Food Systems Transformation: from buzzword to political endeavor

Science is like the news media: it is attracted by trendy concepts, and it loves catchwords. Why? Because like journalists, scholars need to draw people’s attention to their own work. So, scientists use buzzwords such as ‘resilience’, ‘sustainability’ or ‘food systems’. One of the most recent buzzwords in the scientific literature is ‘food systems transformation’. Everyone is using it! In fact, not only scholars: international organizations (the ongoing UNFSS process, the World Bank, the EU), NGOs (big and small), experts, and, of course, policymakers.

However, the use of the expression is not just about the love for buzzwords and the need for attracting attention. In fact, there are some very legitimate and valid reasons for this sudden interest in food system transformation. Recent analyses reveal that our current global food system is one of the largest causes of climate change, contributing to up to 30% of greenhouse gas emitted in the world – or even 50% in some countries. Through several of its activities (farming in particular), it also contributes to soil erosion and biodiversity loss, as well as child and forced labor. On the other end of the system, despite some great progress made in the last two centuries, more than 800 million people still lack sufficient access to food. Meanwhile – and sometimes in the same countries – an increasing number of people are obese or overweight – more than 1 billion people in the world.

So, although the expression is certainly overused and misused, the call for a ‘food system transformation’ – understood as a drastic and far-reaching change in the structure and functioning of the system – is clearly necessary. The problem, however, is that not everyone agrees. Many actors in the system make huge financial profits from the system as it currently is, and therefore, a transformation is not in their interest; in fact, they would love to see more of the same. These include the big transnational corporations (TNCs): Nestlé, McDonalds, Unilever, Carrefour, Bayer/Monsanto, etc. However, these benefitting institutions – and this is new – also include major financial institutions (national and international banks such as Rabobank, Santander, HSBC, Barclays, JPMorgan, etc.) or even pension funds (e.g. Vanguard) which have invested huge amounts of their financial assets in these TNCs; even national or federal governments have invested in these operations.

While the responsibility of the big and powerful actors in the current unsustainability of the system is undisputable, we, as consumers, also contribute to the problem. After all, we do not choose to eat foods that are healthy and sustainably produced every day. In fact, a large part of the unsustainability of the food system lies in our day-to-day choices. For instance, while it is now well established that excessive consumption of industrially produced red meat increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, strokes and some forms of cancer, three billion people (half the global population) are estimated to continue increasing their consumption of these products in the coming years.

Therefore, transforming the food system will not just be about finding the right technological innovation – as many TNCs (but also some scientists) like to claim – transforming food systems will first and foremost be a societal battle, where very different and often polarized positions will clash and where tough (political and societal) decisions will have to be made. It’s not going to be just about health versus wealth, or just about who wins and who loses. It’s not going to be only about animal-based versus plant-based protein, or about ‘my culture and who I am’ versus ‘your new sustainability norms’. It will not just be about how to take away TNC and international financial institutions’ decision-making power and give it to consumers in the ‘global south’, but also in the ‘global north’. It’s going to be about all of the above. In summary, it’s going to be a contested and highly political process.