Description of Sustainable Food Systems; Section 2.1.1:
In the statements copied below (as in other sections), I suggest removing the words “or neutral,” as it opens a door for abuse of the term “sustainable.” Creative minds can think of many ways to substantiate their impact as “neutral”, for example by being destructive in one area and reforesting in another. Given the heavy environmental damage already caused by human action, the only way to be “sustainable” is for systems to have a positive impact that regenerates the natural environment.
“This means that sustainable food systems are profitable throughout (economic sustainability); have broad-based benefits for society (social sustainability); and have a positive or neutral impact on the natural environment (environmental sustainability).”
“On the environmental dimension, sustainability is determined by ensuring that the impacts of food system activities on the surrounding natural environment are neutral or positive, taking into consideration biodiversity, water, soil, animal and plant health, the carbon footprint, the water footprint, food loss and waste, and toxicity.”
Use of term “traditional”, Section 2.1.2 and elsewhere:
I commend the inclusion of Indigenous people and traditional food systems. I suggest doing a search for other uses of the word “traditional” in the text to assure that there is not confusion. For example, in the phrase below (Section 2.1.2, pg. 14), I assume the use of traditional does not refer to cultural traditions or traditions of Indigenous people
Overcoming polarization and traditional power dynamics as well as promoting inclusiveness are paramount conditions to enhance multi-stakeholder collaboration.
Use of terms “developed” and “developing countries, Section 2.2.1 and elsewhere:
Prefer the use of terms High Income Countries and Low and Middle Income Countries instead, as “developed” is a value judgement.
Unbalanced burden on consumer responsibility rather than industry responsibility (Section 2.2.1):
Section 2.2.1 should focus more on the role of industry in assuring that their products are environmentally, socially and economically sustainable, rather than putting the burden on consumers to make that choice (as it does in the phrase copied below, pg. 18). It makes more sense to change the behaviors of a few large industries than to attempt to educate and change behaviors of billions of individuals. Consumers will take into account their more pressing individual constraints (e.g. cost, preference) over their ideologies while choosing from the options that are available on the market; the market should thus offer sustainable choices for consumers to choose from. The complicity and resulting responsibility of the food industry should not be minimized.
“In addition, people need better information and clearer recommendations regarding environmentally, socially and economically sustainable food and how food consumption impacts on all elements of the food system.”
Definition of agroecology:
This section is very well developed and provides a clear depiction of agroecology, as well as its emphasis of family farming and social/cultural concerns. Excellent! A small word choice correction: at the bottom of page 32, the word “Besides” should instead be “Additionally,” and the following sentence also needs clearing up.
Ana Deaconu
PhD Candidate in Nutrition, University of Montreal
BS and MS in Earth Systems, Stanford University
Ana Deaconu