We produce enough food to feed 10 billion people, so why are hunger, malnutrition and lack of access to quality food still leading causes of death worldwide? Some answers can be found in food loss and waste, lack of fair distribution and the overabundance of processed foods. Conflicts, climate change, inequality and COVID-19 further aggravate the problem and drive food insecurity. On top of that, the food production system risks destroying its own foundation as it has an enormous negative environmental impact. The meat industry contributes significantly to worldwide CO2 emissions and pesticides pollute and destroy whole ecosystems.
- How can we feed the world’s population without destroying the environment, the foundation of food production?
- How can the food system become more resilient after COVID-19 and ensure food producers aren’t underpaid and exploited?
- How can we ensure sustainable and healthy choices are available and affordable for everyone?
The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) has selected some of its resources to provide young people like you with background information and insights linked to the topic above.
January 2020
Share your idea
Try to be as concrete as possible when sharing your idea. The more in depth you go the more impactful your answer will be.
What do the speakers think about seaweeds harvesting/ aquaculture as a sustainable and nutraceutical food source?
Can seaweed be a useful food tool to fight the pandemic covid-19?
Can seaweed be a useful food tool to fight the pandemic covid-19?
Guaranteeing access to healthy food is the basis for a society in order to develop. Hunger and poverty's first key issue is food and water suply. Guaranteeing these basic needs is a good starting point to fight against extreme poverty. I believe nationalising and having a certain public land used for agricultural feeding purposes could be a good option to study. This doesn't mean all land should be owned by the state, but instead of applying the tipycal claims of right wing governments (in Spain's case for example) which ask for a national bank to reduce inequality, we should instead start thinking about an agricultural public national solution which can actually ensure the provision of food to the most vulnerable population in a country.
Lastly, a sustainable and equal distribution is necessary to avoid all the food that is wasted daily whilst others are suffering maltrunition. It is key to find an efficient and effective method of redistribution to avoid, from one side, all of the food spanish agriculturers end up throwing away due to being unable to sell their products as a consequence of low prices, and on the other, we must find methods to collect and reduce all supermarket and daily food that is beeing thrown away.
Lastly, a sustainable and equal distribution is necessary to avoid all the food that is wasted daily whilst others are suffering maltrunition. It is key to find an efficient and effective method of redistribution to avoid, from one side, all of the food spanish agriculturers end up throwing away due to being unable to sell their products as a consequence of low prices, and on the other, we must find methods to collect and reduce all supermarket and daily food that is beeing thrown away.
I am a researcher on natural resources management in arid countries. I agree with Guillermo, the current ideology presents several critical issues in addressing sustainable food security for all, I want to point out few things:
1 Local production and consumption it is easier to be achieved if imported products are taxed and if transported products are taxed.
2 Local production and consumption goes against the GOD, so a balance should be found.
3 Local production and consumption require small scale farming for a diverse and resilient production, hence small scale farms (approximately from 5 to 25 ha).
4 Modern and industrial agriculture is done mainly to feed animals to produce meat, hence the consumption of meat should be reduced and integrated in small scale farming in a regenerative agriculture framework to eliminate dependence on external fertilizers and GMOs.
1 Local production and consumption it is easier to be achieved if imported products are taxed and if transported products are taxed.
2 Local production and consumption goes against the GOD, so a balance should be found.
3 Local production and consumption require small scale farming for a diverse and resilient production, hence small scale farms (approximately from 5 to 25 ha).
4 Modern and industrial agriculture is done mainly to feed animals to produce meat, hence the consumption of meat should be reduced and integrated in small scale farming in a regenerative agriculture framework to eliminate dependence on external fertilizers and GMOs.
I think the European Union must promote small-scale regenerative agriculture and discourage extensive agriculture and industrial farming through a careful policy of taxation and incentives.
A lot depends on our comsumption habits (European citizens).
Long supply chains and big industries are responsible for tremendous food losses, waste and often food insecurity in developing countries.
We need to change our consumption trends (buying ethically, buying locally produced goods). we need shorter supply chains and to depend less on imported goods
Long supply chains and big industries are responsible for tremendous food losses, waste and often food insecurity in developing countries.
We need to change our consumption trends (buying ethically, buying locally produced goods). we need shorter supply chains and to depend less on imported goods
No it's not. A plant based diet would help to reduce some of the contamination, but it would create some other problems like the Avocados in Mexico or Chile or the loss of biodiversity a cause of massive monocultivism (quinoa in The Andes, for example).
More than a campaign of MeatfFreeMondays we need a campaing for buying our local products and season legumes and fruits. Because in order that we, europeans, have everything in our supermarkets all the year, tones of petrol are burned in the transcontinental ships. And it's better not to talk about the labour and the human conditions of the people that produce our food in the other extreme of the world. And not only there, in Spain we have people in semi-slavery conditions in our fields. The prices of the diet your propose will increase, and again, the workers wont see a euro or better conditions. The only profit will be for the enterprises who play with green capitalism
More than a campaign of MeatfFreeMondays we need a campaing for buying our local products and season legumes and fruits. Because in order that we, europeans, have everything in our supermarkets all the year, tones of petrol are burned in the transcontinental ships. And it's better not to talk about the labour and the human conditions of the people that produce our food in the other extreme of the world. And not only there, in Spain we have people in semi-slavery conditions in our fields. The prices of the diet your propose will increase, and again, the workers wont see a euro or better conditions. The only profit will be for the enterprises who play with green capitalism
Food has become such a important topic in our society. It polarizes like never before and people identify themselves by their way of nutrition.
But what we forget, is that food doesn't grow in supermarkets and that is a long process linked with a lot of external factors. We should educate our kids and also adults more about the whole process and learn to be grateful again about what the soil is giving us.
Laws should be forcing supermarktes to also put "ugly" products in to the shelf. We should get rid of the "best before date" on a lot of products.
And we should make it easier for people to get access to a piece of land in order to grow their food or at least to make local food more accessable and affortable. Seeds that don't reproduce themselves should be baned from the market, why does the bio-engereering lobby has such a big word on what is allowed to plant and what not?!
But what we forget, is that food doesn't grow in supermarkets and that is a long process linked with a lot of external factors. We should educate our kids and also adults more about the whole process and learn to be grateful again about what the soil is giving us.
Laws should be forcing supermarktes to also put "ugly" products in to the shelf. We should get rid of the "best before date" on a lot of products.
And we should make it easier for people to get access to a piece of land in order to grow their food or at least to make local food more accessable and affortable. Seeds that don't reproduce themselves should be baned from the market, why does the bio-engereering lobby has such a big word on what is allowed to plant and what not?!
I totally agree with you in increasing our fields productivity by the use of GMOs. But I don't think that making a ''second class food'' is a good idea. We would be creating a bigger problem. First of all, the risk of increasing prices. Having two markets for food, would make more expensive the fresh products, affordable only for those who can and want to pay for them, in these case the major part of the society wouldn't mind to pay some more cents or euros for a healthier diet; so in the second market would be ''cheaper'' but less healthy. Second, inequality, again the richer will have the privilege of eating quality and fresh products from their supermarkets. This can produce a social stigma about buying in the second class markets, which are for ''poor people'' (imagine how can it be for the children having to put up with all kind of comments).
Third, health system problems. Having a second class food market will increase the gastrointestinals diseases. Again, our public health systems will have to pay for the diseases created by the capitalist way of production (in thise case, private food companies and markets). We socialize looses and privatize earnings. Amazing.
Fourth, putting on the responsability in the ''poor people'' for buying the second class food is dangerous and awful. It's not their responsability because society are pushing them to buy it. It's the only option we give them. Saying that they would buy ''at their own risk'' it's totally a fault of respect for human dignity. Which is the price for not running these risk? Not eating??
Third, health system problems. Having a second class food market will increase the gastrointestinals diseases. Again, our public health systems will have to pay for the diseases created by the capitalist way of production (in thise case, private food companies and markets). We socialize looses and privatize earnings. Amazing.
Fourth, putting on the responsability in the ''poor people'' for buying the second class food is dangerous and awful. It's not their responsability because society are pushing them to buy it. It's the only option we give them. Saying that they would buy ''at their own risk'' it's totally a fault of respect for human dignity. Which is the price for not running these risk? Not eating??
My name is Guillermo Díaz and I'm a economics student in the Autonomous University of Barcelona. Pretending to make a real change that lead us to an equal distribution of the resources under the capitalist system is useless and senseless. Capitalism (including socialdemocracy) is designed to maximize the profits, even though that means exploting the resources until they are totally finished (nature, humans...).
The only way usefull for changing our food production system is to move from an globalized capitalist production to a local and social production. At the moment the system is based in productivity and competitivism, which allows that, for example, Spain was one of the countries that more citrics exported and imported.
It also applies for the meat production, passing from the intensitive production to the extensive production will reduce the gas emissions, clean the forests and reduce the forestal fires.
For making it affordable to all the society is as easy as nacionalize and socialize all the production systems and make it based on the common wealth and not in the capitalist earnings. The administration should control
And for make it possible is necessary to have a fiscal and banking union in the UE or to break with the UE. We are in an intermediate point where the different fiscal systems and the way the euro as a divisa is done, are affecting to the southern countries in beneffit for the northern.
The only way usefull for changing our food production system is to move from an globalized capitalist production to a local and social production. At the moment the system is based in productivity and competitivism, which allows that, for example, Spain was one of the countries that more citrics exported and imported.
It also applies for the meat production, passing from the intensitive production to the extensive production will reduce the gas emissions, clean the forests and reduce the forestal fires.
For making it affordable to all the society is as easy as nacionalize and socialize all the production systems and make it based on the common wealth and not in the capitalist earnings. The administration should control
And for make it possible is necessary to have a fiscal and banking union in the UE or to break with the UE. We are in an intermediate point where the different fiscal systems and the way the euro as a divisa is done, are affecting to the southern countries in beneffit for the northern.
How about renouncing the idea of large-scale agriculture to sustain starving populations, by means of import, and instead focus on small scale local agriculture by employing permaculture practices?
What we need are the following, an EU encompassing law against food waste. This is to say that stores which would normally throw away food past it's sell-by date are now forced to donate said food to designated resale places or designated food distributors, or must set up some sort of distribution system themselves. This way poorer people may AT THEIR OWN RISK get access to these free (or very cheap) products. The second issue is to increase the usage of GMO foods. We must allow for more companies to enter the GMO market by cutting red tape and lowering the barrier in such a way that smaller companies may join the fray instead of only the giants like Monsanto and Bayer can be there. This way we create more competition, more variance in products and thus better and cheaper products with higher yields.
How important is it our diet? What if a country’s productivity depends on the amount of fruit and vegetables their citizens consume?
Perhaps a plant-based diet is the best way to reduce our negative impact on the environment? Food that is animal-deriven is more costly, uses more water and often needs more land. Can we convince more people to reduce their meat and dairy intake, with initiatives like #MeatFreeMondays?
14 COMMENTS