Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

I am fully supportive of ecological practices and wish to see these adopted more widely. However, I do not agree with the initial premise here in so far as the word intensification, I feel, is not wholly appropriate. 
 
The problem is not simply a lack and the solution, therefore, is not simply an increase in provision. It is about the growth in understanding, in cooperation, in active collaboration and in real, lasting development.
 
When a person on a low budget sees a range of food on the shelves of their nearest retailer they have to base a purchasing decision of, for instance, one box of eggs over another. Often that decision is down to convenience, price, habit. 
 
In the market place we can see that food is treated as a device to lever with. Be it for financial profit or as a negotiating pawn in the political arena. Food as commodity. This has not helped reduce the vast amounts of food waste. Waste is apparent all along the supply chain. Over the decades in Europe the price of food has dropped in relation to income. More food is more available but the value we place on food has also been affected, it can be said, adversely. 
 
We now see obesity related illness as a crisis even in Europe. Clearly the problem is more complex than a lack of food. What we lack is understanding. I would posit that commerce and marketing is currently a barrier to the understanding of the ecological impact with regard to production, transport and consumption. If people are producing food with low margins and a lot is wasted and people are buying a lot of food at a low price and a lot is wasted and health bills are increasing as a result then clearly there are areas that can be worked on now. Intensify the messaging of value, impact and risk. Increase the messaging of good value, sustaining soils and therefore the whole supply chain not just for short term but for many generations to come.  
 
What we lack is a widely regarded and much supported perception of true value. What we need is better dialogue, more interaction between food producers, processors and consumers. Less short term profit driven decision making and more credence given to agroecological practices and to ingesting less food but of a higher quality. 
 
The problem is that the supply chain dialogue I am discussing here is not seen as top of the agenda with funding initiatives be they research or retail led. Anything that could adversely affect the short term profits of large food businesses, throughout the supply chain, remains taboo for many. And in a large number of cases that is because the margins are so tight, the competition so fierce there is very little wriggle room. Very little room for developmental growth.
 
There are individuals and institutions who are now talking about how profits ultimately are not sustainable working within the current paradigm. I would suggest that these voices are amplified and the taboos are discussed openly and often.