essay sustainable ways of growing food

Transforming food systems for sustainable healthy diets: A global imperative

Purnima menon, deanna olney.

Poor diets have wide-ranging impacts, from malnutrition to noncommunicable diseases accounting for more than 73 percent of deaths globally. On the other hand, improving diets could save lives. So, what are healthy diets, and how should we be transforming food systems to achieve them?

Healthy diets provide the nutrients needed for an active, healthy life. They include a diversity of foods — fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, whole grains, and animal-source foods, and have limited sugar, salt and fat.

While it’s clear that healthy diets are needed to prevent malnutrition and disease, for many people around the world, healthy diets are often not desirable, affordable, accessible, or available. The reasons are complex and interconnected. Through our work on diets and food environments in low- and middle-income countries, for example, we see that people are increasingly eating cheap and unhealthy ultra-processed foods as a result of changing lifestyles coupled with intensive advertising and marketing campaigns. By contrast, many nutritious foods are increasingly unaffordable and are often inaccessible for many people, especially marginalized populations.

In addition, food systems need to increasingly take climate change and environmental constraints into account. It has been estimated that food systems produce one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions and often negatively affect land quality, water use, and biodiversity. In turn, climate change and natural resource degradation harm our food supply and the nutritional content of crops.

Improving diets, and reducing their impact on the environment, therefore, are global imperatives that require us to tackle health and sustainability as two sides of the same coin. The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition underscores the need for a comprehensive approach that places healthy diets at the core, while embracing economic growth, social equity, and environmental sustainability.

Prioritizing diets as a critical entry point for tackling all forms of malnutrition allows us to consider the wide range of possible policies and actions to meet realistic, measurable goals for food systems transformation.

In our newly released Global Food Policy Report on “ Food Systems for Healthy Diets and Nutrition ,” we emphasize the need for sustainable healthy diets and provide evidence-based recommendations on ways to make the foods that form these diets more desirable, affordable, accessible, and available.

This holistic approach recognizes the interplay between dietary patterns, food environments, production and policies, together with broader societal and environmental factors.

Optimal dietary intake involves consuming adequate quantities from diverse food groups while avoiding overconsumption of unhealthy foods. Achieving this will require policies and actions adapted to each country context, that focus on improving supply, food environments, and demand. Further leveraging food systems to achieve nutrition and health outcomes will require  linking actions around food systems to improve diets with complementary systems like health and social protection.

For example, we need solutions like behavior change communication coupled with social assistance programs that can address some of the primary barriers to sustainable healthy diets and help directly shift consumer preferences toward healthier food choices. We also need to address well-known challenges around the commercial production and marketing of ultra-processed and other unhealthy foods, as well as increasing the supply of diverse, safe, and affordable nutritious food like fruits, vegetables, legumes, and animal source foods.  

Changes in food environments such as using regulations and laws to support healthy food environments are critical in this regard.  Affordability is an important aspect that requires us to promote pro-poor economic growth, realigning agricultural policies to support nutrient-dense foods, and improving infrastructure and logistics to lower the relative cost of healthy foods and improve their accessibility and availability.  

This agenda will require coordinating the actions of diverse stakeholders and navigating different interests. Trade-offs need to be identified and negotiated across health, economic, sustainability, and development goals.

We also need to address remaining data gaps to inform programs and policies and to measure impact. Despite substantial efforts, publicly available information on dietary intake patterns, drivers of food choice, food environments, and environmental impacts remains insufficient.

Last, but not least, we need a strong and sustained global commitment to facilitating sustainable healthy diets. Although global commitments on nutrition are strong, the strategies, financing, and accountability mechanisms required for the world to meet Sustainable Development Goal 2 on malnutrition are lagging behind. In order to get there, we need to identify successes and learn from failures.

The future of the world's most vulnerable people hinges on our ability to make significant progress in ensuring healthy diets. It's time to prioritize this agenda.

Senior Director, Food and Nutrition Policy, CGIAR and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

Director of the Nutrition, Diets and Health Unit at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

Join the Conversation

• Share on mail
• comments added

5 ways to transform our food system to benefit people and planet

Our relationship with food is dangerously imbalanced Image:  REUTERS/Juan Carlos Ulate

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Petra Hans

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Agriculture, Food and Beverage is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, agriculture, food and beverage.

• Globally, we waste a third of all food produced and the natural resources involved in its production;
• A growing global population requires fairer, more resilient and equitable food systems;
• Regenerative agriculture, a greater voice for farmers and moving from low cost to "true cost" food can build a stronger food systems for people, planet and the future.

Food is essential for our survival, a fundamental requirement of life and the provider of strength, vitality and energy. It is also the keeper of our cultural traditions and indispensable to our social lives – think of any celebration and it will involve food.

However, our relationship with food is dangerously imbalanced. We produce enough food but nearly 1 in 10 people still don’t have sufficient to eat and 3 billion cannot afford a healthy diet . At the same time, we waste one-third of all food produced along with the natural resources that went into its production.

Have you read?

4 ways we can prioritize food sustainability in 2021, how to create a more sustainable global food system in the wake of covid-19, covid-19 caused food insecurity to soar, but climate change will be much worse.

Our food and agricultural systems stretch planetary boundaries beyond their limits. By valuing quantity over quality and driving farmers to produce monocrops for low prices, we use the natural resources needed for sustained production and degrade the land, leading to climate change and extreme weather events.

As the coronavirus crisis unfolded, we started to understand how fragile our food systems are. We saw news stories of food destroyed, milk dumped and crops rotting in the fields, while consumers faced empty shelves. Our complicated global supply chains couldn’t adapt fast enough to our changing realities.

To mend our damaged relationship with food, there are critical questions we need to answer: how do we produce sufficient food that’s healthy for both the people who produce it and the people who eat it? How do we ensure our food systems are fair, resilient and equitable? How can we feed our growing global population and protect our planet for generations to come?

We have a choice: we can continue to grow our food systems in a linear, exploitative and extractive way; or we can move to a system that promotes biodiversity, regeneration, nutritious food, equity and healthy people.

We believe the decision is clear. We must choose to work with the planet, not against it, for the benefit of the many by following these principles:

1. Harness the regenerative power of our Earth

This is critical to overcoming the biggest challenges of our time: a degrading environment, loss of biodiversity and climate change. Regenerative agriculture leads to healthy soil, capable of producing high quality, nutrient-dense food. It also improves rather than degrades the land and supports productive farms and healthy communities and economies. This helps safeguard farmers’ livelihoods so they can grow the food we need now and in the future.

2. Build stronger local and circular food systems

Building stronger local and circular food systems helps to keep valuable natural resources, minerals and nutrients in the loop. Circular agribusinesses not only provide excellent environmental solutions, they also create jobs and reduce countries’ dependency on imports.

Wastewater, for example, can be treated to extract important finite minerals like phosphates. Food loss and waste can be composted so valuable nutrients return to the soil instead of being thrown away. And organic farm waste can be used for bioenergy to power homes and agribusinesses. New, nature-based technologies, such as the use of black soldier flies to compost waste , can generate multiple useful products including compost, fertilizer and animal feed.

3. Give farmers a voice and support their planet-positive choices

As the world’s population continues to grow, more people than ever will depend upon farmers for food. We must empower farmers to drive solutions and be at the forefront of a global regenerative revolution by making them an integral part of policy discussions. They can help build the system of products and services that are locally relevant and reduce dependency on patented and/or chemical inputs.

4. Move from low cost to true cost

Paradoxically, cheap food is expensive for people and the planet. It keeps us locked into an unsustainable food system that costs the global economy significant amounts of money. The current price of food does not factor in the health bill generated by unhealthy diets or the cost of land degradation and biodiversity loss.

Furthermore, low wages for farmers make agriculture an unpredictable and often unsafe sector. To get back on track, we need greater consumer awareness and public policies that value nutritious diets, a healthy environment and farmers who practise regenerative agriculture.

5. Foster radical collaboration

Though we’re hopeful for the future, we are quickly running out of time. We urgently need to remove the barriers that prevent us from transforming the way we produce and consume food. This involves changing mindsets, trying new things and learning fast.

We don’t yet know all the answers, but we do know that business-as-usual is the problem. We must change course and do it now. This is only possible through collaboration between farmers, consumers, funders, governments, businesses and NGOs.

Together, we can work towards a food system that not only feeds us but also celebrates life – one that nurtures people, adds colour and flavour to our plates and palates and, most importantly, ensures a future for ourselves on this planet.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Industries in Depth .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

Top 5 countries leading the sustainable tourism sector

Robot rock stars, pocket forests, and the battle for chips - Forum podcasts you should hear this month

Robin Pomeroy and Linda Lacina

April 29, 2024

Agritech: Shaping Agriculture in Emerging Economies, Today and Tomorrow

Confused about AI? Here are the podcasts you need on artificial intelligence

Robin Pomeroy

April 25, 2024

Which technologies will enable a cleaner steel industry?

Daniel Boero Vargas and Mandy Chan

Industry government collaboration on agritech can empower global agriculture

Abhay Pareek and Drishti Kumar

April 23, 2024

• Show search

Perspectives

Beyond Sustainable: A Food System to Restore the Planet

Food production is the top threat to nature—a regenerative system can change that.

By Michael Doane, Global Managing Director, Food & Freshwater Systems | June 29, 2020

One of the things that makes COVID-19 so devastating is the way it undermines the connections that hold society together. The distancing measures required to slow the spread of the disease and save lives are unfortunately pulling apart many of the interconnected systems embedded in our modern world.

When we talk about food, we are inherently talking about connections—whether that’s the social connections we form over a shared meal, or the connections between all the actors and industries required to grow, process and distribute the ingredients in that meal. Right now all of these connections are being tested.

Consider: Sick workers can lead to labor shortages and reduced output in the fields and at food processing facilities. Even when food is being produced, shipping and import challenges mean that food often doesn’t make it to shelves. And even where there is food on the shelf, people who have lost their jobs may not be able to buy the food. COVID has exposed just how vulnerable our food systems are to disruption at every point in the journey from farm to fork.

Unfortunately, COVID is far from the only threat currently facing our food systems. In addition to the commercial and economic systems that have been so shaken by this pandemic, there’s another layer of ecological systems underpinning our food production. Supporting every grape and lentil is a whole world of soil-enriching microbes, pollinating insects, water-filtering plants—it's an orchestra of life in which all players depend on each other. And all of them are threatened by climate change.

The Next Food Crisis?

Unlike COVID, the threats posed by climate change are not new—we’ve been warned over and over that our food production systems are not sustainable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned that climate change is already reducing food production in drier regions , and that any warming beyond 1.5°C above preindustrial averages will have increasingly severe impacts on food systems .

We’ve also known for some time that the way we currently produce most of our food is in fact making climate change and biodiversity loss worse—agriculture is responsible for a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions , 70% of freshwater use and 80% of habitat loss. We now have a vicious feedback loop between food production and degradation of nature.

Supporting every grape and lentil is a whole world of soil-enriching microbes, pollinating insects, water-filtering plants that depend on each other. And all of them are threatened by climate change.

But COVID has exposed just how quickly disruptions in our food systems can precipitate crises . If we wait until climate impacts become even more severe and widespread, it will likely be too late to avoid tipping into another global crisis. At this point it’s not enough to just produce food in ways that minimize harm to the planet—we must start producing food in ways that actively restore the health of the planet.

At TNC we call this idea regenerative food systems. The idea is to produce food—whether on land or at sea—in ways that actively restore habitat and protect biodiversity in and around production areas while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In some cases, regenerative food systems can produce even more food than traditional systems—and, crucially, they preserve the livelihoods of the farmers, fishers, ranchers and others who work to provide our food, now and in the long run.

What Regenerative Food Systems Do

• Produce food—whether on land or at sea—in ways that actively restore habitat and protect biodiversity in and around production areas
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Preserve the livelihoods of the farmers, fishers, ranchers and others who work to provide our food, now and in the long run

Regenerative Food Systems

For most of our dinner plates, the journey from “farm to fork” is not quite so simple—it’s more like farm (or boat) to processor to distributor to retailer, with the itinerary shaped by private finance, government subsidies, consumer marketing and dozens of other factors. Creating regenerative food systems means looking at change across this entire journey.

We must change our production methods so they regenerate nature rather than degrade it; we must change the market incentives to drive greater adoption of regenerative production practices—and we must accelerate these efforts in key global production areas over the next decade.

So what does this look like?

Regenerating nature: soil health and aquaculture

Let’s start with something foundational: the ground beneath our feet. Soil is not just inert matter—healthy soil is full of living organisms that help to generate the nutrients crops need to grow.

But many conventional farming practices inadvertently degrade soil health over time, which in turn can reduce crop yields. Adding fertilizer, where available, can compensate for reduced soil nutrients, but if it’s applied at the wrong time, or when there are no vegetative buffers around fields, it can wash into nearby waterways, harming freshwater ecosystems—or even marine ecosystems, as when excess nutrients make their way downstream to the ocean and create hypoxic “dead zones.”

Adopting practices like reduced or no-tillage planting and the use of cover crops can restore the complex soil biology that’s key to long term crop production, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and nutrient runoff. It’s a win for the farmer, for local ecosystems and for the climate.

And when excess nutrients still make their way down to the sea? Regenerative food systems can help here, too. Certain aquaculture species, such as oysters, actively filter water and assimilate excess nutrients—they actually improve the water quality for other species in area . In fact, when practiced correctly, aquaculture offers many regenerative benefits: it has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of any form of animal food production, and seaweed aquaculture could even be utilized to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

Agriculture is responsible for a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions.

Agriculture accounts for 70% of freshwater use around the world.

Agriculture drives a majority of habitat loss around the world.

Financial incentives for smarter crop siting

But production practices, while an essential starting point, represent just one element of a food system. Processing, distribution, retail, financing—these elements also determine how sustainable our food can be. Consider soy, one of the world’s most ubiquitous crops—and a major driver of habitat conversion across the Cerrado and Chaco ecosystems in Brazil and Argentina. But soy doesn’t have to replace natural habitat—there’s plenty of previously cleared land that’s suitable for soy production . The key is creating the right market incentives to prioritize production on this land.

TNC is working with global traders, input companies and banks to offer attractive long-term financing to farmers who plant their soy on previously cleared lands. And because habitat conversion creates higher temperatures and other local climate impacts that reduce soy yields, avoiding clearing lands creates additional benefits for farmers across the entire region—to say nothing of the long-term benefits of mitigating global climate change.

Scaling up through corporate action and smart policy

These changes will require the largest companies in the global food system to actively lead the way. The global food system is vast, connecting the otherwise independent decisions of millions of farmers, fisherman and consumers each day. But there’s no doubt that the largest companies wield incredible influence on a global level—especially when it comes to the processing and distribution systems that connect producers and consumers.

The thought of depending on these companies to lead this change may be controversial to some —after all, many of these same companies have created the global food system which is now hastening climate change and biodiversity loss. Certainly not every company is prepared to make this fundamental shift to regenerative food systems, but a few are doing so now—and they deserve our support and collaboration.

At this point it’s not enough to just produce food in ways that minimize harm to the planet—we must start producing food in ways that actively restore the health of the planet.

In fact, the last month has brought a flurry of positive commitments from large corporations working in the food space. Just this week, the Syngenta Group expanded its sustainability commitments through a “ Good Growth Plan” that includes pledges to reduce carbon emissions from the company’s agriculture operations by 50% and to help farmers deal with the extreme weather patterns caused by climate change.

Syngenta’s most recent commitments come on the heels of Unilver’s investment of 1 billion euros in a  “climate and nature fund” and Wal-Mart’s announcement earlier this year of Project Gigaton , an initiative to avoid one billion metric tons of greenhouse gases from the global value chain by 2030. These companies won’t transform the global food system alone, but we can’t achieve meaningful transformation without them.

Our global insights, straight to your inbox

Get our latest research, insights and solutions to today’s sustainability challenges.

A Better Future for Food

I’m an economist by training, a conservationist by vocation, and a farmer at heart. For all these reasons, food system reform is deeply personal to me. It’s personal because of the kinship I feel with others who make their living providing food. It’s personal because I care deeply about the natural world, and I know changing our food systems is key to a positive future. And it’s personal because I’ve spent much of my life studying markets, and I am convinced they are essential to driving change at the pace and scale we need.

Food is more than something we eat to survive—it’s a part of how we  thrive.  To break bread together is a social ritual—for some a holy ritual—that transcends time and culture. Asked what they’ve missed the most during COVID-mandated isolation, many people will say sharing meals with friends and family.

Of course, if the worst you’ve experienced is a loss of communal eating, you (and I) are among the lucky—it means we still have food in our homes and the good health and strength enjoy it. But that’s not something any of us can count on indefinitely if we continue to produce food in ways that degrade the planet and exacerbate climate change.

We face an existential challenge, yet there is an elegant solution rooted in nature.  Our pivot to a regenerative food system must happen quickly, though—over the next decade. It requires purposeful innovation, global coordination and a willingness to confront entrenched interests. But the future that awaits us if we do nothing is far worse than dining alone.

Related Reading

Food and Agriculture Must Change—Business Will Be Part of the Solution

Feeding the planet without harming the environment will require doing more with less and finding common ground.

By Michael Doane

Three Big Trends in Sustainable Business

TNC has a long history working with a variety of partners to achieve our conservation goals, including the private sector. Here are three trends in sustainability where business and nature can work together.

Investing in a Sustainable Food System

There is growing recognition of the vital role of nature in a sustainable global food system, but there are still challenges to address.

Global Insights

Check out our latest thinking and real-world solutions to some of the most complex challenges facing people and the planet today.

Michael Doane is the Global Managing Director of Food & Freshwater Systems for The Nature Conservancy.

A new reports looks at solutions to ensuring healthy diets for a burgeoning world population while improving the planet. Here, tomatoes are harvested at a large production facility in the Netherlands.

• ENVIRONMENT

How to feed the world without destroying the planet

The world’s population will hit 10 billion in 2050. A new report offers solutions for how more food can be grown sustainably.

Ensuring healthy diets for an expected global population of nearly 10 billion people in 2050, while at the same time improving the world those people live in, will require sweeping changes to farming and how we produce food, according to a new report.

“There is a pathway to achieve this but the challenge is even bigger than any of us thought,” said Richard Waite of the World Resources Institute (WRI) and co-author of “ Creating A Sustainable Food Future: Final Report .”

Agriculture already uses almost half of the world’s vegetated land . It consumes 90 percent of all the water used by humanity and generates one-quarter of the annual global emissions that are causing global warming. And yet of the seven billion people living today, 820 million are undernourished because they don’t have access to—or can’t afford—an adequate diet.

“We have to produce 30 percent more food on the same land area, stop deforestation, [and] cut carbon emissions for food production by two-thirds,” says Waite in an interview.

All of that must be done while reducing poverty levels and the loss of natural habitat, preventing freshwater depletion, and cutting pollution as well as other environmental impacts of farming.

“There is no silver bullet; To prevent more land from being converted into agriculture requires major improvements in feed quality and grazing management. It also requires finding ways to get more than one crop harvest per year, and requires better crop breeding techniques. For example, CRISP-R technology enables the fine tuning of genes to maximize yields. we need to do everything,” Waite says.

For Hungry Minds

The “everything” Waite referred to are 22 solutions detailed in the 565 page report, all of which need to be implemented to some degree, depending on the country and region. Here are a few of the proposed solutions:

• Dramatically reduce the estimated one-third of food that is lost or wasted . From scaling up solar-powered cold-storage units on farms, to using natural compounds that inhibit bacterial growth and retain water in the fruit in order to extend shelf life at retail stores, improvements can be made all along the supply chain.

• Shift the diets of high-meat consumers toward plant-based foods. Meat, particularly from cattle, sheep, and goats, is very resource intensive. For growing populations to have access to some meat, others will have to consume less. There are now burgers made up of 20 to 35 percent mushroom and all-plant burgers that taste as good as, if not superior to, all-beef burgers, the report notes. It also says governments provide nearly $600 billion in annual subsidies to agriculture and those that favor meat and dairy production should be phased out.

• Boost crop yields and dramatically increase the output of milk and meat . To prevent more land from being used for agriculture will need major improvements in feed quality and grazing management. It also requires finding ways to get more than one crop harvest per year, which in turn will require better crop breeding techniques. For example, CRISP-R technology enables the fine tuning of genes to maximize yields.

• Improve wild fisheries management and aquaculture. Overfishing can be reduced by eliminating much of the $35 billion in annual global fisheries subsidies. Certification and better enforcement to eliminate illegal and unreported fishing could save an estimated 11 to 26 million tons of fish lost to it. Aquaculture can include the use of algae , seaweed, or oil seeds-based fish foods rather than relying on small fish to feed larger ones like salmon.

But is it enough?

“I don’t think the report truly represents the transformative change that the global food system needs to undergo,” says Hans Herren, President of the Washington-based Millennium Institute and winner of the World Food Prize for his work as an entomologist.

You May Also Like

How small changes to our diet can benefit the planet

How ‘Ugly’ Fruits and Vegetables Can Help Solve World Hunger

Move over, honeybees—America's 4,000 native bees need a day in the sun

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization and UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), among others, endorse a so-called agroecological approach to food production, but the WRI report doesn’t mention it, Herren said in an interview.

Agroecology mimics nature, replacing the external inputs like chemical fertilizer with knowledge of how a combination of plants, trees, and animals can enhance the productivity of land.

The CFS just released its own report looking at the issue of how to feed the world sustainably. It said agroecology encompasses whole agriculture and food systems from production to consumption and was increasingly seen as the way forward to create sustainable food systems. However, the report acknowledges that agriculture is extremely diverse and what works in one place may not in another.

Although the term agroecology isn’t used in WRI’s report, some of the solutions could be called that, said Waite. “I think overemphasis on agroecology as ‘the’ solution crowds out the very real needs for also advancing technological innovation,” he says.

Pollinators—the bees and other insects that pollinate food crops—are also largely missing in the WRI report. It does note that warmer temperatures are likely to cause early flower blooming before pollinators arrive, which reduces crop yields.

A larger concern is the growing lack of crop diversity in agriculture, which is often dominated by crops such as corn and soy. That puts pollinators at risk, a new study in Global Change Biology warns , because it severely limits their opportunity for nutrition. It recommends cultivating a variety of crops that bloom at different times to provide a more stable source of food and habitat for pollinators.

Useful ideas for food production

There isn’t a great deal new in the WRI report, said Danielle Nierenberg, President and Founder of Food Tank , a U.S. non-profit looking at solutions and environmentally sustainable ways of alleviating hunger, obesity, and poverty.

“I like the fact there are concrete messages with lots of useful ideas about the ways forward,” Nierenberg says in an interview.

Many of these are things we can do now to move to sustainable food production and things that will create more jobs and economic growth, she said.

Specifics aside, the world must act decisively, wrote Andrew Steer, president of the WRI, in the forward of the new report.

“Food production and ecosystem protection must be linked at every level—policy, finance, and farm practice—to avoid destructive competition for precious land and water,” Steer says.

Related Topics

• FOOD SUPPLY
• AQUACULTURE
• STAPLE CROPS
• FOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT

In Mexico City, the pandemic revived Aztec-era island farms

Global food crisis looms as fertilizer supplies dwindle

Here’s a better way to dispose of used cooking oil

What to do when you see mold on your food

How these two vitamin supplements could do more harm than good

• Environment
• Paid Content
• Photography
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

November 1, 2011

11 min read

Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet?

A five-step global plan could double food production by 2050 while greatly reducing environmental damage

By Jonathan A. Foley

Right now about one billion people suffer from chronic hunger. the world’s farmers grow enough food to feed them, but it is not properly distributed and, even if it were, many cannot afford it, because prices are escalating.

But another challenge looms.

By 2050 the world’s population will increase by two billion or three billion, which will likely double the demand for food, according to several studies. Demand will also rise because many more people will have higher incomes, which means they will eat more, especially meat. Increasing use of cropland for biofuels will put additional demands on our farms. So even if we solve today’s problems of poverty and access—a daunting task—we will also have to produce twice as much to guarantee adequate supply worldwide.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

And that’s not all.

By clearing tropical forests, farming marginal lands, and intensifying industrial farming in sensitive landscapes and watersheds, humankind has made agriculture the planet’s dominant environmental threat. Agriculture already consumes a large percentage of the earth’s land surface and is destroying habitat, using up freshwater, polluting rivers and oceans, and emitting greenhouse gases more extensively than almost any other human activity. To guarantee the globe’s long-term health, we must dramatically reduce agriculture’s adverse impacts.

The world’s food system faces three incredible, interwoven challenges. It must guarantee that all seven billion people alive today are adequately fed; it must double food production in the next 40 years; and it must achieve both goals while becoming truly environmentally sustainable.

Could these simultaneous goals possibly be met? An international team of experts, which I coordinated, has settled on five steps that, if pursued together, could raise by more than 100 percent the food available for human consumption globally, while significantly lessening greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity losses, water use and water pollution. Tackling the triple challenge will be one of the most important tests humanity has ever faced. It is fair to say that our response will determine the fate of our civilization.

Bumping Up against Barriers At first blush, the way to feed more people would seem clear: grow more food, by expanding farmland and improving yield—the amount of crops harvested per hectare. Unfortunately, the world is running into significant barriers on both counts.

Society already farms roughly 38 percent of the earth’s land surface, not counting Greenland or Antarctica. Agriculture is by far the biggest human use of land on the planet; nothing else comes close. And most of that 38 percent covers the best farmland. Much of the remainder is covered by deserts, mountains, tundra, ice, cities, parks and other unsuitable growing areas. The few remaining frontiers are mainly in tropical forests and savannas, which are vital to the stability of the globe, especially as stores of carbon and biodiversity. Expanding into those areas is not a good idea, yet over the past 20 years five million to 10 million hectares of cropland a year have been created, with a significant portion of that amount in the tropics. These additions enlarged the net area of cultivated land by only 3 percent, however, because of farmland losses caused by urban development and other forces, particularly in temperate zones.

Improving yield also sounds enticing. Yet our research team found that average global crop yield increased by about 20 percent in the past 20 years—far less than what is typically reported. That improvement is significant, but the rate is nowhere near enough to double food production by midcentury. Whereas yields of some crops improved substantially, others saw little gain and a few even declined.

Feeding more people would be easier if all the food we grew went into human hands. But only 60 percent of the world’s crops are meant for people: mostly grains, followed by pulses (beans, lentils), oil plants, vegetables and fruits. Another 35 percent is used for animal feed, and the final 5 percent goes to biofuels and other industrial products. Meat is the biggest issue here. Even with the most efficient meat and dairy systems, feeding crops to animals reduces the world’s potential food supply. Typically grain-fed cattle operations use 30 kilograms of grain to make one kilogram of edible, boneless beef. Chicken and pork are more efficient, and grass-fed beef converts nonfood material into protein. No matter how you slice it, though, grain-fed meat production systems are a drain on the global food supply.

Another deterrent to growing more food is damage to the environment, which is already extensive. Only our use of energy, with its profound impacts on climate and ocean acidification, rivals the sheer magnitude of agriculture’s environmental impacts. Our research team estimates that agriculture has already cleared or radically transformed 70 percent of the world’s prehistoric grasslands, 50 percent of the savannas, 45 percent of the temperate deciduous forests and 25 percent of the tropical forests. Since the last ice age, nothing has disrupted ecosystems more. Agriculture’s physical footprint is nearly 60 times that of the world’s pavements and buildings.

Freshwater is another casualty. Humans use an astounding 4,000 cubic kilometers of water per year, mostly withdrawn from rivers and aquifers. Irrigation accounts for 70 percent of the draw. If we count only consumptive water use—water that is used and not returned to the watershed—irrigation climbs to 80 or 90 percent of the total. As a result, many large rivers, such as the Colorado, have diminished flows, some have dried up altogether, and many places have rapidly declining water tables, including regions of the U.S. and India.

Water is not only disappearing, it is being contaminated. Fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides are being spread at incredible levels and are found in nearly every ecosystem. The flows of nitrogen and phosphorus through the environment have more than doubled since 1960, causing widespread water pollution and enormous hypoxic “dead zones” at the mouths of many of the world’s major rivers. Ironically, fertilizer runoff from farmland—in the name of growing more food—compromises another crucial source of nutrition: coastal fishing grounds. Fertilizer certainly has been a key ingredient of the green revolution that has helped feed the world, but when nearly half the fertilizer we apply runs off rather than nourishes crops, we clearly can do better.

Agriculture is also the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions from society, collectively accounting for about 35 percent of the carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide we release. That is more than the emissions from worldwide transportation (including all cars, trucks and planes) or electricity generation. The energy used to grow, process and transport food is a concern, but the vast majority of emissions comes from tropical deforestation, methane released from animals and rice paddies, and nitrous oxide from overfertilized soils.

Five Solutions Modern agriculture has been an incredibly positive force in the world, but we can no longer ignore its dwindling ability to expand or the mounting environmental harm it imposes. Previous approaches to solving food and environmental issues were often at odds. We could boost food production by clearing more land or using more water and chemicals but only at a cost to the environment. Or we could restore ecosystems by taking farmland out of cultivation but only by reducing food production. This either-or approach is no longer acceptable. We need truly integrated solutions.

After many months of research and deliberation—based on analysis of newly generated global agricultural and environmental data—our international team has settled on a five-point plan for dealing with food and environmental challenges together.

Stop expanding agriculture’s footprint. Our first recommendation is to slow and ultimately stop the expansion of agriculture, particularly into tropical forests and savannas. The demise of these ecosystems has far-reaching impacts on the environment, especially through lost biodiversity and increased carbon dioxide emissions (from clearing land).

Slowing deforestation would dramatically reduce environmental damage while imposing only minor constraints on global food production. The resulting dip in farm capacity could be offset by reducing the displacement of more productive croplands by urbanization, degradation and abandonment.

Many proposals have been made to reduce deforestation. One of the most promising is the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) mechanism. Under REDD, rich nations pay tropical nations to protect their rain forests, in exchange for carbon credits. Other mechanisms include developing certification standards for agricultural products so that supply chains can be assured that crops were not grown on lands created by deforestation. Also, better biofuel policy that relies on nonfood crops such as switchgrass instead of food crops could make vital farmland newly available.

Close the world’s yield gaps . To double global food production without expanding agriculture’s footprint, we must significantly improve yields of existing farmlands. Two options exist: We can boost the productivity of our best farms—raising their “yield ceiling” through improved crop genetics and management. Or we can improve the yields of the world’s least productive farms—closing the “yield gap” between a farm’s current yield and its higher potential yield. The second option provides the largest and most immediate gain—especially in regions where hunger is most acute.

Our research team has analyzed global patterns of crop yields and found that much of the world has a significant yield gap. In particular, yields could increase substantially across many parts of Africa, Central America and eastern Europe. In these regions, better seeds, more effective fertilizer application and efficient irrigation could produce much more food on the same amount of land. Our analysis suggests that closing the yield gap for the world’s top 16 crops could increase total food production by 50 to 60 percent, with little environmental damage.

Reducing yield gaps in the least productive agricultural lands may often require some additional fertilizer and water. Care will have to be taken to avoid unbridled irrigation and chemical use. Many other techniques can improve yield. “Reduced tillage” planting techniques disturb less soil, preventing erosion. Cover crops planted between food-crop seasons reduce weeds and add nutrients and nitrogen to the soil when plowed under. Lessons from organic and agroecological systems can also be adopted, such as leaving crop residues on fields so that they decompose into nutrients. To close the world’s yield gaps, we also have to overcome serious economic and social challenges, including better distribution of fertilizer and seed varieties to farms in impoverished regions and improving access to global markets for many regions.

Use resources much more efficiently . To reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture, low- and high-yield regions alike must practice agriculture with vastly greater efficiency: far more crop output per unit of water, fertilizer and energy.

On average, it takes about one liter of irrigation water to grow one calorie of food, although some places use much more. Our analysis finds that farms can significantly curb water use without much reduction in food production, especially in dry climates. Primary strategies include drip irrigation (where water is applied directly to the plant’s base and not wastefully sprayed into the air); mulching (covering the soil with organic matter to retain moisture); and reducing water lost from irrigation systems (by lessening evaporation from canals and reservoirs).

With fertilizers, we face a kind of Goldilocks problem. Some places have too few nutrients and therefore poor crop production, whereas others have too much, leading to pollution. Almost no one uses fertilizers “just right.” Our analysis shows hotspots on the planet—particularly in China, northern India, the central U.S. and western Europe—where farmers could substantially reduce fertilizer use with little or no impact on food production. Amazingly, only 10 percent of the world’s cropland generates 30 to 40 percent of agriculture’s fertilizer pollution.

Among the actions that can fix this excess are policy and economic incentives, such as payments to farmers for watershed stewardship and protection, for reducing excessive fertilizer use, for improving manure management (especially manure storage, so that less runs off into the watershed during a storm), for capturing excess nutrients through recycling, and for instituting other conservation practices. In addition, restoring wetlands will enhance their capacity to act as a natural sponge to filter out nutrients in runoff.

Here again reduced tillage can help nourish the soil, as can precision agriculture (applying fertilizer and water only when and where they are needed and most effective) and organic farming techniques.

Shift diets away from meat . We can dramatically increase global food availability and environmental sustainability by using more of our crops to feed people directly and less to fatten livestock.

Globally, humans could net up to three quadrillion additional calories every year—a 50 percent increase from our current supply—by switching to all-plant diets. Naturally, our current diets and uses of crops have many economic and social benefits, and our preferences are unlikely to change completely. Still, even small shifts in diet, say, from grain-fed beef to poultry, pork or pasture-fed beef, can pay off handsomely.

Reduce food waste . A final, obvious but often neglected recommendation is to reduce waste in the food system. Roughly 30 percent of the food produced on the planet is discarded, lost, spoiled or consumed by pests.

In rich countries, much of the waste takes place at the consumer end of the system, in restaurants and trash cans. Simple changes in our daily consumption patterns—reducing oversize portions, food thrown in the garbage, and the number of takeout and restaurant meals—could significantly trim losses, as well as our expanding waistlines. In poorer countries, the losses are similar in size but occur at the producer end, in the form of failed crops, stockpiles ruined by pests, or food that is never delivered because of bad infrastructure and markets. Improved storage, refrigeration and distribution systems can cut waste appreciably. Moreover, better market tools can connect people who have crops to those who need them, such as cell-phone systems in Africa that link suppliers, traders and purchasers.

Although completely eliminating waste from farm to fork is not realistic, even small steps would be extremely beneficial. Targeted efforts—especially reducing waste of the most resource-intensive foods such as meat and dairy—could make a big difference.

Moving toward a Networked Food System In principle, our five-point strategy can address many food security and environmental challenges. Together the steps could increase the world’s food availability by 100 to 180 percent, while significantly lowering greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity losses, water use and water pollution.

It is important to emphasize that all five points (and perhaps more) must be pursued together. No single strategy is sufficient to solve all our problems. Think silver buckshot, not a silver bullet. We have tremendous successes from the green revolution and industrial-scale agriculture to build on, along with innovations in organic farming and local food systems. Let’s take the best ideas and incorporate them into a new approach—a sustainable food system that focuses on nutritional, social and environmental performance, to bring responsible food production to scale.

We can configure this next-generation system as a network of local agricultural systems that are sensitive to nearby climate, water resources, ecosystems and culture and that are connected through efficient means of global trade and transport. Such a system could be resilient and also pay farmers a living wage.

One device that would help foster this new food system would be the equivalent of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program now in place for constructing new commercial buildings sustainably. This LEED program awards increasingly higher levels of certification based on points that are accumulated by incorporating any of a wide range of green options, from solar power and efficient lighting to recycled building materials and low construction waste.

For sustainable agriculture, foods would be awarded points based on how well they deliver nutrition, food security and other public benefits, minus their environmental and social costs. This certification would help us get beyond current food labels such as “local” and “organic,” which really do not tell us much about what we are eating. Instead we can look at the whole performance of our food—across nutritional, social and environmental dimensions—and weigh the costs and benefits of different farming approaches.

Imagine the possibilities: sustainable citrus and coffee from the tropics, connected to sustainable cereals from the temperate zone, supplemented by locally grown greens and root vegetables, all grown under transparent, performance-based standards. Use your smartphone and the latest sustainable food app, and you will learn where your food came from, who grew it, how it was grown, and how it ranks against various social, nutritional and environmental criteria. And when you find food that works, you can tweet about it to your social network of farmers and foodies.

The principles and practices of our different agricultural systems—from large-scale commercial to local and organic—provide the foundation for grappling with the world’s food security and environmental needs. Feeding nine billion people in a truly sustainable way will be one of the greatest challenges our civilization has had to confront. It will require the imagination, determination and hard work of countless people from all over the world. There is no time to lose. 

Food security and nutrition and sustainable agriculture

Related sdgs, end hunger, achieve food security and improve ....

Description

Publications.

As the world population continues to grow, much more effort and innovation will be urgently needed in order to sustainably increase agricultural production, improve the global supply chain, decrease food losses and waste, and ensure that all who are suffering from hunger and malnutrition have access to nutritious food. Many in the international community believe that it is possible to eradicate hunger within the next generation, and are working together to achieve this goal.

World leaders at the 2012 Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger. The UN Secretary-General’s Zero Hunger Challenge launched at Rio+20 called on governments, civil society, faith communities, the private sector, and research institutions to unite to end hunger and eliminate the worst forms of malnutrition.

The Zero Hunger Challenge has since garnered widespread support from many member States and other entities. It calls for:

• Zero stunted children under the age of two
• 100% access to adequate food all year round
• All food systems are sustainable
• 100% increase in smallholder productivity and income
• Zero loss or waste of food

The Sustainable Development Goal to “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture” (SDG2) recognizes the inter linkages among supporting sustainable agriculture, empowering small farmers, promoting gender equality, ending rural poverty, ensuring healthy lifestyles, tackling climate change, and other issues addressed within the set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals in the Post-2015 Development Agenda.

Beyond adequate calories intake, proper nutrition has other dimensions that deserve attention, including micronutrient availability and healthy diets. Inadequate micronutrient intake of mothers and infants can have long-term developmental impacts. Unhealthy diets and lifestyles are closely linked to the growing incidence of non-communicable diseases in both developed and developing countries.

Adequate nutrition during the critical 1,000 days from beginning of pregnancy through a child’s second birthday merits a particular focus. The Scaling-Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement has made great progress since its creation five years ago in incorporating strategies that link nutrition to agriculture, clean water, sanitation, education, employment, social protection, health care and support for resilience.

Extreme poverty and hunger are predominantly rural, with smallholder farmers and their families making up a very significant proportion of the poor and hungry. Thus, eradicating poverty and hunger are integrally linked to boosting food production, agricultural productivity and rural incomes.

Agriculture systems worldwide must become more productive and less wasteful. Sustainable agricultural practices and food systems, including both production and consumption, must be pursued from a holistic and integrated perspective.

Land, healthy soils, water and plant genetic resources are key inputs into food production, and their growing scarcity in many parts of the world makes it imperative to use and manage them sustainably. Boosting yields on existing agricultural lands, including restoration of degraded lands, through sustainable agricultural practices would also relieve pressure to clear forests for agricultural production. Wise management of scarce water through improved irrigation and storage technologies, combined with development of new drought-resistant crop varieties, can contribute to sustaining drylands productivity.

Halting and reversing land degradation will also be critical to meeting future food needs. The Rio+20 outcome document calls for achieving a land-degradation-neutral world in the context of sustainable development. Given the current extent of land degradation globally, the potential benefits from land restoration for food security and for mitigating climate change are enormous. However, there is also recognition that scientific understanding of the drivers of desertification, land degradation and drought is still evolving.

There are many elements of traditional farmer knowledge that, enriched by the latest scientific knowledge, can support productive food systems through sound and sustainable soil, land, water, nutrient and pest management, and the more extensive use of organic fertilizers.

An increase in integrated decision-making processes at national and regional levels are needed to achieve synergies and adequately address trade-offs among agriculture, water, energy, land and climate change.

Given expected changes in temperatures, precipitation and pests associated with climate change, the global community is called upon to increase investment in research, development and demonstration of technologies to improve the sustainability of food systems everywhere. Building resilience of local food systems will be critical to averting large-scale future shortages and to ensuring food security and good nutrition for all.

State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020

Updates for many countries have made it possible to estimate hunger in the world with greater accuracy this year. In particular, newly accessible data enabled the revision of the entire series of undernourishment estimates for China back to 2000, resulting in a substantial downward shift of the seri...

Food and Agriculture

Our planet faces multiple and complex challenges in the 21st century. The new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development commits the international community to act together to surmount them and transform our world for today’s and future generations....

Food Security and Nutrition in Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

The outcome document of Rio+20, “The Future We Want” (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, June 2012) acknowledged that SIDS remains a special case for sustainable development. Building on the Barbados Programme of Action and the Mauritius Strategy, the document calls for the conv...

Global Blue Growth Initiative and Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

Three-quarters of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans and seas which are an engine for global economic growth and a key source of food security. The global ocean economic activity is estimated to be USD 3–5 trillion. Ninety percent of global trade moves by marine transport. Over 30 percent of g...

FAO and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals

The Sustainable Development Goals offer a vision of a fairer, more prosperous, peaceful and sustainable world in which no one is left behind. In food - the way it is grown, produced, consumed, traded, transported, stored and marketed - lies the fundamental connection between people and the planet, ...

FAO Strategy for Partnerships with the Private Sector

The fight against hunger can only be won in partnership with governments and other non-state actors, among which the private sector plays a fundamental role. FAO is actively pursuing these partnerships to meet the Zero Hunger Challenge together with UN partners and other committed stakeholders. We ...

FAO Strategy for Partnerships with Civil Society Organizations

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is convinced that hunger and malnutrition can be eradicated in our lifetime. To meet the Zero Hunger Challenge, political commitment and major alliances with key stakeholders are crucial. Only through effective collaboration with go...

Emerging Issues for Small Island Developing States

The 2012 UNEP Foresight Process on Emerging Global Environmental Issues primarily identified emerging environmental issues and possible solutions on a global scale and perspective. In 2013, UNEP carried out a similar exercise to identify priority emerging environmental issues that are of concern to ...

Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom, We recognize that eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for su...

Good practices in building innovative rural institutions to increase food security

Continued population growth, urbanization and rising incomes are likely to continue to put pressure on food demand. International prices for most agricultural commodities are set to remain at 2010 levels or higher, at least for the next decade (OECD-FAO, 2010). Small-scale producers in many developi...

Farmer’s organizations in Bangladesh: a mapping and capacity assessment

Farmers’ organizations (FOs) in Bangladesh have the potential to be true partners in, rather than “beneficiaries” of, the development process. FOs bring to the table a deep knowledge of the local context, a nuanced understanding of the needs of their communities and strong social capital. Increasing...

Post 2015 and the SDGs. Nourishing People, Nurturing the Planet.

FAO and the Post-2015 development agenda issue papers. Persistently high levels of hunger and malnutrition – 795 million chronically hungry people in the world in 2014–2016 – and unsustainable human ativity on the earth’s carrying capacity present a major challenge for agriculture. To meet the g...

SDG Global Business Forum 2024

 The 2024 SDG Global Business Forum will take place virtually as a special event alongside the 2024 High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), the United Nations central platform for the follow-up and review of the SDGs. The Forum will place special emphasis on the SDGs under

Expert Group Meeting on SDG2 and its interlinkages with other SDGs

The theme of the 2024 High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) is “Reinforcing the 2030 Agenda and eradicating poverty in times of multiple crises: the effective delivery of sustainable, resilient and innovative solutions”. The 2024 HLPF will have an in-depth review of Sustainable Development Goa

Expert Group Meetings for 2024 HLPF Thematic Review

The theme of the 2024 High Level Political Forum (HLPF) is “Reinforcing the 2030 Agenda and eradicating poverty in times of multiple crisis: the effective delivery of sustainable, resilient and innovative solutions”. The 2024 HLPF will have an in-depth review of SDG 1 on No Poverty, SDG 2 on Zero Hu

International Workshop on “Applications of Juncao Technology and its contribution to alleviating poverty, promoting employment and protecting the environment”

According to the United Nations Food Systems Summit that was held in 2021, many of the world’s food systems are fragile and not fulfilling the right to adequate food for all. Hunger and malnutrition are on the rise again. According to FAO’s “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023

Second Regional Workshop on “Applications of Juncao Technology and its Contribution to the Achievement of Sustainable Agriculture and the Sustainable Development Goals in Africa” 18 - 19 December 2023

Ⅰ. Purpose of the Workshop At the halfway point of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the application of science and technology in developing sustainable agricultural practices has the potential to accelerate transformative change in support of the Sustainable Development Goals. In that r

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) 2023 Launch

On 12 July 2023 from 10 AM to 12 PM (EDT), FAO and its co-publishing partners will be launching, for the fifth time, the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report at a Special Event in the margins of the ECOSOC High-Level Political Forum (HLPF). The 2023 edition

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022 (SOFI) Launch

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World is an annual flagship report to inform on progress towards ending hunger, achieving food security and improving nutrition and to provide in-depth analysis on key challenges for achieving this goal in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021 (SOFI)

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021 (SOFI 2021) report presents the first evidence-based global assessment of chronic food insecurity in the year the COVID-19 pandemic emerged and spread across the globe. The SOFI 2021 report will also focus on complementary food system solu

Committee on World Food Security (CFS 46)

Ministerial meeting on food security and climate adaptation in small island developing states.

The proposed meeting will offer SIDS Ministers and Ambassadors the opportunity to explore the implications of the SAMOA Pathway as it relates to food security and nutrition and climate change adaptation. The ultimate objective is to enhance food security, health and wellbeing in SIDS. Ministers an

• January 2015 SDG 2 SDG2 focuses on ending hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture. In particular, its targets aims to: end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round by 2030 (2.1); end all forms of malnutrition by 2030, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons (2.2.); double,by 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment (2.3); ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality (2.4); by 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed (2.5); The alphabetical goals aim to: increase investment in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks , correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets as well as adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility.
• January 2014 Rome Decl. on Nutrition and Framework for Action The Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) took place at FAO Headquarters, in Rome in November 2014. The Conference resulted in the Rome Declaration on Nutrition and the Framework for Action, a political commitment document and a flexible policy framework, respectively, aimed at addressing the current major nutrition challenges and identifying priorities for enhanced international cooperation on nutrition.
• January 2012 Future We Want (Para 108-118) In Future We Want, Member States reaffirm their commitments regarding "the right of everyone to have access to safe, sufficient and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger". Member States also acknowledge that food security and nutrition has become a pressing global challenge. At Rio +20, the UN Secretary-General’s Zero Hunger Challenge was launched in order to call on governments, civil society, faith communities, the private sector, and research institutions to unite to end hunger and eliminate the worst forms of malnutrition.
• January 2009 UN SG HLTF on Food and Nutrition Security The UN SG HLTF on Food and Nutrition Security was established by the UN SG, Mr Ban Ki-moon in 2008 and since then has aimed at promoting a comprehensive and unified response of the international community to the challenge of achieving global food and nutrition security. It has also been responsible for building joint positions among its members around the five elements of the Zero Hunger Challenge.
• January 2002 Report World Food Summit +5 The World Food Summit +5 adopted a declaration, calling on the international community to fulfill the pledge, made at the original World Food Summit in 1996, to reduce the number of hungry people to about 400 million by 2015.
• January 2000 MDG 1 MDG 1 aims at eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. Its three targets respectively read: halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1.25 a day (1.A), achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people (1.B), halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger (1.C).
• January 1996 Rome Decl. on World Food Security The Summit aimed to reaffirm global commitment, at the highest political level, to eliminate hunger and malnutrition, and to achieve sustainable food security for all. Thank to its high visibility, the Summit contributed to raise further awareness on agriculture capacity, food insecurity and malnutrition among decision-makers in the public and private sectors, in the media and with the public at large. It also set the political, conceptual and technical blueprint for an ongoing effort to eradicate hunger at global level with the target of reducing by half the number of undernourished people by no later than the year 2015. The Rome Declaration defined seven commitments as main pillars for the achievement of sustainable food security for all whereas its Plan of Action identified the objectives and actions relevant for practical implementation of these seven commitments.
• January 1992 1st ICN The first International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) convened at the FAO's Headquarters in Rome to identify common strategies and methods to eradicate hunger and malnutrition. The conference was organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) and was attended by delegations from 159 countries as well as the European Economic Community, 16 United Nations organizations, 11 intergovernmental organizations, and 144 non-governmental organizations.
• January 1986 Creation of AGROSTAT (now FAOSTAT) Since 1986, AGROSTAT, now known as FAOSTAT, has provided cross sectional data relating to food and agriculture as well as time-series for some 200 countries.
• January 1979 1st World Food Day World Food Day is celebrated each year on 16 October to commemorate the day on which FAO was founded in 1945. Established on the occasion of FAO Twentieth General Conference held in November 1979, the first World Food Day was celebrated in 1981 and was devoted to the theme "Food Comes First".

How to feed 10bn people in a sustainable way

• Agriculture
• Interactive Infographic
• copy link link copied

As the global population soars, we need to eat and produce food in different ways to sustain humankind and protect the planet’s resources

The world could have as many as 10bn mouths to feed by 2050. That’s 3bn more than a decade ago – and the growing demand poses a major environmental question. How do we produce enough calories to meet this remarkable need without expanding agriculture in ways that compromise our efforts to preserve the natural habitat and respond to the climate crisis?

One thing is clear: the way we grow and produce food will have to change.

Current food systems put too much pressure on the planet. For example:

• Almost 90 per cent of global deforestation is due to agricultural expansion
• Agriculture drives 80 per cent of global land-use change, which in turn threatens biodiversity
• One third of soils are already degraded
• Agriculture accounts for 70 per cent of global freshwater use

This pressure generates a vicious circle because it undermines the resilience of the global systems that agriculture depends on.

Change needs to happen in four key domains. We need to:

• Shift diets away from resource-intensive meat and towards more sustainable, mainly plant-based foods
• Reduce the growth in demand for food by minimising waste
• Increase the productivity of farming methods
• Reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with agriculture

Shifting diets

We need to eat “fewer but better” calories. The most effective way to do this is to scale up the consumption of plant-based proteins, and decrease the consumption of animal-based proteins.

To help frame this challenge, scientists have devised what they call the Planetary Health Diet (PHD). This provides guidelines to consumption of different food groups, which together constitute an optimal diet for human health and environmental sustainability.

The PHD emphasises whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes, with significantly smaller proportions of meat and dairy. For a typical meal, about half the plate would comprise vegetables and fruit of different colours, and a third would be whole grains, followed by plant proteins (beans, pulses), some unsaturated oils with optional or modest amounts of animal protein and dairy, and some added sugars and starchy vegetables. 

Changing diets in this way will help because the vast majority of current agricultural land is used to support livestock.

Whilst most soyabeans, for example, feed not people but farm animals used for meat – mostly poultry and pigs. This makes soyabean production a good example of how the increasing demand for food can drive deforestation.

Global soya production has escalated over the past 50 years; global production today is more than 13 times higher than it was in the early 1960s. Even since the year 2000, production has more than doubled. To meet this demand, countries often clear forests. For example, in Brazil, land use for soyabean production has tripled since 1980 .

Minimising waste

One quarter of food produced for human consumption is not eaten. Waste happens throughout the production and supply chain. In poorer countries most of this loss happens because of inefficient production, whereas in richer countries it tends to occur because people throw away a lot of the food they buy.

According to the European Food Information Council, around 88mn tonnes of food are wasted in the EU every year, with more than half of that from households. We can all help to reduce that by changing the way we shop, cook and plan our meals.

Increasing productivity of farming

To produce extra food without claiming yet more land for agriculture, yields from existing crops and farmland must increase significantly.

A huge sustainable agriculture project in China could point the way. The scheme has significantly boosted crop yields across millions of small farms while, at the same time, cutting the use of damaging nitrogen fertilisers.

Farmers tend to rice seedbeds in northern China

During the decade-long study, scientists analysed agricultural data to work out which practices produced the best yields. They then drew up recommendations, which were passed to about 21mn farmers. For example, the team got rice farmers in north-east China to reduce overall nitrogen use by 20 per cent, while applying more fertiliser late in the growing season and planting the seeds closer together.

The results were impressive. Between 2006 and 2015, crop production for each grain increased 11 per cent, while fertiliser use per crop dropped by 15 per cent . The scale and success of the project has amazed scientists around the world, who are now working to apply the same approach in other countries.

Reducing carbon emissions from agriculture

Food systems are responsible for 34 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions . Without changes, as agriculture increases so will its carbon footprint.

It is important to note that the chart above is an underestimate. It represents the earliest stages of food production, of just taking foodstuffs to the farm gate. As such it doesn’t include emissions from the impact of land-use change, transport, packaging, retail, processing, consumption and end of life disposal. Collectively, these comprise about two thirds of the total greenhouse-gas footprint for food systems.

Cutting cows' greenhouse emissions

Farming livestock contributes to global warming because cows and other animals belch large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Scientists have found that adding seaweed to the diet of cows can reduce their methane production by 80 per cent . The seaweed, Asparagopsis taxiformis , changes the way the animals digest their fibrous food.

The seaweed, Asparagopsis taxiformis, has been found to limit the methane emissions from cows

Growing more food without causing further damage to our climate and biodiversity is a major challenge. But experts say it can be done – if vigorous action is undertaken in all the highlighted areas. Only through significant change on all these fronts simultaneously, including a global shift towards healthy, more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies, can we feed 10bn people sustainably by 2050.

We think you'll like this

• Environment

Will the Ukraine war help or hinder attempts to reach net zero?

More from the FT Rethink channel

Nature: your most reliable business partner

Marc Palahi, one of the world's first Chief Nature Officers, explains how Nature is our most important business partner and why a role like this should be created within every business moving forward.

Plastic's new chapter

Powerful forces are combining to turn the tide of plastic pollution, 70 years after it first became a part of our lives.

• Investments

Biodiversity funds are springing up in the investor market

A number of biodiversity funds have recently sprung up to supposedly help protect the world from biodiversity loss. Could they actually make a difference?

The long haul to electrify heavy trucks

Large EV trucks are slowly rolling off production lines, but a viable, open recharging network is still a long way down the road.

Can society turn down damaging levels of light pollution?

Levels of artificial light are continually increasing, disturbing nature, and contributing to global biodiversity loss. But scientists are finding new ways to limit the damage.

Looking for something in particular?

Use our filter to discover more FT Rethink content.

Trashion vs Fashion

How two companies are changing the linear and unsustainable business model of fast fashion.

Our electrifying future

Lombard Odier's Thomas Hohne-Sparborth breaks down just how impactful the electrification of our economies will be.

Could de-extinction help reverse human-inflicted biodiversity loss?

A US biotech company thinks it can bring animals back from extinction. But scientists and conservationists warn the effects of de-extinction could be unpredictable.

Architects take inspiration from nature to build sustainable future

Biomimicry can lessen a structure’s impact on the environment and reverse ecological damage

• Natural Resources

Europe and the US look to boost their lithium independence

China controls about 60 per cent of global lithium processing. Europe and the US are both making moves to loosen that grip on the lithium supply chain, but it won’t be easy.

Can sustainable aviation fuel clean up flying?

Sustainable aviation fuel can reduce emissions from flying by up to 80 per cent. The FT’s Myles McCormick looks at whether production of SAF can be scaled, and how long it will take.

The carbon market opportunity

Carbon markets: explaning this emerging asset class and the unique opportunity it offers for investors

Falling wind speeds could affect green energy strategy

By 2100, average annual wind speeds could drop by up to 10 per cent, but what impact might that have on the world’s transition to renewable energy?

Is a sustainable electronics industry possible?

Over the past decade, tech has become an indispensable companion in our lives.

Recycling the world’s hard drive waste

Wiping, instead of shredding discarded hard drives for data protection could save valuable resources but companies are reluctant to do it.

Planetary boundaries: What are they and why shouldn't we cross them?

Michael Urban, Chief Sustainability Strategist for the Lombard Odier Group explains the nine planetary boundaries we live within, how they interact with each other, and what could happens when we cross them.

Are we too obsessed with our personal carbon footprints?

The FT’s Simon Mundy argues that intense debates about personal behaviour when it comes to climate action may be crowding out some more important questions. But what can we do about it?

Farmbots bring precision to the business of food production

By nurturing crops on a plant by plant basis, new technology can cut chemical use and boost yields

How tech is being used to keep fisheries in line

Pick up an Austral Fisheries toothfish loin in the supermarket, scan the barcode on the back of the packet, and you’ll be able to follow every step in the fish’s journey from deep ocean to shop shelf.

Nuclear is back in vogue. But what about its waste?

With more than 50 reactors being built around the world, nuclear power is undergoing a revival. But the question of how to deal with lethal radioactive waste hasn’t gone away.

Discover more content on the topics that inspire, engage and inform the world we live in today at the FT Channels hub.

Stay up to date with the latest articles, videos and stories from the FT and our partners.

FT Channels, a partnership destination that combines impactful and enriching multimedia content to spark curiosity and encourage discovery. Each vertical brings expert insights from the Financial Times and our Partners into the most pressing issues of our time.

FT Rethink series focuses on the people, technology, strategies and systems moving us from an economy that is wasteful, idle, lopsided and dirty towards one that is circular, lean, inclusive and clean. The channel alternates between independent reporting from FT journalists and business perspectives from Lombard Odier

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 19 May 2020

Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system

• Mario Herrero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7741-5090 1 ,
• Philip K. Thornton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1854-0182 2 ,
• Daniel Mason-D’Croz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0673-2301 1 ,
• Jeda Palmer 1 ,
• Tim G. Benton   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7448-1973 3 ,
• Benjamin L. Bodirsky   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8242-6712 4 ,
• Jessica R. Bogard   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5503-5284 1 ,
• Andrew Hall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8580-6569 1 ,
• Bernice Lee 3 ,
• Karine Nyborg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0359-548X 5 ,
• Prajal Pradhan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0491-5489 4 ,
• Graham D. Bonnett 1 ,
• Brett A. Bryan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4834-5641 6 ,
• Bruce M. Campbell 7 , 8 ,
• Svend Christensen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1112-1954 7 ,
• Michael Clark   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7161-7751 9 ,
• Mathew T. Cook 1 ,
• Imke J. M. de Boer 10 ,
• Chris Downs 1 ,
• Kanar Dizyee 1 ,
• Christian Folberth   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6738-5238 11 ,
• Cecile M. Godde 1 ,
• James S. Gerber   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6890-0481 12 ,
• Michael Grundy 1 ,
• Petr Havlik 11 ,
• Andrew Jarvis 8 ,
• Richard King   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6404-8052 3 ,
• Ana Maria Loboguerrero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2690-0763 8 ,
• Mauricio A. Lopes   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0671-9940 11 ,
• C. Lynne McIntyre 1 ,
• Rosamond Naylor 13 ,
• Javier Navarro 1 ,
• Michael Obersteiner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6981-2769 11 ,
• Alejandro Parodi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1351-138X 10 ,
• Mark B. Peoples 1 ,
• Ilje Pikaar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1820-9983 14 , 15 ,
• Alexander Popp 4 ,
• Johan Rockström 4 , 16 ,
• Michael J. Robertson 1 ,
• Pete Smith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3784-1124 17 ,
• Elke Stehfest   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3016-2679 18 ,
• Steve M. Swain   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6118-745X 1 ,
• Hugo Valin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0618-773X 11 ,
• Mark van Wijk 19 ,
• Hannah H. E. van Zanten   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5262-5518 10 ,
• Sonja Vermeulen 3 , 20 ,
• Joost Vervoort 21 &
• Paul C. West   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9024-1657 12  

Nature Food volume  1 ,  pages 266–272 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

282 Citations

341 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Agriculture
• Science, technology and society

Future technologies and systemic innovation are critical for the profound transformation the food system needs. These innovations range from food production, land use and emissions, all the way to improved diets and waste management. Here, we identify these technologies, assess their readiness and propose eight action points that could accelerate the transition towards a more sustainable food system. We argue that the speed of innovation could be significantly increased with the appropriate incentives, regulations and social licence. These, in turn, require constructive stakeholder dialogue and clear transition pathways.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing

Effects of a personalized nutrition program on cardiometabolic health: a randomized controlled trial

Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562 , 519–525 (2018).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Frank, S. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 12 , 105004 (2017).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

van Ittersum, M. K. et al. Can sub-Saharan Africa feed itself? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , 14964–14969 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Havlík, P. et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 3709–3714 (2014).

Rosegrant, M. W. et al. Food Security in a World of Natural Resource Scarcity The Role of Agricultural Technologies (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2014).

Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478 , 337–342 (2011).

Rockström, J. et al. Planet-proofing the global food system. Nat. Food 1 , 3–5 (2020).

Google Scholar  

Gao, L. & Bryan, B. A. Finding pathways to national-scale land-sector sustainability. Nature 544 , 217–222 (2017).

Arneth, A. et. al. Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (IPCC, WMO, 2019).

Searchinger, T. et al. Creating a Sustainable Food Future: a Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050 (Agency for International Development, 2018).

Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT– Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 , 447–429 (2019).

Pikaar, I. et al. Decoupling livestock from land use through industrial feed production pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 , 7351–7359 (2018).

Walsh, B. J. et al. New feed sources key to ambitious climate targets. Carbon Balance Manag 10 , 1–8 (2015).

Bumpus, A. & Comello, S. Emerging clean energy technology investment trends. Nat. Clim. Chang 7 , 382–385 (2017).

Froggatt, A. & Wellesley, L. Meat Analogues: Considerations for the EU (Chatham House, 2019).

Hall, A. & Dijkman, J. Public Agricultural Research and Development in an Era of Transformation Vol. 1 (Independent Science Council of the CGIAR and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 2019).

Selian, A. N. & McKnight, L. In The Pursuit of Human Well-Being (eds. Estes, R. & Sirgy, M.) 639–687 (Springer, 2017).

Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 20260–20264 (2011).

Davis, K. F. et al. Historical trade-offs of livestock’s environmental impacts. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 , 125013 (2015).

Campbell, B. M. et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22 , 8 (2017).

Swinburn, B. A. et al. The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change: The Lancet Commission report. Lancet 6736 , 1–56 (2019).

Mankins, J. C. Technology Readiness Levels, A White Paper (NASA, 1995).

Mankins, J. C. Technology readiness assessments: a retrospective. Acta Astronautica 65 , 1216–1223 (2009).

Hirshhorn, S. et al. Final Report of the NASA Technology Readiness Assessment Study Team (NASA, 2016).

Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision ESA Working Paper No. 12–03 (FAO, 2012).

Swedish Research and Innovation Strategy for a Bio-based Economy (Swedish Research Council for Environment Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning, 2012).

National Bioeconomy Blueprint (Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2012).

El-Chichakli, B., von Braun, J., Lang, C., Barben, D. & Philp, J. Policy: Five cornerstones of a global bioeconomy. Nature 535 , 221–223 (2016).

System Innovation: Synthesis Report (OECD, 2015).

Sánchez-Mejía, M. in Globalization and Health Inequities in Latin America (Malagón de Salazar, L. & Luján Villar, R.) 205–218 (Springer International Publishing, 2018).

Philp, J. The bioeconomy, the challenge of the century for policy makers. Nat. Biotechnol. 40 , 11–19 (2018).

CAS   Google Scholar  

Building the Bioeconomy 4th edn (Pugatch Consilium, 2017).

Noack, A.-L. & Pouw, N. R. M. A blind spot in food and nutrition security: where culture and social change shape the local food plate. Agric. Human Values 32 , 169–182 (2015).

Wellesley, L., Happer, C. & Froggatt, A. Changing Climate , Changing Diets: Pathways to Lower Meat Consumption (Chatham House, 2015).

Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354 , 42–43 (2016).

Greaker, M. & Midttømme, K. Network effects and environmental externalities: do clean technologies suffer from excess inertia? J. Public Econ. 143 , 27–38 (2016).

Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M. & Siegrist, M. The importance of food naturalness for consumers: results of a systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 67 , 44–57 (2017).

Stilgoe., J., Owen, R. & McNaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42 , 1568–1580 (2013).

Mytelka, L. K. Competition, Innovation and Competitiveness in Developing Countries (OECD, 1999).

Snowden, D. J. The Cynefin Framework (Cognitive Edge, accessed 22 December 2018); https://cognitive-edge.com/

Asheim, G. B. et al. The case for a supply-side climate treaty. Science 365 , 325–327 (2019).

Acemoglu, D., Akcigit, U., Hanley, D. & Kerr, W. Transition to clean technology. J. Polit. Econ. 124 , 52–104 (2016).

Harstad, B., Lancia, F. & Russo, A. Compliance technology and self-enforcing agreements. J. Europ. Econ. Assoc 17 , 1–29 (2019).

Ashford, N. in The Steilmann Report: The Wealth of People: An Intelligent Economy for the 21st Century 233–274 (2001).

Dempwolf, C. S., Auer, J. & D’Ippolito, M. Innovation Accelerators: Defining Characteristics among Start-Up Assistance Organisations (Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, Univ. Maryland, 2014).

Bryant, C. & Barnett, J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a systematic review. Meat Sci. 143 , 8–17 (2018).

de Boer, J. & Aiking, H. Prospects for pro-environmental protein consumption in Europe: cultural, culinary, economic and psychological factors. Appetite 121 , 29–40 (2018).

Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E. J., Gellynck, X. & Verbeke, W. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 62 , 7–16 (2013).

Preston, F. & Lehne, J. A Wider Circle? The Circular Economy in Developing Countries (Chatham House, 2017).

Mazzucato, M. From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Ind. Innov 23 , 140–156 (2016).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.H., D.M.-D., J.P.J., J.R.B., G.D.B., M.T.C., C.D., C.M.G., M.G., C.L.M., J.N., M.B.P., M.J.R. and S.M.S. acknowledge funding from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; P.T., B.M.C., A.J. and A.M.L. acknowledge funding from the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements (see https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors ). The views expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these organizations. B.L.B. acknowledges funding from the NAVIGATE project of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 821124, and by the project SHAPE, which is part of AXIS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and funded by FORMAS (SE), FFG/BMWFW (AT), DLR/BMBF (DE, grant no. 01LS1907A-B-C), NWO (NL) and RCN (NO) with co-funding by the European Union (grant no. 776608); P.P. acknowledges funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant agreement no. 01DP17035); M.C. acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People), award number 205212/Z/16/Z; J.S.G., P.S. and P.C.W. acknowledge funding from the Belmont Forum/FACCE-JPI DEVIL project (grant no. NE/M021327/1); A.P. acknowledges funding from the NAVIGATE project of the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 821124, and by the project SHAPE, which is part of AXIS, an ERA-NET initiated by JPI Climate, and funded by FORMAS (SE), FFG/BMWFW (AT), DLR/BMBF (DE, grant no. 01LS1907A-B-C), NWO (NL) and RCN (NO) with co-funding by the European Union (grant no. 776608).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia https://www.csiro.au

Mario Herrero, Daniel Mason-D’Croz, Jeda Palmer, Jessica R. Bogard, Andrew Hall, Graham D. Bonnett, Mathew T. Cook, Chris Downs, Kanar Dizyee, Cecile M. Godde, Michael Grundy, C. Lynne McIntyre, Javier Navarro, Mark B. Peoples, Michael J. Robertson & Steve M. Swain

CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

Philip K. Thornton

The Royal Institute for International Affairs, Chatham House, London, UK

Tim G. Benton, Bernice Lee, Richard King & Sonja Vermeulen

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam, Germany

Benjamin L. Bodirsky, Prajal Pradhan, Alexander Popp & Johan Rockström

Department of Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Karine Nyborg

Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia

Brett A. Bryan

Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Fredriksberg, Denmark

Bruce M. Campbell & Svend Christensen

CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cali, Colombia

Bruce M. Campbell, Andrew Jarvis & Ana Maria Loboguerrero

Livestock, Environment and People, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Michael Clark

Animal Production Systems group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands

Imke J. M. de Boer, Alejandro Parodi & Hannah H. E. van Zanten

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria

Christian Folberth, Petr Havlik, Mauricio A. Lopes, Michael Obersteiner & Hugo Valin

Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St Paul, USA

James S. Gerber & Paul C. West

Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Rosamond Naylor

The School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Ilje Pikaar

Advanced Water Management Centre, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Institute of Environmental Science and Geography, Universität Potsdam, Campus Golm, Potsdam-Golm, Germany

Johan Rockström

Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, Netherlands

Elke Stehfest

International Livestock Research Institute, Sustainable Livestock Systems, Nairobi, Kenya

Mark van Wijk

CGIAR System Management Organisation, Montpellier, France

Sonja Vermeulen

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

Joost Vervoort

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C., J.P. and J.B. designed the research. M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C., J.P., A.H., B.L. and K.N. wrote the manuscript. M.H., P.K.T., D.M.C. J.P., J.B., C.G., K.D. and J.N. analysed data. All authors contributed data and edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Herrero .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary methods, discussion and Tables 1,2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Herrero, M., Thornton, P.K., Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat Food 1 , 266–272 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

Download citation

Received : 09 August 2019

Accepted : 13 April 2020

Published : 19 May 2020

Issue Date : May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Modelling six sustainable development transformations in australia and their accelerators, impediments, enablers, and interlinkages.

• Cameron Allen
• Annabel Biddulph
• Shirin Malekpour

Nature Communications (2024)

Assessing and addressing the global state of food production data scarcity

• Endalkachew Abebe Kebede
• Hanan Abou Ali
• Kyle Frankel Davis

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2024)

Interventions to increase circularity and reduce environmental impacts in food systems

• Benjamin van Selm
• Hannah H. E. van Zanten
• Imke J. M. de Boer

Ambio (2024)

What is culturally appropriate food consumption? A systematic literature review exploring six conceptual themes and their implications for sustainable food system transformation

• Jonas House
• Hilje van der Horst

Agriculture and Human Values (2024)

Exploring inclusion in UK agricultural robotics development: who, how, and why?

• Kirsten Ayris
• Anna Jackman
• David Christian Rose

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Achieving Food Security in a Sustainable Development Era

Introduction.

• Published: 23 November 2019
• Volume 4 , pages 117–121, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Dan Banik 1  

8365 Accesses

19 Citations

10 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Despite numerous developmental successes around the world, including major strides in food production, the persistence and scale of world hunger is astonishing. According to the latest State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report (FAO 2019 ), more than 820 million people suffer from daily hunger and this number has been slowly increasing in the past three years. And almost 2 billion people face some form of food insecurity – i.e. without access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food. Women, children and indigenous groups remain particularly vulnerable to hunger. In addition to undernutrition, the world is also facing the growing threat of overweight and obesity, which continue to rise fast in all world regions and is assuming epidemic proportions.

This special issue highlights the urgency of enacting strong policies that leverage the benefits of globalization while minimizing the risks in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 2 related to ending hunger, improving food security and nutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture. Hunger remains a silent emergency – attracting attention mainly when large numbers die during sensational and highly visible famines. In contrast, chronic hunger continues to evade the headlines. As the world struggles to achieve better developmental outcomes in the face of climate disruption, the political, economic and social implications of this silent emergency are enormous. Hunger and food insecurity are the products of a complex set of factors, including climate related triggers (e.g. drought, flood, cyclone), which are often further exacerbated by economic hardship and conflict. Indeed, the ability of political systems to address growing food insecurity and prevent short-term and long-term food crises from escalating into famine are contingent on historical, cultural economic and political factors. Moreover, various types of inequalities – including those of income, gender, access to productive agricultural land, access to healthy and fresh food – are highly correlated with food insecurity.

The 2030 Agenda and the SDGs

With the adoption of the 2030 Agenda and its accompanying 17 SDGs by 193 heads of state in 2015 (UN  2015 ) – grouped under overarching themes of people, planet, dignity, prosperity, justice and partnership – sustainable development is back in the international limelight. The SDGs have been widely praised for a strong articulation of an environmental dimension, in addition to breaking new ground with goals on inequality, economic growth, energy, and peace. Many argue that despite being imperfect and highly ambitious, the SDGs are the result of a comprehensive participatory process, unparalleled in the history of global development (Doane 2016 ). Indeed, while its predecessor – the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – focused exclusively on developing poor countries through foreign aid, the SDGs encompass a broader agenda, which applies to both rich and poor countries alike and is “buttressed by science and evidence” (UN 2014 ; UN 2015 ). By closely linking “sustainability” with “development” through the principles of “universality”, “integration” and “leave no one behind”, the 2030 Agenda has been much celebrated in academic, activist, business and policy circles as a means to stimulate a radical shift in world affairs (Banik and Miklian 2017 ). But the SDGs have also been criticized for their unrealistic ambitions and lack of focus. And one of the many unanswered questions relates to how low-income countries and conflict-prone fragile states will be able to plan, coordinate and finance development programs in line with the SDGs and aligned with their national interest.

There are growing concerns that many of the poorest countries will not be able to self-finance programs and that recent threats to aid from the Global North will stall efforts to advance the SDGs – thus making a stronger case for involvement of the private sector and the trillions of dollars for business opportunities that the SDGs open up (Business Commission 2017 ). However, operationalizing the SDGs requires a clearer understanding of the inter-connected, and yet distinct, role of national governments, international agencies and businesses. This is particularly urgent in low-income countries and conflict-prone fragile states, which are confronted with the dilemmas and potential pitfalls associated with coordinating the activities of numerous competing actors. Another key issue relates to state capacity and ability of local public administrations to identify, articulate, coordinate and implement development programs aligned with the national interest, while also making it sufficiently attractive for both domestic and international actors to become involved in SDG-related activities. Governments must therefore develop the capacity to identify mere profit-making initiatives that can thwart overall social and economic development.

Despite replete with references of the “we”, the 2030 Agenda does not make a clear distinction of the responsibilities of various stakeholders including national governments, international agencies and businesses (Engebretsen et al. 2017 ). Who will step in? And which part of the “we” will assume a greater responsibility for global development? Some argue that the pressure of achieving the 17 SDGs and their 169 targets can encourage governments to ignore the neediest. Still others point to unreliable and poor-quality data in large parts of the world and question the capacity of countries to reach “the furthest behind first” without knowing who they are (Jerven 2014 ; Melamed 2015 ). The emerging consensus has thus highlighted the importance of pursuing an integrated approach to economic, social and environmental aspects of development, requiring interdisciplinary research in addition to intersectoral collaboration and knowledge sharing. While the SDGs are not legally binding, governments are expected to take ownership and establish national frameworks for the achievement of these “global goals”. Recent evidence, however, indicates slow implementation, and the need for greater efforts across the goals without losing focus on poverty reduction (UN 2019 ).

The SDGs have not thus far elicited the kind of enthusiasm among political leaders that is crucial for the success of such an ambitious agenda. In many countries, there is an on-going and often polarized national debate on the extent to which leaders should prioritise the SDGs rather than goals that are more narrowly defined to apply to local situations (e.g. prioritising allocation of resources to selected regions and targeting selected groups in the population). Most politicians are under enormous pressure to resolve current problems, challenges and deprivations and often do not typically find it politically beneficial to engage in discussions of future problems that could affect a generation that is yet to be born. Similarly, many global policy recommendations often overlook issues of local justice and messy local political realities including competition between groups for control over scarce resources. Thus, the goal of promoting sustainable development today with an eye on the wellbeing of future generations appears illusory for many governments struggling to solve current problems of extreme poverty and numerous forms of deprivation within their borders.

Even when there is ample and reliable scientific evidence pointing to the urgent need for societal transformations required to address the harmful consequences of global warming, political response in large parts of the world is lukewarm. For the SDGs to make a difference on the ground, policymakers must acquire a better understanding on the global norm of goalsetting and balance how global targets link to national and local goals. And a wide range of societal actors must hold their leaders to account for actions as well as inactions. We really must move beyond the rhetoric and the celebratory speeches to actual evidence of operationalisation and impact on the ground.

Achieving SDG 2

There is now increased attention on the staggering societal costs of hunger and the need to radically transform our local, national and international food systems into more sustainable, nutritious and efficient systems. The five essays in this special issue discuss a wide range of issues related to food systems and the ethics and politics of global and national food policies. While there has been growing attention on food insecurity in recent years, two essays draw our attention to famine, which has received far less attention. Olivier Rubin begins by distinguishing the “whispering emergency” of famine from related terms such as malnutrition and chronic hunger. He thereafter critically revisits Peter Singer’s famous famine relief argument from the early 1970s, according to which we have good moral reasons for greater human engagement through charitable actions to prevent mass deaths from hunger. Rubin finds that Singer’s argument, although still powerful, often appears to be disconnected from the contemporary development discourse that is more skeptical to the role of charitable benevolence in famine prevention. Although he agrees that famines ought to evoke a strong moral response, Rubin concludes that the dynamics of recent famines warrant greater attention on the obligation to criminalize famine – how individuals and groups can be more effectively held to account for the failure to prevent starvation deaths.

Alexander Vadala examines the political factors that explain the continued threat of famine in Ethiopia – a particularly interesting case given that the country is not a democracy and has a long history of famines and high levels of malnutrition. But even within Ethiopia, vulnerability to famine remains substantially high among pastoralists in the Afar region. Vadala builds on the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s well-known claim that the right to freedom of expression and adversarial media reports in democracies are crucial for preventing famine. Following a critical review of Sen’s entitlement approach, he unpacks the close linkages between food insecurity and pastoralism in Ethiopia. Vadala finds that a set of policy decisions exacerbated pastoral vulnerability, including the closure of the Ethiopia-Eritrea border and the ban on salt trade with Djibouti. The recent initiatives undertaken by the new Ethiopian government under Abiy Ahmed offers some hope, but achieving SDG2 requires that the authorities respect the rights, needs and demands of vulnerable groups.

Jessica Fanzo focuses on why increased attention on healthy and sustainable diets is crucial for achieving SDG2. Although there has been a growing international discourse on what constitutes a “healthy diet”, improving the dietary habits of the world’s population has been extremely challenging. Most countries face some form of malnutrition, and sub-optimal diets are a major cause of various forms of hunger. Fanzo discusses the crucial role of SDG2 in achieving the wider 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and examines the uneven global progress thus far, including potential challenges ahead. She also critically discusses the impact of numerous ethical considerations and inherent trade-offs related to the achievement of sustainable and healthy diets, including the rapid population growth, economic crises, income inequality and climate change.

Although the SDGs are receiving increased international attention, Marc Cohen finds that the global agenda aimed at reducing hunger is characterized by serious policy incoherence. The international discourse is frequently characterized by fancy rhetoric and generous sounding pledges that have not resulted in greater political commitments to ending hunger. While national policies and budgets continue to neglect agriculture and irrigation, the agriculture trade and security policies of influential foreign donor countries also often undercut efforts to strengthen agricultural development in low-income country contexts. Cohen examines the growing gap between words and actions. He concludes that policy incoherence on SDG 2 results from a combination of agricultural subsidies in high-income countries and the resulting dumping of surplus products in aid-recipient countries, an excessive focus on defense spending and arms trade in many parts of the world and ineffective policies aimed at supporting smallholder farmers.

My essay with Michael Chasukwa focuses on the politics of food policy in Malawi – one of the poorest countries in the world. Many low-income countries, including those that are heavily dependent on foreign aid – are struggling to formulate and implement policies aimed at promoting the SDGs. Although Malawi has achieved some success in relation to reducing child mortality and combating HIV/AIDs, food insecurity remains high despite considerable political talk on the need to strengthen the country’s agriculture sector. We focus on a key intervention of the Malawian government in recent years – the Farm Input Subsidy program (FISP) – which is characterized by institutional rivalry, lack of coordination, inadequate financial resources, corruption and poor implementation. Agriculture policy in the country is not only haphazardly formulated and implemented, it is also excessive focused on securing availability of maize at the expense of other crops with the potential of diversifying diets and promoting greater food security.

The five essays in this special issue collectively identify and discuss barriers and challenges to achieving the SDGs in general and SDG 2 in particular. The overall conclusion in recent reports on hunger and food insecurity is that the world is continuing to move further away from achieving SDG 2. And the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights (Human Rights Council 2019 ) has recently argued that if the current trend of global warming continues, several hundred million people risk food insecurity with a decline in food production due to crop yield losses. These groups also risk water insecurity and greater risks of malaria, diarrhea and heat stress. An increase in the frequency of droughts and floods and the resulting displacement will have a disproportionate impact on the daily lives of those living in poverty. The enormous scale of world hunger requires us to update our approaches (making them bolder and involving multisectoral collaboration across different policy domains) and ensure that our interventions are better targeted both socially and geographically, taking into account inequality, conflict, gender, climate and economic slowdowns.

Banik, D. and Miklian, J. (2017) “New Business: The Private Sector as a New Global Development Player”, Global Policy, https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/24/11/2017/new-business-private-sector-new-global-development-player

Business Commission (2017) Better Business Better World, http://report.businesscommission.org/uploads/BetterBiz-BetterWorld_170215_012417.pdf

Doane, D. (2016) “We Won’t Conquer the Mountains of the SDGs Without Humility”, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/07/sdgs-progress-stay-humble . Accessed 20 Nov 2019

Engebretsen, E., Heggen, K., Banik, D. & Ottersen, O. P. (2017) “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Power of Ambiguities”, https://www.whatworks.uio.no/blog/2018/sdg_responsibility.html

FAO (2019) State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, http://www.fao.org/3/ca5162en/ca5162en.pdf . Accessed 20 Nov 2019

Human Rights Council (2019) Climate Change and Poverty, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Poverty/A_HRC_41_39.pdf

Jerven, M. (2014) “Benefits and Costs of the Data for Development Targets for the Post-2015 Development Agenda”, Copenhagen Consensus Center, https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/data_assessment_-_jerven.pdf

Melamed, C. (2015) “Leaving No One Behind: How the SDGs can Bring About Real Change”, Briefing paper, Overseas Development Institute, https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/9534.pdf

UN (2014) The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet, https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/reports/SG_Synthesis_Report_Road_to_Dignity_by_2030.pdf

UN (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld . Accessed 20 Nov 2019

UN (2019) The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Banik .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Banik, D. Achieving Food Security in a Sustainable Development Era. Food ethics 4 , 117–121 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00057-1

Download citation

Published : 23 November 2019

Issue Date : December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-019-00057-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

12.4 Annotated Student Sample: "Healthy Diets from Sustainable Sources Can Save the Earth" by Lily Tran

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Analyze how writers use evidence in research writing.
• Analyze the ways a writer incorporates sources into research writing, while retaining their own voice.
• Explain the use of headings as organizational tools in research writing.
• Analyze how writers use evidence to address counterarguments when writing a research essay.

Introduction

In this argumentative research essay for a first-year composition class, student Lily Tran creates a solid, focused argument and supports it with researched evidence. Throughout the essay, she uses this evidence to support cause-and-effect and problem-solution reasoning, make strong appeals, and develop her ethos on the topic.

Living by Their Own Words

Food as change.

public domain text For the human race to have a sustainable future, massive changes in the way food is produced, processed, and distributed are necessary on a global scale. end public domain text

annotated text Purpose. Lily Tran refers to what she sees as the general purpose for writing this paper: the problem of current global practices in food production, processing, and distribution. By presenting the “problem,” she immediately prepares readers for her proposed solution. end annotated text

public domain text The required changes will affect nearly all aspects of life, including not only world hunger but also health and welfare, land use and habitats, water quality and availability, energy use and production, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, economics, and even cultural and social values. These changes may not be popular, but they are imperative. The human race must turn to sustainable food systems that provide healthy diets with minimal environmental impact—and starting now. end public domain text

annotated text Thesis. Leading up to this clear, declarative thesis statement are key points on which Tran will expand later. In doing this, she presents some foundational evidence that connects the problem to the proposed solution. end annotated text

THE COMING FOOD CRISIS

public domain text The world population has been rising exponentially in modern history. From 1 billion in 1804, it doubled to approximately 2 billion by 1927, then doubled again to approximately 4 billion in 1974. By 2019, it had nearly doubled again, rising to 7.7 billion (“World Population by Year”). It has been projected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050 (Berners-Lee et al.). At the same time, the average life span also has been increasing. These situations have led to severe stress on the environment, particularly in the demands for food. It has been estimated, for example, that by 2050, milk production will increase 58 percent and meat production 73 percent (Chai et al.). end public domain text

annotated text Evidence. In this first supporting paragraph, Tran uses numerical evidence from several sources. This numerical data as evidence helps establish the projection of population growth. By beginning with such evidence, Tran underscores the severity of the situation. end annotated text

public domain text Theoretically, the planet can produce enough food for everyone, but human activities have endangered this capability through unsustainable practices. Currently, agriculture produces 10–23 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gases—the most common being carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor— trap heat in the atmosphere, reradiate it, and send it back to Earth again. Heat trapped in the atmosphere is a problem because it causes unnatural global warming as well as air pollution, extreme weather conditions, and respiratory diseases. end public domain text

annotated text Audience. With her audience in mind, Tran briefly explains the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming. end annotated text

public domain text It has been estimated that global greenhouse gas emissions will increase by as much as 150 percent by 2030 (Chai et al.). Transportation also has a negative effect on the environment when foods are shipped around the world. As Joseph Poore of the University of Oxford commented, “It’s essential to be mindful about everything we consume: air-transported fruit and veg can create more greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram than poultry meat, for example” (qtd. in Gray). end public domain text

annotated text Transition. By beginning this paragraph with her own transition of ideas, Tran establishes control over the organization and development of ideas. Thus, she retains her sources as supports and does not allow them to dominate her essay. end annotated text

public domain text Current practices have affected the nutritional value of foods. Concentrated animal-feeding operations, intended to increase production, have had the side effect of decreasing nutritional content in animal protein and increasing saturated fat. One study found that an intensively raised chicken in 2017 contained only one-sixth of the amount of omega-3 fatty acid, an essential nutrient, that was in a chicken in 1970. Today the majority of calories in chicken come from fat rather than protein (World Wildlife Fund). end public domain text

annotated text Example. By focusing on an example (chicken), Tran uses specific research data to develop the nuance of the argument. end annotated text

public domain text Current policies such as government subsidies that divert food to biofuels are counterproductive to the goal of achieving adequate global nutrition. Some trade policies allow “dumping” of below-cost, subsidized foods on developing countries that should instead be enabled to protect their farmers and meet their own nutritional needs (Sierra Club). Too often, agriculture’s objectives are geared toward maximizing quantities produced per acre rather than optimizing output of critical nutritional needs and protection of the environment. end public domain text

AREAS OF CONCERN

Hunger and nutrition.

annotated text Headings and Subheadings. Throughout the essay, Tran has created headings and subheadings to help organize her argument and clarify it for readers. end annotated text

public domain text More than 820 million people around the world do not have enough to eat. At the same time, about a third of all grains and almost two-thirds of all soybeans, maize, and barley crops are fed to animals (Barnard). According to the World Health Organization, 462 million adults are underweight, 47 million children under 5 years of age are underweight for their height, 14.3 million are severely underweight for their height, and 144 million are stunted (“Malnutrition”). About 45 percent of mortality among children under 5 is linked to undernutrition. These deaths occur mainly in low- and middle-income countries where, in stark contrast, the rate of childhood obesity is rising. Globally, 1.9 billion adults and 38.3 million children are overweight or obese (“Obesity”). Undernutrition and obesity can be found in the same household, largely a result of eating energy-dense foods that are high in fat and sugars. The global impact of malnutrition, which includes both undernutrition and obesity, has lasting developmental, economic, social, and medical consequences. end public domain text

public domain text In 2019, Berners-Lee et al. published the results of their quantitative analysis of global and regional food supply. They determined that significant changes are needed on four fronts: end public domain text

Food production must be sufficient, in quantity and quality, to feed the global population without unacceptable environmental impacts. Food distribution must be sufficiently efficient so that a diverse range of foods containing adequate nutrition is available to all, again without unacceptable environmental impacts. Socio-economic conditions must be sufficiently equitable so that all consumers can access the quantity and range of foods needed for a healthy diet. Consumers need to be able to make informed and rational choices so that they consume a healthy and environmentally sustainable diet (10).

annotated text Block Quote. The writer has chosen to present important evidence as a direct quotation, using the correct format for direct quotations longer than four lines. See Section Editing Focus: Integrating Sources and Quotations for more information about block quotes. end annotated text

public domain text Among their findings, they singled out, in particular, the practice of using human-edible crops to produce meat, dairy, and fish for the human table. Currently 34 percent of human-edible crops are fed to animals, a practice that reduces calorie and protein supplies. They state in their report, “If society continues on a ‘business-as-usual’ dietary trajectory, a 119% increase in edible crops grown will be required by 2050” (1). Future food production and distribution must be transformed into systems that are nutritionally adequate, environmentally sound, and economically affordable. end public domain text

Land and Water Use

public domain text Agriculture occupies 40 percent of Earth’s ice-free land mass (Barnard). While the net area used for producing food has been fairly constant since the mid-20th century, the locations have shifted significantly. Temperate regions of North America, Europe, and Russia have lost agricultural land to other uses, while in the tropics, agricultural land has expanded, mainly as a result of clearing forests and burning biomass (Willett et al.). Seventy percent of the rainforest that has been cut down is being used to graze livestock (Münter). Agricultural use of water is of critical concern both quantitatively and qualitatively. Agriculture accounts for about 70 percent of freshwater use, making it “the world’s largest water-consuming sector” (Barnard). Meat, dairy, and egg production causes water pollution, as liquid wastes flow into rivers and to the ocean (World Wildlife Fund and Knorr Foods). According to the Hertwich et al., “the impacts related to these activities are unlikely to be reduced, but rather enhanced, in a business-as-usual scenario for the future” (13). end public domain text

annotated text Statistical Data. To develop her points related to land and water use, Tran presents specific statistical data throughout this section. Notice that she has chosen only the needed words of these key points to ensure that she controls the development of the supporting point and does not overuse borrowed source material. end annotated text

annotated text Defining Terms. Aware of her audience, Tran defines monocropping , a term that may be unfamiliar. end annotated text

public domain text Earth’s resources and ability to absorb pollution are limited, and many current agricultural practices undermine these capacities. Among these unsustainable practices are monocropping [growing a single crop year after year on the same land], concentrated animal-feeding operations, and overdependence on manufactured pesticides and fertilizers (Hamilton). Such practices deplete the soil, dramatically increase energy use, reduce pollinator populations, and lead to the collapse of resource supplies. One study found that producing one gram of beef for human consumption requires 42 times more land, 2 times more water, and 4 times more nitrogen than staple crops. It also creates 3 times more greenhouse gas emissions (Chai et al.). The EAT– Lancet Commission calls for “halting expansion of new agricultural land at the expense of natural ecosystems . . . strict protections on intact ecosystems, suspending concessions for logging in protected areas, or conversion of remaining intact ecosystems, particularly peatlands and forest areas” (Willett et al. 481). The Commission also calls for land-use zoning, regulations prohibiting land clearing, and incentives for protecting natural areas, including forests. end public domain text

annotated text Synthesis. The paragraphs above and below this comment show how Tran has synthesized content from several sources to help establish and reinforce key supports of her essay . end annotated text

Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change

public domain text Climate change is heavily affected by two factors: greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration. In nature, the two remain in balance; for example, most animals exhale carbon dioxide, and most plants capture carbon dioxide. Carbon is also captured, or sequestered, by soil and water, especially oceans, in what are called “sinks.” Human activities have skewed this balance over the past two centuries. The shift in land use, which exploits land, water, and fossil energy, has caused increased greenhouse-gas emissions, which in turn accelerate climate change. end public domain text

public domain text Global food systems are threatened by climate change because farmers depend on relatively stable climate systems to plan for production and harvest. Yet food production is responsible for up to 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions (Barnard). While soil can be a highly effective means of carbon sequestration, agricultural soils have lost much of their effectiveness from overgrazing, erosion, overuse of chemical fertilizer, and excess tilling. Hamilton reports that the world’s cultivated and grazed soils have lost 50 to 70 percent of their ability to accumulate and store carbon. As a result, “billions of tons of carbon have been released into the atmosphere.” end public domain text

annotated text Direct Quotation and Paraphrase. While Tran has paraphrased some content of this source borrowing, because of the specificity and impact of the number— “billions of tons of carbon”—she has chosen to use the author’s original words. As she has done elsewhere in the essay, she has indicated these as directly borrowed words by placing them within quotation marks. See Section 12.5 for more about paraphrasing. end annotated text

public domain text While carbon sequestration has been falling, greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing as a result of the production, transport, processing, storage, waste disposal, and other life stages of food production. Agriculture alone is responsible for fully 10 to 12 percent of global emissions, and that figure is estimated to rise by up to 150 percent of current levels by 2030 (Chai et al.). Münter reports that “more greenhouse gas emissions are produced by growing livestock for meat than all the planes, trains, ships, cars, trucks, and all forms of fossil fuel-based transportation combined” (5). Additional greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, are produced by the decomposition of organic wastes. Methane has 25 times and nitrous oxide has nearly 300 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (Curnow). Agricultural and food production systems must be reformed to shift agriculture from greenhouse gas source to sink. end public domain text

Social and Cultural Values

public domain text As the Sierra Club has pointed out, agriculture is inherently cultural: all systems of food production have “the capacity to generate . . . economic benefits and ecological capital” as well as “a sense of meaning and connection to natural resources.” Yet this connection is more evident in some cultures and less so in others. Wealthy countries built on a consumer culture emphasize excess consumption. One result of this attitude is that in 2014, Americans discarded the equivalent of $165 billion worth of food. Much of this waste ended up rotting in landfills, comprised the single largest component of U.S. municipal solid waste, and contributed a substantial portion of U.S. methane emissions (Sierra Club). In low- and middle-income countries, food waste tends to occur in early production stages because of poor scheduling of harvests, improper handling of produce, or lack of market access (Willett et al.). The recent “America First” philosophy has encouraged prioritizing the economic welfare of one nation to the detriment of global welfare and sustainability. end public domain text

annotated text Synthesis and Response to Claims. Here, as in subsequent sections, while still relying heavily on facts and content from borrowed sources, Tran provides her synthesized understanding of the information by responding to key points. end annotated text

public domain text In response to claims that a vegetarian diet is a necessary component of sustainable food production and consumption, Lusk and Norwood determined the importance of meat in a consumer’s diet. Their study indicated that meat is the most valuable food category to consumers, and “humans derive great pleasure from consuming beef, pork, and poultry” (120). Currently only 4 percent of Americans are vegetarians, and it would be difficult to convince consumers to change their eating habits. Purdy adds “there’s the issue of philosophy. A lot of vegans aren’t in the business of avoiding animal products for the sake of land sustainability. Many would prefer to just leave animal husbandry out of food altogether.” end public domain text

public domain text At the same time, consumers expect ready availability of the foods they desire, regardless of health implications or sustainability of sources. Unhealthy and unsustainable foods are heavily marketed. Out-of-season produce is imported year-round, increasing carbon emissions from air transportation. Highly processed and packaged convenience foods are nutritionally inferior and waste both energy and packaging materials. Serving sizes are larger than necessary, contributing to overconsumption and obesity. Snack food vending machines are ubiquitous in schools and public buildings. What is needed is a widespread attitude shift toward reducing waste, choosing local fruits and vegetables that are in season, and paying attention to how foods are grown and transported. end public domain text

annotated text Thesis Restated. Restating her thesis, Tran ends this section by advocating for a change in attitude to bring about sustainability. end annotated text

DISSENTING OPINIONS

annotated text Counterclaims . Tran uses equally strong research to present the counterargument. Presenting both sides by addressing objections is important in constructing a clear, well-reasoned argument. Writers should use as much rigor in finding research-based evidence to counter the opposition as they do to develop their argument. end annotated text

public domain text Transformation of the food production system faces resistance for a number of reasons, most of which dispute the need for plant-based diets. Historically, meat has been considered integral to athletes’ diets and thus has caused many consumers to believe meat is necessary for a healthy diet. Lynch et al. examined the impact of plant-based diets on human physical health, environmental sustainability, and exercise performance capacity. The results show “it is unlikely that plant-based diets provide advantages, but do not suffer from disadvantages, compared to omnivorous diets for strength, anaerobic, or aerobic exercise performance” (1). end public domain text

public domain text A second objection addresses the claim that land use for animal-based food production contributes to pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and is inefficient in terms of nutrient delivery. Berners-Lee et al. point out that animal nutrition from grass, pasture, and silage comes partially from land that cannot be used for other purposes, such as producing food directly edible by humans or for other ecosystem services such as biofuel production. Consequently, nutritional losses from such land use do not fully translate into losses of human-available nutrients (3). end public domain text

annotated text Paraphrase. Tran has paraphrased the information as support. Though she still cites the source, she has changed the words to her own, most likely to condense a larger amount of original text or to make it more accessible. end annotated text

public domain text While this objection may be correct, it does not address the fact that natural carbon sinks are being destroyed to increase agricultural land and, therefore, increase greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. end public domain text

public domain text Another significant dissenting opinion is that transforming food production will place hardships on farmers and others employed in the food industry. Farmers and ranchers make a major investment in their own operations. At the same time, they support jobs in related industries, as consumers of farm machinery, customers at local businesses, and suppliers for other industries such as food processing (Schulz). Sparks reports that “livestock farmers are being unfairly ‘demonized’ by vegans and environmental advocates” and argues that while farming includes both costs and benefits, the costs receive much more attention than the benefits. end public domain text

FUTURE GENERATIONS

public domain text The EAT– Lancet Commission calls for a transformation in the global food system, implementing different core processes and feedback. This transformation will not happen unless there is “widespread, multi-sector, multilevel action to change what food is eaten, how it is produced, and its effects on the environment and health, while providing healthy diets for the global population” (Willett et al. 476). System changes will require global efforts coordinated across all levels and will require governments, the private sector, and civil society to share a common vision and goals. Scientific modeling indicates 10 billion people could indeed be fed a healthy and sustainable diet. end public domain text

annotated text Conclusion. While still using research-based sources as evidence in the concluding section, Tran finishes with her own words, restating her thesis. end annotated text

public domain text For the human race to have a sustainable future, massive changes in the way food is produced, processed, and distributed are necessary on a global scale. The required changes will affect nearly all aspects of life, including not only world hunger but also health and welfare, land use and habitats, water quality and availability, energy use and production, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, economics, and even cultural and social values. These changes may not be popular, but they are imperative. They are also achievable. The human race must turn to sustainable food systems that provide healthy diets with minimal environmental impact, starting now. end public domain text

annotated text Sources. Note two important aspects of the sources chosen: 1) They represent a range of perspectives, and 2) They are all quite current. When exploring a contemporary topic, it is important to avoid research that is out of date. end annotated text

Works Cited

Barnard, Neal. “How Eating More Plants Can Save Lives and the Planet.” Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine , 24 Jan. 2019, www.pcrm.org/news/blog/how-eating-more-plants-can-save-lives-and-planet. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Berners-Lee, M., et al. “Current Global Food Production Is Sufficient to Meet Human Nutritional Needs in 2050 Provided There Is Radical Societal Adaptation.” Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene , vol. 6, no. 52, 2018, doi:10.1525/elementa.310. Accessed 7 Dec. 2020.

Chai, Bingli Clark, et al. “Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets.” Sustainability , vol. 11, no. 15, 2019, doi: underline 10.3390/su11154110 end underline . Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Curnow, Mandy. “Managing Manure to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Government of Western Australia, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development, 2 Nov. 2020, www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/managing-manure-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed 9 Dec. 2020.

Gray, Richard. “Why the Vegan Diet Is Not Always Green.” BBC , 13 Feb. 2020, www.bbc.com/future/article/20200211-why-the-vegan-diet-is-not-always-green. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Hamilton, Bruce. “Food and Our Climate.” Sierra Club, 2014, www.sierraclub.org/compass/2014/10/food-and-our-climate. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Hertwich. Edgar G., et al. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production. United Nations Environment Programme, 2010, www.resourcepanel.org/reports/assessing-environmental-impacts-consumption-and-production.

Lusk, Jayson L., and F. Bailey Norwood. “Some Economic Benefits and Costs of Vegetarianism.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , vol. 38, no. 2, 2009, pp. 109-24, doi: 10.1017/S1068280500003142. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Lynch Heidi, et al. “Plant-Based Diets: Considerations for Environmental Impact, Protein Quality, and Exercise Performance.” Nutrients, vol. 10, no. 12, 2018, doi:10.3390/nu10121841. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Münter, Leilani. “Why a Plant-Based Diet Will Save the World.” Health and the Environment. Disruptive Women in Health Care & the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012, archive.epa.gov/womenandgirls/web/pdf/1016healththeenvironmentebook.pdf.

Purdy, Chase. “Being Vegan Isn’t as Good for Humanity as You Think.” Quartz , 4 Aug. 2016, qz.com/749443/being-vegan-isnt-as-environmentally-friendly-as-you-think/. Accessed 7 Dec. 2020.

Schulz, Lee. “Would a Sudden Loss of the Meat and Dairy Industry, and All the Ripple Effects, Destroy the Economy?” Iowa State U Department of Economics, www.econ.iastate.edu/node/691. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Sierra Club. “Agriculture and Food.” Sierra Club, 28 Feb. 2015, www.sierraclub.org/policy/agriculture/food. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Sparks, Hannah. “Veganism Won’t Save the World from Environmental Ruin, Researchers Warn.” New York Post , 29 Nov. 2019, nypost.com/2019/11/29/veganism-wont-save-the-world-from-environmental-ruin-researchers-warn/. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

Willett, Walter, et al. “Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT– Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems.” The Lancet, vol. 393, no. 10170, 2019. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. Accessed 6 Dec. 2020.

World Health Organization. “Malnutrition.” World Health Organization, 1 Apr. 2020, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutrition. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.

World Health Organization. “Obesity and Overweight.” World Health Organization, 1 Apr. 2020, www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.

World Wildlife Fund. Appetite for Destruction: Summary Report. World Wildlife Fund, 2017, www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-10/WWF_AppetiteForDestruction_Summary_Report_SignOff.pdf.

World Wildlife Fund and Knorr Foods. Future Fifty Foods. World Wildlife Fund, 2019, www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-02/Knorr_Future_50_Report_FINAL_Online.pdf.

“World Population by Year.” Worldometer , www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.

Discussion Questions

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction

• Authors: Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Maria Jerskey, featuring Toby Fulwiler
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Writing Guide with Handbook
• Publication date: Dec 21, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/1-unit-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/writing-guide/pages/12-4-annotated-student-sample-healthy-diets-from-sustainable-sources-can-save-the-earth-by-lily-tran

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Environmental Impacts of Food Production

Agriculture has a significant environmental impact in three key ways. 

First, it requires large amounts of fresh water , which can cause significant environmental pressures in regions with water stress. It needs water as input and pollutes rivers, lakes, and oceans by releasing nutrients.

It is a crucial driver of climate change, responsible for around one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions .

Finally, agriculture has a massive impact on the world’s environment due to its enormous land use . Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture.

Large parts of the world that were once covered by forests and wildlands are now used for agriculture. This loss of natural habitat has been the main driver for reducing the world’s biodiversity . Wildlife can rebound if we reduce agricultural land use and allow natural lands to restore.

Ensuring everyone has access to a nutritious diet sustainably is one of the most significant challenges we face. On this page, you can find our data, visualizations, and writing relating to the environmental impacts of food.

Related topics

• Biodiversity
• Hunger and Undernourishment
• CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Key insights on the Environmental Impacts of Food

Food production has a large environmental impact in several ways.

What are the environmental impacts of food and agriculture?

The visualization here shows a summary of some of the main global impacts:

• Food production accounts for over a quarter (26%) of global greenhouse gas emissions. 1
• Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture. Habitable land is land that is ice- and desert-free.
• 70% of global freshwater withdrawals are used for agriculture 2 .
• 78% of global ocean and freshwater eutrophication is caused by agriculture. 3 Eutrophication is the pollution of waterways with nutrient-rich water.
• 94% of non-human mammal biomass is livestock. This means livestock outweigh wild mammals by a factor of 15-to-1. 4 This share is 97% when only land-based mammals are included.
• 71% of bird biomass is poultry livestock. This means poultry livestock outweigh wild birds by a factor of more than 3-to-1. 5

Tackling what we eat, and how we produce our food, plays a key role in tackling climate change, reducing water stress and pollution, restoring lands back to forests or grasslands, and protecting the world’s wildlife.

Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture

Around half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture. Habitable land is land that is ice- and desert-free. This is what the visualization shows.

Agricultural land is the sum of pasture used for livestock grazing, and cropland used for direct human consumption and animal feed.

Agriculture is, therefore, the world’s largest land user, taking up more area than forests, or wild grasslands.

Three-quarters of this agricultural land is used for livestock, which is pasture plus cropland used for the production of animal feed. This gives the world just 18% of global calories, and 37% of its protein. The other quarter of land is for crops for human consumption, which provide the majority of the world’s calories and protein.

What you should know about this data

• Other studies find similar distributions of global land: in an analysis of how humans have transformed global land use in recent centuries, Ellis et al. (2010) found that by 2000, 55% of Earth’s ice-free (not simply habitable) land had been converted into cropland, pasture, and urban areas. 6 This left only 45% as ‘natural’ or ‘semi-natural’ land.
• The study by Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018) estimates that 43% of ice- and desert-free land is used for agriculture. 83% of this is used for animal-sourced foods. 7
• The difference in these figures is often due to the uncertainty of the size of ‘rangelands’. Rangelands are grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, wetlands, and deserts that are grazed by domestic livestock or wild animals. The intensity of grazing on rangelands can vary a lot. That can make it difficult to accurately quantify how much rangelands are used for grazing, and therefore how much is used for food production.
• But as the review above showed, despite this uncertainty, most analyses tend to converge on an estimate of close to half of habitable land being used for agriculture.

Food is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s emissions

Food systems are responsible for around one-quarter (26%) of global greenhouse gas emissions. 8

This includes emissions from land use change, on-farm production, processing, transport, packaging, and retail.

We can break these food system emissions down into four broad categories:

30% of food emissions come directly from livestock and fisheries . Ruminant livestock – mainly cattle – for example, produce methane through their digestive processes. Manure and pasture management also fall into this category.

1% comes from wild fisheries , most of which is fuel consumption from fishing vessels. 

Crop production accounts for around a quarter of food emissions. This includes crops for human consumption and animal feed.

Land use accounts for 24% of food emissions. Twice as many emissions result from land use for livestock (16%) as for crops for human consumption (8%).

Finally, supply chains account for 18% of food emissions . This includes food processing, distribution, transport, packaging, and retail.

Other studies estimate that an even larger fraction – up to one-third – of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from food production. 9 These differences come from the inclusion of non-food agricultural products – such as textiles, biofuels, and industrial crops – plus uncertainties in food waste and land use emissions.

• The source of this data is the meta-analysis of global food systems from Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), published in Science . 10 This dataset is based on data from 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products.
• Environmental impacts are calculated based on life-cycle analyses that consider impacts across the supply chain, including land use change, on-farm emissions, the production of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, food processing, transport, packaging, and retail.
• Greenhouse gas emissions are measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 eq). This means each greenhouse gas is weighted by its global warming potential value. Global warming potential measures the amount of warming a gas creates compared to CO 2 . In this study, CO 2 eq and warming effects are measured over a 100-year timescale (GWP 100 ).

Emissions from food alone would take us past 1.5°C or 2°C this century

One-quarter to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from our food systems. The rest comes from energy.

While energy and industry make a bigger contribution than food, we must tackle both food and energy systems to address climate change.

Michael Clark and colleagues modeled the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would be emitted from food systems this century across a range of scenarios. 

In a business-as-usual scenario, the authors expect the world to emit around 1356 billion tonnes of CO 2-we by 2100.

As the visualization shows, this would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5°C – we would emit two to three times more than this budget. And it would consume almost all of our budget for 2°C.

Ignoring food emissions is simply not an option if we want to get close to our international climate targets.

Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow – an impossibility – we would still go well beyond our 1.5°C target, and nearly miss our 2°C target.

• The source of this data is the meta-analyses of global food systems from Michael Clark et al. (2020), published in Science . 11
• Their ‘business-as-usual’ projection makes the following assumptions: global population increases in line with the UN’s medium fertility scenario; per capita diets change as people around the world get richer (shifting towards more diverse diets with more meat and dairy); crop yields continue to increase in line with historical improvements, and rates of food loss and the emissions intensity of food production remain constant.
• This is measured in global warming potential CO 2 warming-equivalents (CO 2-we ). This accounts for the range of greenhouse gasses, not just CO 2 but also others such as methane and nitrous oxide. We look at the differences in greenhouse gas metrics at the end of our article on the carbon footprint of foods .

What we eat matters much more than how far it has traveled

‘Eat local’ is a common recommendation to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet. But it’s often a misguided one.

Transport tends to be a small part of a food’s carbon footprint. Globally, transport accounts for just 5% of food system emissions. Most of food’s emissions come from land use change and emissions from their production on the farm.

Since transport emissions are typically small, and the differences between foods are large, what types of food we eat matter much more than how far it has traveled. Locally-produced beef will have a much larger footprint than peas, regardless of whether it’s shipped across continents or not.

The visualization shows this.

Producing a kilogram of beef, for example, emits 60 kilograms of greenhouse gasses (CO 2 -equivalents). The production of a kilogram of peas, shown at the bottom of the chart, emits just 1 kilogram of greenhouse gasses. Whether the beef or peas are produced locally will have little impact on the difference between these two foods.

The reason that transport accounts for such a small share of emissions is that most internationally traded food travels by boat, not by plane. Very little food is air-freighted; it accounts for only 0.16% of food miles. 12 For the few products which are transported by air, the emissions can be very high: flying emits 50 times more CO 2 eq than boat per tonne kilometer.

Unlike aviation, shipping is a very carbon-efficient way to transport goods. So, even shipping food over long distances by boat emits only small amounts of carbon. A classic example of traded food is avocados. Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate 0.21kg CO 2 eq in transport emissions. 13 This is only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint. 

Even when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products.

• The source of this data is the meta-analyses of global food systems from Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), published in Science . 14 This dataset is based on data from 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products.

Meat and dairy foods tend to have a higher carbon footprint

When we compare the carbon footprint of different types of foods, a clear hierarchy emerges.

Meat and dairy products tend to emit more greenhouse gasses than plant-based foods. This holds true whether we compare on the basis of mass (per kilogram) , per kilocalorie , or per gram of protein, as shown in the chart.

Within meat and dairy products, there is also a consistent pattern: larger animals tend to be less efficient and have a higher footprint. Beef typically has the largest emissions; followed by lamb; pork; chicken; then eggs and fish.

• This data presents global average values. For some foods – such as beef – there are large differences depending on where it is produced, and the farming practices used. Nonetheless, the lowest-carbon beef and lamb still have a higher carbon footprint than most plant-based foods.
• The source of this data is the meta-analyses of global food systems from Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), published in Science . 15 This dataset covers 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products.
• Greenhouse gas emissions are measured in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 eq). This means each greenhouse gas is weighted by its global warming potential value. Global warming potential measures the amount of warming a gas creates compared to CO 2 . For CO 2 eq, this is measured over a 100-year timescale (GWP 100 ).

There are also large differences in the carbon footprint of the same foods

The most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the food system is to change what we eat . 

Adopting a more plant-based diet by reducing our consumption of carbon-intensive foods such as meat and dairy – especially beef and lamb – is an effective way for consumers to reduce their carbon footprint.

But there are also opportunities to reduce emissions by optimizing for more carbon-efficient practices and locations to produce foods. For some foods – in particular, beef, lamb, and dairy – there are large differences in emissions depending on how and where they’re produced. This is shown in the chart.

Producing 100 grams of protein from beef emits 25 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO 2 eq), on average. But this ranges from 9 kilograms to 105 kilograms of CO 2 eq – a ten-fold difference.

Optimizing production in places where these foods are produced with a smaller footprint could be another effective way of reducing global emissions.

• The source of this data is the meta-analyses of global food systems from Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek (2018), published in Science . 16 This dataset covers 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products.

Explore data on the Environmental Impacts of Food

Research & writing.

‘Eat local’ is a common recommendation to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet. But transport tends to account for a small share of greenhouse gas emissions. How does the impact of what you eat compare to where it’s come from?

Hannah Ritchie

One-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions result from food and agriculture. What are the main contributors to food’s emissions?

More key articles on the Environmental Impacts of Food

Less meat is nearly always better than sustainable meat, to reduce your carbon footprint, dairy vs. plant-based milk: what are the environmental impacts, yields vs. land use: how the green revolution enabled us to feed a growing population, food production and climate change.

Food miles and transport

Environmental impacts of meat and dairy

Land use and deforestation

Other articles on food impacts

Interactive charts on Environmental Impacts of Food Production

Our World in Data is free and accessible for everyone.

Help us do this work by making a donation.

• GOOD DIRECTORY
•         -->         -->

• Personal Growth
• Spirituality
• Love & Relationships
• Environment
• Wildlife & Animals
• Sustainability
• Organizations
• Volunteering
• Crowdfunding
• Good Deeds Day
• Good Gallery
• Infographics
• Good Directory
• SUSTAINABILITY

5 Ways to Feed a Growing World Population Sustainably

The world needs to produce 50-90 percent more food by 2050 if the trend to eat more meat and dairy continues..

(Jen Watson / Shutterstock.com)

If we are to feed a growing and hungry world and at the same time improve the planet we live in, major changes in the way we farm – and what we eat – will have to be made. Luckily,  there are ways that we can achieve this.

The growing consensus is that we need to produce 50 to 90 percent more food to feed the expected 9 billion people that will inhabit our earth in 2050. While these figures account for the trend to eat more meat and dairy products, these are the most wasteful and least environmental forms of food production.

Agriculture already uses one-third of the world's arable land, consumes at least 70 percent of all the water used, and generates a large portion of all global emissions that contribute to climate change. This will have to change to a more sustainable model for us to achieve the food increases that will be needed in the near future.

“There is a pathway to achieve this but the challenge is even bigger than any of us thought,” Richard Waite of the World Resources Institute (WRI) told National Geographic .

“There is no silver bullet; To prevent more land from being converted into agriculture requires major improvements in feed quality and grazing management. It also requires finding ways to get more than one crop harvest per year and requires better crop breeding techniques. For example, CRISP-R technology enables the fine tuning of genes to maximize yields. we need to do everything,” Waite said.

A report by WRI lists 22 proposed solutions to producing the necessary food sustainably. There are different solutions per country and region. Here are five of the most universal of the proposals:

1. Reduce Food Waste

An estimated one-third of all food produced is wasted from farm to home. One of the solutions is to upcycle food that would have been thrown away. This includes turning waste food into useful items, finding buyers for food that would rot in the fields if unsold, to selling non-uniform – or ugly – fruits and vegetables.

Governments also need to change laws so that unsold usable food must be donated to food banks and soup kitchens. In some countries, it is actually discouraged because of liability laws.

(g215 / Shutterstock.com)

2. Shift Diets to More Plant-Based Foods

A diet high in meat is very wasteful. Meat from cattle, sheep, and goats uses precious resources, and the demand for meat and dairy products is steadily growing. The only way for more people to have access to animal-based proteins are for other people to consume less. Today, there are more meat substitutes available that actually taste like meat, including the Impossible Burger and other vegan products .

The WRI report said that government subsidies to meat and dairy agriculture to the tune of $600 billion annually should be phased out so that the true cost will be reflected. Instead, subsidies should be given to agriculture that is environmentally sustainable.

(David Tonelson / Shutterstock.com)

3. Super Boost Crop Yields 

Increased crop production without increasing the amount of land used is the key to feeding a hungry world. The amount of crop harvests needs to be increased from one a year in most climates. CRISP-R technology or gene editing is a way of selectively breeding a plant to get desired traits like higher yields or drought resistance. This is not the same as GMOs which mix genes from two or more species.

Another way to boost yields on less land and with sustainable methods is indoor vertical farming that is being used in the US by companies like AreoFarms and Plenty. This needs to be scaled up.

(mustbeyou / Shutterstock.com)

4. Look to the Seas for More Food

With the earth's population growing, turning to the world's oceans for food is the new blue food revolution. But taking more fish out of our oceans and inland waters is not the answer.

The oceans are already being overfished, and many species of fish are endangered. But, overfishing of our waters can be reduced by eliminating subsidies paid to the fishing industry, and the enforcement of laws against illegal fishing can save an estimated 11 to 26 million tons of fish according to National Geographic .

Increasing Aquaculture in indoor fish farms and ocean farming of fish, seafood, and seaweed is a major way to get protein into the diets of much of the world.

(Daracha Thiammueang / Shutterstock.com)

5. Use an Agroecological Approach to Food Production

The UN Committee on World Food Security has endorsed an agroecological approach that encompasses sustainable agriculture and food systems. Agroecology mimics nature, replacing things like chemical fertilizer with the knowledge of how a combination of plants, trees, and animals can increase the productivity of the land. This is very similar to the permaculture movement that uses natural ways to build nutrients in the soil and to regenerate agriculture. Permaculture is being used in many places in the world, including to help refugees to feed their families and become self-sufficient. 

(Hans Verburg / Shutterstock.com)

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Robots Are Farming Crops Inside This Silicon Valley Warehouse How Permaculture Can Give Food Security to Future Generations Family Farms Use CropMobster to Prevent Food From Going To Waste

Most Read Now:

7 Surprising Banana Peel Uses

This New Guinea Dog is Singing a New Tune

11-Year-Old Nigerian Boy Leaps to Fame

GOOD FOR you!

Thank you for signing up. Expect to hear from us very soon.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

America’s Military Is Not Prepared for War — or Peace

By Roger Wicker

Mr. Wicker, a Republican, is the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.

“To be prepared for war,” George Washington said, “is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” President Ronald Reagan agreed with his forebear’s words, and peace through strength became a theme of his administration. In the past four decades, the American arsenal helped secure that peace, but political neglect has led to its atrophy as other nations’ war machines have kicked into high gear. Most Americans do not realize the specter of great power conflict has risen again.

It is far past time to rebuild America’s military. We can avoid war by preparing for it.

When America’s senior military leaders testify before my colleagues and me on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee behind closed doors, they have said that we face some of the most dangerous global threat environments since World War II. Then, they darken that already unsettling picture by explaining that our armed forces are at risk of being underequipped and outgunned. We struggle to build and maintain ships, our fighter jet fleet is dangerously small, and our military infrastructure is outdated. Meanwhile, America’s adversaries are growing their militaries and getting more aggressive.

In China, the country’s leader, Xi Jinping, has orchestrated a historic military modernization intended to exploit the U.S. military’s weaknesses. He has overtaken the U.S. Navy in fleet size, built one of the world’s largest missile stockpiles and made big advances in space. President Vladimir Putin of Russia has thrown Europe into war and mobilized his society for long-term conflict. Iran and its proxy groups have escalated their shadow war against Israel and increased attacks on U.S. ships and soldiers. And North Korea has disregarded efforts toward arms control negotiations and moved toward wartime readiness.

Worse yet, these governments are materially helping one another, cooperating in new ways to prevent an American-led 21st century. Iran has provided Russia with battlefield drones, and China is sending technical and logistical help to aid Mr. Putin’s war. They are also helping one another prepare for future fights by increasing weapons transfers and to evade sanctions. Their unprecedented coordination makes new global conflict increasingly possible.

That theoretical future could come faster than most Americans think. We may find ourselves in a state of extreme vulnerability in a matter of a few years, according to a growing consensus of experts. Our military readiness could be at its lowest point in decades just as China’s military in particular hits its stride. The U.S. Indo-Pacific commander released what I believe to be the largest list of unfunded items ever for services and combatant commands for next year’s budget, amounting to $11 billion. It requested funding for a raft of infrastructure, missile defense and targeting programs that would prove vital in a Pacific fight. China, on the other hand, has no such problems, as it accumulates the world’s leading hypersonic arsenal with a mix of other lethal cruise and attack missiles.

Our military leaders are being forced to make impossible choices. The Navy is struggling to adequately fund new ships, routine maintenance and munition procurement; it is unable to effectively address all three. We recently signed a deal to sell submarines to Australia, but we’ve failed to sufficiently fund our own submarine industrial base, leaving an aging fleet unprepared to respond to threats. Two of the three most important nuclear modernization programs are underfunded and are at risk of delays. The military faces a backlog of at least $180 billion for basic maintenance, from barracks to training ranges. This projects weakness to our adversaries as we send service members abroad with diminished ability to respond to crises.

Fortunately, we can change course. We can avoid that extreme vulnerability and resurrect American military might.

On Wednesday I am publishing a plan that includes a series of detailed proposals to address this reality head-on. We have been living off the Reagan military buildup for too long; it is time for updates and upgrades. My plan outlines why and how the United States should aim to spend an additional $55 billion on the military in the 2025 fiscal year and grow military spending from a projected 2.9 percent of our national gross domestic product this year to 5 percent over the next five to seven years.

It would be a significant investment that would start a reckoning over our nation’s spending priorities. There will be conversations ahead about all manner of budget questions. We do not need to spend this much indefinitely — but we do need a short-term generational investment to help us prevent another world war.

My blueprint would grow the Navy to 357 ships by 2035 and halt our shrinking Air Force fleet by producing at least 340 additional fighters in five years. This will help patch near-term holes and put each fleet on a sustainable trajectory. The plan would also replenish the Air Force tanker and training fleets, accelerate the modernization of the Army and Marine Corps, and invest in joint capabilities that are all too often forgotten, including logistics and munitions.

The proposal would build on the $3.3 billion in submarine industrial base funding included in the national security supplemental passed in April, so we can bolster our defense and that of our allies. It would also rapidly equip service members all over the world with innovative technologies at scale, from the seabed to the stars.

We should pair increased investment with wiser spending. Combining this crucial investment with fiscal responsibility would funnel resources to the most strategic ends. Emerging technology must play an essential role, and we can build and deploy much of it in less than five years. My road map would also help make improvements to the military procurement system and increase accountability for bureaucrats and companies that fail to perform on vital national security projects.

This whole endeavor would shake our status quo but be far less disruptive and expensive than the alternative. Should China decide to wage war with the United States, the global economy could immediately fall into a depression. Americans have grown far too comfortable under the decades-old presumption of overwhelming military superiority. And that false sense of security has led us to ignore necessary maintenance and made us vulnerable.

Our ability to deter our adversaries can be regained because we have done it before. At the 50th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, in the twilight of the Soviet Union, George H.W. Bush reflected on the lessons of Pearl Harbor. Though the conflict was long gone, it taught him an enduring lesson: “When it comes to national defense,” he said, “finishing second means finishing last.”

Regaining American strength will be expensive. But fighting a war — and worse, losing one — is far more costly. We need to begin a national conversation today on how we achieve a peaceful, prosperous and American-led 21st century. The first step is a generational investment in the U.S. military.

Roger Wicker is the senior U.S. senator from Mississippi and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

How airlines are working to create sustainable fuel to reduce aviation’s carbon footprint

Miles O'Brien Miles O'Brien

Kate Tobin Kate Tobin

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-airlines-are-working-to-create-sustainable-fuel-to-reduce-aviations-carbon-footprint

Memorial Day weekend is the unofficial start of the summer travel season and that means a lot of driving and flying. When discussing greenhouse gas emissions, the focus is usually on cars and trucks since they generate the most. But the aviation sector is under pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. Science correspondent Miles O'Brien looks at efforts to create greener fuels for the skies.

Read the Full Transcript

Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.

Amna Nawaz:

The Memorial Day season is the unofficial start of a big summer travel season, and that means a lot of driving and flying.

When we talk about greenhouse gas emissions and transportation, we largely focus on cars and trucks, since they generate the most. But the aviation sector is under pressure to reduce its carbon footprint too.

In the second of two reports, science correspondent Miles O'Brien looks at efforts to create greener fuels for the skies.

Miles O’Brien:

A half-mile outside the fence from Boston's Logan Airport, Carlos Flores is helping grease the skids for an ambitious goal, erasing the carbon footprint of airline travel. He is at a Wingstop, harvesting used cooking oil, or UCO. It contains hydrocarbons and can be refined into sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF.

UCO to SAF, from Wingstop to wing tank.

Carlos Flores, Mahoney Environmental:

Every time I fly back home in Brazil, I think about it. It's like, maybe I help put some fuel in here, you know?

He drives for Mahoney Environmental, a subsidiary of Neste, a Finnish oil refiner that is now a global leader in renewable fuel production, including sustainable aviation fuel.

Dave Kimball is Mahoney's president and CEO.

Dave Kimball, President and CEO, Mahoney Environmental: So the really cool thing about cooking oil is, it's already had one life, and now we're having a second life with it.

Mahoney currently sucks about 400 million pounds of grease out of dumpsters nationwide. It's cooking up plans to retrieve a billion by 2030.

Even though sustainable aviation fuel is two or three times more expensive than the fossil alternative, the airlines are demanding it. Facing public backlash over its climate footprint, the industry has set an aggressive goal, net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and it has no other short-term alternative to fossil fuels.

Dave Kimball:

It's a drop-in fuel, so you don't have to modify anything to use it. You don't have to build charging stations for airplanes and all those types of things. So, to me, that's the logical next step.

Globally, sustainable aviation fuel production will likely reach nearly a half-billion gallons in 2024, a six-fold increase since 2022, and yet still only one-half of 1 percent of the 99 billion gallon annual burn rate for jet fuel.

In 2021, the Biden administration launched a sustainable aviation fuel grand challenge. The goal is to produce 35 billion gallons of SAF in the U.S. by 2050. But to get there, grease is not the only word.

Jerry Tuskan, Department of Energy Director, Center for Bioenergy Innovation at Oak Ridge National Laboratory: There won't be a silver bullet. There won't be one commodity that will satisfy the 35 billion gallon target.

Jerry Tuskan is director of the Center for Bioenergy Innovation at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

He says oil from fryer grease, soybeans and corn can produce a third of that goal, adding hydrocarbons to existing ethanol production can address another third, and the rest will have to come from new crops dedicated to energy. He says 20 to 40 million acres of land will be needed. There are about 900 million acres of farmland in the U.S.

We can have it all and not have to make a choice between food and fuel?

Jerry Tuskan:

There is enough land potentially available to produce 35 billion gallons of aviation fuel. It will take a portfolio or a mixture of species geared toward adaptive production in specific regions.

The Oak Ridge team is partnered with 17 other institutions, including the University of University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, home of the Center for Advanced Bioenergy and Bioproducts Innovation.

Agronomist Emily Heaton is a professor in the Department of Crop Sciences.

Emily Heaton, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign: We are at the stage where we're testing the first iterations of making jet fuels from the bioenergy crops that we have today.

She gave me a tour of their energy farm, where they grow, tweak and study so-called bioenergy crops.

When you say bioenergy crops, what are we — what exactly are we talking about?

Emily Heaton:

We are talking about crops that are used to capture carbon out of the atmosphere and use in place of plants that captured carbon out of the atmosphere millions of years ago, which are fossil fuels.

The carbon that renewable fuels emit when burned is offset by the CO2 absorbed as the feedstock grows in the field. Because the cycle does not unearth any ancient carbon, it is called net zero.

One of the leading contenders for sustainable aviation fuel is miscanthus giganteus, a hardy, fast-growing perennial grass plant that thrives on marginal land in cold climates.

Oh, wow, a little — it's doing well in here, huh?

They're getting pretty big. It's about time to cut them back.

Did you bring the machete?

We actually have several.

Inside this greenhouse, they are crossbreeding miscanthus with sugarcane, hoping to add fatty compounds known as lipids to it to make the conversion to aviation fuel cheaper and easier.

So how much growth is this? How long did it take for them to get this big?

So for a mature plant, this is a single growing season's worth of biomass.

It can grow 14 feet high, but that's just half the picture.

You can start to get a feel for what's below ground.

There is an equal amount of biomass beneath the surface.

And if you include the avoided fossil emissions, because we're not fertilizing very much, we're not tilling, and it's storing things below ground, it comes back carbon-negative.

Not just zero, carbon-negative. The energy farm is outfitted with a million-dollar network of air, water, soil, and weather sensors to verify the true carbon budget of these crops.

But, ultimately, it will be the budget of farmers that will determine the success of these ideas. It's a chicken-and-egg problem, as I learned one morning when I visited Emily's parents' farm 20 miles west of Urbana.

John Caveny, Caveny Farm:

So you're going to put a wire in here, here, and here.

John and Connie Caveny are focused on pasture-raised beef and lamb. They know a lot about growing grass. But, right now, it's not a viable option for most farmers. The streamlined infrastructure that makes this such a productive place to grow corn and soybeans does not exist for grass production.

If you're thinking about growing grass that ultimately might fuel an airplane, the system isn't set up for that, is it?

John Caveny:

No. It's a long way off.

To entice farmers to grow energy crops, they will need new equipment, financing and crop insurance. For now, it's a field of dreams, except, if you build it, the market may not come.

The best use for miscanthus right now is animal bedding.

That's it. We plowed up a lot of it.

But this family is undeterred. Energy crops not only offer benefits for the climate. They also improve the local environment, reducing run-off and improving soil health, adding diversity.

Getting back to our roots using contemporary carbon to base our society, instead of fossil carbon, is a choice that we need to make if we are to persist on this planet.

And still freely travel around it without carrying a lot of excess carbon baggage.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Miles O'Brien in Boston.

Listen to this Segment

Watch the Full Episode

Miles O’Brien is a veteran, independent journalist who focuses on science, technology and aerospace.

Support Provided By: Learn more

More Ways to Watch

• PBS iPhone App
• PBS iPad App

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.