What are the 3 types of food systems?

Food systems have also been classified as traditional, modern, or intermediate. Modern food systems such as the one in the United States.

What are the 3 types of food systems?

Food systems have also been classified as traditional, modern, or intermediate. Modern food systems such as the one in the United States. UU. Alternative food systems are hailed today as a way to address the many negative consequences that perpetuate conventional food systems.

However, this term is somewhat misleading. Approaches that are now being promoted as novel alternatives, such as local and organic food production, direct sales from farmers to consumers and farmers' cooperatives, established traditional ways of producing food in many parts of the world long before the European colonialism of settlers. While there is no universal definition of what constitutes a local food system, the term generally refers to the distribution of food by small farmers who sell directly to consumers or to nearby restaurants and grocery stores. These farms produce a range of products for direct human consumption instead of bulk products for processing or corn for animal feed.

Farmer owners have a direct interest in the health of their land and can avoid contract farming structures that encourage the extraction of the highest possible value from land without thinking about the impacts. Sales to local retailers or direct sales to end consumers also suppress some of the intermediate steps in the supply chain, where large food companies tend to capture profits, leaving more wealth in the hands of farmers. Local food systems can be attractive to consumers who want to support farmers who prioritize high animal welfare standards and preserve local landscapes and resources. In the United States, local food systems include farmers markets, community gardens, and farms where the public can choose their own products.

Community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs are also becoming increasingly popular. Originally developed by African-American farmers, CSAs allow consumers to purchase shares for a portion of a farm's expected harvest, helping the farm maintain financial stability. Farm-to-school programs deliver fresh food to school canteens to replace otherwise highly processed meals. As the environmental and health impacts of conventional agriculture become better understood, public demand for cleaner, more sustainably produced food continues to increase.

Organic food systems describe the production, processing, and distribution of food in which farmers and people who handle food avoid the use of certain artificial agrochemical inputs, including pesticides, herbicides, synthetic fertilizers, and certain synthetic food ingredients. On the other hand, organic production favors less toxic mineral and biological alternatives that minimize ecological impact. Under the right circumstances, organic production can improve environmental health and crop yields over time. Organic principles can also often be applied to the processing stages of the system.

Because organic production is about practices rather than size, organic food systems can have a local or even international reach. In the U.S. In the US, the standards for organic production established by the USDA National Organic Program. Nearly a hundred countries have some type of legislation that protects organic food production.

Fair trade systems attempt to rectify global trade relations that favor transnational corporations and higher-income countries. The advent of globalization benefited heavily subsidized agro-industrial companies that were able to surpass producers in lower-income countries. Speculation in financial markets also caused unstable prices for food products, making it difficult for farmers to maintain livelihoods. When combined, these factors caused millions of farmers to lose the ability to earn a sustainable income with their land and, in many cases, unable to feed themselves.

While there are a variety of fair trade certifications with a variety of mandates, fair trade certifications generally seek to correct the energy differences that characterize conventional food supply chains, leading to poor purchase prices for farmers. Rather than looking for the lowest supplier price, Fairtrade Purchasing sets higher minimum prices that allow for both environmental sustainability and economic justice. Certification mandates may require traders to pay prices that allow for decent living conditions for farmers, to pay a premium for organic products, or to enter into long-term contracts with farmers to provide them with stability. While fair trade is not a panacea for the power imbalances affecting modern food systems, it demonstrates an approach to food production based on social and environmental values, rather than on purely lucrative motives.

However, fair trade is not a perfect solution. In some cases, the social and economic benefits of fair trade may be more successful than environmental objectives. Fairtrade also remains a minority market segment, plagued by the threat of free charging. Despite continued widespread support for the values that underpin fair trade, food buyers and importers are not legally required to obtain third-party verified fair trade certifications, allowing them to continue the historical power dynamic that generates poverty, environmental degradation and violations of human rights.

When active, even well-designed fair trade certifications may not fully deliver on their promises, leaving some farmers with fair trade certifications still unable to earn a sustainable living from their work. Multinational food companies that operate without fair trade rules of conduct have recently been sued for perpetuating human rights violations in the global chocolate supply chain, including human trafficking and forced child labor. In a globalized world of capitalist agriculture built on the foundation of colonialism, food systems can be extractive and exploitative. However, the growing popularity and diversity of alternative food systems offer hope for the future.

By learning from the mistakes of conventional agriculture, tomorrow's food systems can restructure food production to ensure animal protection, economic stability, improved accessibility and the abundance of plant-based foods produced with respect for the environment. Supporting local farmers who grow food for human consumption, ensuring fair prices in supply chains, and embracing innovation can bring the global food system closer to solving the malnutrition and environmental degradation that, unfortunately, continue to define food production today. There are a couple of major categories of local food systems. One is a farm-to-retail model, whereby farmers and ranchers have markets (often within a radius of about a hundred miles) for their products in the form of grocery stores, institutions such as schools or government agencies, and restaurants.

Because food can travel outside of a city or an immediate area, this model can sometimes be referred to as regional. They are shared in Appendix 2, Supplemental Material, which is reproduced from Cornell Atkinson's panel of nature sustainability experts on “Innovations for Building Sustainable, Equitable and Inclusive Food Value Chains” (Barrett C. A food systems approach to investigating food security and its interactions with global environmental change. A preliminary scope review was carried out to evaluate how previous typologies related to food systems developed.

Examples of local food systems include community-supported agriculture, farmers' markets, and farm programs. However, by not having access to these subnational data, the typology could only be applied at the country level and is therefore better interpreted as a characterization of the type of food system predominant within a country and not the type that applies uniformly to all areas of a country. Successful policies and programs in countries identified as having the same or similar type of food systems may be more likely to have a positive impact in their own context; conversely, comparisons between a sample of unclassified countries may be less useful because of greater differences systems that exist, even between countries in the same region. There are abrupt increases in agricultural productivity and in supermarkets to modernize and formalize, and in industrial and consolidated food systems, due to the positive asymmetry in the distribution of these variables.

The framework includes as main components food supply chains, food environments, consumers (composed of their individual factors and behaviors), as well as external drivers of food systems. Typologies are a useful classification tool for identifying similarities and differences between food systems, while reducing this analytical complexity. Addressing problems at every stage of the system can have system-wide effects, since 30 to 40 percent of the food produced is lost from harvest to retail and consumer. By design, the average values of each typology variable follow a gradient from the types of rural to industrial food systems, as shown in Table 2.

Several of these methods were tried, but they didn't work well, mainly because of skewed distributions (particularly for agricultural productivity and supermarkets), which resulted in types of food systems that consisted of a very small number of atypical countries. While the origins of this disparity are centuries old, the modern conventional food system of richer nations is a relatively recent phenomenon. The similarities between the types of food systems are evident in the overlapping of the interquartile ranges of urbanization, the proportion of food energy in basic foods, and supermarkets. Within the food supply chain for this food, you will be asked to distinguish between the social aspects (human system) and the environmental aspects (natural system) of the food production and supply chain of that product.

. .

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked *