Blog Unpacking the ‘Food Systems’ Buzzword

The structure of a food system can be divided into four stages, from the start to the end of a food product’s lifecycle:  

1. Agricultural production: A food system starts with the development of a raw food product: either the cultivation of crops or the raising of livestock.  

2. Food processing: The second stage may not apply to all food systems, as in some systems – such as local or informal food systems – raw produce may go directly from producer to consumer, or may be consumed by the producers themselves. However, in many cases, this stage can range from the drying of tea, the grinding of grain into flour, the cooking of a takeaway dish, and more. 

3. Distribution and retail: The activities of this stage could be a direct transaction in a market in an alternative local food system, while in the case of global food systems, this stage may include quality control, packaging and long-distance transportation before reaching the consumer in a supermarket. 

4. Consumption: This final stage starts when the food product reaches the user. At this stage, the dietary habits of individuals and communities influence the food system, as well as nutritional considerations. 

Once we understand the structure of a food system, we can distinguish the types of food systems through their primary interests, which in some cases may be driven by the mindsets of its stakeholders. These interests include: 

• Environmental: Some food systems – such as alternative, regenerative, organic, or traditional systems – are characterized by producers’ and consumers’ interest in food systems’ role in environmental health and climate change; putting importance on this dimension of food systems drives stakeholders to use regenerative climate-smart farming methods, short supply chains, etc. However, such considerations may be absent in industrial food systems that prioritize productivity, leading to the use of high quantities of chemical fertilizers, despite their contribution to soil erosion. 

• Economic: Global and informal food systems are marked by their differing relationships and impacts on markets and economies. While ‘less visible’ informal food systems may provide immediate income through direct exchange between producers and consumers, alternative food systems – with their KM0 farmers’ markets – may also be driven by an interest to boost local economies, prioritizing fair income for farmers. On the other hand, while global food systems provide plenty opportunities for farmers to sell to large-scale producers, importers and processors may give less attention to – or are simply unaware of – the socio-economic impacts of their transactions with producers.  

• Cultural: Unlike industrial food systems, traditional food systems may put particular importance on conserving agricultural heritage through the use of traditional varieties and the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge into production. 

• Political: Finally, all food systems are in some way defined by the implications of certain policies on their stakeholders, by their level of conformity, or by their interest in engaging with and adapting existing norms. Political dimensions may include the compliance with governments’ and intergovernmental organizations’ regulation on imports in global food systems on one hand, to the lobbying for the rights of local communities to define their own food systems norms through food sovereignty and alternative food systems, as promoted by activist organizations such as la Via Campesina.