Agriculture Education Supplement - Gonzaga 2017

Ag Education Supplement (Scholars)
***
Aff
Food Security Uniqueness
Crisis Coming
Climate change is poised to significantly undermine global food security – bolstering

productivity and international market key to avoiding catastrophe
Hendrix, College of William and Mary Assistant professor, 11
(Cullen S. Hendrix, visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, He is the
coauthor of Science and the International Politics of Climate Change (2010) and Food Insecurity and
Violent Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Addressing the Challenges (forthcoming), and has consulted
for the World Food Programme and the Human Security Report Project, June 2011, Peterson Institute for
International Economics, “Markets vs. Malthus: Food Security and the Global Economy”,
https://piie.com/sites/default/files/publications/pb/pb11-12.pdf, page 8, accessed 7/18/17, MJ)
The IPCC also forecasts a 90 percent likelihood that variability in rainfall will increase, leading to
more numerous heat waves and dry spells and heavy precipitation events and flooding. An increase
in areas affected by drought is viewed as likely, as is the forecast that future tropical cyclones, such
as hurricanes and typhoons, will become more intense and destructive. Moreover, the IPCC
forecasts a similar likelihood of an increase in extreme sea level events, such as storm surges and
abnormally high tides that will inundate coastal areas.
Climate change will affect global food production in two important ways. First, climate change will
affect both how much food is grown and where it is grown. Second, climate change will increase the
frequency of localized crop failures due to more frequent extreme weather events such as droughts,
flooding, extended cold and heat waves, and cyclonic storms (IPCC 2007). The first mechanism
challenges the broad feasibility of food sovereignty for much of the globe, while the second highlights
the dangers of a world food system in which production is highly geographically concentrated.
In the aggregate, global output potential is forecast to decrease by between 6 and 18 percent in areas
currently under cultivation by the 2080s, depending on the rate at which atmospheric carbon stimulates
plant growth (Cline 2007). However, these aggregate effects mask dramatic regional inequalities in
agricultural production potential (see table 1). Some major exporting countries at higher latitudes,
particularly the United States, Canada, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Russia, and Ukraine, are forecast to
increase agricultural yields. Yields in many tropical developing countries, including major rice
exporters Thailand, India, and Vietnam, are forecast to decline, in some cases by up to 38 percent
(Cline 2007). Overall, non-European developing countries are forecast to experience yield loses
between 9 percent and 21 percent.
While expanding area under cultivation will offset some of these productivity losses, many
countries, especially in Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, face significant land constraints.
India, projected to be the world’s most populous country by 2030, already uses over 80 percent of
its cultivable land; Egypt, Iran and Turkey use over 100 percent, indicating that farming is only
sustainable through irrigation, which requires significant investment in rural infrastructure.
Extreme weather events always present significant challenges for local production and livelihoods,
but these localized weather events can have global consequences when they strike in major food-
exporting countries and regions. Historic high temperatures and wildfires in Russia and the Ukraine
destroyed crops in 28 regions, causing their 2010 grain harvest to drop by a third, spurring export bans
and roiling world markets.16 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kyrgyz Republic and Moldova
had joined their neighbors in banning wheat exports. Drought in Australia and heat waves in California’s
San Joaquin Valley were further implicated in the 2007–08 price spike (Mittal 2009).
Climate change thus presents two problems that suggest diametrically opposed solutions. Greater
concentration of production in countries with favorable climatic conditions and a robust trading
system will be necessary for the world to feed itself. At the same time, erratic climatic patterns
mean that geographic concentration of production poses significant risks, and these risks are
forecast to increase substantially.
Concentrated food production puts food security at risk – vulnerable to climate and
other disasters
Hendrix, College of William and Mary political science professor, 11
https://piie.com/sites/default/files/publications/pb/pb11-12.pdf, page 12-13 accessed 7/18/17, MJ)
The need to increase yields through specialization and more intense use of technology—which, in
the short term, would imply greater geographic concentration of production in developed
countries—must also be weighed against the risks posed by climate-related disasters. The 2011
Japan earthquake and tsunami raised fears about global supply chains that stem from geographic
concentration of production, particularly in electronics and car parts. If global food production were
similarly geographically concentrated, localized flooding, drought, and other natural disasters
could significantly threaten global food availability. The higher-latitude countries that stand to benefit
from climate change—at least in terms of agricultural productivity and increasing potential cultivable
land—cannot be the only ones to make gains. And if the rest of the gains from technology accrue to
middle-income and rapidly developing countries like Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, India and China, the
poverty-alleviating effects of increased production will not reach those countries in most desperate need.
Global food crisis is imminent – need to reinvigorate agriculture system to stave off
inevitable crisis
Wedding, FDA Office of Strategy, Partnerships and Analytics International Policy
Analyst & Center for Strategic and International Studies, Global Food Security
Project Assistant Director, 10
[Kristen, Robert P Casey, Jr., Senator and Richard G. Lugar, Senator, and Betty McCollum,
Representative, April 2010, Center for Strategic & International Studies, “Cultivating Global Food
Security: A Strategy for U.S. Leadership on Productivity, Agricultural Research, and Trade,”
http://www.ciaonet.org/record/19055?search=1, p. ix, 7/16/17, KF]
In 2008, the United States and the world responded with billions of dollars in emergency assistance,
helping to ameliorate some of the worst cases of hunger. But a host of new factors affecting the global
food supply, including a rising population, increased demand for meat and dairy products, and
high fuel prices that drove demand for biofuels, are likely to cause permanent changes. To address
these and other emerging challenges, the world must bring new policies to bear that give the hungry
poor the tools they need to more effectively manage risk and volatility and better leverage
immediate assistance toward the goal of achieving lasting food security.4 Unless serious
vulnerabilities in the global food system are addressed, it is only a matter of time until the next food
crisis occurs.
Food System Breakdown
Risks are increasing – food system breakdown could occur at any time.
Brown, Worldwatch Institute founder and environmental analyst, 11
[Lester R., May/June 2011, Foreign Policy, “The New Geopolitics of Food,”
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41233423, p.62, 7/17/17, KF]
With grain stocks low and climate volatility increasing, the risks are also increasing. We are now
so close to the edge that a breakdown in the food system could come at any time. Consider, for
example, what would have happened if the 2010 heat wave that was centered in Moscow had instead been
centered in Chicago. In round numbers, the 40 percent drop in Russia's hoped-for harvest of roughly 100
million tons cost the world 40 million tons of grain, but a 40 percent drop in the far larger U.S. grain
harvest of 400 million tons would have cost 160 million tons. The world's carryover stocks of grain
(the amount in the bin when the new harvest begins) would have dropped to just 52 days of
consumption. This level would have been not only the lowest on record, but also well below the 62-
day carryover that set the stage for the 2007-2008 tripling of world grain prices.
AT – Surplus
The United States no longer has the surplus to avert global food shortages.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41233423, p. 57, 7/17/17, KF]
Already in 2011, the U.N. Food Price Index has eclipsed its previous all-time global high; as of March it
had climbed for eight consecutive months. With this year's harvest predicted to fall short, with
governments in the Middle East and Africa teetering as a result of the price spikes, and with
anxious markets sustaining one shock after another, food has quickly become the hidden driver of
world politics. And crises like these are going to become increasingly common. The new geopolitics
of food looks a whole lot more volatile - and a whole lot more contentious - than it used to. Scarcity
is the new norm.
Until recently, sudden price surges just didn't matter as much, as they were quickly followed by a
return to the relatively low food prices that helped shape the political stability of the late 20th
century across much of the globe. But now both the causes and consequences are ominously
different.
In many ways, this is a resumption of the 2007-2008 food crisis, which subsided not because the world
somehow came together to solve its grain crunch once and for all, but because the Great Recession
tempered growth in demand even as favorable weather helped farmers produce the largest grain harvest
on record. Historically, price spikes tended to be almost exclusively driven by unusual weather - a
monsoon failure in India, a drought in the former Soviet Union, a heat wave in the U.S. Midwest. Such
events were always disruptive, but thankfully infrequent. Unfortunately, today's price hikes are driven
by trends that are both elevating demand and making it more difficult to increase production:
among them, a rapidly expanding population, crop-withering temperature increases, and irrigation
wells running dry. Each night, there are 219,000 additional people to feed at the global dinner
table.
More alarming still, the world is losing its ability to soften the effect of shortages. In response to
previous price surges, the United States, the world's largest grain producer, was effectively able to
steer the world away from potential catastrophe. From the mid-20th century until 1995, the United
States had either grain surpluses or idle cropland that could be planted to rescue countries in trouble.
When the Indian monsoon failed in 1965, for example, President Lyndon Johnson's administration
shipped one-fifth of the U.S. wheat crop to India, successfully staving off famine. We can't do that
anymore; the safety cushion is gone.
Global crises, including water shortages contribute to an unstable global food
environment.
While temperatures are rising, water tables are falling as farmers overpump for irrigation. This artificially
inflates food production in the short run, creating a food bubble that bursts when aquifers are depleted and
pumping is necessarily reduced to the rate of recharge. In arid Saudi Arabia, irrigation had surprisingly
enabled the country to be self-sufficient in wheat for more than 20 years; now, wheat production is
collapsing because the non-replenishable aquifer the country uses for irrigation is largely depleted . The
Saudis soon will be importing all their grain.
Saudi Arabia is only one of some 18 countries with water-based food bubbles. All together, more than
half the world's people live in countries where water tables are falling. The politically troubled Arab
Middle East is the first geographic region where grain production has peaked and begun to decline
because of water shortages, even as populations continue to grow. Grain production is already going
down in Syria and Iraq and may soon decline in Yemen. But the largest food bubbles are in India and
China. In India, where farmers have drilled some 20 million irrigation wells, water tables are
falling and the wells are starting to go dry. The World Bank reports that 175 million Indians are
being fed with grain produced by overpumping. In China, overpumping is concentrated in the
North China Plain, which produces half of China's wheat and a third of its corn. An estimated 130
million Chinese are currently fed by overpumping. How will these countries make up for the
inevitable shortfalls when the aquifers are depleted?
AT – Self-Sufficient Agriculture Solves
Self-sufficiency is an unattainable goal – international markets are key for stable

food markets
Hendrix, College of William and Mary political science professor, 11
https://piie.com/sites/default/files/publications/pb/pb11-12.pdf, page 7-8, accessed 7/18/17, MJ)
Second, under the food sovereignty system, international markets for basic foodstuffs would
become even thinner, as incentives to produce tradable agricultural surpluses in any given country
would diminish. Autarky is an inherently risky proposition, and this risk increases proportionally
with the number of other countries pursuing the same policies. These risks are poorly understood, as
they stem not just from natural variability in food yields but also from the more general failure to reap
gains from trade.
If a single food autarkic country has a poor harvest, there is implicit (though not costless) insurance
against hunger via international markets and the ability to import. However, autarky reduces both
imports and exports, which diminishes capacity to earn the foreign exchange necessary for
accessing world markets. A truly food sovereign world would trade risks that stem from price
volatility on international markets for risks that stem from self-insurance. Domestic grain reserves
are a potential source of stability, but their cost can be significant (15–20 percent of the value of the
stock per year (Lin 2008)), and extended periods of drought and/or successive crop failures can tax
the limits of a country to self-insure in times of stress.
Third, food sovereignty, whatever its theoretical merits, is not a practical policy goal for many
countries under most-likely climate change scenarios, at least with present levels of technology. The
forecast future effects of climate change are disconcerting for global food production. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts dramatic decreases (>20 percent) in rainfall
across broad swaths of North Africa and the Middle East, Meso- and Central America and the Caribbean,
Southern Africa, the eastern Amazon basin, and Western Australia, leading to an average decrease in the
availability of water of 10–30 percent (IPCC 2007). In addition, dramatic rainfall increases (>20 percent)
are forecast for the higher latitudes of the Northern hemisphere and the Horn of Africa (IPCC 2007).
Food Insecurity Impacts
Land Grab Conflict
Food insecurity creates land grabs – sets up potential conflicts, fuels insurgencies,
and leads to further crop destruction.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41233423, p. 58-61, 7/17/17, KF]
Fearing they might not be able to buy needed grain from the market, some of the more affluent
countries, led by Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and China, took the unusual step in 2008 of buying or
leasing land in other countries on which to grow grain for themselves. Most of these land acquisitions
are in Africa, where some governments lease cropland for less than $1 per acre per year. Among the
principal destinations were Ethiopia and Sudan, countries where millions of people are being
sustained with food from the U.N. World Food Program. That the governments of these two countries
are willing to sell land to foreign interests when their own people are hungry is a sad commentary on their
leadership.
By the end of 2009, hundreds of land acquisition deals had been negotiated, some of them exceeding
a million acres. A 2010 World Bank analysis of these "land grabs" reported that a total of nearly
140 million acres were involved - an area that exceeds the cropland devoted to corn and wheat
combined in the United States. Such acquisitions also typically involve water rights, meaning that
land grabs potentially affect all downstream countries as well. Any water extracted from the upper
Nile River basin to irrigate crops in Ethiopia or Sudan, for instance, will now not reach Egypt, upending
the delicate water politics of the Nile by adding new countries with which Egypt must negotiate.
The potential for conflict - and not just over water - is high. Many of the land deals have been made
in secret, and in most cases, the land involved was already in use by villagers when it was sold or
leased. Often those already farming the land were neither consulted about nor even informed of the new
arrangements. And because there typically are no formal land titles in many developing-country villages,
the farmers who lost their land have had little backing to bring their cases to court. Reporter John Vidal,
writing in Britain's Observer, quotes Nyikaw Ochalla from Ethiopia's Gambella region: "The foreign
companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for centuries.
There is no consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing
the local people see is people coming with lots of tractors to invade their lands."
Local hostility toward such land grabs is the rule, not the exception. In 2007, as food prices were starting
to rise, China signed an agreement with the Philippines to lease 2.5 million acres of land slated for food
crops that would be shipped home. Once word leaked, the public outcry - much of it from Filipino
farmers - forced Manila to suspend the agreement. A similar uproar rocked Madagascar, where a South
Korean firm, Daewoo Logistics, had pursued rights to more than 3 million acres of land. Word of the
deal helped stoke a political furor that toppled the government and forced cancellation of the
agreement. Indeed, few things are more likely to fuel insurgencies than taking land from people.
Agricultural equipment is easily sabotaged. If ripe fields of grain are torched, they burn quickly.
Economy
New agricultural technology key to solving global food crises – failure to do so

unravels the economy.
Then what? There would have been chaos in world grain markets. Grain prices would have climbed
off the charts. Some grain-exporting countries, trying to hold down domestic food prices, would have
restricted or even banned exports, as they did in 2007 and 2008. The tv news would have been dominated
not by the hundreds of fires in the Russian countryside, but by footage of food riots in low-income grain-
importing countries and reports of governments falling as hunger spread out of control. Oil-exporting
countries that import grain would have been trying to barter oil for grain, and low-income grain importers
would have lost out. With governments toppling and confidence in the world grain market
shattered, the global economy could have started to unravel.
We may not always be so lucky. At issue now is whether the world can go beyond focusing on the
symptoms of the deteriorating food situation and instead attack the underlying causes. If we
cannot produce higher crop yields with less water and conserve fertile soils, many agricultural
areas will cease to be viable. And this goes far beyond farmers. If we cannot move at wartime speed
to stabilize the climate, we may not be able to avoid runaway food prices. If we cannot accelerate the
shift to smaller families and stabilize the world population sooner rather than later, the ranks of the
hungry will almost certainly continue to expand. The time to act is now - before the food crisis of 2011
becomes the new norm.
Food Security Solvency
US Commitment Key
Reinvigorating US commitment to agriculture key to global food security

http://www.ciaonet.org/record/19055?search=1, p. 3, 7/16/17, KF]
But the only way to feed a growing population and improve food security—especially for the
poorest people—is through a major, enduring, multilateral commitment to supporting hungry
people, their communities, and countries in securing and developing the tools and skills they need to
mitigate risk and feed themselves. The U.S. government, its multilateral partners, and the private
sector should reinvest in agricultural development, strengthen agricultural science and research,
and enable poor farmers to reach markets and consumers as part of a broader commitment to a
comprehensive approach to food security. And the United States can and should take a leading role
in making investments, building partnerships, and ensuring a long-term commitment. Supporting
efforts to improve food security in developing countries promotes stability and economic growth—
both vital U.S. interests. And careful measurement can show that U.S. investments are generating
concrete results.
US commitment to agriculture key to global stability and diplomatic goodwill

http://www.ciaonet.org/record/19055?search=1, p. 3, 7/16/17, KF]
But we must admit the truth: there are hundreds of millions of hungry people who will never appear on
a front page. Television newscasters will never embed themselves in their cities. Most Americans may
never know they exist, much less send millions of dollars to their aid. The United States has a
tremendous opportunity to bring to bear its expertise, its human resources, and its commitment to
feed people worldwide to set the world’s food system on a path toward long-term security. As
Senator Lugar said, “The United States has always stood for big ideas—from the founding of the
Republic on the basis of freedom to President Kennedy’s vow to put a man on the moon. One of today’s
big ideas should be the eradication of hunger. We can bring America’s dedication to science,
innovation, technology and education together to lead an effort devoted to overcoming the obstacles
to food security.”30 It is an opportunity to lead the way forward in a world hungry for progress. It
is an opportunity to plant the seeds of global stability and prosperity and to cultivate goodwill
around the world.
Integration of Policy
Climate change and population are the root cause to food insecurity – integrated
agriculture policies are key.
After the carnage of two world wars and the economic missteps that led to the Great Depression,
countries joined together in 1945 to create the United Nations, finally realizing that in the modern world
we cannot live in isolation, tempting though that might be. The International Monetary Fund was created
to help manage the monetary system and promote economic stability and progress. Within the U.N.
system, specialized agencies from the World Health Organization to the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) play major roles in the world today. All this has fostered international
cooperation.
But while the FAO collects and analyzes global agricultural data and provides technical assistance, there
is no organized effort to ensure the adequacy of world food supplies. Indeed, most international
negotiations on agricultural trade until recently focused on access to markets, with the United
States, Canada, Australia, and Argentina persistently pressing Europe and Japan to open their
highly protected agricultural markets. But in the first decade of this century, access to supplies has
emerged as the overriding issue as the world transitions from an era of food surpluses to a new
politics of food scarcity. At the same time, the U.S. food aid program that once worked to fend off
famine wherever it threatened has largely been replaced by the U.N. World Food Program (WFP),
where the United States is the leading donor. The WFP now has food-assistance operations in some 70
countries and an annual budget of $4 billion. There is little international coordination otherwise.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy - the reigning president of the G-20 - is proposing to deal with
rising food prices by curbing speculation in commodity markets. Useful though this may be, it
treats the symptoms of growing food insecurity, not the causes, such as population growth and
climate change. The world now needs to focus not only on agricultural policy, but on a structure
that integrates it with energy, population, and water policies, each of which directly affects food
security.
But that is not happening. Instead, as land and water become scarcer, as the Earth's temperature rises,
and as world food security deteriorates, a dangerous geopolitics of food scarcity is emerging. Land
grabbing, water grabbing, and buying grain directly from farmers in exporting countries are now
integral parts of a global power struggle for food security.
Education Key
Increasing farmer education and innovation is key to maintaining food security –

Fed is key to implement the food security initiative.
http://www.ciaonet.org/record/19055?search=1, pp. xi-xii, 7/16/17, KF]
Develop a comprehensive approach to food security. Achieving food security requires an integrated
plan that includes improved emergency assistance, safety nets, better nutrition, enhanced inputs,
proven systems of farmer education and innovation, a greater use of research and technology to
raise the level of food produced, sold, and consumed, strengthened national and regional markets
and regulatory capacity, and a review and revision of U.S. trade policies that hamper global food
security.
Empower leadership and ensure coordination. Implementing a major cross-agency effort will be
challenging, and strong implementation will be crucial to the initiative’s success. There should be an
empowered leader, backed by the White House, to drive the food security agenda and the
interagency process; this person should ensure that the initiative is strategic and effective and that
it is integrated with other streams of U.S. assistance. Implementation of the U.S. food security
initiative should be led by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the agency best
prepared to manage development initiatives with its advantage of integrating food security with other
USAID-led efforts in areas including health, nutrition, and democracy.
Policy Investment
A 100% increase in food is necessary to guarantee food security and stop increases
in poverty – policy investment key to raise agricultural productivity.
Gurría, Economist and Diplomat, 12
[Angel., 2/22/12, OECD, “Agriculture in a Global Context,”
http://www.oecd.org/agriculture/agricultureinaglobalcontext.htm, 7/17/17, KF]
The impacts of these shifts are very visible particularly in commodity markets. In recent years, prices of
energy, minerals, metals and agricultural commodities have risen sharply and will likely stay high.
As our latest OECD/FAO Agricultural Outlook from June 2011 shows, prices for cereals will be up to
20% and for meats up to 30% higher over the next decade than they were in the last one.
Why is this important? Because food prices are literally a question of vital importance. This is the
case especially for the poorest of the poor, who already spend up to 80% or 90% of their income on
food. Every rise in food prices drives additional people below the poverty line.
The real tragedy is that close to 1 billion people are undernourished at this very moment. Supply
struggles to respond to growing demand which is caused by growing populations and rising
incomes especially in emerging countries. And in just over 40 years, the world population will top 9
billion. It is clear now and was rightly emphasised by the G20 Agriculture Ministers in June 2011: to
nourish the world population in 2050, we must increase food availability by 70 to 100%.
So the question is: how can we achieve this? Let me outline what we consider to be our main priorities.
Increasing agricultural productivity
First, it is fundamental that we raise agricultural productivity. To put the record straight: agricultural
productivity is not falling; it may be slowing in those parts of the world where productivity is already
high. But there is a lot of scope for increasing productivity particularly in large parts of Africa, Latin
America, the Baltic region and parts of Asia. There, the gap between current and potential yields is
enormous.
OECD analysis shows that the general failure to achieve sustained growth of agricultural
productivity can be tracked down to inappropriate policies. This includes inadequate institutions
and services but also failure to invest in infrastructure and in human, social and natural capital.
Therefore, policies do matter!
Moreover, to unleash the full potential of increased productivity, we must step up our research
efforts. This includes adapting to climate change by developing new varieties to resist drought and heat
and to generate a more resilient agriculture. And technology transfers will need to have an increasingly
important south-south dimension. Delaying technological change now could mean that crucial
innovations come on stream too late
Investment in education key.
Second, it will be critical to increase investment in the future of food and farming. We need both
public and private investment in innovation, education and infrastructure. And we need
investment also in developing countries, so that they can contribute to supply the world’s growing
needs.
For this to happen, we must get the enabling environment right. Governments must create the
conditions in which individual investors, farmers and other stakeholders are willing and able to
invest. They must provide stable and transparent environments which include improved
governance, well-functioning markets and infrastructure.
And at the end of the day, investing in agriculture also means that governments should renounce all
measures that distort production and trade. Countries should refrain from import and export
restrictions as such measures prevent trade between surplus and deficit areas, where food shortages
are most acute.
In the current economic context, when governments all around the world are under huge pressure
to bring public deficits under control, many OECD countries are still spending scarce budgetary
resources on agriculture subsidies. Getting rid of distorting subsidies would balance fiscal accounts
and create savings in the budget that could be reallocated to the investment in pro-growth services.
This would foster productivity gains.
Green growth for agriculture
Moreover, reducing economically and environmentally harmful subsidies would improve the well-
functioning of markets so that they could provide the right signals also for the environment - prices
that reflect the scarcity value of natural resources and the environmental impact of agriculture.
It should be clear by now: green-growth for the food and agriculture sector will be essential. Green
growth means promoting economic growth while reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
And it means minimising waste and inefficient use of natural resources, and maintaining
biodiversity. Productivity growth must be increased in a sustainable way.
Skilled Farmers
Providing farmers with increased skills key.

This was only a broad-brush sketch of the challenges ahead. The time is now ripe to engineer a
shift towards policies that support innovation, productivity and sustainability and that provide
farmers with the skills they need to grasp the opportunities of strong demand and high prices. The
global economy must get together to work jointly for these goals.
Domestic Supply Key
Domestic and international food supplies inextricably linked – Increased domestic

food supply is key to food security
McGlade, United States Diplomacy Center, Bureau of Public Affairs, US
Department of State program advisor, 9
(Jacqueline McGlade, associate professor of business and dean of graduate programs at the College of
Saint Elizabeth in Morristown, New Jersey. She has published extensively on the impact of US aid
programs on global economic, business, and technical redevelopment after 1945 and serves as a program
advisor to the George C. Marshall Foundation, Winter 2009, Agricultural History Society, “More a
Plowshare than a Sword: The Legacy of US Cold War Agricultural Diplomacy”,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20454913, Jstor, p. 98-99, accessed 7/16/17, MJ)
Instead of dealing with traditional problems stemming from over production, American agriculture
now faces new, bewildering challenges related to underproduction and supply diversions into non-
food industries- an unanticipated situation affecting consumers negatively in the United States as
well as worldwide. Past remedies involving government price guarantees and overstock purchases,
however, do not address the immediate need for dramatic supply enlargement both at home and
abroad. While US agricultural exports are projected to rise 23 percent in 2008-2009 to a record level
of $101 billion, this jump does not, as in past decades, come close to satisfying world food
demands.40
As a further complication, the September 11 attacks heightened American concerns over agricultural
security and surplus vulnerabilities, which in turn, has supported a return to protectionism as the
central thrust of US agricultural diplomacy. International criticism of American non-cooperation on
issues such as global warming, industrial pollution, and genetically modified foods have also led to
renewed insularity in US agricultural policymaking. But in the post-1945 world of agricultural parity and
industrial mass consumerism, greater protectionism does not hold the diplomatic answer to
America's escalating food production, supplies, and pricing problems. As under the Cold War,
twenty-first-century US agricultural diplomacy seems to be entering yet another new era of
reformulation one in which domestic and world food scarcities and security will be inextricably
linked well into the future and will require extraordinary levels of multinational engagement and
agreement, not a retreat into isolationism, to resolve.41
AT – US Not Key to Global Food
US is the second largest producer – key part of the global food economy
Alston, University of California Agricultural and Resource Economics professor &
Pardey, University of Minnesota Applied Economics professor, 14
(Julian Alston is Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Director of the Robert Julian
Alston is Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Director of the Robert Mondavi Institute
Center for Wine Economics. He is also a member of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.
Philip Pardey is Professor of Science and Technology Policy and Director of the International Philip
Pardey is Professor of Science and Technology Policy and Director of the International Science and
Technology Practice and Policy (InSTePP) Center, both in the Department of Science and Technology
Practice and Policy (InSTePP) Center, Winter 2014, American Economic Association, “Agriculture in the
Global Economy”, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.1.121, accessed 7/18/17, MJ)
Global agricultural production has been dominated for a long time by a short list of relatively large
and populous countries, but the relative importance of these countries in aggregate and in production of
particular farm commodities has been countries shifting—in particular reflecting a decline in the relative
importance of the high-income countries. In 2009 –2011, just ten countries accounted for 55.8 percent of
the world’s cropland, and five (India, the United States, the Russian Federation, China, and Brazil) had
42.1 percent of the total. In contrast, the 100 countries with the smallest shares made up only 0.78 percent
of the world’s cropland area. Production is even more spatially concentrated, with more than half the
world’s agricultural output coming from only five countries, and almost three-quarters of the total
output produced by just 20 countries.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) offers country-level statistics
on production of crops like maize (corn), wheat, rice, cassava, pulses (a group of crops that includes
beans and “grain legumes”), and soybeans, as well as for livestock including dairy, beef, pork, and
poultry. Using these data, China is the first-ranked country for total agricultural output with
23.0 percent of all global agricultural output by value, which it produces using 8.0 percent of the
world’s cropland (and 11.7 percent of the world’s agricultural area, including pasture and grazing land).
China is also top-ranked in output for wheat, rice, pork, all crops, and all livestock; second-ranked for
maize and poultry; and third-ranked for dairy and beef. China is among the top four producers of every
commodity listed above except cassava.
The United States is second-ranked for total agricultural output at 10.1 percent of global output;
first-ranked for maize, soybeans, beef, and poultry; and second-ranked for the other livestock
products, dairy, and pork. India is third-ranked overall at 9.9 percent of global output: fi rst-ranked for
pulses and dairy, and second-ranked for wheat and rice. Brazil is fourth-ranked overall at 6.0 percent of
global agricultural output by value; second-ranked for cassava, soybeans, and beef; and third-ranked for
pulses and poultry. Indonesia is fi fth-ranked at 2.5 percent of global agricultural output. Thus, four of the
top fi ve countries in global agricultural output, including the top one, are not high-income countries.
AT – Distribution Problems (Alt Cause)
Technological innovations in agriculture can solve for food production and

distribution
Gould, Food+Tech Connect founder, 13
(Danielle, 7/3/13, Forbes, “When It Comes To Food, Technology Is Changing The Game.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniellegould/2013/07/03/when-it-comes-to-food-technology-is-changing-
the-game/#72637bd515e7, Accessed 7/17/17, GDI - JMo)
We are at the beginning of the most radical transformation of our food industry since the Green
Revolution. Until now, food innovation — including agricultural production, processing,
distribution and retail — happened in the laboratories and strategy shops of a few select
multinationals. These approaches to innovation have been proprietary, consolidated and designed to
maximize shareholder interests. But as the Internet democratizes virtually every industry, like
healthcare, media and education, it’s becoming increasingly clear that a more holistic future is
possible. Leveraging information, technology and multidisciplinary design, we can begin to level the
playing field between industrial and sustainable food. We can create a future that’s decentralized,
collaborative and designed to maximize the interests of producers, eaters and the environment.
But as Tom Laskawy’s recent Grist article, ‘When it comes to food, technology won’t save us,’
underscores, many sustainable food advocates believe technology and the concept of scalability are
incompatible with diversified sustainable food production. According to Laskawy, these
technological innovations are at best a novelty, which he dismisses as “a theoretical, some might say
fantastical, solution to problems we know how to solve but don’t really want to.”
I agree with Laskawy’s point that technology alone will not feed the world. Technology, however, is a
broad term, encompassing everything from biotechnology, hardware and information technology, among
other things. And there is a difference between scaling individual farms or food production operations,
which often results in questionable practices or consolidation, and scaling an industry by making it easier
for new players to enter the marketplace, which will be critical if we are going to meet growing demand
for sustainably produced food.
There is a further misconception that the industry must choose between technological or traditional
agriculture solutions. But technology can be used to optimize traditional solutions, by helping to
streamline and better manage operations, more efficiently utilize resources and improve
communications.
Food distributions issues being solved now

Rowling, Reuters, 16
(Megan, 4/7/16, Reuters, “To help curb climate change, stop wasting food: scientists.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-emissions-food-idUSKCN0X41PQ, Accessed 7/17/17,
GDI - JMo)
They found that while global average food demand per person remains almost constant, in the last
five decades food availability has rapidly increased - hiking the emissions related to growing
surplus food by more than 300 percent.
The paper did not look at how food waste could be shrunk, but initiatives to tackle the problem are
already on the rise in both developed and developing countries.
In January, for example, 30 company heads, government ministers, and executives with
foundations, research groups and charities launched a coalition to work towards cutting food waste
by half and reducing food loss significantly by 2030.
The aims are in line with the new global development goals that took effect this year.
"Champions 12.3", named after the food-waste goal number, includes the bosses of Tesco, Nestle,
Rabobank, Unilever, Oxfam America, WWF International and the Rockefeller Foundation.
Andrew Steer, another coalition member who heads the World Resources Institute, noted then that
if food loss and waste were a country, it would be the third largest greenhouse gas emitter in the
world.
"Food loss and waste hurts people, costs money and harms the planet," he said in a statement.
"Cutting (it) is a no-brainer."
Food waste being solved now - Champion 12.3 proves

Eijpe, Rabobank Head of Media Relations, 16
(Hendrik Jan, 1/21/16, Rabobank, “New “Champions 12.3” Coalition to Inspire Action to Reduce Food
Loss & Waste.” https://www.rabobank.com/en/press/search/2016/20160121-food-waste-WEF.html,
Accessed 7/17/17, GDI - JMo)
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, a coalition of 30 leaders – Champions 12.3 – launched a
new effort to inspire ambition and mobilize action to reduce food loss and waste globally. This
leadership group aims to accelerate progress toward meeting Target 12.3 of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), which seeks to halve per capita food waste and reduce food losses by
2030.
Globally, a third of all food is lost or wasted between the farm and the fork. Reducing food loss and
waste can be a triple win: It can save money for farmers, companies, and households; wasting less
can feed more people; and reductions can alleviate pressure on climate, water, and land resources.
The Champions include CEOs of major companies, government ministers, and executives of
research and intergovernmental institutions, foundations, farmer organizations, and civil society
groups. These leaders will work to create political, business and social momentum to reduce food
loss and waste around the world.
The Champions will inspire action by:
Leading by example on how to reduce food loss and waste;
Motivating others to meet SDG Target 12.3;
Communicating the importance of food loss and waste reduction;
Showcasing successful food loss and waste reduction strategies;
dvocating for more innovation, greater investment, better information, and increased capacity to
reduce food loss and waste.
Food loss and waste has significant economic, social, and environmental consequences. According
to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), food loss and waste amounts to
$940 billion in global annual economic losses. It contributes to hunger. And lost and wasted food
consumes about one quarter of all water used by agriculture, requires cropland area the size of
China, and generates about 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Urban Ag
Urban Ag Scenario
Fortifying urban agriculture key to avoid food distribution system collapse -

mitigates a laundry list of catastrophic scenarios (population, energy, and climate
pressures; vulnerable infrastructure)
Dawson, University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law J.D. Candidate,
15
(Matthew R. 2015, University of Louisville Law Review, “PERENNIAL CITIES: APPLYING
PRINCIPLES OF ADAPTIVE LAW TO CREATE A SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT SYSTEM OF
URBAN AGRICULTURE.” LexisNexis, Accessed 7/17/17, GDI – Jmo]
Like all things "green," urban agriculture is on the rise in the United States. n1 While this trend is
probably driven in part by an increased ecological awareness as a result of climate change, the
recent resurgence of urban agriculture is also the result of the current period of economic
uncertainty. n2 It is unclear, however, if this trend has the vitality necessary for continued growth.
n3 After all, this is not the first time that the United States has seen a resurgence of urban
agriculture in the last century. Historical crises such as the Great Depression and both World Wars
also triggered comparable periods of agricultural activity within America's cities. n4 Will this
recent bloom of urban agriculture outlast the current [*302] recession, or will it wither away after the
economy recovers? More importantly, why should we care?
Many believe that our nation's food distribution network, which is predominantly based on the
industrial agriculture model, will prove inadequate to cope with the impending forces of population
growth, n5 peak oil, n6 and climate change. n7 In fact, many believe that dependence on fossil fuels
could jeopardize the entire farm production system. n8 Moreover, experts predict that climate change
will bring increases in flooding, droughts, and storms--any of which could lead to a substantial loss of
crops and food shortage, potentially leaving a significant portion of the urban population without
sufficient access to food. n9
Not only does the current system leave our complicated food distribution network vulnerable to
collapse, but it is also "a major contributor to many problems, including air and water pollution,
inefficient energy use, climate change, loss of biodiversity, and human health effects." n10
Industrial agriculture "is not the type of sustainable and resilient system that will be needed to
ensure food security in a world with a growing population and complex and unpredictable
modifications likely to occur as a result of global climate change." n11 In contrast, "[a] sustainable
society capable of providing basic necessities within each community would sharply reduce the
impact of an attack on the existing infrastructure or an energy supply shortage." n12 Although
urban agriculture is not enough by itself to fully remedy any of these catastrophic possibilities, it is
one [*303] resource that if utilized could help to increase our cities' capacity for food production
and minimize or mitigate the risks that these threats pose. n13 It can help build the resilience n14
that our society needs to weather future challenges.
Urban agriculture key to sustainability – but local engagement to meet local needs
and avoid obstacles is crucial
2015
URBAN AGRICULTURE.” LexisNexis, Accessed 7/17/17, GDI – Jmo)
Urban agriculture is about much more than risk avoidance alone. An analysis of the variety of ways
that urban agriculture can benefit individuals and urban communities demonstrates "the
significant role urban agriculture may play in the future of American cities and the lives of their
citizens." n15 By tailoring urban agriculture policies to the demands and resources available in
particular communities, the sustainability of cities can be greatly improved. n16 Urban agriculture
can also help offset the effects of food deserts n17 by "provid[ing] fresh, inexpensive produce to low-
income residents who might not otherwise have access to wholesome food." n18 In addition, urban
agriculture can provide a variety of ecosystem services, n19 such as increased biodiversity, reduced
urban heat-island effect, improved air quality, and stormwater management.
Notwithstanding substantial benefits, the proliferation of urban agriculture is hindered by a variety
of potential problems. n20 Perhaps the most obvious impediment to the growth of urban
agriculture is the lack of available land that is suitable for urban farming. n21 The lack of available
land in cities can leave agriculture competing with other, arguably more [*304] productive, uses.
n22 Urban agriculture, however, does not necessarily require large gardens on vacant lots. On the
contrary, "other urban areas including schoolyards, hospital grounds, parks and other open spaces,
utility easements, alleys, rooftops, building walls, and even windowsills all provide opportunities for
urban agriculture." n23 Indeed, by taking advantage of these otherwise under-utilized areas within
city limits, urban residents can supplement their diets with low-cost produce without competing
with other land uses.
Even innovative and adaptive methods cannot overcome all of the present obstacles to urban
agriculture. Local zoning ordinances often prohibit certain agricultural uses in urban areas. n24
Availability of clean water often becomes a concern, especially in cities that have limited water
resources to begin with. n25 Without proper controls in place, overuse and misuse of fertilizers and
pesticides can further contribute to water pollution. n26 Soil contamination and air pollution can
create both perceived and actual risks to the health of those producing and consuming the products
of urban agriculture. n27 Compost, poultry, and livestock can create a nuisance by creating odors and
attracting pests, thereby leaving would-be gardeners vulnerable to lawsuits. n28
Sustainability Solvency
Urban agriculture improves leads to sustainable ecosystems and better food

2015
URBAN AGRICULTURE.” LexisNexis, Accessed 7/17/17, GDI – Jmo]
Urban agriculture helps to improve access to fresh, wholesome food at an affordable cost, but the
benefits to urban communities extend far beyond food production alone. n48 One approach that can
be used to quantify these benefits is focused on ecosystem services. Ecosystem services can be defined
as "the contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being." n49 This inclusive definition
recognizes that ecosystems--including urban ecosystems--provide tangible benefits to human society.
"Ecosystems, if properly protected and maintained, provide a wide array of valuable services to
humans, ranging from the purification of water to the sequestration of carbon to the provision of
pollinating insects essential to agricultural crop production." n50
Many cities across the United States are recognizing the ecosystem services that urban agriculture
can provide and implementing strategies "to support food production within the city boundaries,
including a strong emphasis on the social functions provided by urban agriculture." n51 Urban
agriculture presents an opportunity for individuals to be proactive about healthy eating habits. In
addition to providing individuals of limited means improved access to healthy food, there is a bustling
demand for locally-sourced foods and interest in "the related opportunities to improve the
sustainability of the system through waste recycling, stormwater management and reuse, reduced
energy requirements for food transport and storage, and other benefits." n52
Urban agriculture leads to sustainable food distribution systems and environmental

benefits
2015
[*308] Urban agriculture has also been credited with boosting economic productivity. n53 "By
providing opportunities for urban residents to acquire and develop skills, the urban agriculture
movement promotes economic growth by providing residents the ability to supplement their income
through selling their produce (and other goods) through farmers' markets and other local market
methods." n54 There are a number of environmental and health benefits as well. "Produce from
community gardens lower fossil fuel consumption for transportation, require less packaging, and
lower food waste. Similarly, air and water quality improve with increased foliage in the city." n55 In
addition to all of these direct and indirect benefits, urban agriculture can also help diversify our
national (and international) food distribution networks, reduce our "reliance on industrial
agricultural processes," and generally create "a more sustainable food system." n56
AT – Local Obstacles
Engaged planning solves issues with urban agriculture

2015
While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, many of these problems associated with urban
agriculture can be avoided or mitigated through appropriate planning, implementation, and
monitoring. Every city possesses its own social, cultural, economic, and environmental factors that
will determine when, where, why, and how urban agriculture should be implemented. Moreover,
these factors can and will change in ways that city councils and local planners are unable to predict. An
adaptive system of law promoting a flexibility of goals, structures, and methods provides the
framework necessary to promote the sustainability and resilience of urban agriculture and the
communities that stand to benefit from it.
Ag Waste
Ag Waste Scenario
Status quo agriculture waste contributes to climate change – managing distribution

key
Rowling, Reuters, 16
(Megan, 4/7/16, Reuters, “To help curb climate change, stop wasting food: scientists.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-emissions-food-idUSKCN0X41PQ, Accessed 7/17/17,
GDI - JMo)
BARCELONA (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Reducing food waste around the world would help
curb emissions of planet-warming gases, lessening some of the impacts of climate change such as
more extreme weather and rising seas, scientists said on Thursday.
Up to 14 percent of emissions from agriculture in 2050 could be avoided by managing food use and
distribution better, according to a new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research (PIK).
"Agriculture is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20 percent of overall
global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010," said co-author Prajal Pradhan.
"Avoiding food loss and waste would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and
help mitigate climate change."
Between 30 and 40 percent of food produced around the world is never eaten, because it is spoiled
after harvest and during transportation, or thrown away by shops and consumers.
The share of food wasted is expected to increase drastically if emerging economies like China and India
adopt Western food habits, including a shift to eating more meat, the researchers warned.
Richer countries tend to consume more food than is healthy or simply waste it, they noted.
As poorer countries develop and the world's population grows, emissions associated with food waste
could soar from 0.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year to between 1.9 and 2.5
gigatonnes annually by mid-century, showed the study published in the Environmental Science &
Technology journal.
[INSERT CLIMATE IMPACT]
Technological innovations in agriculture can solve for food production and

distribution
Gould, Food+Tech Connect founder, 13
(Danielle, 7/3/13, Forbes, “When It Comes To Food, Technology Is Changing The Game.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniellegould/2013/07/03/when-it-comes-to-food-technology-is-changing-
the-game/#72637bd515e7, Accessed 7/17/17, GDI - JMo)
We are at the beginning of the most radical transformation of our food industry since the Green
Revolution. Until now, food innovation — including agricultural production, processing,
distribution and retail — happened in the laboratories and strategy shops of a few select
multinationals. These approaches to innovation have been proprietary, consolidated and designed to
maximize shareholder interests. But as the Internet democratizes virtually every industry, like
healthcare, media and education, it’s becoming increasingly clear that a more holistic future is
possible. Leveraging information, technology and multidisciplinary design, we can begin to level the
playing field between industrial and sustainable food. We can create a future that’s decentralized,
collaborative and designed to maximize the interests of producers, eaters and the environment.
But as Tom Laskawy’s recent Grist article, ‘When it comes to food, technology won’t save us,’
underscores, many sustainable food advocates believe technology and the concept of scalability are
incompatible with diversified sustainable food production. According to Laskawy, these
technological innovations are at best a novelty, which he dismisses as “a theoretical, some might say
fantastical, solution to problems we know how to solve but don’t really want to.”
I agree with Laskawy’s point that technology alone will not feed the world. Technology, however, is a
broad term, encompassing everything from biotechnology, hardware and information technology, among
other things. And there is a difference between scaling individual farms or food production operations,
which often results in questionable practices or consolidation, and scaling an industry by making it easier
for new players to enter the marketplace, which will be critical if we are going to meet growing demand
for sustainably produced food.
There is a further misconception that the industry must choose between technological or traditional
agriculture solutions. But technology can be used to optimize traditional solutions, by helping to
streamline and better manage operations, more efficiently utilize resources and improve
communications.
Reducing Ag Waste Solves
Agricultural emissions lead to climate change – better distribution key

Hic, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2016
(Ceren, Prajal P. Pradhan, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research researcher, Diego Rybski,
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research researcher, AND Jürgen P. Kropp, Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research researcher Head of Climate Change & Development Group, 4/7/16, Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research, “Reducing food waste could help mitigate climate change.”
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/reducing-food-waste-could-help-mitigate-climate-
change, Accessed 7/17/17, GDI - JMo)
Due to an unbridled demographic growth and lifestyle changes, emissions from agriculture alone
are expected to rise by up to 18 Gigatons of CO2 equivalents by 2050, previous research already
showed. “Thus, emissions related to discarded food are just the tip of the iceberg,“ Prajal Pradhan
explains. “However, it is quite astounding that up to 14 percent of overall agricultural emissions in
2050 could easily be avoided by a better management of food utilisation and distribution. Changing
individual behavior could be one key towards mitigating the climate crisis.“
“Currently, 1.3 billion tons of food per year are discarded,” explains Jürgen Kropp, co-author and
deputy chair of PIK research domain Climate Impacts and Vulnerabilities. While food losses occur
mostly in developing countries due to less efficient agricultural infrastructures, food waste in
contrast is common in rich countries. “As many emerging economies like China or India are projected
to rapidly increase their food waste as a consequence of changing lifestyle, increasing welfare and
dietary habits towards a larger share of animal-based products, this could over proportionally
increase greenhouse-gas emissions associated with food waste – at the same time undermining
efforts for an ambitious climate protection.”
How can the food supply chain be made smarter and more efficient, and are consumers to be convinced to
reduce food waste? Issues like these require further research, but the study sheds light on the complex
interplay of food security and climate change that will become even more important in a future that
will have to feed around 10 billion people. “Avoiding food loss could pose a leverage to various
challenges at once, reducing environmental impacts of agriculture, saving resources used in food
production, and enhance local, regional, and global food security,” Kropp says.
Reducing food waste solves hunger and climate change

Hic, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 16
(Ceren, Prajal P. Pradhan, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research researcher, Diego Rybski,
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research researcher, AND Jürgen P. Kropp, Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research researcher Head of Climate Change & Development Group, 4/7/16, Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research, “Reducing food waste could help mitigate climate change.”
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/reducing-food-waste-could-help-mitigate-climate-
change, Accessed 7/17/17, GDI - JMo)
About a tenth of overall global greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture could be traced back to
food waste by mid-century, a new study shows. A team from the Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research for the first time provides comprehensive food loss projections for countries
around the world while also calculating the associated emissions. Currently, one third of global food
production never finds its way onto our plates. This share will increase drastically, if emerging
countries like China and India adopt Western nutrition lifestyles, the analyses shows. Reducing
food waste would offer the chance to ensure food security, which is well known. Yet at the same time
it could help mitigate dangerous climate change.
“Reducing food waste can contribute to fighting hunger, but to some extent also prevent climate
impacts like more intense weather extremes and sea-level rise,” lead author Ceren Hic says. Even
though food availability on a global average has been higher than required in theory, some
developing countries still have to fight undernourishment or hunger. “At the same time, agriculture
is a major driver of climate change, accounting for more than 20 Percent of overall global greenhouse-
gas emissions in 2010. Avoiding food loss and waste would therefore avoid unnecessary greenhouse-
gas emissions and help mitigate climate change,” co-author Prajal Pradhan explains. .
The researchers analyzed body types and food requirements for the past and different future scenarios,
accounting for demographic changes as well as food demand and availability and associated emissions.
They found that while the global average food demand per person remains almost constant, in the
last five decades already food availability has rapidly increased. “More importantly, food availability
and requirement ratio show a linear relationship with human development, indicating that richer
countries consume more food than is healthy or simply waste it,” Pradhan adds. Consequently,
greenhouse-gas emissions associated with food waste could increase tremendously from today 0.5 to 1.9-
2.5 Gigatons of CO2 equivalents per year by 2050, the study shows.
AT – Food Waste States CP
Solvency deficit – loopholes are normal means – states exemptions undercut

solvency
Frandsen, Pew-Stateline, 17
[Jon, 7-2-17, USA Today, “More than a third of food is wasted: Will tax breaks, new labels and 'ugly'
produce help?”, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/07/02/food-waste-could-tax-breaks-new-
labels-and-ugly-produce-fix-it/444032001/, accessed 7-20-17, AFB]
Gradual restrictions
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that food waste is 21.6 percent of the garbage
shipped to municipal landfills and incinerators, making it the largest single type.
In 2015, the EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture set a national goal of cutting food waste in half by
2030. To achieve it, the EPA laid out a broad strategy, which includes producing less food, using excess
food to feed people in need, feeding scraps to livestock, using organic waste to produce energy or
compost, and disposing of food in landfills and incinerators only as a last resort.
Establishing restrictions on the amount of waste going to landfills is the toughest step to take: Only
five states currently have such restrictions, and four of them target only the largest producers.
Three of the states also exempt waste producers that aren’t within a prescribed distance of a
certified recycling or composting facility. Harvard’s food policy clinic warns that such loopholes
create a disincentive for the construction of new facilities. In a 2016 report, the clinic noted that
much of central and eastern Connecticut remains exempt from that state’s organic waste law,
because there isn’t an approved facility in those areas.
Vermont, the least populous of the five, began phasing in its organic waste ban in 2014, applying it to
businesses that produced more than 104 tons of organic waste a year. In 2020, when the law will apply to
all Vermont businesses and residents, it will be illegal to send any organic waste to landfills.
California also phased in its law. As of this year, its ban applies to all businesses (except for some in rural
areas) that generate at least 4 cubic feet of organic waste a week. The goal is to cut by half the amount
going to landfills by 2020.
Since 2014, all Massachusetts businesses, arenas and institutions that generate 1 ton or more of organic
waste each week have been barred from shipping that waste to landfills.
John Fischer, the director of the Massachusetts organic waste program, said all of the roughly 1,700
waste producers covered by the law are thought to be complying with it. Massachusetts now has
more than 35 facilities for turning food scraps and waste into compost, livestock feed or electricity.
However, Fischer does not envision his state making the recycling of organic waste mandatory for
smaller businesses or residences any time soon. And he cautioned that strict rules may not make
sense for every state.
Such laws work well in the Northeast, he said, because those smaller states have little space for
landfills and relatively high energy prices, which make the cost of turning garbage into electrical
power more attractive than it might be elsewhere in the country.
The proposed New York law would apply only to companies and facilities that generate 2 tons or
more of organic waste a week. It wouldn’t take effect until 2021, and would only apply to businesses
with an appropriate waste facility within 50 miles.
State programs won’t solve in short-term – no infrastructure to handle ag waste

programs
But David Biderman, who heads the Solid Waste Association of North America, cautioned that
states shouldn’t rush into adopting broad organic waste restrictions without extensive planning and
discussions with those who will be affected.
Biderman, whose group represents businesses that haul, process and dispose of solid waste, said
many cities and states made that mistake when they began curbside recycling.
“Some local governments rushed into curbside recycling before they had adequate facilities and
infrastructure set up to handle it,” Biderman said.
Food Safety
Food Safety Uniqueness
Despite safest system, food supply is at risk

Spielmaker, National Agricultural Literacy Curriculum Matrix Project Director, 13
[Debra, National Agriculture in the Classroom, “National Agricultural Literacy Outcomes”,
https://www.agclassroom.org/get/doc/NALObooklet.pdf, p. 11, 6/30/17 KW]
The U.S. food supply is considered the safest in the world. Still, food safety issues exist in the U.S.
and abroad. According to food safety experts, improper storage, handling, and preparation of
food—both at home and at food establishments—pose the top food safety problems today. Everyone
who handles food in any form should know the basic safe food-handling practices. Safety concerns
include microbiological contamination and non-living contaminates such as drug and pesticide
residues and bone fragments. Contamination can occur during any step of food processing, storage,
or handling of food products. The USDA regulates food processors and also provides consumer
guidelines for safe handling, preparation, and storage of foods. Theme 3 explores the relationship between
food production, storage, preparation, consumption, and health.
Impacts
Food safety issues make millions sick and cause many deaths – cost is over $15
billion per year.
Conde-Petit, Bühler Food Safety Officer, 2017
[Béatrice, 3/22/17, Swiss RE Institute, “Emerging Food Safety Risks From Biological Contamination,”
http://institute.swissre.com/research/library/Food_Safety_Beatrice_Conde-Petit.html, 7/3/17, KF]
Most foodborne diseases are caused by bacteria, viruses and parasites causing around 230 000
deaths per annum according to WHO. The public health burden is highest for low income regions
and for children under the age of 5. Microbial contamination of food can also strike more affluent
societies. In Europe 23 million people fall ill and 5 000 die every year. The Center of Disease Control
(CDC) estimates that in the United States 48 million people get sick and 3 000 die of foodborne
diseases. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) foodborne illnesses cost USD
15.6 billion each year.
Food of animal origin and water are still the main vehicles of contamination. However, in the past 15
years foods of plant origin have increasingly been associated with foodborne illnesses due to microbial
contamination. Besides fresh fruit, sprouts and vegetables, dry foods like nuts, sesame, spices, cereal flour
and chocolate are today seen as potential carriers of harmful bacteria like Salmonella spp., Listeria
monocytogenes, E. coli, etc. High profile foodborne outbreaks and product recalls in Europe and the
United Stated could be traced back to these ingredients by applying modern methods of DNA
fingerprinting. New scientific evidence has led to a reassessment of food safety risks related to dry
plant-based foods[5]. It is known today that many raw food materials can be contaminated with
pathogenic bacteria trough unclean water, birds, rodents or unhygienic handling. Although the
number of harmful bacteria may be small, they pose a hazard as they may well survive in dry
environments and start multiplying in contact with moisture. The threat is even higher where the
infectious dose leading to illness is as low as a few cells, which has been documented for fat-rich
products like peanuts, almonds or chocolate contaminated with Salmonella spp. Modern urban
lifestyle features ready-to-eat foods for snacking on the go and convenience in the kitchen. A good
example are snack bars based on dry fruit, nuts, seeds, cereal flakes and chocolate, all these
ingredients being potential vectors of microbial contamination.
The biggest risk for global public health are pathogenic bacteria that carry antimicrobial
resistances (AMR). They mainly evolve due to overuse of antibiotics in livestock production, and
are spreading into the whole food supply chain. When humans are infected with AMR bacteria,
antibiotics fail to cure, resulting in the death of 25 000 people every year in Europe and the United
States. It is estimated that by 2050, more than three million will lose their lives to one bacterial
infection: drug-resistant E. coli[6] which is primarily transmitted by contaminated food.
Disease threatens food safety – leads to death
Lempert, Forbes Contributor, 15
(Phil, 4/27/17, Forbes, “How Much Confidence Do You Have In The U.S. Food Supply?”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillempert/2015/04/27/how-much-confidence-do-you-have-in-our-food-
supply/#39bc700767b0, Accessed 7/3/17, GDI - JMo)
Ice cream, hummus, lasagna, pizza, cheese, pine nuts, chicken, frozen shrimp, frozen smoothie kits, peas,
corn, and broccoli have all made headlines and found themselves being taken off supermarket shelves.
Food safety is once again top of mind as we traverse the supermarket aisles as news reports urge
caution as a seemingly never-ending list of various bacteria or diseases are discovered in our foods.
Food safety is a serious business. The Centers for Disease Control reports that “each year, 1 in 6
Americans get sick from, 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die of food borne illness.” That is over
50 million people who took a bite, and then found out they ingested Campylobacter, E. coli,
Listeria, Salmonella, Vibrio, Norovirus or Toxoplasma in their bellies.
President Obama signed the Food & Drug Administration Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)
into law in January 2011. It promised a sweeping change; that instead of just responding to food
safety outbreaks – the agency would focus on preventing them. So what happened since?
Last week, in Washington DC, the FSMA held public meetings to discuss “putting in place the prevention
and risk-based safety standards at the core of FSMA.” On it’s blog, FDAVoice, video snippets of the
participants underscored how important it is to work together, the typical Washington-speak.
David Gombas, Senior VP of Food Safety & Technology of the United Fresh Produce Association
said it best, “ the herculean task that FDA still faces will be to implement that culture change (i.e.,
moving to prevention) throughout their ranks. The real test will come during the enforcement
period when FDA starts knocking on that door.”
According to the USDA, there are approximately 30,000 food and beverage processing facilities in
the US, based on data from the 2007 US Census Core Business Statistics. There have been
numerous reports of overworked inspectors, and the problems with the Public Health Information
System (PHIS) both of which many point to as adding to the food safety prevention problem.
Food industry will spread global zoonotic diseases – risks extinction

Sachs, Columbia University Sustainable Development, Health Policy and
Management Professor, 14
[Jeffrey, Professor of Sustainable Development, Health Policy and Management @ Columbia University,
Director of the Earth Institute @ Columbia University and Special adviser to the United Nations
Secretary-General on the Millennium Development Goals) “Important lessons from Ebola outbreak,”
Business World Online, August 17, 2014, http://tinyurl.com/kjgvyro]
Ebola is the latest of many recent epidemics, also including AIDS, SARS, H1N1 flu, H7N9 flu, and others.
AIDS is the deadliest of these killers, claiming nearly 36 million lives since 1981.
Of course, even
larger and more sudden epidemics are possible , such as the 1918 influenza during World
War I, which claimed 50-100 million lives (far more than the war itself). And, though the 2003 SARS outbreak was contained,
causing fewer than 1,000 deaths, the disease was on the verge of deeply disrupting several East Asian economies including China’s.
There are four crucial facts to understand about Ebola and the other epidemics. First, most emerging
infectious diseases are zoonoses, meaning that they start in animal populations, sometimes with a genetic
mutation that enables the jump to humans. Ebola may have been transmitted from bats; HIV/AIDS emerged from
chimpanzees; SARS most likely came from civets traded in animal markets in southern China; and influenza strains such as H1N1 and H7N9
New zoonotic diseases are inevitable as
arose from genetic re-combinations of viruses among wild and farm animals.
humanity pushes into new ecosystems (such as formerly remote forest regions); the food industry creates more
conditions for genetic recombination; and climate change scrambles natural habitats and species
interactions.
Second, once a new infectious disease appears, its spread through airlines, ships, megacities, and trade in animal products
is likely to be extremely rapid . These epidemic diseases are new markers of globalization, revealing through their chain of death
how vulnerable the world has become from the pervasive movement of people and goods.
Third, the poor are the first to suffer and the worst affected. The rural poor live closest to the infected animals that first transmit the disease. They
often hunt and eat bushmeat, leaving them vulnerable to infection. Poor, often illiterate, individuals are generally unaware of how infectious
diseases -- especially unfamiliar diseases -- are transmitted, making them much more likely to become infected and to infect others. Moreover,
given poor nutrition and lack of access to basic health services, their weakened immune systems are easily overcome by infections that better
nourished and treated individuals can survive. And “de-medicalized” conditions -- with few if any professional health workers to ensure an
appropriate public-health response to an epidemic (such as isolation of infected individuals, tracing of contacts, surveillance, and so forth) --
make initial outbreaks more severe.
Finally, the
required medical responses, including diagnostic tools and effective medications and vaccines, inevitably lag behind the
emerging diseases. In any event, such tools
must be continually replenished. This requires cutting-edge
biotechnology, immunology, and ultimately bioengineering to create large-scale industrial responses
( such as millions of doses of vaccines or medicines in the case of large epidemics).
The AIDS crisis, for example, called forth tens of billions of dollars for research and development -- and similarly substantial commitments by
the pharmaceutical industry -- to produce lifesaving antiretroviral drugs at global scale. Yet each breakthrough inevitably leads to the pathogen’s
mutation, rendering previous treatments less effective. There
is no ultimate victory, only a constant arms race
between humanity and disease-causing agents.
Risk High
Food contamination is widespread.

Conde-Petit, Bühler Food Safety Officer, 2017
[Béatrice, 3/22/17, Swiss RE Institute, “Emerging Food Safety Risks From Biological Contamination,”
http://institute.swissre.com/research/library/Food_Safety_Beatrice_Conde-Petit.html, 7/3/17, KF]
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 25% of food
crops are contaminated by mycotoxins. These are poisonous chemicals formed by fungal mould
which grows on crops like maize, wheat, rice and other grain staples. Also nuts, in particular
peanuts, and dried fruit are frequently affected. Mycotoxin contamination of feed and food is the
third most frequent hazard reported in the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed
(RAFFS). Globally, 80% of animal feed is contaminated, because mycotoxins are concentrated in the
side streams from grain processing which are diverted into feed[1]. Although mycotoxin is considered a
chemical hazard, the route cause is fungal growth on raw material on the field or during storage
due to poor agricultural practices, insect infestation and poor post-harvest handling. Many fungi are
known to form mycotoxins under hot and humid conditions, and overall more than 300 of these toxic
compounds have been described.
Risk high – Terrorist threat to food supply is real

Norton, Auburn University Poultry Science professor and Food Systems Institute
Biosecurity and Food Defense Working Group chair, 16
[Robert A., 4/5/16, Food Safety Magazine, “Is Terrorism a Threat to the U.S. Food Industry?”,
http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/blog/is-terrorism-a-threat-to-the-us-food-industry/, 7/3/17, KF]
So what does this all have to do with the food industry? For one thing, the food industry should start
thinking seriously about various terrorism-related scenarios that could potentially involve
radioactive materials and make preparations for dealing with these situations should they become
reality. The most immediate element of concern for a food facility—maybe a large production plant
or sprawling warehouse—would actually be from the direct blast effects emanating from an
improvised explosive device (IED) rather than from any radioactive material that might be present.
In other words, more people would likely be killed from the explosion than from direct effects of the
radioactive material. Companies within the food industry need to look to themselves first for solutions to
this type of potential scenario.
So what would ISIS gain from detonating an IED in one or more major U.S. food facilities, injuring
or killing perhaps dozens of people and compromising the food supply? Destruction of critical
infrastructures is believed to destroy the United States, so ISIS sees destroying the U.S. food
industry as a means to an end—the end state being the destruction of the country. ISIS would like
to facilitate that destruction by placing individuals inside the myriad critical infrastructures that
make up the food industry. Food corporations must consider significant security events as a distinct
possibility and prepare themselves for the consequences.
Solvency
Food safety is endangered in the US now - expanding agricultural education is key

to present disease outbreaks that result from it
Koundinya, Iowa State University, Graduate Assistant, and Martin, Iowa State
University, Agricultural Education and Studies Department, Professor, 10
[Vikram and Robert A., 2010, Journal of Agricultural Education, “Food Safety Inservice Educational
Needs of Agriculture Teachers,” Volume 51, Number 4, pp 82 – 83, http://www.jae-
online.org/attachments/article/1513/Vol%2051%20No%204%20pg%2082%20-%20Koundinya.pdf,
accessed 7.3.2017]//TRossow
According to Buzby (2001), “Food safety has emerged as an important global issue with
international trade and public health implications” (p.55). Food safety is a global issue and
foodborne illnesses occur in both developing and developed countries (Kaferstein & Abdussalam,
1999), which implies that even the United States is not exempt from food safety problems despite the
strict regulatory measures in place. Ellis (2006) stated that food–related illnesses are a serious issue
in the United States. Nordstrom, Wilson, Richards, Fivek, Ruffing, and Coe (1999) stated that people
are concerned about food safety when they think about animal agriculture, but it is postulated that
the case is no different with any other segment of the agriculture industry.
Around 76 million cases of foodborne diseases occur annually in the United States and it is
estimated that there are 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths annually owing to foodborne
diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2007). According to the Iowa Department
of Inspections and Appeals, in 2007 there were 581 and in 2008 there were 76 food–related cases
investigated, respectively. The numbers represent only a fraction of the actual numbers, because only a
small percentage of the cases get reported (Iowa Department of Public Health [IDPH], 2008).
Among these cases, young children fall under the high–risk category for foodborne illnesses (IDPH,
2008). Learning safe food practices at an early age is beneficial in the long run, and ensuring that
all students receive food safety education is critical (Food and Drug Administration [FDA], 1998).
Young people especially should be the target for education in agriculture because people tend to
shape their perceptions at an early stage, and changing those perceptions becomes more difficult
later in life (Holz–Clause & Jost, 1995).
The Michigan Integrated Food and Farming System (MIFFS) has suggested that increased food system
education in the schools is needed so that people can make more informed choices about the food
they eat (Trexler, Johnson, & Heinze, 2000). Many young people do not know the importance of food
in maintaining their health. “…Food is seen by youth as entertainment rather than as a source of
nutrition” (Trexler et al., 2000, p.34). Families are one of the important sources of information about
food, and young people tend to follow what is modeled at home (Trexler et al., 2000). However, this
source of information is not always a very knowledgeable one. Therefore, school teachers need to
provide food safety education.
The British Nutrition Foundation (2001) stated that for students to receive proper food safety education,
teachers must possess sound knowledge and understanding about food and nutrition. This is achievable by
correctly identifying their needs and addressing them in professional development programs. Layfield and
Dobbins (2002) concurred that a crucial factor in developing successful teachers is correctly identifying
their needs. Koundinya and Martin (2008) found that agricultural teachers have a variety of needs and
recommended adapting inservice education to these needs.
Inservice education is one of the ways of improving school programs (Christensen, Warnick, Spielmaker,
Tarpley, & Straquadine, 2006). Schunk (2008) stated, “There is no substitute for strong professional
development among teachers” (p.273). He further stated that teachers must keep up to date on the
advances in their fields. These statements stress the importance of inservice education for teachers, and
for inservice to be effective, teachers’ needs have to be properly identified and addressed through
professional development. Hence, it is essential to identify the agriculture teachers’ inservice needs
related to food safety education. Even though family and consumer sciences teachers may teach about
food safety in their programs, agriculture teachers also teach about food safety from a different
perspective because food is a product of agriculture. Little research has been done on identifying these
needs. In this context, this study is significant.
Education key to food safety

Goodwin, Agricultural Economist, 6
[H.L., Jr., F. Dustan Clark, Extension Poultry Health Veterinarian, Dawn Thilmany, Extension
Economist-Labor and Agribusiness Management Professor, Sandra J. Hamm University of Arkansas
Division of Agriculture, 2006, Choices, “Policies to Protect Food Safety and Animal Health,”
http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2006-3/animal/2006-3-13.htm, 7/3/17, KF]
Enhance capabilities for rapid and widespread information dissemination to industry and the public. Both
government and the industry would benefit from fast and widespread access and dissemination of
information when dealing with food safety or animal health hazards. This information is essential
to retain consumer confidence in the food system at home and abroad. Establishment of national
traceability systems is important. Increased public and private investment could help reduce disease
transmission and enhance public and animal health. Public awareness supported by education and
training programs is critical to food safety and animal disease prevention. It may be possible to
develop training for the animal agriculture industry, including local, regional, or national associations,
which focuses on strategic and tactical cooperation in the event of food safety, animal health, or
biosecurity emergencies.
Neg
Food Shortages/Security Answers
Status Quo Solves
Existing UN, NGO, and government assistance solves food insecurity

Dumitrescu, International Food Information Council Foundation, Communications,
Vice President, 16
[Silvia Dumitrescu serves as Vice President, Communications, for the International Food Information
Council Foundation, former global strategist for the Center for Creative Economy (CCE), holds an MBA
from American University, and an executive leadership certification from Columbia Business School.
Dec 09 2016 “Food Security 102: What Is Being Done To Reduce Global Food Insecurity?”
http://www.foodinsight.org/preventing-food-insecurity-agriculture-technology-fao accessed 7.19.2-
17]//TRossow
The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is one of the key organizations
dedicated to reducing global food insecurity. FAO funds and coordinates food security projects
throughout the world. Since 1990 the efforts of the FAO and other global organizations have helped
reduce the percentage of undernourished people in developing regions from 23.3 percent to 12.9 percent
in 2015. Since 1990, the efforts of the FAO and other global organizations have helped to reduce the
number of food insecure people. More than one billion people were considered food insecure in 1990.
Today, the number of food insecure people now stands at 797 million. Progress is being made, but there is
still a lot to do. Now, the UN and the FAO are dedicated to eradicating hunger by 2030.
Modern Food Technology
Madagascar, natural disasters have caused over $1 billion worth of economic damage, hitting the
agricultural sector especially hard. This hit the agricultural sector especially hard. In cases like this,
modern food technologies can come to the rescue. The FAO is providing 850,000 people in the worst hit
areas with drought-resistant seeds and root crops, such as sweet potato and cassava, to help maintain the
food supply. They have set up Farmer Field Schools, teaching the use of climate-smart agriculture and
improved post-harvest management.
Similarly, in Zamboanga City in the Philippines, a region affected by ongoing conflict between
government forces and rebels, the FAO has worked with the UN Peace Building Fund and the
International Labour Organization (ILO), helping those affected by the conflict to recover their means of
food production. They have provided fishers and seaweed growers, most of whom are women and young,
with seaweed production startup kits and “livelihood training to around 450 seaweed farming and fishing
families.”
Food and Nutrition Education
OXFAM estimates nearly 3 million children die each year due to complications brought on by
malnutrition. In Cambodia, more than six thousand children under the age of 5 die every year from
“maternal malnutrition, underweight and wasting, poor infant feeding practices or micronutrient
deficiencies.”
To help fight this problem, the FAO has launched a nutrition-sensitive project intended to diversify the
food production of farmers, increase productivity, and improve food and nutritional education. The
nutritional education component of the program focused on the feeding, care, and sound food safety
practices, such as proper hygiene, for infants and children between 6-18 months of age.
Government Assistance for Low-Income Individuals
On a national basis, governments, state organizations and non-government organizations (NGO) are also
addressing food insecurity.
In the United States, the USDA provides food and nutritional help to low-income Americans through
the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). SNAP provides direct assistance to food-insecure
people in the U.S. through electronic debit card which can be used to purchase food. It is the largest low-
income nutrition assistance program in the U.S., serving more than 46 million low-income Americans
in 2012. NGOs provide extra regional help in countries throughout the world, filling in the gaps in
services state organizations don't provide.
In the U.S., one such organization is Feeding America. Feeding America is “the nation's largest domestic
hunger-relief organization.” They work through a network of “200 food banks and 60,000 food pantries
and meal programs.” Feeding America helps provide food to one in seven Americans.
In the European Union, 55 million people cannot afford a nutritious meal every day. NGOs such as
the European Federation of Food Banks (FEBA), Eurochild, the European AntiPoverty Network, and
other organizations help provide food to those in need throughout the EU. FEBA has 265 food banks in
23 countries. It serves 2.9 million meals a day. It is currently working with FoodDrinkEurope and
EuroCommerce to encourage food manufacturers and retailers to donate their food surpluses to food
banks.
AT – Food Shortages Cause Conflict
No necessary internal link to conflict – Studies prove relationship is more complex

than cause and effect
Food insecurity is not a necessary or sufficient cause of conflict – environmental
conditions reduce resources for conflict
Hendrix, College of William and Mary Department of Government Assistant
Professor, & Brinkman, United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office Planning and
Application, 12
(Cullen and Henk-Jan, 9/13-14/12, High Level Expert Forum, “Food insecurity and conflict dynamics -
Causal linkages and Complex feedbacks.”
http://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/enfoco/food_insecurity_conflict_dynamics.pdf, Accessed
7/19/17, GDI - JMo)
Moreover, there may be a potential countervailing effect of acute food insecurity on rebellion – such
as in cases where the effects of drought interplay with those of political and economic
marginalization. While food insecurity may be a source of grievances and motivate individual
participation in rebellion in some instances, it may suppress conflict via its effect on the resource
base necessary to sustain rebellion. Food insecurity may produce grievances, but grievances are
neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for armed conflict. Aggrieved actors must be able to
acquire resources and mobilize partisans (Tilly 1978, Collier and Hoeffler 2004). Thus, while rising
food insecurity as a result of higher food prices or curtailed access can be a source of grievances,
acute food insecurity may diminish conflict for three basic reasons.
First, acute insecurity, such as that caused by drought and crop failure, diminishes the resources
available to militants. Military thinkers ranging from Sun Tzu* to Napoleon† have recognized that
the ability to forage is a binding constraint on militaries – especially those, such as rebel
organizations, that lack sophisticated logistics and support networks. Rebel movements typically do
not grow their own food and depend on voluntary or coerced contributions from the population.
Drought depresses rural incomes via reduced agricultural production making it more difficult to
find willing donors and making civilians more likely to resist coercion.
All of their evidence is just about civil war – no reason it causes interstate conflict
Even if their argument is true – abundance doesn’t prevent conflict

- Warrants -- Dispute over food distribution, attracts recruits, more incentives to fight
Koren, University of Minnesota, PhD Candidate, 16

[Ore Koren is a PhD candidate at the University of Minnesota and a Jennings Randolph Fellow at the
United States Institute of Peace. November 23, 2016, Washington Post, “Food scarcity causes conflicts —
but so can food abundance. Here’s why.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-
cage/wp/2016/11/23/food-scarcity-causes-conflicts-but-so-does-food-abundance-heres-
why/?utm_term=.c69cc6665601 accessed 7.18.2017]//TRossow
How can an abundance of food lead to war?
Food scarcity, however, is only one aspect of food security. Whether people have easy access to food
resources is also important. So even in countries where plenty of food is available, a large share of the
population might still go hungry.
As Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen notes, “Starvation is the characteristic of some people not having enough
food to eat. It is not the characteristic of there beingnot enough food to eat.”
Grievances over food and the necessity to secure access to food resources can motivate marginalized
groups to participate in rebellions and wars. A number of scholars are researching how inequitable
access to food affects violence within the state. As Ben Bagozzi and I show in a recent paper, armed
actors worldwide are motivated to fight over local food resources.
Here’s why these conflicts tend to happen in regions with more food crops, not less. For rebel groups,
securing — and controlling — food resources is vital for the insurgency to advance. And when the
government is slow or unable to supply combat rations, state forces also may be forced to extract food
supplies from the local population,
So scarce food resources in a region locked in conflict act as both fuel and reward for hungry combatants.
Access to more local food resources, especially in the case of rebel groups, can also be used to attract
recruits, as happened in Sierra Leone and Somalia. Regions where wheat and barley are grown are also
an important source of support for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
The focus on how the demand for food resources influences armed conflict complements the research
done on the effects of food scarcity. It also explains why agricultural areas see more violence. In these
regions, individuals live largely on locally grown food. If the government’s safety nets are mismanaged or
weak, those who control access to food can more easily recruit individuals and operate for a longer period
of time.
And this also explains why there is an uptick in violence during times of more rainfall — for instance,
in sub-Saharan Africa. By providing armed groups with an added motivation to fight as well as the
ability to expand their numbers and strength, local food security can therefore shape global conflict
patterns.
No Solvency – Alt Causes
No solvency for food security – alt causes – conflict, governance, structural

economic issues – mean supply alone can’t solve
McGlade, United States Diplomacy Center, Bureau of Public Affairs, US
Department of State program advisor, 09
(Jacqueline McGlade, associate professor of business and dean of graduate programs at the College of
Saint Elizabeth in Morristown, New Jersey. She has published extensively on the impact of US aid
programs on global economic, business, and technical redevelopment after 1945 and serves as a program
advisor to the George C. Marshall Foundation, Winter 2009, Agricultural History Society, “More a
Plowshare than a Sword: The Legacy of US Cold War Agricultural Diplomacy”,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20454913, Jstor, p. 97-98, accessed 7/16/17, MJ)
Despite such remarkable gains in world agricultural output, conditions of hunger, malnutrition,
and starvation nevertheless persist for over eight hundred million people in forty-six countries.
Unlike the past, however, the "physical shortage of food," alleviated through US and UN aid
programs, no longer constitutes the main obstacle to ending world hunger. Now, the "absence of -
opportunities for gainful employment to generate the pur chasing power needed to buy food," civil
wars and violence, and unstable governance pose internal barriers in many developing countries
toward agricultural self-sufficiency. The recent escalation of civil unrest and war fare in certain
developing countries, especially in Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East, has precipitated serious
declines in food production in the past fifteen years with only South America, Caribbean nations, and East
Asia achieving substantial output rates from 1970 to 1990. Unlike after World War II then, current
agricultural imbalances in developing countries are rooted in complicated political, social, and
cultural factors that rest well beyond the remedies of greater technical modernization, natural
resources management, and commercial development.39
The achievement of production parity, once the central goal of US agricultural diplomacy, has not
emerged as the "cure-all" solution to lead developing countries to a full realization of food self-
sufficiency and sustainability. Nor has commercial development supplied a reliable platform for
domestic food distribution and consumption as exports have taken precedent over local markets
among emerging growers seeking profits and sales outlets. In the midst of climbing export levels
among developing countries, the need for massive feeding programs and relief aid still persists, presenting
the United States and other developed nations with new complications and challenges related to world
hunger, food supply shortages, and agricultural imbalances.
Food surplus now - hunger and trade is a distribution error

Schiller, Fast Company New York staff writer, 2016
(Ben, 8/16/16, Fast Company, “The Real Reason There’s World Hunger: Food Waste, Not Food
Shortages.” https://www.fastcompany.com/3062692/the-real-reason-theres-world-hunger-food-waste-not-
food-shortages, Aaccessed 7/16/17, GDI - JMo)
Most people assume hunger exists in poor communities because there’s not enough food. But that’s
usually the lesser problem. Really, it’s just about getting food to the people who need it.
“The problem of undernourishment and hidden hunger around the globe is a distribution problem
rather than a production one,” says an important new paper on global food waste published in
Environmental Science & Technology.
A systematic study, from the Potsdam Institute, says we wasted 510 kilocalories per person per day in
2010, up from 310 kilocalories in 1965. Generally, societies are getting much better at producing
food: there’s 20% more food available than the global population strictly needs. Most places, even
undernourished places, have a raw surplus of food. The problem is, one third of production is either
not used productively, or it’s not used to feed the world’s underfed.
“Undernourishment may prevail in a country with food surplus due to income inequality and poverty,
resulting in disparity in food security within the country,” the paper says. For example, India has a
nominal food surplus of 210 kcal/per person/day, yet it has the second highest number of undernourished
people in the world.
“To eliminate hunger, countries with food deficits at first need to increase their food availability,
while other countries need to improve their food distribution systems,” the paper says. Only a few
countries have an actual food deficit (both what they grow and import), including Zambia, Haiti, and
Tajikistan.
Potsdam defines food waste as the gap between food availability and the average energy
requirement (based on body weight) of a person in a particular country. (An American has a higher
energy requirement than a Chinese, for instance.) The researchers use this gap to then calculate
greenhouse gas emissions associated with that waste. Agriculture accounts for 20% of emissions now.
But 14% of these could easily be avoided by better food management and distribution, lead researcher
Prajal Pradhan says.
“Inefficiency in the food supply chain needs to be addressed to reduce agricultural related
environmental consequences and climate burdens,” the paper concludes. It will also help feed people,
reducing the amount of land that needs to be set aside for producing food. The biggest question
ahead for the researchers? How exactly to make the food supply chain smarter and more efficient. That’s
another story.
Ag Waste Advantage Answers
AT – Ag Waste
Aff probability and magnitude uncertain – food waste estimates are based on hyped
numbers that are often inflated – don’t give their impact as much weight
Fassler, New Food Economy senior editor, 17
[Joe Fassler, 6-21-17, New Food Economy, “We’ve all heard the staggering statistics about food waste. A
new study says they’re wrong.”, http://newfoodeconomy.com/weve-heard-staggering-statistics-food-
waste-new-study-says-theyre-wrong/, accessed 7-20-17, AFB]
Say you’re a journalist, and you’ve been assigned a story about food waste. You’re on a deadline, and you
need some handy numbers to put a sprawling, overwhelming issue into context. Whether you’re writing
about the relationship between hunger and wasted food, the latest scrappy startups, freegans, or the trash
generated by social media-induced body shame, odds are good that two factoids will find their way into
your work: First, Americans waste about $165 billion worth of food each year. Second, 40 percent
of all food in the United States goes uneaten.
Over the past five years, journalists have repeatedly, almost reflexively reached for both stats.
They’ve become a kind of shorthand, a quick, easy way to achieve a sense of high stakes in stories
about food waste. Here they are in a Reuters report. And in The Atlantic. In the Washington Post
and the Huffington Post. Again in the Kansas City Star, and on CNBC, and repeated by a source on
NPR’s “Morning Edition.”
In other words, these numbers—plugged into reporting by journalists all over the country, and
recited by advocates like gospel—are likely to be the headline in any high-profile conversation on
the topic of wasted food.
But how do we know they’re true?
I don’t mean to suggest these numbers are “fake news” (or as we call them, “lies”)—the kind of
demonstrably false reports that have spread on social media with alarming frequency. No one could deny
that food waste is a major issue in this country. But these specific, hard-seeming numbers, so
tantalizing to journalists (myself included): where do they actually come from? And do they hold
up under scrutiny?
Maybe not. A new study by researchers from the University of Minnesota’s Department of Applied
Economics, and published in The American Journal of Agricultural Economics, argues that
commonly cited food waste estimates are likely to be inaccurate, incomplete, overstated, or
contradictory. The biggest issue the authors point out? No one knows exactly what we mean when
we use the term “food waste.” It turns out that definitions differ significantly from study to study,
resulting in “wildly different estimates” and, ultimately, different policy conclusions.
Take, for example the two ubiquitous claims I’ve cited above. Who came up with those numbers—that 40
percent of food is wasted, amounting to $165 billion in squandered food? How were those conclusions
reached, and were the methods sound?
It probably started with a report published in 2012 by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
called “Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill.”
“Wasted” was widely circulated in the media, and did much to increase the public’s sense of urgency
around food waste. In some cases, the report was referred to as a “study,” as if NRDC made the
calculations itself. (See, for example, this CNBC piece.) But that wasn’t the case. “Wasted” was a
carefully footnoted report, but it relied on work of other researchers. And when you look more closely at
the supporting evidence, some issues start to emerge.
For starters: the claim that we waste 40 percent of our food, and the idea that wasted food totals
$165 billion in value, come from two separate studies with completely different methodologies.
The 40 percent figure came from a 2009 PLOS ONE study that calculated food waste by pitting a United
Nations estimate of total number of calories available to Americans against the total number of calories
Americans consume. I’m simplifying somewhat, but that’s the basic idea. Generally speaking, the study
figured the available calories that were not eaten for any reason amounted to waste. The $165 billion
number, on the other hand, came from a 2012 study by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS)—and the eye-popping number included only food that went
uneaten at the retail and consumer level. But food wasted on the farm or at the processing plant went
uncounted, and no estimates were made about the amount of food that’s wasted overall.
These findings aren’t mutually exclusive, necessarily. And NRDC did nothing wrong to point them out in
the same report. But after “Wasted” was published, these stats started to be repeated in the same breath by
advocates and the media—as if both figures were somehow definitive, and as if they were found using the
same method. That’s an unfortunate simplification, and a misleading one, even if they were used in
service of the important, urgent idea that we need to become radically conscious about what we throw
out.
This is just one example of the kind of problem pointed out by in the new study: the major entities
studying food waste aren’t using the same methods or definitions, and one organization’s “food
waste” is not another’s. These differences may have profound impact on both the way we view the
problem and the efforts we take to address it.
To wit: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations defines “food waste” as any
instance in which “safe and nutritious” food is discarded, or used for a non-food purpose, anywhere in the
supply chain. ERS, meanwhile, is increasingly focused on “food loss,” which for them means counts only
as food that “goes unconsumed for any reason” after harvest. Food waste, though, they define as edible
food that is thrown out after reaching retailers and/or consumers. Then, there’s the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which measures only food from consumer, institutional (i.e. hospitals,
stadiums, and schools) and retail sources that ends up in the landfill.
Clearly, there are major disagreements about even the most basic terms, and the differences are
large enough to complicate the view of even a simple food waste quandary. Say I, for example,
forget to eat some heads of romaine lettuce I have sitting in the fridge. If, in an effort to make up
for my profligacy, I drop them off at the local farmers’ market to be composted, FAO and ERS
would call this “wasted” food since it didn’t end up in a human stomach. But EPA wouldn’t, since
my veggies didn’t end up in the landfill.
Say those same greens, instead, had been plowed under at the farm. (Let’s pretend they weren’t the
right size or shape to be harvested, like so many so-called “ugly” veggies that never make it past the farm
gate). In that case, FAO would count the passed-over romaine as food waste, while ERS wouldn’t
measure it (its work focuses only on post-harvest), and EPA wouldn’t call it waste at all. There are
further distinctions that make things even more complicated. According to the FAO and ERS, for
instance, only “safe” and “edible” food can be wasted. That means carrot tops and tomato cores aren’t
counted towards their food waste totals. But should they be? And what about something like kiwi skins,
which are perfectly edible, but which Americans tend to throw out?
The study also points out major differences in the ways researchers calculate the cost of food waste. That
omnipresent $165 billion figure? It was arrived at by assigning a value of $1.49 to the amount of food
wasted per American per day, based on estimates from USDA’s Food Availability Data System. But since
the ERS study doesn’t count food wasted by distributors, processing plants, and on the farm, its estimate
of the amount of food wasted is probably low.
At the same time, it calculates the cost of wasted food by looking at only the retail price—which the
authors of the new study say can inflate the estimate dramatically. They have a point: if a grocery
store buys its tomatoes for a buck, but sells them for two, how do we tabulate the dollar amount of food
wasted when one goes bad on the shelf? There’s a case to be made that we should only include the
amount the grocer paid, not the sticker price a shopper would theoretically pay but never did.
Furthermore, by adding up the dollar value of all post-retail food that wasn’t eaten, aren’t we
overlooking the financial benefits of diverting food from the landfill? If some of this food ended up
as fertilizer on fields, or powering buildings through anaerobic digestion, should we really factor it
in to the total?
This leaves us in a strange position. The famous $165 billion stat seems to both underestimate and
overestimate the financial cost of food, which supports the point the researchers are trying to make:
our terms need to be more clearly defined. Which is why the study puts forward its own definitions,
ones the authors hope will form the basis of a more straightforward set of standards.
“What we’re trying to do is just be a bit more accurate about what ‘food waste’ means,” says Marc
Bellemare, one of the study’s co-authors.
The new definition of “food waste” is, at least, attractive in its simplicity: “As long as food does not end
up in a landfill, it is not wasted,” Bellemare and his co-authors write. By this logic, food that escapes the
landfill by being put to any use at all it would not count towards the overall tally of “wasted” food—
anything used for animal feed, in consumer products, to power vehicles, to make compost, and so on.
That’s not a perfect solution. Certainly, considering the huge amounts of oil and water, pesticides and
fertilizer we use to grow food, some uses are more desirable than others. It’s probably always better to
see food end up in people’s bellies than in the pig trough, anaerobic digester, or compost pile. But
the authors argue that food repurposed in this way is too valuable to be called “waste.”
“We came up with this idea that, look, if you take some of the food on your plate and give it to your dog,
that is not food waste,” Bellemare says. “There was a productive use for it. Is it the most productive use?
We’re not saying that it is. But it’s not waste, per se. Waste is what goes to the landfill. It’s a little heroic
to call something that has a productive use waste, even if it’s not your preferred productive use.”
There’s another benefit as well: this terminology reduces food waste by definition, reducing the logical
complexity of measuring the vast problem. Counting what’s headed to the landfill is much easier that
measuring everything that goes uneaten.
The new definition also avoids another layer of complexity, namely determinations about which
components of foods are “edible” or “safe.” Both FAO and ERS methods mention these factors as
determinations, though they don’t lay out clear definitions for what qualifies. The Minnesota study makes
such quibbling irrelevant. Beet tops and cabbage cores count as food waste, regardless of whether or not
society thinks you can eat them. (Hint: you can.) Counting this way makes us more likely to factor in
processing byproducts like carrot trimmings into our estimates—and celebrate the companies that are
trying to make good use of them.
“We’re trying to remove value judgements, for the most part,” Bellemare says. “What’s ‘safe’? What’s
‘edible’? What’s ‘nutritious’? It’s highly context-dependent. In a context of famine, you will eat a lot of
fish-head soup if you can find it. In China, you will eat chicken feet without even thinking about it. In the
U.S., you might eat chicken feet on a dare—as I once did—but otherwise not. The same thing goes with
ideas about ‘safety.’ In many parts of the world, people will make vinaigrette with raw eggs—but in
North America, we really don’t see that very often.”
The authors also make a suggestion about how to calculate the dollar value of wasted food: to use only
the cost of food at each link in the supply chain. If it costs an orchard 10 cents to grow a pound of organic
apples, and a dollar a pound for a distributor to buy them, those are the figures we should use—it doesn’t
matter if Whole Foods can get four bucks a pound for them later. Using a product’s price before a markup
is added, according to the authors, is a more accurate way of assessing its real value.
There’s probably truth to that. As a product moves through the supply chain, it requires more resources—
fuel for transportation, electricity for refrigeration. Food does get more costly as it travels from the farm,
and we’d do well to reflect that increase in our research. But measuring all wasted food at the retail
price artificially inflates our estimations of the problem.
Ultimately, the study concludes, the familiar stats about the amount and value of food squandered are
probably too high. If true, that’s a tough pill to swallow. For anyone who cares about this issue (and we
all should), it’s hard to hear. But the Minnesota study is a reminder that we need transparent
methodologies, clearly defined terms, and a shared language with which to discuss the problem.
Otherwise, we’re not just talking about wasted food—we’re wasting precious time.
Plan not key – multiple obstacles to reducing waste throughout the food chain –
individual daily habits key
Jaafari, NationSwell, 17
[Joseph, 7-7-17, NationSwell, NationSwell is a digital media company focused on American innovation
and renewal — identifying and profiling social innovators who are developing impactful ways to solve
America’s most critical issues, “Fighting Food Waste, One Sector at a Time”,
http://nationswell.com/fighting-food-waste-sector-by-sector/, accessed 7-20-17, AFB]
Restaurants, campuses, and farmers are battling food waste in their industries. Here’s how you can join
the effort.
America is one of the largest offenders of food waste in the world, according to a recent survey.
Every year, roughly 1.3 billion tons of food is thrown out worldwide, a considerable problem given
that agriculture contributes about 22 percent of the planet’s greenhouse gas emissions and 12.7
million people go hungry in America alone. Entrepreneurs across several sectors have created ways
to repurpose food. Their efforts are admirable and economical, but the biggest difference will be if
you make food waste reduction a daily habit.
On College Campuses
On average, a student who lives in university housing throws out 141 pounds of food per year.
Multiply that by the number of residential colleges around the country, and it becomes a huge
problem, says Regina Northouse, executive director for the Food Recovery Network, the only
nonprofit dealing specifically with campus food waste.
Northouse’s group reduces waste by enlisting the help of student volunteers at 226 universities. This
manpower shuttles still-edible food from dining halls that would otherwise be thrown out to local
nonprofits fighting hunger. Northouse estimates that since 2011, Food Recovery Network has fed 150,000
food-insecure people.
Through the box-subscription company Hungry Harvest, farmers sell "ugly food" to consumers instead of
tossing the unsightly produce out.Photo courtesy of Hungry Harvest
On Farms
If a carrot isn’t quite orange enough, odds are it’ll be tossed. Blemishes and unattractive produce
make up nearly 40 percent of discarded food, according to a 2012 study by the Natural Resources
Defense Council. Though some unused fruits and veggies can be sent to food manufacturers, farmers lose
profits from about a quarter of their crops because of cosmetic imperfections. To put money back into
their pockets, box subscriptions services, such as Hungry Harvest, have found their way into the ugly
food market.
“We started out with 10 customers at a stand,” says Stacy Carroll, director of partnerships for Hungry
Harvest. “We now have thousands of customers every week buying thousands of pounds of food that
would, in the past, have been thrown away.”
Roughly 10,000 subscribers along the East Coast receive weekly boxes of recovered produce from the
Baltimore-based company (which was started by the founders of Food Recovery Network). In addition,
food insecure families who use SNAP benefits can purchase boxes at 10 Hungry Harvest sites. All in all,
the organization redistributes between 60,000 and 80,000 pounds of food through its subscription service
each week.
At Food Retailers
For merchants, food wasted is also money wasted. Across the U.S., the cost of tossing food runs
upward of $165 billion annually.
MealConnect, a tech platform launched in April by Feeding America (a nationwide network of food
banks), allows retailers to post surplus meals and unused produce on its app, which then notifies local
food banks workers to pick it up and redistribute it to those in need. The company has recovered 333
million pounds of food by working with large retailers like Walmart and Starbucks. MealConnect also
allows merchants to recoup some of their outlays (via tax deductions).
In Restaurants
In 2015, the aptly named food popup wastED found itself in the heart of a media frenzy because of
what was on the menu: trashed food.
Since then, a handful of other restaurants in urban areas across the world have used recovered produce in
their meals.
“We’re offering our cooks the opportunity to be creative and come up with menus instead,” says
Brooklyn, N.Y., chef Przemek Adolf, owner of Saucy By Nature, which uses leftovers from previous
catering events to create daily lunch and dinner specials.
In Your Own Kitchen
Individual families throw away nearly $1,600 worth of food per year, according to the EPA, which
has spurred the federal government to step in and help.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture created the app FoodKeeper, which informs consumers on how long
an apple can last in the fridge, for example, and proper food storage techniques to extend shelf life. It also
sends out reminder alerts to use up food that’s in danger of spoiling. The desired outcome? People
changing their behaviors, ultimately buying less and consuming what they do purchase.
No impact – food waste estimates are exaggerated and based on flawed assumptions
Karst, The Packer and Farm Journal Media editor, 17
[Tom, 7-7-17, The Packer, “Food waste estimates miss the mark?”,
http://www.thepacker.com/news/food-waste-estimates-miss-mark, accessed 7-20-17, AFB]
A new study suggests that food waste cost estimates may be too high.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that one-quarter to one-third of
all the food produced worldwide is wasted, and some estimates point to waste numbers at 40% or
more.
“The extent of food waste — in terms of quantity and value — appears overstated in many cases,”
Marc Bellemare of the University of Minnesota, said in a news release.
Bellemare and other researchers recently released “On the Measurement of Food Waste,” a paper
published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.
The research essentially defines food waste as whatever is produced in the food system that ends up
at the landfill.
The authors say one problem with current food waste cost estimates is that they value all food waste
— regardless of where it occurred in the supply chain — simply at the retail transaction price.
“Values are overestimated due to both overestimation of the quantity and price of food waste,”
according to the the University of Minnesota paper.
The authors calculate the cost of food waste at 27.6% of total food produced, compared with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s cost estimate of 57.6% (according to the USDA-Economic Research
Service) and the Food and Agricultural Organization’s estimate of 39.6%.
Bellemare said in the release that, from an economic perspective, food waste is a byproduct of
improved living standards.
“Worldwide, there is a positive relationship between income per capita and the amount of food wasted per
person,” he said in the release.
In developing countries, where food waste contributes to food insecurity, the paper said food waste
largely occurs at the production, processing, and distribution stages before food is purchased by
consumers.
In contrast, in developed countries, the bulk of food waste occurs after food is distributed to food
businesses and retailers and is sold to consumers.
Different policies are needed in developing and developed countries to address food waste,
according to the authors.
The paper outlines what the authors call a “more consistent and practical approach” to measuring food
waste and identifies the specific and strategic areas policy makers could employ in dealing with the
problem.
The authors argue that the food waste definitions should ignore edibility and account for whole
plants and animals produced for food.
“Thus, stalks and leaves and hide and bones should be fully accounted for in our calculation, noting
the stages where they are discarded from the food supply chain, potentially redirected for food use or
non-food use, or added to the landfill,” the paper said.
While that way of estimating food waste would result in a larger estimate of the volume of food-related
organic waste, it would also be the most useful when used in connection with policy goals set using the
same definition, the paper said.
Food Waste – States CP (Plank)
Text –
The fifty states and relevant sub-national territories should implement food waste reduction and recycling
programs, including, but not limited to, producer and retailer incentives, credits, liability protections,
landfill restrictions, and label standards.
The counterplan solves – multiple state programs prove

Fleischer, ThinkProgress Video Director, 17
[Victoria, 7-6-17, Think Progress, “States are trying to curb America’s huge food waste problem,”
https://thinkprogress.org/food-waste-problem-video-ab15059779d7, accessed 7-20-17, AFB]
Over 130 billion pounds of food are thrown out in the United States every year. When one in eight
Americans suffer from food insecurity, that’s more than a climate change problem.
Watch the video to find out how states are trying to solve the issue.
Transcript:
VICTORIA FLEISCHER, ThinkProgress: Americans waste over 130 billion pounds of food every year.
Most of that food ends up in landfills, where it decomposes, producing greenhouse gases.
Meanwhile, one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.
Basically, food waste is a huge problem.
Americans don’t consume 30–40 percent of food produced, thanks in part to a lot of confusion
about sell by labels and an obsession with perfect produce. According to the Department of
Agriculture, food is the single largest component of municipal landfills in the United States. The cost
of all that organic waste — from growing it to disposing of it — is roughly $218 billion per year.
So, some states have come up with a variety of ways to tackle the problem.
Eight states offer incentives to producers and retailers that donate to food banks, hoping that
usable waste can help combat food insecurity. Some create an addition tax credit on top of an
already existing federal credit, so smaller operations that can’t afford to make regular donations
will now get more money to do just that.
Others create protections so donors don’t have to worry about lawsuits over food gone bad. Two
more states — Maryland and Virginia — have similar bills up for debate,
Then, there are the 5 states that are focusing on emissions, restricting the amount of food that
producers can dump in the landfill. Maryland, New Jersey, and New York are considering similar
proposals.
But these restrictions aren’t all encompassing. Four out of the 5 states restrict the amount of organic waste
from the largest producers only and three states exempt producers that are too far from recycling or
composting facilities.
Finally, there’s California, Oregon, and Colorado, who are using food waste to create biofuel. That
biofuel is then used to power — say, city vehicles in San Diego.
Clearly, these policies could reduce our reliance on oil, and, as technology advances, the conversion
process becomes faster and faster, making it more efficient than composting.
And while states try to hammer out some kinks, businesses have stepped in the mix.
Grocery manufacturers and retailers are working together to adopt standardized date labels on
packages. And some companies are claiming the role of middleman — collecting imperfect produce
from farms and restaurants and selling it to consumers at a discount.
Are you looking for some of that discounted food? There are several apps for that. There are also apps to
help producers or individuals donate to food pantries, and others that even let you donate a meal when
you enjoy one yourself.
For years, large farms and retailers have been at odds with environmental groups fighting over policies
like bans on plastic bags and regulations over fertilizer use. But reducing food inefficiency? That’s
something everyone can get behind.
Every day, American families throw out tons of spoiled food — or food they think is spoiled
because they misunderstand “sell by” labels. Restaurants dispose of usable leftovers, and farmers
toss imperfect produce.
In the United States, about 30 to 40% of all food is not eaten. About 95% of that wasted food, 38
million tons in 2014, ends up in landfills or incinerators, where it produces methane, a gas that is one
of the most potent contributors to climate change.
To protect the environment, relieve hunger and save money, states are trying to reduce those
numbers. California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont already restrict the
amount of food and other organic waste (such as soiled and compostable paper and yard waste) that
can be dumped in landfills. Maryland, New Jersey and New York are considering similar laws.
States are offering tax breaks to farmers and small businesses that donate food rather than throw it
away, limiting the liability of food donors, and standardizing “use by” labels so consumers don’t
toss food that is still edible.
New Jersey is mulling an award to prompt people to come up with productive ideas for making use of
“ugly produce,” foods that are perfectly edible but shunned by retailers, processors and restaurants
because of blemishes and other flaws.
The issue also is attracting notice beyond state capitols. Some businesses are collecting farmers’
imperfect produce and restaurant food that is on the verge of spoiling or has passed its “sell by” date and
selling it to customers at a discount. Others have created apps that connect restaurants and stores that have
surplus food to people who want it.
The Food Waste Reduction Alliance, which represents the food industry and restaurant trade
associations, recently worked with Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic to simplify
and standardize “use by” and “sell by” labels, which befuddle many consumers. People toss a lot of
edible food because they misunderstand the difference between the two terms.
“There has been an enormous amount of change over the past two or three years,” said Emily Broad
Leib, director of the clinic.
No solvency – too many vectors for waste at all levels

Waste at all levels
The U.S. spends about $218 billion annually to grow, manufacture, process, distribute and then
dispose of food that is not eaten, according to a report released last year by ReFED, a coalition of 30
businesses, nonprofits and foundations that seeks to reduce food waste.
The report notes that food is wasted at all levels of the food system. Low market prices, high labor
costs, and a market that demands perfect-looking produce prompt farmers to leave food
unharvested in the field. Grocery stores and restaurants consistently over-order food. Households
waste food because of inefficient shopping and cooking practices, and because they don’t have
access to programs that collect waste for compost.
Even seemingly small details such as trays in school cafeterias and large plates in all-you-can-eat
restaurants contribute to the problem by spurring people to take more food than they will eat.
Meanwhile, 1 in 7 Americans suffer from “food insecurity,” which the federal government defines as
“limited or uncertain access to adequate food.”
Food Safety Advantage Answers
Status Quo Solves – Food Safety Modernization Act
Federal oversite for food safety solves now – checks private companies and imported
foods
Purdy, Quartz food reporter, 16
[Chasidy, 8-23-2016, Quartz, “The system for catching dangerous pathogens in America’s food supply is
finally working” https://qz.com/752139/food-safety/ Accessed: 7-20-2017, BP]
That could be changing, as the government implements sweeping legislation signed into law by
president Barack Obama in 2011. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) will, among other
things, hold companies more accountable for testing and will force them to react, by law, if
something potentially dangerous is detected in their factories.
“If an ice cream company found Listeria in its facility pre-FSMA, it wasn’t required to do
anything,” says Sandy Eskin, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts’ food safety campaign. “Now,
starting in mid-September, they’re going to be responsible…for taking steps to prevent problems and
the government is going to hold them accountable.”
The FSMA gave the government, for the first time, more oversight and access to company records in
sectors of the food system beyond just meat and poultry, including massive manufacturers such as
Nestlé, General Mills, Unilever and Pepsico. The rules of FSMA are still being implemented, but once
up-and-running they will represent a sea change in how the government protects the public, says Eskin.
The law includes provisions for better testing throughout the produce sector, at US ports for
imported foods, mandatory food recalls, and minimum factory inspection requirements.
Implementing all of that will be expensive, though. The Obama administration, in its FSMA budget
requests sent to Congress each year, has consistently asked to add more money to fund the law despite a
difficult political climate in DC. Still, the White House’s requests have called for less discretionary
funding than the FDA has said it will need to implement the law.
Not surprisingly, when the government gets involved results follow. After the Jack in the Box burger
scandal, the US government decided to classify E. coli as an “adulterant,” which gave it the legal
blessing to unilaterally decide to sample and test food products for the bacteria, as well as the power to
recall possibly-contaminated products without waiting on reports of human illnesses. Since then, the
number of E. coli cases in the US did drop, according to CDC data.
“You look back over time and, from 1993-2003, about 90% of my firm’s revenue was from E. coli
cases connected to hamburger,” says Bill Marler, the most prominent food safety attorney in the US. “I
was highly critical of the beef people for decades, but I am very positive of them now.”
FSMA solves food safety now – no threat

Low, 15 year Trace One multinational quality management solutions consultant, 17
(Don, July 5, 2017, Food Safety News, “The future of the food biz: Preventing food safety crises,”
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/07/the-future-of-food-the-food-biz-preventing-food-safety-crises/,
accessed 7/20/17, DL)
Legislative landscape
Public health legislation will be a focus in 2017, including a reduction in sodium initiative and a
foreign supplier verification program, which will require an audit of product at the port of arrival
to ensure that safe manufacturing products were used and that the product is not contaminated.
Additionally, the FSMA Preventive Controls for Human Food rule became final in September 2016 .
It includes new requirements for maintaining and implementing a written food safety plan that
includes preventive controls and corrective actions. Every facility must have a corrective and
preventive action plan — a series of steps that need to be taken to collect and analyze information,
identify and investigate product and quality problems, and take appropriate and effective
corrective and/or preventive action to prevent their recurrence.
Status Quo Solves – Private Companies
Private companies solve – implementing new standards and accountability
mechanisms
Purdy, Quartz food reporter, 16
[Chasidy, 8-23-2016, Quartz, “The system for catching dangerous pathogens in America’s food supply is
finally working” https://qz.com/752139/food-safety/ Accessed: 7-20-2017, BP]
Perhaps most importantly, the rise in testing and recalls is forcing the food industry to change its
food safety culture.
For example, in Nestlé’s newly-revamped food safety laboratory in Dublin, Ohio, the company has
gone to great pains to ensure employees feel encouraged to report food safety problems the moment
they arise. That means setting up a chain-of-command that facilitates such reports. Lab director Aaron
Ayres reports directly to management at the company’s headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland—not to an
executive in the US, who would have a stake in performance and thus an interest in lab results.
Nestlé has also chosen to develop, fund, and build its own food safety laboratories—spending $31
million in the process—instead of outsourcing the work to third-party labs. As the company
explained it, they chose to make this investment because they believe the work that happens in those
third-party labs can often be reduced by a company to a line item on a budget, a cost to manage,
something to check off the checklist. Marler agreed Nestlé’s reasoning made sense.
The company has also established rigorous—even onerous—policies for suppliers, including testing
the soil in which its pumpkin seeds are grown and the wheat used to produce to flour that goes into
many of its products. The Nestlé facility is now the largest of its kind, and tests the quality of every
product line the company distributes across the Western Hemisphere.
But what’s happening at Nestlé is the result of 150 years of trial and error, and having many billions of
dollars to achieve its goals. What about newer, smaller chains who seek to beef up their food safety
efforts, such as Chipotle?
The 23-year-old burrito chain is in the process of rebuilding its food safety culture in the aftermath
of the 2015 norovirus disaster. The company has hired four industry leaders known for their work in
food safety, tinkered with its supply chain processes, launched a traceability program to better
track its foods, and now incentivizes employees to speak up when they notice something wrong.
“A full 50% of managers bonuses are now tied to performance on food safety measures,” says
Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold. “[It] underscores the importance we are placing on food safety
and will help ensure that our teams remain really focused on food safety.”
Turn – Food Safety Bad
No uniqueness and turn – The US food system is safe but increased safety
regulations deck the immune system and lead to increased disease
Murphy, New York Times reporter citing multiple qualified people 15
(Kate Murphy, Herald-Tribune, 5-19-2015, "In America, is our food, in fact, too clean?," Date Accessed:
7/20/17, http://health.heraldtribune.com/2015/05/19/in-america-is-our-food-in-fact-too-clean/) lr
A: With the recent recalls of millions of gallons of ice cream as well as several tons of hummus, pine
nuts, frozen vegetables and various meat products, you might think the U.S. food supply is an unholy
mess.
It’s not. It’s arguably the safest in the world.
Yet despite continually improving quality controls, the number of cases of foodborne illness has
remained stubbornly high since the 1990s. Some experts wonder if we’ve reached a point of
diminishing returns in food safety — whether our food could perhaps be too clean.
Industrial food sanitation practices — along with home cooks’ antibacterial veggie washes, chlorine
bleach kitchen cleaners and sterilization cycle dishwashers — kill off so-called good bacteria naturally
found in foods that bolster our health.
Moreover, eliminating bad or pathogenic bacteria means we may not be exposed to the small doses
that could inoculate us against intestinal crises.
“No one is saying you need to eat a peck of dirt before you die to be healthy,” said Jeffrey T. LeJeune,
head of the food animal research program at Ohio State University. “But there is a line somewhere
when it comes to cleanliness. We just don’t know where it is.”
The theory that there might be such a thing as “too clean” food stems from the hygiene hypothesis, which
holds that our modern germaphobic ways may be making us sick by harming our microbiome, which
comprises all the microscopic beasties — bacteria, viruses, fungi, mites, etc. — that live in and on our
bodies.
Research so far has focused primarily on cesarean births and not breast-feeding, which may inhibit
formation of a robust microbiome, and antibacterial soaps and antibiotics, which diminish the established
microbiome.
A result is an immune system that essentially gets bored — spoiling for a fight and apt to react to
harmless substances and even attack the body’s own tissues. This could explain the increase of
allergies and autoimmune disorders such as asthma, rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel
syndrome.
All of this is hard to prove.
“We have these tantalizing bits of evidence that to my mind provide pretty good support for the hygiene
hypothesis, in terms of food-borne illness,” said Guy Loneragan, an epidemiologist at Texas Tech.
It is worth noting that serious foodborne diseases — ones that make it into the news, like listeria,
salmonella, E. coli, cryptosporidium and campylobacter — are mainly diseases of immuno-
compromised populations. That’s getting to be a significant number of people, thanks to our aging
population.
“It’s a cruel reality that anyone 55 and older is potentially immuno-compromised,” said Haley Oliver,
assistant professor of food science at Purdue University. Also included are young children, pregnant
women, people with HIV, cancer patients, organ recipients and anyone who takes a lot of antibiotics.
The three people who died after eating listeria-laced Blue Bell ice cream ate it while inpatients at a
hospital in Wichita, Kansas. Local health officials said listeriosis may have contributed to but did not
cause these people’s deaths. Seven more people were sickened nationwide.
That leaves millions who, experts said, ate the remaining five years’ worth of ice cream included in the
recall and didn’t have so much as a stomach cramp. Research shows listeria is commonly found in dirt
and in households.
“When disease happens, you have to have a perfect storm of enough of the pathogen present in the
food, the person ate enough of that food and that person was immuno-compromised,” Oliver said.
“But because of the hygiene hypothesis, we may be becoming a more naive or vulnerable population.”
No Solvency – Multiple Alt Causes
Multiple alt causes to solvency – vaccinations and clean food and water – any failure
spills over
McConnell, Meredith Agrimedia Editor, 17
(Anna, 7/17/2017, Food Safety News, “Food Safety Starts Before Slaughterhouses, Report Says,”
http://www.agriculture.com/news/livestock/food-safety-starts-before-slaughterhouses-report-says,
Cattle, poultry, and swine gather microorganisms that can lead to foodborne illnesses well before
they reach the slaughterhouse, according to a new report called “Food Safety From Farm to Fork”
by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
For producers, animal health is incredibly important morally and financially, but Pew has confirmed the
value of clean food/water and regular vaccinations for livestock in combatting illnesses like
salmonella, E. coli, etc.
“An effective food safety system includes measures to prevent contamination at every step along the
meat and poultry supply chain. More can and should be done on farms and feedlots,” says Sandra
Eskin, Pew’s director of the food safe project.
Within the report, Pew also makes recommendations to help control pathogens. Some of the
suggestions include: government-funded field trials and research on herd management, incentives
for preharvest food safety implementations, standards for livestock food and water safety, and
better sharing of new research and information.
About 2 million illnesses in the U.S. each year are because of contaminated meat and poultry
leading to somewhat staggering medical costs, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts. The
organization also says potential contamination by salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and Shiga
toxin-producing E. coli made up for about half of the meat and poultry products removed from the
marketplace between 2005 and 2015.
“Collaboration among producers, researchers, and regulators is critical to ensure food safety
hazards are minimized before the animals ever reach slaughter,” says Karin Hoelzer, the Pew food
safe project’s veterinarian.
No Solvency – Imported Food
Ag literacy can’t solve – global food trade creates multiple entry points for disease
Jones, FoodLogiQ Chief Marketing Officer, 17
(Katy, Feb. 9, 2017, FoodLogiQ: software that provides traceability, food safety compliance and supply
chain transparency, “What Organizations are Doing About Food Safety Concerns,”
http://blog.foodlogiq.com/what-to-do-with-food-safety-concerns, accessed 7/20/17, CD)
But the complexity of the food chain today makes it difficult to maintain strong transparency and keep the
food manufacturing process totally pure.
“The world’s growing population and the consumers' desire to be provided with a wider range of foods
have resulted in a longer and more complex food chain,” says a study published in the book
“Significance, Prevention and Control of Food Related Diseases.”
“Today, foods reach consumers after being collected from fields, farms and factories and then pass onto
many countries, traveling distances of thousands of kilometers. With this global food distribution, an
infection that occurs at any point within the food chain has the potential of affecting any given population
in the world.”
As you probably know, adulterated food is impure, unsafe, and unwholesome. There are many ways in
which foods can become contaminated and there are just as many regulations for preventing this problem.
“The three food industry groups with the most violations were vegetables (20.6 % of total violations),
fishery and seafood (20.1%) and fruits (11.7%),” says a report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Economic Research Service. “Violations observed over the entire time period include sanitary issues in
seafood and fruit products, pesticides in vegetables and unregistered processes for canned food products
in all three industries.”
No Solvency – Compliance Failures
No solvency – compliance failure is the root of food safety problems

Low, 15-year Trace One multinational quality management solutions consultant, 17
(Don, July 5, 2017, Food Safety News, “The future of the food biz: Preventing food safety crises,”
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2017/07/the-future-of-food-the-food-biz-preventing-food-safety-crises/,
A strong compliance plan
Despite the importance of food safety to a retailer’s brand and bottom line, many retailers are
failing to comply with regulations. Although most retailers have a compliance program in place,
many may be unaware if their suppliers are compliant, which can lead to food safety failures.
For a successful program, compliance should focus on reporting and visibility. However, many
retailers use spreadsheets and PDFs, which are often out of date. These tools are not sufficiently
suited to track compliance, and record keeping alone is not enough. Retailers must understand the
impact compliance has on ensuring customer safety. For example, without a proper program in
place, a retailer could be shipping from facilities that aren’t approved or compliant. Fail safes
should be built into the compliance system to prevent events like this from happening.
A strong compliance plan is necessary to ensure communication amongst all parties completing
compliance activities, including suppliers and third-party auditors or testers. A minimum of three
to four assessments should be completed in a year. These can include testing manufacturing
equipment for contamination or checking that gloves are being worn in all required job functions.
All compliance activity should be planned properly so everyone knows what needs to be done and
when.
Once the compliance plan is in place, retailers should assess their suppliers. This includes
determining which facilities are in compliance, and which ones are not. This information should be
available in a central location which will allow quality assurance teams, as well as a Global Food
Safety Initiative (GFSI) auditor, to upload assessment results. Most importantly, individuals like
the product and quality managers will also have access to the information and can make decisions
based upon the results. They may then choose to identify certain risks at a facility and monitor
them closely.
Having assessment and product information available in a central location allows retailers to
quickly determine the potential impact of a facility’s compliance status change. For example, a
retailer may identify an issue with a supplier and realize that 20 products need to be pulled off the
shelf immediately.
AT – Zoonotic Diseases
Zoonotic disease specifically are not dangerous – they can’t spread well enough to
cause pandemics and all our defense still applies
Orent, former Emory Professor and writer specializing in infectious disease, 15
[Wendy, 1-3-2015, Los Angeles Times, “Ignore predictions of lethal pandemics and pay attention to what
really matters” http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-orent-pandemic-hysteria-20150104-
story.html Accessed: 7-20-2017, BP]
The scientific world has changed since 2005. Now, most scientists understand that there are
significant physical and evolutionary barriers to a blood- and fluid-borne virus developing airborne
transmission, as Garrett has acknowledged. Though Ebola virus has been detected in human alveolar
cells, as Vincent Racaniello, virologist at Columbia University, explained to me, that doesn't mean it
can replicate in the airways enough to allow transmission. “Maybe … the virus can get in, but can't
get out. Like a roach motel,” wrote Racaniello in an email.
H5N1, we understand now, never went airborne because it attached only to cell receptors located
deep in human lungs, and could not, therefore, be coughed or sneezed out. SARS, or severe acute
respiratory syndrome, caused local outbreaks after multiple introductions via air travel but spread only
sluggishly and mostly in hospitals. Breaking its chains of transmission ended the outbreak globally.
There probably will always be significant barriers preventing the easy adaptation of an animal
disease to the human species. Furthermore, Racaniello insists that there are no recorded instances of
viruses that have adapted to humans, changing the way they are spread.
So we need to stop listening to the doomsayers, and we need to do it now. Predictions of lethal
pandemics have — since the swine flu fiasco of 1976, when President Ford vowed to vaccinate “every
man, woman and child in the United States” — always been wrong. Fear-mongering wastes our time
and our emotions and diverts resources from where they should be directed — in the case of Ebola, to the
ongoing tragedy in West Africa. Americans have all but forgotten about Ebola now, because most people
realize it isn't coming to a school or a shopping mall near you. But Sierra Leoneans and Liberians go on
dying.
AT – Food Causes Disease
The impact to food related diseases is overblown

Ford, Center for Disease Control, Senior Epidemiologist, 13
(Earl S., December 05, Center for Disease Control, “Food Security and Cardiovascular Disease Risk
Among Adults in the United States: Findings From the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey,” https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/13_0244.htm, accessed 7/20/17, CD)
The 1958 regulation, writes Collman, came at a time when scientists, using highly sensitive tests, had
found that plants make their own insecticides, and that of 64 of these tested, 35 were found to be
carcinogens. Each day, on average, every American eats a gram and a half of such natural pesticides, an
amount that does not appear to cause cancer at such a low dose. Yet this is more than 10,000 times higher
than the residues ingested from man-made agricultural pesticides that we have banned.
Another illustrative case is asbestos removal in the early 1970s. Used as an insulator against fire in public
schools, asbestos became a major health scare costing billions of dollars. The EPA eventually banned its
use in schools to reduce children's exposure to this cancer-causing agent. Many experts believe that,
although asbestos presents a minimal threat when left in place, its removal, which results in increased
airborne asbestos particles, creates a much greater hazard.
Cellular phones are a source of electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Unfounded claims that cellular phone use
contributes to brain tumors prompted manufacturers to sponsor safety studies, which have not yet linked
cellular phone to cancer. In fact, the greatest hazard, Collman states, is accidents caused by motorists
using cell phones while driving.
Beyond his analyses of statistical probabilities of food and other environmental dangers, Collman brings
another intellectual virtue to the task by ranking 30 exposures contributing to deaths in the United States.
The data show that cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, motor vehicles and handguns are more
dangerous than the risks of pesticides in foods, nuclear power or use of diagnostic X-rays in medicine.
To Integrate

Agriculture Education Supplement - Gonzaga 2017

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Agriculture Education Supplement - Gonzaga 2017

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Ag Education Supplement (Scholars)

Climate change is poised to significantly undermine global food security – bolstering

Self-sufficiency is an unattainable goal – international markets are key for stable

New agricultural technology key to solving global food crises – failure to do so

Reinvigorating US commitment to agriculture key to global food security

US commitment to agriculture key to global stability and diplomatic goodwill

Increasing farmer education and innovation is key to maintaining food security –

Providing farmers with increased skills key.

Domestic and international food supplies inextricably linked – Increased domestic

Technological innovations in agriculture can solve for food production and

Food distributions issues being solved now

Food waste being solved now - Champion 12.3 proves

Fortifying urban agriculture key to avoid food distribution system collapse -

Urban agriculture improves leads to sustainable ecosystems and better food

Urban agriculture leads to sustainable food distribution systems and environmental

Engaged planning solves issues with urban agriculture

Status quo agriculture waste contributes to climate change – managing distribution

[INSERT CLIMATE IMPACT]

Technological innovations in agriculture can solve for food production and

Agricultural emissions lead to climate change – better distribution key

Reducing food waste solves hunger and climate change

Solvency deficit – loopholes are normal means – states exemptions undercut

State programs won’t solve in short-term – no infrastructure to handle ag waste

Despite safest system, food supply is at risk

Food industry will spread global zoonotic diseases – risks extinction

Food contamination is widespread.

Risk high – Terrorist threat to food supply is real

Food safety is endangered in the US now - expanding agricultural education is key

Education key to food safety

Existing UN, NGO, and government assistance solves food insecurity

No necessary internal link to conflict – Studies prove relationship is more complex

Even if their argument is true – abundance doesn’t prevent conflict

Koren, University of Minnesota, PhD Candidate, 16

No solvency for food security – alt causes – conflict, governance, structural

Food surplus now - hunger and trade is a distribution error

The counterplan solves – multiple state programs prove

No solvency – too many vectors for waste at all levels

FSMA solves food safety now – no threat

No solvency – compliance failure is the root of food safety problems

A strong compliance plan

The impact to food related diseases is overblown

Você também pode gostar