Search

Public interest in where food comes from and how it is produced, processed, and distributed has increased over the last few decades, with even greater focus emerging during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mounting evidence and experience point to disturbing weaknesses in our food systems’ abilities to support human livelihoods and wellbeing, and alarming long-term trends regarding both the environmental footprint of food systems and mounting vulnerabilities to shocks and stressors. How can we tackle the “wicked problems” embedded in a food system? More specifically, how can convergent research programs be designed and resulting knowledge implemented to increase inclusion, sustainability, and resilience within these complex systems, support widespread contributions to and acceptance of solutions to these challenges, and provide concrete benchmarks to measure progress and understand tradeoffs among strategies along multiple dimensions? This article introduces and defines food systems informatics (FSI) as a tool to enhance equity, sustainability, and resilience of food systems through collaborative, user-driven interaction, negotiation, experimentation, and innovation within food systems. Specific benefits we foresee in further development of FSI platforms include the creation of capacity-enabling verifiable claims of sustainability, food safety, and human health benefits relevant to particular locations and products; the creation of better incentives for the adoption of more sustainable land use practices and for the creation of more diverse agro-ecosystems; the wide-spread use of improved and verifiable metrics of sustainability, resilience, and health benefits; and improved human health through better diets.

Current studies on data sharing via data commons or shared vocabularies using ontologies mainly focus on developing the infrastructure for data sharing yet little attention has been paid to the role of power in data sharing among food system stakeholders. Stakeholders within food systems have different interpretations of the types and magnitudes of their own and other’s level of power to solve food system challenges. Politically neutral, yet scientifically/socioeconomically accurate power classification systems are yet to be developed, and must be capable of enumerating and characterizing what power means to each stakeholder, existing power dynamics within the food system, as well as alternative forms of power not currently utilized to their full capacity. This study describes the design and implementation of a workshop, which used methods from community-based participatory modeling, to examine the role of power relative to data sharing and equitable health outcomes. Workshop participants co-created several boundary objects that described the power relationships among food system stakeholders and the changes needed to current power relationships. Our results highlight current imbalances in power relationships among food system stakeholders. The information we collected on specific relationships among broad categories of stakeholders highlighted needs for initiatives and activities to increase the types and varieties of power especially across consumers, farmers, and labor stakeholder groups. Furthermore, by utilizing this workshop methodology, food system stakeholders may be able to envision new power relationships and bring about a fundamental re-orienting of current power relationships capable of valorizing food system sustainability/resiliency, especially the health of its workers and consumers.

A variety of stakeholders are concerned with many issues regarding the sustainability of our complex global food system. Yet navigating and comparing the plethora of issues and indicators across scales, commodities, and regions can be daunting, particularly for different communities of practice with diverse goals, perspectives, and decision-making workflows. This study presents a malleable workflow to help different stakeholder groups identify the issues and indicators that define food system sustainability for their particular use case. By making information used in such workflows semantically-consistent, the output from each unique case can be easily compared and contrasted across domains, contributing to both a deeper and broader understanding of what issues and indicators define a resilient global food system.

We live in a century in which climate change and other forces will cause increasingly challenging and disruptive events. Thus, actions to build resilience in our food supply chain are needed urgently. This white paper seeks to provide advocates, policymakers, and other interested Californians with a snapshot of challenges and opportunities in the meat processing sector, addressing specific needs of small- and mid-scale producers and their linked processors andmarketing systems, which seek to produce and sell high quality meat. It ends withrecommendations that we believe can support development of a promising sector of California’s agricultural economy while, at the same time, building resilience in our meat supply chain.

A foodshed is a concept analogous to a watershed, describing the catchment of the sources of food for a region. As such, it portrays linkages ranging from local communities out to the global food system. Inefficiencies exist at all stages of the food supply chain, resulting in the challenges of inequitable access to healthy and safe food. Many of these inefficiencies are informational; for instance, food being wasted that could be donated to food banks were there communication of the need. These informational inefficiencies can be ameliorated by a stronger semantic characterization of the links between actors and resources in the food system, allowing for the development of smarter software technologies to facilitate interconnections. We discuss an iterative process to improve informatics frameworks for the foodshed by engaging with regional stakeholders to identify important issues and information needs. Key Words: food systems, ontologies, semantic web, smart foodsheds, stakeholder engagement.

It has been estimated that one-third of global food is lost or wasted, entailing significant environmental, economic, and social costs. The scale and impact of food loss and waste (FLW) has attracted significant interest across sectors, leading to a relatively recent proliferation of publications. This article synthesizes existing knowledge in the literature with a focus on FLW measurement, drivers, and solutions. We apply the widely adopted DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) framework to structure the review. Key takeaways include the following: Existing definitions of FLW are inconsistent and incomplete, significant data gaps remain (by food type, stage of supply chain, and region, especially for developing countries), FLW solutions focus more on proximate causes rather than larger systemic drivers, and effective responses to FLW will require complementary approaches and robust evaluation.

Nitrogen is a critical component of the economy, food security, and planetary health. Many of the world's sustainability targets hinge on global nitrogen solutions, which, in turn, contribute lasting benefits for: (i) world hunger; (ii) soil, air and water quality; (iii) climate change mitigation; and (iv) biodiversity conservation. Balancing the projected rise in agricultural nitrogen demands while achieving these 21st century ideals will require policies to coordinate solutions among technologies, consumer choice, and socioeconomic transformation.

This introduction to the special issue deploys a framework, inspired by realist synthesis and introduced in Section 1, that aims to untangle the contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes associated with investments that link poverty reduction and rural prosperity within a broad agri-food systems perspective. Section 2 considers changes in contexts: Where are agricultural research investments most likely to be an engine of poverty reduction? Over the past 25 years, there have been profound changes in the development context of most countries, necessitating an update on strategic insights for research investment priorities relevant for the economic, political, social, environmental, and structural realities of the early 21st Century. Section 2 briefly surveys changes in these structural aspects of poverty and development processes in low-income countries, with particular attention to new drivers (e.g., urbanization, climate change) that will be of increasing salience in the coming decades. In Section 3, we turn to mechanisms: What are the plausible impact pathways and what evidence exists to test their plausibility? Poor farmers in the developing world are often the stated focus of public sector agricultural research. However, farmers are not the only potential beneficiaries of agricultural research; rural landless laborers, stakeholders along food value chains, and the urban poor can also be major beneficiaries of such research. Thus, there are multiple, interacting pathways through which agricultural research can contribute to reductions in poverty and associated livelihood vulnerabilities. This paper introduces an ex ante set of 18 plausible impact pathways from agricultural research to rural prosperity outcomes, employing bibliometric methods to assess the evidence underpinning causal links. In Section 4, we revisit the concept of desired impacts: When we seek poverty reduction, what does that mean and what measures are needed to demonstrate impact? The papers in this special issue are intended to yield insights to inform improvements in agricultural research that seeks to reduce poverty. History indicates that equity of distribution of gains matters hugely, and thus the questions of “who wins?” and “who loses?” must be addressed. Moreover, our understanding(s) of “poverty” and the intended outcomes of development investments have become much richer over the past 25 years, incorporating more nuance regarding gender, community differences, and fundamental reconsideration of the meaning of poverty and prosperity that are not captured by simple head count income or even living standard measures.

Nitrogen is a critical component of the economy, food security, and planetary health. Many of the world's sustainability targets hinge on global nitrogen solutions, which, in turn, contribute lasting benefits for: (i) world hunger; (ii) soil, air and water quality; (iii) climate change mitigation; and (iv) biodiversity conservation. Balancing the projected rise in agricultural nitrogen demands while achieving these 21st century ideals will require policies to coordinate solutions among technologies, consumer choice, and socioeconomic transformation.

The Century Experiment at the Russell Ranch Sustainable Agriculture Facility at the University of California, Davis provides long-term agroecological data from row crop systems in California's Central Valley starting in 1993. The Century Experiment was initially designed to study the effects of a gradient of water and nitrogen availability on soil properties and crop performance in ten different cropping systems to measure tradeoffs and synergies between agricultural productivity and sustainability. Currently systems include 11 different cropping systems-consisting of four different crops and a cover crop mixture-and one native grass system. This paper describes the long-term core data from the Century Experiment from 1993-2014, including crop yields and biomass, crop elemental contents, aerial-photo-based Normalized Difference Vegetation Index data, soil properties, weather, chemical constituents in irrigation water, winter weed populations, and operational data including fertilizer and pesticide application amounts and dates, planting dates, planting quantity and crop variety, and harvest dates. This data set represents the only known long-term set of data characterizing food production and sustainability in irrigated and rainfed Mediterranean annual cropping systems. There are no copyright restrictions associated with the use of this dataset.

California's Mediterranean agro-ecosystems are a major source of U.S. fruits and vegetables, and vulnerable to future extremes of precipitation and temperature brought on by climate change, including increased drought and flooding, and more intense and longer heat waves. To develop resilience to these threats, strategies are necessary for climate-smart management of soil and water. Long-term, large-scale, replicated ecological experiments provide unique testbeds for studying such questions. At the UC Davis Russell Ranch Sustainable Agriculture Facility (RRSAF), the 100-year Century Experiment, initiated in 1992, is investigating the effects of multiple farming practices in a farm-scale replicated study of 10 row crop cropping systems. It includes different fertility management systems: organic, conventional and hybrid (conventional plus winter cover crop) systems; different crops: wheat, tomatoes, corn, alfalfa, cover crops and grasslands; and different irrigation systems: rainfed, flood irrigated and drip irrigated. We briefly describe and report on a selection of long-term experiments conducted at RRSAF investigating soil management and irrigation practices, which are an important focus for developing climate-smart strategies in Mediterranean systems. For example, long-term monitoring of soil carbon content revealed that most crop systems have experienced a small increase in soil carbon since 1993, and increases in organically managed plots were substantially higher. As RRSAF continues to build upon this rich dataset from one of a very few long-term row crop experiments in Mediterranean ecosystems, it provides a testbed for identifying climate-smart solutions for these agronomically important ecosystems.

University-based centers and institutes can play an important role in facilitating community-based, inter- and transdisciplinary research, and providing the capacity and expertise to address pressing issues. However, many centers and institutes face challenges related to long-term stability and resilience. In this paper we share recommendations on how to support centers and institutes that focus on food systems transformation. We drew these recommendations from insights and stories shared by leaders of nine diverse centers and institutes that participate in the Inter-Institutional Network for Food, Agriculture, and Sustainability (INFAS). We discuss how they are structured, the work they have done, and the benefits of that work, as well as the challenges they have faced and what they recommend for addressing those challenges. Their primary challenges include cultivating the support of university administrators and faculty, hiring and retaining supportive faculty, and securing sustainable funding. We provide a diverse range of recommendations to address each of these challenges, with the hope that other centers and institutes can find some that will be relevant to their particular institutional, social, and political contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sustainability describes a broad set of themes centered on current human uses of the planet’s resources. The multiple uses and users of the term have led to a proliferation of salient issues and associated indicators. We present a new method to systematically link these issues and indicators under two conceptual frameworks of sustainability in order to enable quantitative analyses. We demonstrate this approach with a specific use case focused on the global sourcing of agricultural products. We use the optimization software Marxan in a novel way to develop minimum sets of indicators that provide maximum coverage of sustainability issues. Minimum covering sets were identified and accumulation curves were developed to measure the contribution of each indicator in each set to overall issues coverage. While greater detail in the assessment of each indicator would likely provide more effective sets of indicators, those that were generated provide optimism that this approach can bring better focus to sustainability assessments.

Understanding how to source agricultural raw materials sustainably is challenging in today's globalized food system given the variety of issues to be considered and the multitude of suggested indicators for representing these issues. Furthermore, stakeholders in the global food system both impact these issues and are themselves vulnerable to these issues, an important duality that is often implied but not explicitly described. The attention given to these issues and conceptual frameworks varies greatly--depending largely on the stakeholder perspective--as does the set of indicators developed to measure them. To better structure these complex relationships and assess any gaps, we collate a comprehensive list of sustainability issues and a database of sustainability indicators to represent them. To assure a breadth of inclusion, the issues are pulled from the following three perspectives: major global sustainability assessments, sustainability communications from global food companies, and conceptual frameworks of sustainable livelihoods from academic publications. These terms are integrated across perspectives using a common vocabulary, classified by their relevance to impacts and vulnerabilities, and categorized into groups by economic, environmental, physical, human, social, and political characteristics. These issues are then associated with over 2,000 sustainability indicators gathered from existing sources. A gap analysis is then performed to determine if particular issues and issue groups are over or underrepresented. This process results in 44 "integrated" issues--24 impact issues and 36 vulnerability issues--that are composed of 318 "component" issues. The gap analysis shows that although every integrated issue is mentioned at least 40% of the time across perspectives, no issue is mentioned more than 70% of the time. A few issues infrequently mentioned across perspectives also have relatively few indicators available to fully represent them. Issues in the impact framework generally have fewer gaps than those in the vulnerability framework.

Nitrogen fertilizer is an indispensable input to modern agriculture, but it also has been linked to environmental degradation and human health concerns. Recognition of these trade-offs has spurred debate over its use. However, data limitations and misinformation often constrain discussion, cooperative action and the development of solutions. To help inform the dialogue, we (1) evaluate existing data on nitrogen use, (2) estimate typical nitrogen fertilization rates for common crops, (3) analyze historical trends in nitrogen use, (4) compare typical nitrogen use to research-established guidelines and (5) identify cropping systems that have significant influence on the state’s nitrogen cycle. We conclude that a comprehensive grower self-monitoring system for nitrogen applications is required to improve nitrogen-use information and to better support evidence-based decision making. The discussion here presents a primer on the debate over nitrogen fertilizer use in California agriculture.

Systematic land use planning to address environmental impacts does not typically include human health and wellbeing as explicit inputs. We tested the effects of including issues related to human health, ecosystem services, and community wellbeing on the outputs of a standard land use planning process which is primarily focused on environmental variables. We consulted regional stakeholders to identify the health issues that have environmental links in the Sacramento, California region and to identify potential indicators and datasets that can be used to assess and track these issues. Marxan planning software was used to identify efficient land use patterns to maximize both ecological conservation and human health outcomes. Outputs from five planning scenarios were compared and contrasted, resulting in a spatially explicit series of tradeoffs across the scenarios. Total area required to meet imputed goals ranged from 10.4% to 13.4% of the total region, showing somewhat less efficiency in meeting biodiversity goals when health outcomes are included. Additionally, we found 4.8% of residential areas had high greening needs, but this varied significantly across the six counties. The work provides an example of how integrative assessment can help inform management decisions or stakeholder negotiations potentially leading to better management of the production landscapes in food systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Annual Review of Environment & Resources offers comprehensive reviews on sustainability, science, technology, and policy, making it valuable for researchers and practitioners interested in nature-society interactions. Each review synthesizes information from numerous high-impact journals, providing insights on current knowledge, unknowns, and future research directions. The journal is also beneficial for early career scholars looking to expand their research areas and serves as a resource for professionals navigating environmental issues, including journalists, educators, and community organizers. [Extracted from the article]