Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 560–572 | Cite as

From industrial production to biosensitivity: the need for a food system paradigm shift

Article

Abstract

Urban consumers in affluent cities are typically divorced from the landscapes and farmers that produce their food. Most food is made available to these consumers via global retail systems, operating within an overarching paradigm of industrial commodity production. This paradigm induces one-way flows of resources from rural hinterlands to cities, with farmers undercompensated for their services—a process which is inherently unsustainable and unjust. By unwittingly eroding processes upon which they are utterly dependent, urban consumers are making themselves vulnerable. Potentially, this vulnerability could be reduced if urban food consumption was linked to regional production, but for many cities, the volumes of food required do not match regional output. Framed using a human ecological systems-based template, this paper presents case studies of three cities that have contrasting relationships with their regional food-producing landscapes. Canberra, Australia, could not consume all its regional production and so is in food surplus. Tokyo, Japan, could not meet its consumption needs from its region and so is in food deficit. Copenhagen, Denmark, could probably meet its needs from its region but chooses to reduce its food-producing land area and focus production on high-value meat products from pigs fed on imported low-value grains. Despite their differing food procurement strategies, producers and consumers in all three cases remain co-dependent upon each other and vulnerable to the processes being driven by the industrial paradigm. Consequently, a shift to a new ‘biosensitive’ paradigm is required, within which the social and environmental aspects of food production and consumption would be respected. This paradigm shift would reduce food choice and convenience and likely increase cost, so what would motivate consumers to support it? The answer suggested is that consumers could embrace the new food system if it had features that they valued sufficiently to compensate for the forgone values of the old system. Features that consumers could positively value include personal skills in the creation of meals, knowledge of the provenance and production standards of ingredients, and convivial relationships with producers. Pragmatically, these values are most likely to arise from consumers interacting with local food systems. Hence, it is argued, the primary value of local food systems lies not in the absolute volumes of food that they produce but in their educative capacity to foster a shift to a biosensitive paradigm. This new paradigm could extend concern to all food-producing landscapes and farmers, wherever on the planet they were located.

Keywords

Human ecology Food systems Urban food security Paradigm shift  

References

  1. Australian Capital Territory Government (2010) Canberra quick stats. Policy Division, ACT Chief Minister’s Department, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyden S (2011) Our place in nature: past, present and future. Nature and Society Forum, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  3. Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Christensen C (2014) Human ecology as philosophy. Hum Ecol Rev 21:31–49Google Scholar
  5. Danish Agriculture and Food Council (2012) Facts and figures: Danish agriculture and food 2012. Danish Agriculture and Food Council, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  6. Davila Cisneros F, Dyball R (2015) Transforming food systems through food sovereignty: an Australian context. Aust J Environ Educ. In pressGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawson M (2003) The consumer trap: big business marketing in American life. University of Illinois, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  8. Deutsch L, Dyball R, Steffen W (2013) Feeding cities: food security and ecosystem support in an urbanizing world. In: Thomas Elmqvist MF, Goodness J (eds) Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities a global assessment. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 505–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyball R, Newell B (2015) Understanding human ecology: a systems approach to sustainability. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, OxonGoogle Scholar
  10. Elmqvist T, Redman CL, Barthel S, Costanza R (2013) History of urbanization and the missing ecology. In: Elmqvist T (ed) Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. Springer, New York, pp. 13–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evan F, Rimas A (2010) Empires of food: feast, famine, and the rise and fall of civilizations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO (2010) Global forest resources assessment 2010 country report, Denmark. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  13. Foster JB, Clark B, York R (2010) The ecological rift: capitalism’s war on the Earth. Monthly Review Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Futerra Sustainability Communications (2014) Sell the sizzle: not the sausage.32Google Scholar
  15. Hammelman C, Hayes-Conroy A (2015) Understanding cultural acceptability for urban food policy. Journal of Planning Literature 30:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hornborg A (1992) Machine fetishism, value, and the image of unlimited good: towards a thermodynamics of imperialism. Man 27:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hornborg A (1999) Money and the semiotics of ecosystem dissolution. Journal of Material Culture 4:143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hornborg A (2009) Zero-sum world: challenges in conceptualizing environmental load displacement and ecologically unequal exchange in the world-system. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50:237–262. doi:10.1177/0020715209105141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ingram J, Ericksen P, Liverman D (2010) Food security and global environmental change. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Jesperson K (2004) A history of Denmark. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  21. Jorgenson AK, Clark B (2009) Ecologically unequal exchange in comparative perspective: a brief introduction. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50:211–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kneafsey M, Dowler E, Lambie-Mumford H, Inman A, Collier R (2013) Consumers and food security: uncertain or empowered? Journal of Rural Studies 29:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohsaka R, Shih W, Saito O, Sadohara S (2013) Local assessment of Tokyo: satoyama and satoumi—traditional landscapes and management practices in a contemporary urban enviroment. In: Elmqvist T (ed) Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities: a global assessment. Springer, London, pp. 93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lakoff G (2004) Don’t think of an elephant: know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green, VermontGoogle Scholar
  25. Landbrugsinfo (2014) Organic farming in Denmark. accessible at: https://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/oekologi/sider/engoeko.aspxGoogle Scholar
  26. Lang T, Heasman M (2004) Food wars : the global battle for mouths, minds and markets. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawrence G, Richards C, Lyons K (2013) Food security in Australia in an era of neoliberalism, productivism and climate change. Journal of Rural Studies 29:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. LSE (2014) Urban age program. London School of Economics. Accessible at https://lsecities.net/ua/. Accessed 20 July
  29. Meadows DH, Wright D (2009) Thinking in systems : a primer. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. National Farmers Federation (2012) Farm facts. National Farmers Federation, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  31. Newell B, Proust K (2012) Escaping the complexity dilemma. Australian National University digital repository, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  32. Odum EP (1997) Ecology: a bridge between science and society. Sinauer, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  33. Porter JR, Dyball R, Dumaresq D, Deutsch L, Matsuda H (2014) Feeding capitals: Urban food security and self-provisioning in Canberra, Copenhagen and Tokyo. Global Food Security 3:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prime Minister’s Science Engineering and Innovation Council (2010) Australia and food security in a changing world. Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  35. Princen T (2005) The logic of sufficiency. The MIT Press, Cambridge MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  36. Raworth K (2012) A safe and just space for humanity. Oxfam Discussion Papers, Oxfam International, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Sawin B, Hamilton H, Jone A, Rice P, Seville D, Sweitzer S, Wright D (2003) Commodity systems challenges: moving sustainability into the mainstream of natural resource economics. Sustainability Institute., Hartland, VermontGoogle Scholar
  38. Seto KC et al. (2012) Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:7687–7692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Takeuchi K, Brown RD, Washitani I, Tsunekawa A, Yokohari M (2003) Satoyama: the traditional rural landscapes of Japan. Springer, TokyoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner B, Pearson D, Dyball R (2012) Food in the ACT: a preliminary study of issues for the ACT Government. Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate Australian Capital Territory Government, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  41. WHO (2014) Urban population growth. World Health Organization. Accessible at http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/ Accessed 20 July

Copyright information

© AESS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fenner School of Environment and SocietyAustralian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations