The Center on Food Security and the Environment is a joint effort of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.
Read the original post on Medium.com:
A Global Perspective on Food Policy
I applaud Mark Bittman, Michael Pollan, Ricardo Salvador, and Olivier de Schutter for advocating the introduction of a national food policy in the U.S. Greater emphasis in our current farm legislation on nutrition, health, equity, and the environment is clearly warranted and long overdue. As the authors note, Americans’ access to adequate nutrition at all income levels affects educational and health outcomes for the nation as a whole. Poor nutrition thus plays a role in determining the level and distribution of economic and social wellbeing in the U.S, now and in the future. It is surprising that no one within the large circle of Presidential hopefuls has raised the topic of food, not just agriculture, as a major political issue for the 2016 election.
The U.S. is not unique. Virtually every country with an agrarian base has, at some point in history, introduced agricultural policies that support farmers and provide incentives for them to produce major commodities. At the time, governments have been able to justify these policies on several grounds: national security (avoiding excess dependence on foreign nations for food), economic growth (using agricultural surpluses as an engine of economic growth), and social stability (keeping its population well-fed to avoid social unrest). Once agricultural policies are implemented, they typically give rise to institutions and vested political interests that perpetuate a supply-side orientation to food and agriculture. In the U.S., the political institutions that govern food and agriculture have their roots in historical political precedents that date back to the 1860s, and later to the 1930s when the New Deal was promulgated. Farm interests have been entrenched in the U.S. political system for quite some time, and they cannot be easily removed.
There is a general rule for successful policies: Align incentives with objectives. A corollary to this principle is that objectives change over the course of economic development. For the United States in earlier eras, and for many developing economies in recent decades, meeting basic calorie needs has been the first order of business. This objective has been largely achieved through public investments in infrastructure (irrigation, roads), research and development, commodity support programs, incentives for private agribusiness development, and other supply-side measures.
With successful agricultural growth and rising incomes, many countries face a new set of food and nutrition challenges: eliminating “hidden hunger” (deficiencies in iron, vitamin A, calcium, zinc and other micronutrients), and abating the steady rise in obesity that results from a transition to diets rich in energy-dense carbohydrates, fats, and sugar. Hidden hunger affects some three billion people worldwide. It is prevalent among low-income households in almost all countries, impairs cognitive and physical development (especially among infants up to two years of age) and thus limits a nation’s educational and economic potential. Meanwhile, rates of obesity now surpass rates of energy-deficient hunger throughout the world, even in developing nations.
The objectives of food and agricultural policies in virtually all countries need to shift, on balance, from promoting staple food supplies to enhancing nutrition. I am not suggesting an abandonment of agriculture, but rather an enrichment of agriculture with more crop diversity to support the nutritional needs of all people. If improved nutrition is the objective, what are the correct incentives? Proper incentives will differ among countries, but will inevitably require a fundamental change in institutional structure. With a shift from supply- to demand orientation, there needs to be a transition from Ministries of Agriculture to Ministries of Food. After all, the main goals of a Ministry of Agriculture are to increase the volume of agricultural production and to improve economic growth in the agricultural sector. The main goal of a Ministry of Food, by contrast, is to enhance the nutrition and food security of the entire population.
Bittman, Pollan, Salvador, and de Schutter emphasize that replacing the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with a “U.S. Department of Food, Health, and Wellbeing” would be difficult at best. It would require unprecedented political will and cooperation among parties. The same can be said for institutional change in agricultural ministries throughout the world. Regardless of the challenges, however, nothing will change until the conversation surrounding food policies, politics, and institutions takes a major turn.
FSE director Roz Naylor will give the opening plenary lecture at the 2nd International Conference on Global Food Security on October 12, 2015 at Cornell University. Naylor is William Wrigley Professor in Earth System Science, and senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford.
In addition to Naylor's lecture on "Food security in a commodity-driven world," several FSE researchers will give talks and poster sessions during the five-day conference, including professors Marshall Burke and Eric Lambin, visiting scholar Jennifer Burney, postdoctoral scholar Meha Jain, and doctoral candidate Elsa Ordway.
This project focuses on private and public sector strategies for promoting sustainable palm oil, with sustainability defined by environmental, social, and economic objectives. The main goals are:
In a new study in the journal BioScience, a team of researchers including Stanford professor Roz Naylor links marijuana cultivation to widespread environmental damage in California and calls for greater regulation of the crop’s impact on natural ecosystems.
Recent debates about marijuana legalization have focused on the potential social, health and economic impacts, with little attention paid to environmental issues. The new study, spearheaded by the California chapter of The Nature Conservancy, brings environmental concerns to the forefront of the policy discussion. Between 60 and 70 percent of the marijuana consumed in the United States comes from California.
Marijuana plants require nearly twice as much water as do grapes or tomatoes, and the last five years have brought a 50 to 100 percent increase in the amount of northern California watershed lands used for marijuana production – figures that are causing growing concern among conservationists in the midst of a severe statewide drought.
The majority of California agriculture is subject to heavy water use regulations. Farmers of most irrigated crops help their plants through the dry summer months by filling water tanks in the winter, when streams and springs are full.
By contrast, many marijuana growers draw surface water during the plant’s summer growing season, when drought conditions are worst.
“Taking water directly from rivers and streams in the summer not only reduces the water available for agriculture but also threatens wildlife species, especially birds and fish, that depend on these wetland ecosystems for survival,” said Naylor.
Illegal marijuana plantations in California are associated with a wide range of other environmental impacts, including pollution, poaching, and pesticides that poison wildlife. Even legal outdoor cultivation can cause deforestation and soil erosion.
The research team identified several opportunities to reduce the environmental impacts of marijuana cultivation in California. For example, states can:
“Regardless of the legal status of marijuana, the way we are currently managing its impacts on water and wildlife in California just doesn’t work,” said Naylor. “Bringing these impacts into future policy discussions about marijuana is critical for protecting California’s environmental resources given the high value and demand for the crop.”
Naylor is William Wrigley Professor of Earth Science at Stanford, director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment, and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. She serves as a trustee of The Nature Conservancy California Chapter.
Laura Seaman, Communications Manager, Center on Food Security and the Environment: lseaman@stanford.edu
Lisa Park, Media Relations, The Nature Conservancy: lpark@tnc.org.
The liberalization of marijuana policies, including the legalization of medical and recreational marijuana, is sweeping the United States and other countries. Marijuana cultivation can have significant negative collateral effects on the environment that are often unknown or overlooked. Focusing on the state of California, where by some estimates 60%–70% of the marijuana consumed in the United States is grown, we argue that (a) the environmental harm caused by marijuana cultivation merits a direct policy response, (b) current approaches to governing the environmental effects are inadequate, and (c) neglecting discussion of the environmental impacts of cultivation when shaping future marijuana use and possession policies represents a missed opportunity to reduce, regulate, and mitigate environmental harm.
