Agri-food scholarship: Past, present and future contributions to Australasian rural sociology

2021 ◽  
pp. 144078332110096
Author(s):  
Kiah Smith ◽  
Geoffrey Lawrence

The future of food and agriculture in Australasia will be defined by multiple social, economic, political and environmental tensions – with climate change and social inequalities playing a central role in the re-imagining of food systems in crisis. This article argues that rural sociology will continue to be well-served by the sociological research into the farming and food industries undertaken by antipodean scholars – especially those from Australia and New Zealand where agri-food scholarship has flourished. Analyses of the future dynamics of rural social/economic change, natural resource management (including land, water and minerals), new relations of work, labour and identity, emerging agricultural technologies, Indigenous and post-colonial politics, and food system governance will benefit from agri-food studies’ insights into agrarian transformation and governance, social and environmental sustainability, health and wellbeing, and the growth of resistance and alternatives.

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 6897
Author(s):  
Xiangping Jia

The global community faces the challenge of feeding a growing population with declining resources, making transformation to sustainable agriculture and food systems all the more imperative and ‘innovation’ all the more crucial. In this study, agro-food system innovation (re)defines sustainability transition with a complexity construct of cross-scale interaction and an adaptive cycle of system change. By taking a panarchical view, top-down and bottom-up pathways to innovation can be reconciled and are not contradictory, enabling and constraining innovation at every level. This study breaks down the structure of the agricultural innovation system into four components based on multi-level perspectives of sustainability transition, namely: actors and communities, interaction and intermediaries, coherence and connectedness and regimes rules and landscape. Meanwhile, this research frames the functional construct of system innovation for food and agriculture with five perspectives drawing on broad inputs from different schools of thought, namely: knowledge management, user sophistication, entrepreneurial activities’ directionality and reflexive evaluation. This research advocates for an ecosystem approach to agricultural innovation that gives full play to niche-regime interactions using social-technical perspectives.


2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (13) ◽  
pp. 2498-2508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah W James ◽  
Sharon Friel

AbstractObjectiveTo determine key points of intervention in urban food systems to improve the climate resilience, equity and healthfulness of the whole system.DesignThe paper brings together evidence from a 3-year, Australia-based mixed-methods research project focused on climate change adaptation, cities, food systems and health. In an integrated analysis of the three research domains – encompassing the production, distribution and consumption sectors of the food chain – the paper examines the efficacy of various food subsystems (industrial, alternative commercial and civic) in achieving climate resilience and good nutrition.SettingGreater Western Sydney, Australia.SubjectsPrimary producers, retailers and consumers in Western Sydney.ResultsThis overarching analysis of the tripartite study found that: (i) industrial food production systems can be more environmentally sustainable than alternative systems, indicating the importance of multiple food subsystems for food security; (ii) a variety of food distributors stocking healthy and sustainable items is required to ensure that these items are accessible, affordable and available to all; and (iii) it is not enough that healthy and sustainable foods are produced or sold, consumers must also want to consume them. In summary, a resilient urban food system requires that healthy and sustainable food items are produced, that consumers can attain them and that they actually wish to purchase them.ConclusionsThis capstone paper found that the interconnected nature of the different sectors in the food system means that to improve environmental sustainability, equity and population health outcomes, action should focus on the system as a whole and not just on any one sector.


2018 ◽  
Vol 133 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 44S-53S ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Barnhill ◽  
Anne Palmer ◽  
Christine M. Weston ◽  
Kelly D. Brownell ◽  
Kate Clancy ◽  
...  

Despite 2 decades of effort by the public health community to combat obesity, obesity rates in the United States continue to rise. This lack of progress raises fundamental questions about the adequacy of our current approaches. Although the causes of population-wide obesity are multifactorial, attention to food systems as potential drivers of obesity has been prominent. However, the relationships between broader food systems and obesity are not always well understood. Our efforts to address obesity can be advanced and improved by the use of systems approaches that consider outcomes of the interconnected global food system, including undernutrition, climate change, the environmental sustainability of agriculture, and other social and economic concerns. By implementing innovative local and state programs, taking new approaches to overcome political obstacles to effect policy, and reconceptualizing research needs, we can improve obesity prevention efforts that target the food systems, maximize positive outcomes, and minimize adverse consequences. We recommend strengthening innovative local policies and programs, particularly those that involve community members in identifying problems and potential solutions and that embrace a broad set of goals beyond making eating patterns healthier. We also recommend undertaking interdisciplinary research projects that go beyond testing targeted interventions in specific populations and aim to build an understanding of the broader social, political, and economic context.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gideon Kruseman ◽  
Ahmad Dermawan ◽  
Mandiaye Diagne ◽  
Dolapo Enahoro ◽  
Aymen Frija ◽  
...  

Challenges related to poverty, hunger, nutrition, health, and the environment are widespread and urgent. One way to stress the urgency of making the right decisions about the future of the global food systems now is to better understand and more clearly articulate the alternative scenarios that food systems face. Developing, synthesizing, and presenting such alternatives to decision makers in a clear way is the ultimate goal of e CGIAR Foresight team.No single source of information focuses regularly and systematically on the future of food and agriculture, and challenges facing developing countries. Our work aims to fill that gap with a focus on agricultural income and employment.group systematically collects information about past, on-going and planned foresight activities across CGIAR centers and their partners, spanning the global agricultural research for development arenaWe present a comprehensive overview and synthesis of the results of relevant foresight research, which through the tagging with metadata allows for customized investigations in greater detail. The cross-cutting nature of this work allows for a more comprehensive picture and assessments of possible complementarities/trade-offs.Potential users of this report and associated activities include CGIAR science leaders and scientists as well as the broader research community, national and international development partners, national governments and research organizations, funders, and the private sector.The approach developed by the CGIAR foresight group is used to make foresight study results accessible across organizations and domains in order to aid policy and decision makers for strategic planning. The approach allows visualization of both the available information across multiple entry points as well as the identification of critical knowledge gaps.


Author(s):  
Sérgio Pedro

The contemporary food system, in its global and local dimensions, is a central element of the debate on the sustainability of the planet, a debate that increasingly involves more stakeholders and areas of knowledge in the search for answers to the multiple questions related to the attainment of more sustainable patterns for food and agriculture. The present chapter analyses the participative multi-stakeholder and multilevel model of food governance of the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries (CPLP), in which stakeholders from different societal and expertise sectors participate in equal manners in the process of co-construction of institutional, technical, and financing measures for the functioning of a given food system. The present chapter has the main goal of sharing and critically analysing the CPLP´s institutional context for the promotion of sustainable food systems as an example of an integrated methodological approach to support the creation of coordinated public policies and institutional conditions to implement a transition to more sustainable food systems and diets.


Geography ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catarina Passidomo ◽  
Jeffrey Miller

The geography of food is an emergent and growing subfield within human geography. Often distinguished from older literature in agricultural geography, writings in the geography of food tend to be critical (and in some cases, radical) in their political framing, focusing on the many ways in which food systems are connected to, and potentially disruptive of, entrenched systems of oppression and social and economic inequality. In part, this critical framing arose in response to a lack of critical food systems engagement in other disciplines, and to agricultural geography’s focus on spaces of production; geography’s persistent interest in spatial relationships and systems of power that cross spaces and scales made the discipline well-suited to critical interrogation of food and agricultural systems. Geographers who study and write about food demonstrate interest in scales ranging from the body to the global economy, and indeed the ways in which global processes become inscribed on and metabolized by individual bodies in disparate spaces. Literature in this subdiscipline is often theoretically robust, drawing on complex biopolitical formulations, state theory, and multi-scalar analyses of political economic change to link global processes with local places, and to situate alternative food systems within a dominant industrial agro-food system. The geography of food shares many theoretical and empirical interests with other food studies subdisciplines, including rural sociology and the anthropology of food. This article primarily features contributions by geographers, or by scholars who make use of geographic concepts (often emphasizing scale or place in their analysis). There is also a robust literature in agricultural geography (see the separate Oxford Bibliographies article “Agricultural Geography”); this article aims to focus instead on geographies of food “beyond the farm gate.” As such, the article is organized by sections according to scale (global/national/urban/rural/home and body), and then focuses on a variety of food movements and responses to corporate/industrial global food systems.


Author(s):  
Juha Helenius ◽  
Alexander Wezel ◽  
Charles A. Francis

Agroecology can be defined as scientific research on ecological sustainability of food systems. In addressing food production and consumption systems in their entirety, the focus of agroecology is on interactions and processes that are relevant for transitioning and maintaining ecological, economic, political, and social-cultural sustainability. As a field of sustainability science, agroecology explores agriculture and food with explicit linkages to two other widespread interpretations of the concept of agroecology: environmentally sound farming practices and social movements for food security and food sovereignty. In the study of agroecology as science, both farming practices and social movements emerge as integrated components of agroecological research and development. In the context of agroecology, the concept of ecology refers not only to the science of ecology as biological research but also to environmental and social sciences with research on social systems as integrated social and ecological systems. In agroecological theory, all these three are merged so that agroecology can broadly be defined as “human food ecology” or “the ecology of food systems.” Since the last decades of the 20th century many developments have led to an increased emphasis on agroecology in universities, nonprofit organizations, movements, government programs, and the United Nations. All of these have raised a growing attention to ecological, environmental, and social dimensions of farming and food, and to the question of how to make the transition to sustainable farming and food systems. One part of the foundation of agroecology was built during the 1960s when ecologically oriented environmental research on agriculture emerged as the era of optimism about component research began to erode. Largely, this took place as a reaction to unexpected and unwanted ecological and social consequences of the Green Revolution, a post–World War II scaling-up, chemicalization, and mechanization of agriculture. Another part of the foundation was a nongovernmental movement among thoughtful farmers wanting to develop sustainable and more ecological/organic ways of production and the demand by consumers for such food products. Finally, a greater societal acceptance, demand for research and education, and public funding for not only environmental ecology but also for wider sustainability in food and agriculture was ignited by an almost sudden high-level political awakening to the need for sustainable development by the end of 1980s. Agroecology as science evolved from early studies on agricultural ecosystems, from research agendas for environmentally sound farming practices, and from concerns about addressing wider sustainability; all these shared several forms of systems thinking. In universities and research institutions, agroecologists most often work in faculties of food and agriculture. They share resources and projects among scientists having disciplinary backgrounds in genetics (breeding of plants and animals), physiology (crop science, animal husbandry, human nutrition), microbiology or entomology (crop protection), chemistry and physics (soil science, agricultural and food chemistry, agricultural and food technology), economics (of agriculture and food systems), marketing, behavioral sciences (consumer studies), and policy research (agricultural and food policy). While agroecologists clearly have a mandate to address ecology of farmland, its biodiversity, and ecosystem services, one of the greatest added values from agroecology in research communities comes from its wider systems approach. Agroecologists complement reductionist research programs where scientists seek more detailed understanding of detail and mechanisms and put these into context by developing a broader appreciation of the whole. Those in agroecology integrate results from disciplinary research and increase relevance and adoption by introducing transdisciplinarity, co-creation of information and practices, together with other actors in the system. Agroecology is the field in sustainability science that is devoted to food system transformation and resilience. Agroecology uses the concept of “agroecosystem” in broad ecological and social terms and uses these at multiple scales, from fields to farms to farming landscapes and regions. Food systems depend on functioning agroecosystems as one of their subsystems, and all the subsystems of a food system interact through positive and negative feedbacks, in their complex biophysical, sociocultural, and economic dimensions. In embracing wholeness and connectivity, proponents of agroecology focus on the uniqueness of each place and food system, as well as solutions appropriate to their resources and constraints.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip A. Loring ◽  
Palash Sanyal

Global food systems have increased in complexity significantly since the mid-twentieth century, through such innovations as mechanization, irrigation, genetic modification, and the globalization of supply chains. While complexification can be an effective problem-solving strategy, over-complexification can cause environmental degradation and lead systems to become increasingly dependent on external subsidies and vulnerable to collapse. Here, we explore a wide array of evidence of complexification and over-complexification in contemporary global food systems, drawing on data from the Food and Agriculture Organization and elsewhere. We find that food systems in developed, emerging, and least developed countries have all followed a trajectory of complexification, but that return on investments for energy and other food system inputs have significantly declined—a key indicator of over-complexification. Food systems in developed countries are further along in the process of over-complexification than least developed and emerging countries. Recent agricultural developments, specifically the introduction of genetically modified crops, have not altered this trend or improved return on investments for inputs into food systems. Similarly, emerging innovations belonging to the “digital agricultural revolution” are likewise accompanied by energy demands that may further exacerbate over-complexification. To reverse over-complexification, we discuss strategies including innovation by subtraction, agroecology, and disruptive technology.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (18) ◽  
pp. 4815
Author(s):  
Michelle Grant ◽  
Anna K. Gilgen ◽  
Nina Buchmann

The World Food System Summer School is an innovative two-week course that seeks to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes of the next generation of decision makers to build sustainable food systems. Meaningful learning, where the participant is able to relate new information to existing knowledge, is a critical part of education about complex systems and requires the integration of reflective approaches to teaching and learning. We adapted the rich picture method in three summer schools in Switzerland, South Africa and Côte d’Ivoire (74 participants with 29 nationalities) to support the reflection of participants on their knowledge gained on complex food systems. Coding and comparing 51 pairs of pre- and post-course pictures of food systems clearly demonstrated newly gained knowledge: The number of sub-categories drawn significantly increased from 11 to 19 in the post-course pictures, the largest increase occurred for environmental sustainability (57%). The rich picture method is a highly valuable and simple tool to gain insight into how participants’ knowledge changes and where there are gaps in meeting the learning objectives. This is particularly useful within a highly diverse participant cohort, as it allows participants to discuss and reflect on their own learning experience in a personalized way. Additionally, the rich picture method provides insights for faculty to improve their approaches to teaching on food systems.


1982 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
R. B. BUCKLAND

The theme of this year's Canadian Society of Animal Science Symposium was chosen in conjunction with the Agricultural Institute of Canada who selected "Sustainable Food Systems" as the theme for their Conference. In discussing the future of meat as a sustainable food system, three areas have been selected for attention: (1) grading systems and their effectiveness in identifying superior carcasses; (2) the challenges in improving meat quality and how improvements with respect to growth rate in the areas of genetics, nutrition and management have affected meat quality; (3) the future consumption patterns of meat and how these will be affected by other changes that are taking place regarding our eating habits.In setting the background for these papers, I will briefly mention a few of the important trends that have taken place in Canada with respect to meat consumption over the past 17 years. I will not attempt to interpret these changes in this introduction. Total meat consumption, excluding fish (which averages about 2 kg/yr/capita) has increased from 76.2 kg per capita per year in 1963 to a high of 99.6 kg in 1976 with the value for 1980 being 97.4 kg. Beef consumption has followed quite closely the pattern of total meat consumption with the per capita consumption being 33.7 kg in 1963, rising to 51.4 kg in 1976, but then declining much more sharply than did total meat consumption to a figure of 39.9 kg in 1980. This drop in consumption of beef has been almost completely compensated for by increases in pork and broiler chicken consumption. Pork consumption was 23.0 kg per capita in 1963 and it changed very little, except for fluctuations, up until 1976 when the figure was 25.2 kg but, since then, it has increased rapidly to an all-time high figure of 32.4 kg in 1980 which may be a cycle peak, a new trend or a combination of both. Over the years, broiler chicken meat has seen the greatest increase in consumption going from 8.9 kg per capita in 1963 to 14.6 kg in 1976 and for 1980, the figure is 17.3 kg. Veal consumption has declined from about 3 kg per capita in 1963 to 1.4 kg in 1980 with mutton and lamb showing a similar decline from just under 2 kg in 1963 to 0.8 kg in 1980. Turkey consumption has held relatively steady at about 4 kg per capita while fowl consumption showed a decline from about 2 kg in 1963 to 1.3 kg in 1980.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document