Recognising Urban Responsibilities Within Sustainable Food Systems

by Trevor Anderson

Abstract: Urban populations rely extensively on industrial global food systems for subsistence. The urban economic and political power wielded over predominantly rural food systems are hence skewed to favour urban populations. Adverse environmental effects stemming from the immense demand for high-yield, low-cost industrialised food production is consequently a systemically urban issue. This argument is foregrounded by analysing the urban bias found within global food system and the subsequent adverse environmental effects thereof. The role of policy and planning in addressing these issues is put forward with the review of two case studies in both global north and south contexts. Each case study presents limiting results that suggest further acknowledgement of responsibility is required to aptly reframe political, social and economic priorities for the sake environmental sustainability.

Keywords: food systems; environmental sustainability; urban bias

Urban populations have benefited immensely from technological, biochemical and economical innovations within global food systems, predominantly located in non-urban areas (Archer et al, 2008; Boody & DeVore, 2006; Lam, 2011; Dixon & McMichael, 2015). Advancements in cultivation during the green revolution, chiefly industrialized, high yield production methods developed during the 1950–60’s, led to a drastically increased food surplus. Subsequently, the green revolution facilitated, among other things, rapid population growth and urban migration (Lam, 2011). Urban populations nevertheless have and continue to influence these non-urban food production systems through political and socially enforced structures in a rather profound manner (Archer et al, 2008; Dixon & McMichael 2015). While urban populations rely extensively on this industrialized food system, its adverse ecological consequences have become increasingly apparent as its accumulative effects are better studied (Boody & DeVore, 2006; Dixon & McMichael, 2015; Shindelar, 2015). As much as 29% of greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the global food system in its entirety (Cabannes & Marocchino, 2018, page 13). The subsequent ecological strain impeded upon the planet by feeding urban populations through modern, industrialized agriculture is hence, an urban systemic problem and must be recognized as so. This distinction is critical in framing discourses toward sustainable food systems and recognising where political and economic responsibilities lie in creating sustainable food systems. Here, I argue that urban conglomerations, wielding significant economic and political power due to their populous mass, are the catalyst for shifting global food systems toward environmental sustainability.

In this paper, I will be addressing the connections between urban morphologies, global food systems and environmental (interchangeably ecological) sustainability. In defining these terms, I intend to set the parameters in which my argument is being made. The first of which comes from “Revisiting the ‘Urban Bias’ and its Relationship to Food Security” by Dixon & McMichael, who refer ‘the urban’ as dense concentrations of population that house distinguishable political status with the seat of government, a stronghold of financial capital and cultural diversity (2015, page 315). Whereas global food systems are networks of food production and distribution from industrialized land-use practices that feed the majority of global populations (Shindelar, 2015, page 20). The environmental sustainability of food distribution systems is of recognized importance, however, falls beyond the scope of this paper and offers opportunity for further research. Finally, ‘environmental sustainability’ in this paper refers to the adverse effects of “Not only climate change but also other forms of ‘planetary overload’” (Butler, 2015, page 270)” including the human extraction and consumption of energy, phosphorus, food fuels, and other metals as noted by Butler’s determined ‘limits to growth’ (2015, page 271–272). While these definitions cite specific authors, their general terms are widely upheld by the cited literature. The approach and depth of analysis toward each of these definitions is however varied. I will now distinguish the connections between them, highlighting reinforcement, variations and contradictions of arguments.

Across the examined literature, there is no dispute that the modernization and industrialization of food production during the mid 20th century fostered population growth unprecedented in human history (Boody & DeVore 2006; Butler, 2015; Lam 2011). Systemic shifts in food production and circulation created during this time, had immense influence on human civilization. Swelling urban populations would not have been possible without innovations in the global food system (Boody & DeVore, 2006). While acknowledging that urban migration is caused by more than just food system innovation, Lam explains that: “rapid rural-urban migration, a response by individuals to the economic and educational opportunities in cities and the decreased need for rural labor as a result of increased agricultural yields. Urbanization is one of the challenges of population growth, but it is also one of the important ways that the world was able to absorb a doubling in 40 years without mass starvation” (2011, page 1249). Subsequently, as humans increasingly choose to reside in cities, such ‘economic and educational opportunities’ have been utilized by urban populations to wield greater influence and control over the food systems that operate beyond urban constituents (Battersby & Watson, 2018). Archer et al notes this succinctly by stating: “Farms are where social, economical and ecological factors interact most profoundly […] Direct political influences are experienced by farmers through associated regulations and definitions of property rights that constrain management options. Indirect political influences generally come through the markets via such mechanisms as subsidies for agricultural production or conservation measures, and through government investments in public infrastructure” (2008, page 274). Subsidies, as mentioned by Archer et al, suggests urban food supply can and is being defined by political incentives. A notion upheld by Dixon & McMichael whom refer to Michael Lipton’s term ‘urban bias’ — a socio-political force that ‘underpins’ the global food system — is used to stack high-volume production regimes in favor of urban demographics (2015, page 315). Several authors confer this notion and build upon it by arguing that urban appetites for subsidized, low cost foods come with underappreciated consequences by its consumers (Boody & DeVore 2006; Butler, 2015). Such consumer ignorance is subsequently reflected in political structures that represent the urban masses. This further perpetuates the cycle of urban bias, where consumers continue to demand high-volume, low cost foods. The broader social, political and ecological costs of such system have been interpreted in a variety of ways across the literature, as I will now examine.

While acknowledging a wide range of issues originating from the modern global food system, this short essay will focus exclusively on its ecological implications. This analysis is far from comprehensive, but highlights the contented arguments reinforced across many authors. Boody & DeVore label modern industrial agriculture as “a disconnect between crops and livestock and an emphasis on maximizing production to the exclusion of all else. Such a break has created a highly dysfunctional nutrient cycle” (2006, page 839), commenting on the ill effects of mismanaged fertilizers and chemicals that pollute rivers and airways in the process of production. Shindelar contends this pollutive view by noting the American food system as a principal emitter of national greenhouse gases. She notes that 80% of these emissions are occurring during the production phase alone (Shindelar, 2015, page 20). Accumulative negative environmental impacts are also caused by the extensive transportation of food. A truly global network has formulated through the extensive food imports and exports as noted by Battersby & Watson in their African case study (2018, page 189), where planning regulation is placing a stranglehold on informal local food distrubition networks in Cape Town, South Africa. A notion contended by Cabannes & Marocchino in their work, ‘Food and urban planning: The missing link’: “A strong tension exists between the export-oriented corporate food distribution sector and local food production supplying local markets…In many cities, large corporations dominate lower-income urban markets by offering cheaper products that are negatively affecting local food production and distribution.” (Cabannes & Marocchino, 2018, page 27). Despite agreeing on systemic shifts needed within the global food system for the sake of sustainability, optimism toward such interventions varied among authors. Authors such as Archer et al, Battersby & Watson and Dixon & McMichael remain relatively neutral on their outlooks. While Butler on the other hand, paints a disparate picture by arguing that humans are toying with the thresholds of biological limits in attempting to engineer our way through problems rather than accepting our natural constraints: “like other organisms, [humans] have an optimal size for optimal function. Some megacities have exceeded this optimum” (Butler, 2015, page 272). Boody & DeVore agree, by quoting scientists on the vast uncertainties of climate change, noting: “We have conservation measures that were built for a climate scenario we no longer have” (Boody & Devore, 2006, page 843). Lam however, opposes these views by referring to historical trends and statistics from which he synthesizes a rather hopeful outlook. While acknowledging the austerity of current ecological crises such as climate change and resource depletion, he writes: “I’m optimistic not because the problems […] are simple or because they will take care of themselves, but rather because the last 50 years have demonstrated our capacity to recognize the challenges and to tackle them with hard work and creativity” (Lam, 2011, page 1259). This optimism is grounded in two parts: ‘recognition’ and subsequent ‘hard work and creativity’. In this paper I am advocating for recognition, where the hard work and creativity seems to fall into the realm of politicians, planners and designers as I turn to two selected case studies to illustrate the shortcomings of the modern food system without recognised urban responsibilities.

Raja et al and Battersby & Watson address urban food sustainability from a planning perspective in both urban global north and south examples, respectively. Raja et al examine where and how food planning is being implemented in the United States. Cabannes & Marocchino contend the importance of planning, noting ways in which it can powerfully influence the food system: “The land used for food, the way food is distributed and consumed and the management of food waste are important elements in decreasing GHG and climate change adaptation.” (Cabannes & Marocchino, 2018, page 13). Battersby & Watson on the other hand offer insight into food system structures in the African context, analysing economic viability of formalised and informalised distribution methods. While distribution is not the intended focus of this paper, Battersby & Watson note the reliance of food sourced from international sources, increasing greenhouse gas emissions (Battersby & Watson, 2018, page 189). Cabannes & Marocchino succinctly summerise the issue at hand by writing: “A strong tension exists between the export- oriented corporate food distribution sector and local food production supplying local markets” (Cabanna & Marocchino, 2018, page 27). The case study finds available local food sources are contracted to multi-national retailers that rely on structural favoritism, benefiting wealthy urban populations as theorized by Dixon & McMichael. This is also prevalent in global north contexts, where more ecologically considered food production branded under labels such as ‘organic’, tend to cost consumers more. Interestingly, both papers contend that broader social and economic issues within urban formations can be mitigated through improving the environmental sustainability of urban food systems (Battersby & Watson, 2018; Raja et al, 2018). Raja et al identify American municipalities that are innovating urban approaches to conventional food system reliance. They suggest small and mid-sized food producers located close to urban conglomerations house potential toward sustainable food production (Raja et al, 2018). The results from their study are however underwhelming: “although food is beginning to be integrated into planning practice, this integration is limited to particular sectors of the food system, planning interventions are narrow and appear restrictive and local government planning engagement is hindered by multiple constraints” (Raja et al, 2018, page 140). This pitfall is contended by Battersby & Watson, noting changes toward sustainable outcomes are constricted by corporate domination. Boody & DeVore reinforce this argument by paraphrasing Jules Petty: “the increasing urbanization of our society, farming has come to be seen as just one more service industry — a “food factory” in this case […] It’s become clear we separate “agri” and “culture” at our own risk” (Boody & DeVore, 2006, page 841). This distinction was interestingly noted in Battersby & Watson’s use of language, distinguishing between ‘customers’ procuring food from food local, informal retailers to ‘consumers’ whom shop at commercial supermarkets. This distinction is a critical one, where personal association (or lack thereof) to one’s food source shows where planning and policy can cause greater change. The limitations of urban planning and policy noted by these authors however, present avenues for further research. Finding solutions to these complex systemic problems will certainly be no easy fix, requiring extensive hard work and creativity as Lam predicts (2015). For these reasons, it is important for urban populations to recognize the need for food system reforms, allowing the urban bias on which food systems are structured be used a positive force for change.

Structuring such reforms, will however be a major challenge. In what ways will these challenges be addressed? Who will be the key decision makers in doing so and how will their mitigative measures be incentivized? Overcoming the urban / rural dichotomy, where the material goods procured from rural landscapes need to be perceived as more than a resource for urban populations to extract and consume (Archer et al, 2008; Boody & DeVore, 2006; Dixon & McMichael, 2015). “It is through ethics and philosophy that decisions about balancing acceptable risks in relation to the scientific, economic, and material gains of those who most benefit can be better informed” (Boody & DeVore, 2006, page 841). While Boody & DeVore are the only authors that explicitly mention the ethical questions being asked of society, this notion of self-subsistence is a critical one. Given the aforementioned power of urban demographics on the broader landscapes, urban populations are beginning to be asked critical questions of humanity through their consumptive choices: what kind of relationship do the world’s predominantly urban populations desire with the natural world? One of self-interested subsistence or fostered diversity? These philosophical questions require extensive further research, but I present them nevertheless as issues of the urban realm regardless of their origins held beyond the limits of the world’s cities.

In conclusion, I will assume the role of devil’ advocate and reframe my position by foregrounding the pessimistically dire scenario of a global food system collapse caused by chronic unsustainable production practices. What would happen to humanity’s vastly urbanised populations in such a position of food scarcity? In whatever way urban populations decide to respond to such a scenario, their political, financial and cultural powers cannot compensate for its inability to yield the extensive quantity of food supplied to them. Given that chronic unsustainable production practices are not so hypothetical, where dramatic ecological collapse has been experienced in places such as eastern Canada where entire industries were decimated (Roy, 1996, page 139), it seems curious that food system sustainability seems foreign within urban governing structures. Recognising and accepting responsibility is the first step in facilitating action toward sustainable food futures. Given the power vested by numbers in urban economic and political structures, that in turn influence food production systems, will be the first to drive change. The ambiguous nature of such systemic changes requires further scientific inquiry, as categorised by Lam’s ‘hard work and creativity’, however is recognised in this paper.

About the Author:

Trevor Anderson holds an undergraduate degree in architecture form Deakin University (Melbourne, Australia). During his studies, he took part in several short-term study programs in Asia. A year of professional practice with HCMA (Vancouver, Canada) evoked an interest in returning to larger, nationally scaled projects as experienced in Asia. Through Mundus Urbano, Trevor hopes to achieve this goal and take part in international dialogues of development and sustainability; sincere questions of modernity as its full effects become ever more pronounced.

Trevor pursued his Interests in sustainability and ecosystem conservation in exploring the connection between urban populations and the vast quantity of cultivated lands that feed them. The market successfully bridges the urban / rural divide to deliver urban populations with affordable food, but at what ecological cost? Should it be unsustainable, Trevor wanted to know who should be addressing it?

Bibliography (APA)

Archer, David & Dawson, Julie & Kreuter, Urs & Hendrickson, Mary & Halloran, John. (2008). Social and political influences on agricultural systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 23. 272–284. 10.1017/S174217050700169X.

Battersby, J., & Watson, V. (2018). Improving urban food security in African cities: Critically assessing the role of informal retailers. In Cabannes Y. & Marocchino C. (Eds.), Integrating Food into Urban Planning (pp. 186–208). London: UCL Press. Retrieved January 16, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv513dv1.16

BOODY, G., & DeVORE, B. (2006). Redesigning Agriculture. BioScience, 56(10), 839–845. doi:10.1641/0006–3568(2006)56[839:ra]2.0.co;2

Butler, C. (2015). Global Food Security, Population and Limits to Growth. In BUTLER C., DIXON J., & CAPON A. (Eds.), Health of People, Places and Planet: Reflections based on Tony McMichael’s four decades of contribution to epidemiological understanding (pp. 263–286). ANU Press. Retrieved January 16, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1729vxt.30

Cabannes, Y., & Marocchino, C. (2018). Introduction: Food challenges faced by an urbanising world. In Cabannes Y. & Marocchino C. (Eds.), Integrating Food into Urban Planning (pp. 1–17). London: UCL Press. Retrieved February 24, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv513dv1.7

Cabannes, Y., & Marocchino, C. (2018). Food and urban planning: The missing link. In Cabannes Y. & Marocchino C. (Eds.), Integrating Food into Urban Planning (pp. 18–59). London: UCL Press. Retrieved February 25, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv513dv1.8

Lam, D. (2011). How the World Survived the Population Bomb: Lessons From 50 Years of Extraordinary Demographic History. Demography, 48(4), 1231–1262. Retrieved January 16, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/41408189

Dixon, J. & McMichael, P. (2015). REVISITING THE ‘URBAN BIAS’ AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO FOOD SECURITY. In DIXON J., BUTLER C., & CAPON A. (Eds.), Health of People, Places and Planet: Reflections based on Tony McMichael’s four decades of contribution to epidemiological

understanding (pp. 313–330). ANU Press. Retrieved January 16, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1729vxt.33

Raja, S., Whittaker, J., Hall, E., Hodgson, K., & Leccese, J. (2018). Growing food connections through planning: Lessons from the United States. In Cabannes Y. & Marocchino C. (Eds.), Integrating Food into Urban Planning (pp. 134–153). London: UCL Press. Retrieved January 16, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv513dv1.13

Roy, N. (1996). The Atlantic Canada Resource Management Catastrophe: What Went Wrong and What Can We Learn from It? The Canadian Journal of Economics / Revue Canadienne D’Economique, 29, S139-S144. doi:10.2307/135976

Shindelar, R. (2015). The Ecological Sustainability of Local Food Systems. RCC Perspectives, (1), 19–24. Retrieved January 16, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/26241302