source of litigation, not
because our rights are doubtful, but because Great Britain has never
paid much attention to rights, which interfere with her views.
The arguments on which the people of America found their claim to
fish on the Banks of Newfoundland arise, first, from their having
once formed a part of the British empire, in which state they always
enjoyed, as fully as the people of Britain themselves, the right of
fishing on those Banks. They have shared in all the wars for the
extension of that right, and Britain could with no more justice have
excluded them from the enjoyment of it, (even supposing that one
nation could possess it to the exclusion of another,) while they
formed a part of that empire, than they could exclude the people of
London or Bristol. If so, the only inquiry is, how have we lost this
right. If we were tenants in common with Great Britain, while united
with her, we still continue so, unless by our own act we have
relinquished our title. Had we parted with mutual consent, we should
doubtless have made partition of our common rights by treaty. But
the oppressions of Great Britain forced us to a separation, (which
must be admitted, or we have no right to be independent) and it
cannot certainly be contended that those oppressions abridged our
rights, or gave new ones to Britain. Our rights then are not
invalidated by this separation, more particularly as we have kept up
our claim from the commencement of the war, and assigned the
attempt of Great Britain to exclude us from the fisheries as one of
the causes of our recurring to arms.
The second ground upon which we place our right to fish on the
Banks of Newfoundland, provided we do not come within such
distance of the coasts of other powers, as the law of nations allows
them to appropriate, is the right which nature gives to all mankind to
use its common benefit, so far as not to exclude others. The sea
cannot in its nature be appropriated; no nation can put its mark
upon it. Though attempts have sometimes been made to set up an
empire over it, they have been considered as unjust usurpations,
and resisted as such, in turn, by every maritime nation in Europe.
The idea of such empire is now fully exploded by the best writers.
The whale fishery in every sea, and even upon the coasts of princes,
who do not exercise it themselves, is considered as a common right,
and is enjoyed by those nations that choose to pursue it. The cod
fishery, upon the Dogger Bank, and other parts of the European
seas, is claimed exclusively by no nation. The herring fishery is
carried on daily by the Dutch on the coast of England, and if the
Banks of Newfoundland are not equally common, it is because some
nations have relinquished their rights, and others find it impossible
to exercise them, for want of harbors to receive their vessels, or
shores to dry their fish on.
When we say we are willing to exercise it under these
inconveniences, there can certainly be no further dispute about our
right, and the only remaining questions will be the distance that we
ought to keep from the shores possessed by the enemy; though,
strictly speaking, from our first principle, we have a common right in
them.
This subject is treated so much at large by Grotius and Vattel, that I
do not think it necessary to detail arguments, which, though urged
by people here from their feelings, you will find much better stated
there. Give me leave however to urge some, that may arise from our
particular circumstances. All the New England States are much
interested in this point; the State of Massachusetts more particularly;
it has no staple; it does not raise its own bread; its principal
commerce consisted before the war in fish, which it supplied to the
rest of the continent in exchange for rice, flour, &c., and to the West
Indies for rum, sugar, and molasses. It shipped little to Europe; first,
because it could not fish so cheap as the people of England;
secondly, because their fish was not so well cured in general, owing
to their fishing at improper seasons, and to their using salt which is
said to be of a more harsh nature, than what the European vessels
bring out with them. Should this State and New Hampshire, which is
almost in similar circumstances, be excluded from the fisheries, they
must be reduced to great distress. It will be impossible for them to
pay for the necessaries they must receive from abroad. They will see
with pain their sister States in the full enjoyment of the benefits,
which will result from their independence, while their own commerce
is checked, and their State impoverished. They will consider their
interests as sacrificed to the happiness of others, and can hardly
forbear to foster that discontent, which may be productive of
disunion, and the most dangerous divisions.
An idea has also gone forth, and it is fomented by the disaffected,
that France wishes, from interested views, to monopolise the
fisheries; or, at least to exclude all other competitors but Great
Britain. Those, who have attended to the disinterested conduct of
France during the war, oppose to this sentiment the honor and good
faith of their ally, the little interest that he can have in excluding a
people from a right, which would not interfere with his, since France
does little more than supply herself; and the New England fishery,
for the most part, only supplies the continent and islands of America.
They see the care with which France has endeavored to cultivate a
good understanding between that Kingdom and these States, and
they are persuaded so inconsiderable an object will not be put in
competition with the harmony, which ought to subsist between
them, or administer food to those unworthy jealousies. And so much
does this sentiment prevail in Congress, that their prospects have
not induced them to alter your instructions; more particularly as they
have received through the Minister of France assurances, that his
Majesty was pleased with the proof Congress had given him of their
confidence, and that he would in no event make any sacrifices of
their essential interests, which necessity should not compel him to
do; that he had no reason to apprehend from the events of the war,
that such necessity would exist. These events have become so much
more favorable since the date of the letter, which contained these
assurances, that Congress persuade themselves his Majesty will not
be driven to make sacrifices equally painful to him and injurious to
us; but that, as we owe our success in war to his magnanimity and
generosity, we may be equally indebted to his justice and firmness
for an honorable peace.
It is not improbable, that Great Britain will endeavor to make some
stipulations in favor of their American partisans, who have been
banished the country, or whose property has been forfeited. You will
doubtless be sensible of the inconvenience and danger, to which
their return will subject us, and the injustice of restoring to them
what they have so justly forfeited; while no compensation is made to
us for the loss of property, and the calamities they have occasioned.
There can be little doubt, that every society may rightfully banish
from among them those, who aim at its subversion, and forfeit the
property, which they can only be entitled to by the laws, and under
the protection of the society, which they attempt to destroy. Without
troubling you, therefore, on the point of right, I will just mention a
few of the consequences that would result from a stipulation in their
favor.
In the first place, it will excite general dissatisfaction and tumults.
They are considered here as the authors of the war. Those who have
lost relations and friends by it, those who have been insulted by
them while starving in prisons and prison-ships, those who have
been robbed and plundered, or who have had their houses burned
and their families ill treated by them, will, in despite of all law, or
treaties, avenge themselves, if the real or supposed authors of these
calamities ever put themselves in their power; nor will the
government be able to prevent what the feeling of the body of the
people will justify.
Should they be permitted to reside among us, they will neglect no
means to injure and subvert our constitution and government, and
to sow divisions among us in order to pave the way for the
introduction of the old system. They will be dangerous partisans of
the enemy, equally unfriendly to France and to us, and will show
themselves such upon every occasion. To restore their property in
many instances is now become impossible. It has been sold from
hand to hand; the money arising from it has been sunk by
depreciation in the public treasury. To raise the value by taxes, or to
wrest the lands from the hands of the proprietors, is equally unjust
and impossible. Many of the very people, who would demand the
restitution, have grown rich by the spoil and plunder of this country.
Many others, who were beggars at the beginning of this war, owe
their present affluence to the same cause.
So that at least the account between the two nations should be
liquidated, before any claim can be set up by the aggressors. How
far it will be possible to obtain a compensation for the injuries
wantonly done by the enemy, you will be best able to judge; be
assured that it is anxiously desired.
Give me leave to mention to you the necessity of stipulating for the
safe delivery of all records, and other papers of a public and private
nature, which the enemy have possessed themselves of; particularly
of the records of New York, which Mr Tryon sent to England; and the
private papers of many gentlemen of the law in different parts of the
continent, by which the rights of individuals may be materially
affected.
Thus, Sir, I have touched upon the principal points, that America
wishes to attain in the peace, which must end this bloody war.
Perhaps in so doing I have given both you and myself unnecessary
trouble, since I have urged nothing but what your own knowledge of
the country, and that of the other gentlemen in the commission,
would have suggested to you. However, conceiving that
circumstances might render it necessary for you to declare, that you
spoke nothing more than the prevailing sentiments of your Court,
this letter will serve to vouch for the assertion.
Should the Floridas be ceded to Spain, as there is nothing Congress
have more at heart than to maintain that friendly intercourse with
them, which this revolution has happily begun, it will be essential to
fix their limits precisely, for which purpose the instructions to Mr
Adams will serve as your directions.
Affairs here are in the same state that they were when I last wrote,
except that the enemy in South Carolina have called in all their
outposts, and shut themselves up in Charleston, where they will be
closely invested when General St Clair joins, which must have
happened about the last of December. The brilliant expedition to St
Eustatia does the highest honor to the Marquis de Bouillé and the
French nation. I flatter myself that it will be of singular use to Mr
Adam's negotiations.
I have the honor to be, dear Sir, &c. &c.
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

TO DAVID HARTLEY.
Passy, January 15th, 1782.
Dear Sir,
I received a few days since your favor of the 2d instant, in which you
tell me, that Mr Alexander had informed you, "America was disposed
to enter into a separate treaty with Great Britain." I am persuaded,
that your strong desire for peace has misled you, and occasioned
your greatly misunderstanding Mr Alexander; as I think it scarce
possible he should have asserted a thing so utterly void of
foundation. I remember that you have, as you say, often urged this
on former occasions, and that it always gave me more disgust than
my friendship for you permitted me to express. But since you have
now gone so far as to carry such a proposition to Lord North, as
arising from us, it is necessary that I should be explicit with you, and
tell you plainly, that I never had such an idea, and I believe there is
not a man in America, a few English tories excepted, that would not
spurn at the thought of deserting a noble and generous friend, for
the sake of a truce with an unjust and cruel enemy.
I have again read over your Conciliatory Bill, with the manuscript
propositions that accompany it, and am concerned to find, that one
cannot give vent to a simple wish for peace, a mere sentiment of
humanity, without having it interpreted as a disposition to submit to
any base conditions that may be offered us, rather than continue the
war; for, on no other supposition could you propose to us a truce of
ten years, during which we are to engage not to assist France, while
you continue the war with her. A truce too, wherein nothing is to be
mentioned that may weaken your pretensions to dominion over us,
which you may therefore resume at the end of the term, or at
pleasure; when we should have so covered ourselves with infamy, by
our treachery to our first friend, as that no other nation can ever
after be disposed to assist us, however cruelly you might think fit to
treat us. Believe me, my dear friend, America has too much
understanding, and is too sensible of the value of the world's good
opinion, to forfeit it all by such perfidy. The Congress will never
instruct their Commissioners to obtain a peace on such ignominious
terms; and though there can be but few things in which I should
venture to disobey their orders, yet, if it were possible for them to
give me such an order as this, I should certainly refuse to act; I
should instantly renounce their commission, and banish myself
forever from so infamous a country.
We are a little ambitious too of your esteem; and as I think we have
acquired some share of it, by our manner of making war with you, I
trust we shall not hazard the loss of it, by consenting meanly to a
dishonorable peace.
Lord North was wise in demanding of you some authorised
acknowledgment of the proposition from authorised persons. He
justly thought it too improbable to be relied on, so as to lay it before
the Privy Council. You can now inform him, that the whole has been
a mistake, and that no such proposition as that of a separate peace
has been, is, or is ever likely to be made by me; and I believe by no
other authorised person whatever in behalf of America. You may
further, if you please, inform his Lordship, that Mr Adams, Mr
Laurens, Mr Jay, and myself, have long since been empowered, by a
special commission, to treat of peace whenever a negotiation shall
be opened for that purpose; but it must always be understood, that
this is to be in conjunction with our allies, conformably to the solemn
treaties made with them.
You have, my dear friend, a strong desire to promote peace, and it is
a most laudable and virtuous desire. Permit me then to wish, that
you would, in order to succeed as a mediator, avoid such invidious
expressions as may have an effect in preventing your purpose. You
tell me that no stipulation for our independence must be in the
treaty, because you "verily believe, so deep is the jealousy between
England and France, that England would fight for a straw, to the last
man and the last shilling, rather than be dictated to by France." And
again, that, "the nation would proceed to every extremity, rather
than be brought to a formal recognition of independence at the
haughty command of France." My dear Sir, if every proposition of
terms for peace, that may be made by one of the parties at war, is
to be called and considered by the other as dictating, and a haughty
command, and for that reason rejected, with a resolution of fighting
to the last man rather than agree to it, you see that in such case no
treaty of peace is possible.
In fact we began the war for independence on your government,
which we found tyrannical, and this before France had anything to
do with our affairs; the article in our treaty whereby the "two parties
engage, that neither of them shall conclude either truce or peace
with Great Britain, without the formal consent of the other first
obtained; and mutually engage, not to lay down their arms until the
independence of the United States shall have been formally or tacitly
assured, by the treaty or treaties, that shall terminate the war," was
an article inserted at our instance, being in our favor. And you see,
by the article itself, that your great difficulty may be easily got over,
as a formal acknowledgment of our independence is not made
necessary. But we hope by God's help to enjoy it; and I suppose we
shall fight for it as long as we are able.
I do not make any remarks upon the other propositions, because I
think that unless they were made by authority, the discussion of
them is unnecessary and may be inconvenient. The supposition of
our being disposed to make a separate peace I could not be silent
upon, as it materially affected our reputation and its essential
interests. If I have been a little warm on that offensive point, reflect
on your repeatedly urging it, and endeavor to excuse me.
Whatever may be the fate of our poor countries, let you and me die
as we have lived, in peace with each other.
Assuredly I continue, with great and sincere esteem, my dear friend,
yours most affectionately,
B. FRANKLIN.

TO THE COUNT DE VERGENNES.

Passy, January 18th, 1782.
 Sir,
I received the letter your Excellency did me the honor of writing to
me this day enclosing a Memorial,[28] which relates to the interests of
some subjects of the Emperor, residing at Ostend, who allege that a
ship of theirs has been taken by an American privateer, and carried
into Boston, on pretence that the property was English, &c. I shall
immediately transmit the Memorial to Congress, as desired. But
there being Courts of Admiralty established in each of the United
States, I conceive, that the regular steps to be taken by the
complainants would be an application for justice to those Courts by
some person on the spot, duly authorised by them as their agents,
and in case the judgment of the Court is not satisfactory, that then
they appeal to the Congress, which cannot well take cognisance of
such matters in the first instance.
The merchants of Ostend may possibly not have as yet
correspondents established in all the States, but any merchant of
credit in the country would transact such business on receiving their
request, with the proper power of attorney; or if His Imperial
Majesty should think fit to appoint a Consul General to reside in
those States, such an officer might at all times assist his compatriots
with his counsels and protection, in any affairs that they might have
in that country. I am the more particular in mentioning this to your
Excellency, because I apprehend these cases may hereafter be
frequent, and if the complaints are to be addressed to you and me,
we are likely to have a great deal of trouble, as I am informed that it
is become a daily practice for outward bound English ships to put
into Ostend, make a formal pretended sale of ship and cargo to a
merchant of the place, who furnishes imperial papers for the voyage
under his own name, and receives a certain sum per cent for the
operation.
This is said to be a branch of great profit to the Flemish merchants,
and that a very great number of English ships are now at sea with
such papers, and I suspect even from their own manner of stating
the transaction, that the ship and cargo reclaimed by the
complainants are of that kind. This seems to me an abuse of the
neutrality, as these fictitious profits are added to the advantage of
real carriage for the belligerent nations, they make it too much the
interest of neutral neighbors to foment wars and obstruct peace,
that such profits may continue. And if it is to be understood as a
settled point, that such papers are to protect English property, the
fitters out of privateers from France, Spain, Holland, and America,
will in another year be all ruined, for they will find none but Flemish
ships upon the ocean.
With the greatest respect, &c.
B. FRANKLIN.

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO B. FRANKLIN.

Philadelphia, January 23d, 1782.
Dear Sir,
An express just going to the Chesapeake, gives me an opportunity of
sending by the Hermione, a resolution passed yesterday. My letters
by this conveyance are so long, that they leave me nothing to add,
unless it be, that we have just received letters from Mr Deane,
(copies are enclosed) which confirm the authenticity of those
published in his name by Mr Rivington, mentioned in my former
letters. In one of those publications he expressly advises a return to
the government of Great Britain; and, as this could not be effected
through Congress, that it should be done by committees, which the
people should choose for that express purpose. These, of which I
now send you copies, were delivered here by the person to whom
Mr Deane gave them, so that there can be no doubt of their
authenticity.
We have nothing new except what you will learn from the papers
herewith transmitted. As I doubt not you are upon the most
confidential terms with the Marquis de Lafayette, I could wish him to
see my last letter. You will observe, that I have omitted (for reasons,
that you will easily conceive) to make use of the arguments, which
may be derived from the 11th and 12th articles of our treaty with
France. The Commissioners will exercise their own discretion in
applying them, when a negotiation shall be opened.
We were much surprised at not receiving a single line by the frigate,
which lately arrived at the Chesapeake, from any one of our foreign
Ministers. It is upwards of three months since we have had a letter
of intelligence from Europe. Congress complains of these neglects,
(for such they consider them) and I flatter myself, that in future, as
a channel is now open through this office for a regular
correspondence, this cause of complaint will be removed, and that
letters and papers will be lodged with our consuls to go by every
conveyance.
Be persuaded, Sir, that I shall omit no opportunity to give you every
information, which may contribute to your private amusements or
the public benefit.
I have the honor to be, &c.
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.
P. S. I have this moment received resolutions from Congress, (copies
of which I enclose), which serve to show their sense of the
importance of the fisheries and their western extent, and add new
weight to the arguments which I had the honor to urge. You will be
pleased to transmit copies of them to Mr Jay and Mr Adams.
 DAVID HARTLEY TO B. FRANKLIN.
London, January 24th, 1782.
My Dear Sir,
I received yours of the 15th instant this day. I must take the earliest
opportunity of setting you right in one mistake, which runs through
your whole letter, and which to you, under that mistake, must be a
very delicate point. You seem to apprehend that America has been
stated in the proposition to Lord North, as "disposed to enter into a
separate treaty with Great Britain;" but you meet the condition, viz.
in the words immediately following, "and that their allies were
disposed to consent to it." There cannot possibly be any supposition
of treachery to allies, in any proposition to which they may consent.
A separate treaty, with the consent of the allies of America, was the
proposition communicated to me by Mr Alexander, and which I laid
before the Minister, and which I reported back again to Mr Alexander
in writing, when I showed him the paper entitled "Conciliatory
Propositions," which I took care to reduce to writing, with a view of
avoiding mistakes; therefore, I have not misunderstood Mr
Alexander. I have since seen Mr A. many times, and he has always
stated one and the same proposition, viz. that America was disposed
to enter into a separate treaty, because their allies were disposed to
consent that they should; therefore there cannot exist a suspicion of
treachery. It occurred to me once while I was writing, to bar against
that misconstruction, but having specified the consent of the allies of
America in the same sentence, I could not conceive such a
misconstruction to have been possible.
You have mistaken another point greatly. You say, "a truce for ten
years." There is not in the bill any such disposition or thought; on
the contrary, it is specified in the enclosed paper that it is kept
indefinite, for the sole purpose of avoiding the suspicion which you
have suggested. The truce may be for twenty, or fifty, or one
hundred years; in my opinion the longer the better. But in any case,
what I mean now to state is the indefinite term in the bill. The
articles of intercourse are only proposed for ten years certain, just to
strew the way with inviting and conciliatory facilities, in the hope
that a little time given for cooling would confirm a perpetual peace.
If I were permitted to be the mediator, I should certainly propose
the truce for twenty years; but if no more than ten years could be
obtained, I would certainly not refuse such a ground of pacification
and treaty. I refer you to several of my letters two or three years
ago, for the justification of my sentiments on that head.
Another point; look at all my letters since 1778, and see if I have at
any time suggested any breach of treaty or of honor; on the
contrary, I think a faithless nation, if exterminated, would not
deserve the pity of mankind. I speak of all I know in the treaty
between America and France, and what I think reasonable upon the
case itself. If America is further bound than we know of, they must
abide by it. I speak to the apparent and public foundation of the
treaty, article second, with the provision of tacitly, from article
eighth; and now I refer you to my letter to you, as long ago as April
10th, 1779; "If beyond this essential and directed end, and upon
grounds totally unconnected with that alliance, not upon motives of
magnanimity for the relief of an innocent people, but from distinct
and unconnected motives of private European sentiments, America
should be dragged into the consequence of a general European war,
she may apply to France the apostrophe of the poet, speaking in the
person of Helen to Paris, non hoc pollicitus tuæ." You see, therefore,
that our sentiments have been uniform, and as I think, reasonable,
because I still remain in those sentiments.
Suppose, for instance, (and you may call it the case of a straw if you
please) that Great Britain and France should continue the war for ten
years, on the point of a commissary at Dunkirk, aye or no;—would it
be reasonable, or a casus fœderis, that America should be precluded
from a separate treaty for ten years, and therefore involved in the
consequential war, after the essential and direct ends of the treaty of
February 6th, 1778, were accomplished? As far as my judgment
goes, upon the knowledge of such facts as are public, I should think
it was neither reasonable nor a casus fœderis. This is the breviate of
the argument, in which there is no thought or suggestion of any
breach of faith or honor. I did conclude that France was disposed to
give their consent, because Mr Alexander informed me so, and
because I thought it reasonable that France should consent, and
reasonable that America should enjoy the benefit of that consent. I
transmitted it to Lord North, as a proposition temperate and pacific
on the part of America, and consented to by their allies, and on no
other ground did I transmit or propose it. All that your letter tells
me, is, "that America will not break with her allies, and that her
Commissioners will not entertain such a thought;" but give me leave
to add, that they, as honest men, cannot disdain such a thought
more than I do; every honest man ought to disdain the office, or the
thought of proposing a breach of faith to them. I have often told
you, that such an office or such a thought shall never be mine.
But you have not told me that France would not be disposed to
consent to a separate treaty of peace, for that ally whose peace was
the original declared object of the alliance, in the case supposed, viz.
of certain supposed or real punctillios between two proud and
belligerent nations, which might possibly involve America for years in
a war totally unconnected with the objects of the alliance. Besides, if
any rubs should occur in the road to a general peace, France is too
proud a nation to say, that beyond the policy of contributing to the
separation of America from Great Britain in any contest of rivalship,
they cannot meet their rivals in war, without the assistance of
America. I cannot conceive that the Minister of a great belligerent
nation could entertain such a thought, as affecting their own sense
of honor, or be so unreasonable to their allies, as to withhold
consent to their peace, when the essential and direct ends of the
alliance were satisfied. Observe, I do not contend against a general
peace; on the contrary, I mean to recommend the most prudent
means for producing it. But, as an anxious lover of peace, I feel
terrors which dismay me, and I consider the dangers which may
obstruct a general peace, arising from the pride and prejudices of
nations, which are not to be controlled in their heat by arguments of
reason or philosophy.
Can any man in reason and philosophy tell me, why any two nations
in the world are called natural enemies, as if it were the ordinance of
God and nature? I fear it is too deeply engraved in the passions of
man, and for that reason I would elude and evade the contest with
such passions. I would strew the road to peace with flowers, and not
with thorns. Haughty, and dictating, and commands, are no words of
mine; I abhor them, and I fear them. I would elude their force by
gentle means, and step by step. In article eighth, there are the
following words; "By the treaty or treaties that shall terminate the
war." Let us have one treaty begun, and I think the rest would
follow. I fear when contending passions are raised, lest we should
lose all by grasping at too much.
January 25th. I have just seen Mr Alexander, and have talked the
matter over with him. I send you a copy of his sentiments upon it,
which, for the sake of avoiding further mistakes, he committed to
paper, and which, I think, justify me in saying, that I understood
from him, that France was disposed to give their consent, as he
explained it to me, and as I explained it to the Minister. He did not
say, nor did I understand him to say, that he was authorised by the
French Ministry, or by any one else, to declare that France had
bound herself to consent, or that any such requisition had been
made to her; but that it was his opinion that France would consent,
and that I might proceed upon that presumption, so far as to
recommend overtures of negotiation. Accordingly, the phrase of my
letter to you is, that he explained to me, that their allies were
disposed to consent. You see what his opinion is on this day; and as
you have not told me that France will consent, the reasonable
probability which still remains with me, for the hopes of opening an
amicable treaty, remains as it did.
I could not delay saying thus by the very first mail, upon a point
equally delicate to me as well as to yourself. My dear friend, I beg of
you not to think, either that you can be considered as capable of
entertaining, or that I should be capable of suggesting any unworthy
or dishonorable propositions. If there has been any
misunderstanding, it is now cleared up; and the ground for
negotiation remains open as before. I therefore still entertain my
hopes.
I am ever your affectionate,
D. HARTLEY.

Explanatory Letter to Mr Hartley, referred to in the preceding.

Dear Sir,
As I had not the opportunity of seeing your correspondence at this
time, I was unable to prevent the misunderstanding that seems to
have arisen. There is no proposition of which I am more convinced,
than that, "Nothing can be done without the concurrence of allies."
But, as the chief obstruction towards an accommodation seemed to
me to lie in the personal character of some, who have great weight
in this matter, and as the object of the war (the independence of
America) seems, in the opinion of all men, to be secured, my own
opinion was, and still is, that there was so much wisdom and
moderation where prejudice prevents us from seeing it, that,
provided the ends of the war are accomplished to the satisfaction of
all parties, they will be very ready to let us out of it in the most
gentle manner, by consenting equally that the business shall go on in
one, two, or three separate deeds, as shall be most palatable here;
and to doubt that our friends are desirous of finishing the contest,
with the approbation of their allies, is to doubt their understanding.
I am, with the greatest esteem, yours, &c
W. ALEXANDER.
 ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO B. FRANKLIN.
Philadelphia, January 26th, 1782.
Dear Sir,
I do myself the honor to enclose you a convention for the
establishment of Consul, which has just passed Congress. You will
find that you are empowered either to sign it in France, or if any
alterations are made to send it here to be executed.
Nothing new since I wrote you; we are still in the dark with respect
to European intelligence, not having heard from any gentleman in
public character since the 5th of October, when we had a short letter
from Mr Carmichael.
I have the honor to be, Sir, with great respect and esteem, your
most obedient humble servant.
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

TO ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON, SECRETARY OF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Passy, January 28th, 1782.
Sir,
I received at the same time, your several letters of October 20th,
24th, and November 26th, which I purpose to answer fully by the
return of the Alliance. Having just had a very short notice of the
departure of this ship, I can only at present mention the great
pleasure your appointment gives me, and my intention of
corresponding with you regularly and frequently, as you desire. The
information contained in your letters is full and clear; I shall
endeavor that mine, of the state of affairs here, may be as
satisfactory.
With great esteem, &c.
B. FRANKLIN.
 DAVID HARTLEY TO B. FRANKLIN.
London, February 1st, 1782.
My Dear Friend,
I write to you one line by this mail, only to tell you that I have seen
the Minister since I last wrote to you, and that he never did
entertain the idea one moment of any propositions being thrown out
on your part, in the least degree inconsistent with the strictest honor
and faith to the allies. I had no occasion to guard against, or to
explain any such thought, having at all times conveyed the contrary
to him in the most explicit terms. I transmit this to you for your full
satisfaction. We have had much conversation on the subject of
peace, which you may be sure I have most zealously endeavored to
enforce. I should not do him justice, if I did not add that I believe
his wishes are for peace, and that he gives the most serious
attention to every argument, and to the suggestion of every
practicable means on that subject. I have stated many things for his
consideration, and for consultation with others, after which I shall
see him again. I heartily wish the result may be favorable to the
prospect of peace.
I am ever your affectionate,
DAVID HARTLEY.

THE DANISH MINISTER TO THE COUNT DE

VERGENNES.
Translation.
 Paris, February 6th, 1782.
Three American vessels, one of which was three masted, and called
the Norfolk, Captain Lines, and two brigs, the Ariel, Captain Maller,
and the Virginia, Captain Hodsheadson, all three armed in
Philadelphia, committed a most grievous outrage on the 2d of
December last on the coast of Norway, where they seized two
English merchantmen and burnt them, after plundering them and
sending away their crews. The circumstances are more particularly
detailed in the protest enclosed, made on the spot.[29] It has
moreover been proved by the report of his Danish Majesty's grand
bailiff at Christiansand, that the aforesaid American vessels having
anchored in the port of Fleckeroe, before their meeting with the
Englishmen, and displayed French colors, he had asked of the
French Consul information respecting their sea papers, and that the
latter, on examining their contents, declared that they were not
furnished with any letters of marque on the part of Congress. Their
conduct proves this also in having burnt their prizes, notwithstanding
the offers of ransom made them by the English captains. It therefore
follows, that they can only be considered as pirates, whose crimes
are greatly aggravated by a manifest infraction of his Danish
Majesty's territorial rights.
The undersigned, his Envoy Extraordinary, has received precise
orders to communicate these particulars to his Excellency, the Count
de Vergennes, requesting with every possible confidence the
intervention of his Most Christian Majesty with the United States of
America, to effect not only the punishment of the guilty persons, but
also to obtain an indemnification for the vessels and cargoes that
were burnt, of which an exact statement shall be furnished; and this
satisfaction is due to repair the excesses committed on his Majesty's
territory.
DE BLOME.
 ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON TO B. FRANKLIN.
Philadelphia, February 13th, 1782.
Dear Sir,
We have been extremely alarmed at some communications, which
the Minister of France made me from his last letters. They look
extremely as if the Count de Vergennes imagined, that neither Spain
nor Holland was anxious for our success. They discourage the idea
of a loan from them, or even from France. Our letters from Holland
confirm these conjectures, so far as they relate to that State. Mr
Adams seems almost to despair of doing anything with respect to an
alliance or loan, and from Mr Jay we have heard nothing in a very
long time, and are ignorant of any steps he may have taken since
the appointment of M. Del Campo to treat with him.
These mortifying disappointments oblige us, though reluctantly, to
call upon France for further assistance. Your solicitations will be
infinitely useful to your country, if they procure for it what I will
venture to pronounce essential to their safety. In this spirit, the
instruction, which I do myself the honor to enclose, has passed
Congress, and a second resolution, which I also enclose, which leads
to such information as will enable you to convince the Court of
France, that their navy can nowhere be more effectually employed to
distress the common enemy than in America. I own this
consideration is a great relief to my feelings, when we make these
importunate demands for money; and I hope it will enable you to
press them with some degree of dignity.
That France can aid us is not to be doubted, for it is certain she
never carried on a war that distressed her finances less. She has no
expensive subsidies to pay; her money is expended either at home,
or in a country from which it returns. Her army is not greatly
increased, and her commerce under the protection of her fleets
enjoys a security, that it seldom has experienced before. I would
not, however, have you suppose, that this is the language I hold
here. I know too well the necessity of making every exertion, which
in our present impoverished situation we are capable of; and I
neglect no means, which my present station puts in my power to call
forth.
Congress have taken every wise measure for that purpose, and I
firmly persuade myself, that we shall be able to form the most
vigorous co-operation with such force as his Majesty may please to
send out. I am confident that the peace must be made in America.
Every blow here is fatal to the grand object of the present war; to
the hopes, to the wishes, and to the pride of Great Britain. Other
conquests she expects to have restored upon a peace; what is lost
here she knows to be lost forever.
The daily complaints that we receive from seamen confined in
England concur with humanity, and the national honor, to render
some expedient for their relief necessary. I need not, I am
persuaded, recommend this to your particular care. We have not yet
obtained, at least as far as I can learn, a compensation for the
prisoners taken by Paul Jones and returned to England. Is it
impossible, either to settle a cartel in Europe, or to have the
Americans confined there sent to New York for exchange? The last
proposition is so much in favor of England, that it would probably be
acceded to, and yet such is the distress of the people who have
been long confined, that it would be desirable to have the offer
made. I am just now applied to by a Mrs Simmonds, whose husband
is the mate of a vessel, and has been two years confined in Mill
Prison; it would be an act of charity to attempt to procure his relief.
You will do me the favor to collect and transmit a list of the numbers
confined in England, and, as far as possible, for the satisfaction of
their friends, of the names.
We have not a word of intelligence to communicate, unless it be
some little disturbances in the country, which has been distinguished
by the names of New Hampshire Grants, and Vermont; and which it
may be proper to mention to you, since the facility with which the
British deceive themselves, and the address with which they deceive
others, may render it a matter of moment in Europe, though in fact
it is none in America. The bulk of the people of that country are
"New England Presbyterian Whigs." Some of those, in possession of
the powers of government, have more address than principle.
Finding themselves exposed to inroads from Canada, they have
tampered with that government, and pretended to be willing to form
a treaty of neutrality with them during the war, and to return to the
obedience of Britain on a peace. This has had the effect they
intended, and in some measure defeated an expedition, which the
enemy made last year, and retained their main body in inaction at
Ticonderoga, while the parties they sent to the westward were
beaten and dispersed by our militia. The secret has been discovered,
is disavowed by the people, and such measures are now taken, that
by the time the King of Great Britain and his Council, (before whom
the propositions now lie) have formed a plan in consequence of
them, they will be made the means of drawing them into new
difficulties.
I presume that you keep up a constant correspondence with Mr Jay
and Mr Adams, and assist them with your information and advice. I
must beg the favor of you to transmit them this intelligence, that
they may be prepared to meet any assertions of the enemy on that
head. I take leave to repeat to you my desire to have the papers and
political publications sent regularly to this office.
I have the honor to be, &c.
ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON.

TO DAVID HARTLEY.
Passy, February 16th, 1782.
 Dear Sir,
I received your favor of the 24th past. You have taken pains to
rectify a mistake of mine relating to the aim of your letters. I accept
kindly your replication, and I hope you will excuse my error, when
you reflect, that I knew of no consent given by France to our
treating separately of peace, and that there has been mixed in some
of your conversations and letters various reasonings, to show, that if
France should require something of us that was unreasonable, we
then should not be obliged by our treaty to join with her in
continuing the war. As there had never been such requisition, what
could I think of such discourses? I thought as I suppose an honest
woman would think, if a gallant should entertain her with
suppositions of cases, in which infidelity to her husband would be
justifiable. Would not she naturally imagine, seeing no other
foundation or motive for such conversation, that if he could once get
her to admit the general principle, his intended next step would be
to persuade her, that such a case actually existed. Thus knowing
your dislike of France, and your strong desire of recovering America
to England, I was impressed with the idea, that such an infidelity on
our part would not be disagreeable to you; and that you were
therefore aiming to lessen in my mind the horror I conceived at the
idea of it. But we will finish here by mutually agreeing, that neither
you were capable of proposing, nor I of acting on such principles.
I cannot however forbear endeavoring to give a little possible utility
to this letter, by saying something on your case of Dunkirk. You do
not see why two nations should be deemed natural enemies to each
other. Nor do I, unless one or both of them are naturally mischievous
and insolent. But I can see how enmities long continued, even
during a peace, tend to shorten that peace, and to rekindle a war;
and this is when either party, having an advantage in war, shall exact
conditions in the treaty of peace, that are goading and constantly
mortifying to the other. I take this to be the case of your
"Commissioner at Dunkirk." What would be your feelings if France
should take, and hold possession of Portsmouth, or Spain of
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com