Download e-book Food Fears: From Industrial to Sustainable Food Systems: 0

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Food Fears: From Industrial to Sustainable Food Systems: 0 file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Food Fears: From Industrial to Sustainable Food Systems: 0 book. Happy reading Food Fears: From Industrial to Sustainable Food Systems: 0 Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Food Fears: From Industrial to Sustainable Food Systems: 0 at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Food Fears: From Industrial to Sustainable Food Systems: 0 Pocket Guide.
Food Fears: From Industrial to Sustainable Food Systems – By Alison Blay‐​Palmer. Stewart Williams. University of Tasmania Australia.
Table of contents

Moreover, many growers we interviewed expressed a lack of confidence in food safety professionals and questioned their legitimacy in determining how growers' farms should be managed.

How Robotics and Automation Will Affect Labor in the Food System

For example, a consistent complaint was that too many of the people who oversee food safety—government officials, buyer representatives, and third-party auditors—lack experience with and understanding of farm practices and management Appendix A, Theme 1 in Supplementary Material. Some growers communicated their impressions that requirements were based on arbitrary hunches rather than sound evidence Appendix A, Theme 2 in Supplementary Material. Reported inconsistency in food safety requirements likely magnified this perception Appendix A, Theme 3 in Supplementary Material.

For some growers, oversight requirements appeared not only arbitrary, but actively biased against them and designed to absolve processors, retailers, or consumers of liability in the case of foodborne illness Appendix A, Theme 4 in Supplementary Material. You're not doing anything that's going to make the food any safer. It's still grown outdoors. To control the microbial quality of irrigation water, wash water, and water used to mix agrichemical sprays, both the Produce Rule and LGMA require strict sampling and laboratory testing regimens for all agricultural water sources.

Although our interviews were conducted prior to this regulatory shift, we suggest complications that these requirements may pose for growers moving forward. First, instantiating Disjuncture 1, growers widely agreed that they need clean, uncontaminated agricultural water, but some also believed that water testing requirements were prescribed in a way that did not adequately reflect actual risks. They reported that either test results consistently showed no contamination e. Respondent 50a represented this position concisely, saying,. People should test their water source, that just makes sense.

The frequency we're testing it, [however,] it's probably a bit overkill, now that we've been testing for so long. I think testing your well water every month is kind of, it's total overkill. We never—it's always the same thing. You never find anything. Some growers also indicated that using surface water entailed more frequent testing, more paperwork, and higher food safety risk compared to groundwater. Currently, scientific evidence on the efficacy of water testing and treatment protocols is limited. Although irrigation water may transmit pathogens to produce Uyttendaele et al.

The low prevalence of many pathogens in surface water, and the prohibitive cost of pathogen testing, makes the use of microbial indicators of fecal contamination, particularly generic E. However, it remains unclear whether common fecal indicators can accurately and reliably predict pathogen loads in water: while some studies argue that generic E. In cases where water samples test positively for bacterial contamination, water treatment is recommended; yet approved water sanitization options are associated with additional costs and may not result in zero-risk irrigation water Lewis Ivey and Miller, ; Allende and Monaghan, Additionally, residual sanitization agents in irrigation water could potentially disrupt soil microbial communities and have adverse effects on soil pathogen suppression Truchado et al.

The recent LGMA changes to microbial water quality standards bear the markings of the next iteration in the crisis-and-reform cycle for food safety in produce agriculture Karp et al.

FOOD FOR THE FUTURE - A Short Documentary

These reforms arose in response to prominent public health crises [i. The rate of regulatory change combined with the fact that growers will bear the cost suggests further entrenchment of a perception among growers Disjuncture 1 that some food safety practices are for show and designed primarily to benefit down-stream supply chain actors, rather than to protect consumers or to reduce risks for growers. We now proceed to illustrate a second disjuncture between perceived food safety requirements and practical management of animals domestic or wild , habitat, and soil.

In an attempt to limit wildlife intrusion and pathogen introduction into farm fields, many farmers have cleared wildlife habitat in and around farms, fenced fields, used poison baits, trapped rodents, and ceased applying raw manures or composts Baur et al. These practices may conflict with conservation practices that protect biodiversity, reduce runoff from agricultural fields, prevent soil erosion, enhance soil quality, and paradoxically suppress foodborne pathogens Kilonzo et al. Many species promoted by agricultural conservation practices provide ecosystem services that benefit farm production, including biological control, pollination, soil and water quality, and pathogen suppression Kremen and Miles, ; Karp et al.


  • Imagining Sustainable Food Systems - PDF Free Download.
  • Looking for other ways to read this?;
  • The Confessions (Illustrated): World Classics.
  • Sustainable and ethical food production.
  • CHILD BRIDE!

Early literature on tensions between safety and sustainability highlighted how controlling the risk of contamination from animals led to suppression of wildlife and natural habitat Beretti and Stuart, ; Beretti, ; Lowell et al. Managing for animal intrusion also carries substantial costs, as growers are prohibited from harvesting products within a given radius of evidence of animal intrusion e.


  • The Evangelist.
  • The Gospel of Matthias.
  • Mother Gooses Christmas List;
  • DigitalCommons@UMaine | The University of Maine Research?
  • Deadblood?

After deer and pigs were implicated in outbreaks, growers erected hundreds of miles of fencing throughout the Central Coast to exclude terrestrial animals. More critically, wildlife fencing surrounding farms may impede the movement of species between natural habitat patches, disrupting typical dispersal patterns Jakes et al. For example, extensive fencing along the Salinas River corridor in the Central Coast limits wildlife movement, as evidenced by concentrated wildlife movement where gaps in fencing occur Atwill, Although food safety guidelines do not recommend the active removal or poisoning of wildlife to mitigate food safety risks, some farmers report using chemical treatments, including poison baits such as rodenticides to limit small mammals Lowell et al.

Poison baits and traps may attract both target e. Anticoagulant rodenticides may also bioaccumulate in predators such as raptors and mammalian carnivores Hosea, , causing increased mortality due to acute severe hemorrhage Poessel et al. Similarly, the illicit use of copper sulfate to control amphibian and fish populations also affects aquatic invertebrates Eisler, and could trigger cascading effects on species in higher trophic levels that depend on amphibians and fish as prey.

They come and sit in the field. So, what functional purpose that serves, other than to tell McDonald's you got it? Nonetheless, coupled with the high financial and liability stakes of a food safety incident, many growers felt they must take a proactive, precautionary stance toward both bird and animal intrusion. Not every grower was happy being put in this position. I mean, to me, it's not right. But it's also—you've got to do it. The scientific literature suggests that growers' skepticism toward the focus on suppressing wildlife may be well-founded, as the role of wildlife in precipitating foodborne disease outbreaks remains unclear.

For example, while wildlife has been implicated in EHEC outbreaks, it is the association between wildlife and livestock that presents the primary contamination pathway Langholz and Jay-Russell, An investigation of the EHEC outbreak linked to spinach in the Central Coast found the outbreak strain in cattle and feral pig feces, surface water samples, and soil and sediment samples.

This investigation suggested that feral pigs could have transferred EHEC from cattle pastures to crop fields via shared surface water sources Jay et al. In addition to feral pigs, birds associated with cattle may be competent pathogen vectors Callaway et al. Habitat removal was among the most common actions that growers were pressured to take to mitigate wildlife intrusion Appendix C, Theme 1 in Supplementary Material.

Nonetheless, neither non-crop habitat at farm edges nor in the landscape surrounding farms has been correlated with greater incidence of pathogens in farm fields. At the farm scale, one study in California found that hedgerows at farm edges were not associated with greater mammalian wildlife intrusion or increased crop contamination Sellers et al.

At the landscape scale, Karp et al. Correspondingly, one group of growers—primarily those pursuing ecological farm management—tended to perceive that maintaining on-farm biodiversity leads to safer and healthier agroecosystems Appendix A, Theme 6 in Supplementary Material. A few even reasoned that removing habitat might actually increase food safety risks:. Vegetation removal could indeed exacerbate food safety risks for several reasons. Vegetative buffers can reduce pathogen loads in runoff and surface water Tate et al. Clearing vegetation may also favor wildlife that are more likely to vector pathogens, such as deer mice Kilonzo et al.

Maintaining non-crop habitat in and around farms can also increase mammalian diversity Sellers et al. Finally, habitat removal can cause declines in dung beetle Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae communities that suppress pathogens directly by consuming feces, and indirectly by disrupting the spread of pathogens by flies Hutton and Giller, ; Jones et al. Taken together, these findings suggest the available science may align with many growers' perceptions that habitat removal is not an effective risk mitigation strategy. Beyond its questionable efficacy regarding improvements in food safety, habitat removal likely carries significant risks for biodiversity and key ecosystem services upon which growers depend.

Non-crop vegetation within, adjacent to, or surrounding farms benefits bird, bat, mammal, pollinator, and beneficial arthropod biodiversity Bengtsson et al. Eliminating habitat in and around farms can also reduce habitat connectivity and interfere with the ability of species to access important resources Penrod et al.

Recent studies in California also show that increasing on-farm diversification and natural habitat promotes biodiversity. For example, increasing the amount of semi-natural habitat surrounding farms increased bird species richness Gonthier et al. In two other studies in California agriculture, incorporation of hedgerows along field edges increased mammalian diversity Sellers et al.

The Political Economy Approach to Food Systems Reform | IDS Bulletin

Hedgerows enhanced pollinator species and functional diversity at site and regional scales, as well as enhanced the persistence, colonization and occupancy of pollinator species M'Gonigle et al. Decades of research also suggest that biodiversity promotes ecosystem services Cardinale et al. In California's Central Coast, more semi-natural habitat surrounding farms has also been correlated with increased abundance of natural enemies predators of crop pests , decreased abundance of arthropod and bird pests Chaplin-Kramer et al.

Within farms, Morandin et al. In intensively managed agricultural landscapes, the presence of even a few trees at field edges increased bird abundance, diversity, and bird-mediated pest control Kross et al. Our interviews revealed that growers recognize many of the ecological benefits of retaining habitat around farm fields and are resistant to removing habitat for food-safety concerns Appendix C, Theme 3 in Supplementary Material. As Respondent 42 explained,. Where we [would usually] have native grasses there, you know good for erosion and stuff like that, also good for containing nutrients.

Target 3 – All food systems are sustainable

Indeed, when food safety precautions threatened vegetation that growers believed provided benefits, frustration turned to resistance Appendix C, Theme 3 in Supplementary Material. Grower's perceptions of the value of habitat conservation for improving water quality are well-founded. Vegetative filter strips capture nutrients Bedard-Haughn et al. Vegetation can also reduce sediment loss and control erosion, thus improving water quality Haddaway et al.

Removal of these vegetative filter strips could result in the loss of these ecosystem services, exacerbating regional water quality issues Harter et al. Previous work in the Central Coast has documented aversion to using organic soil amendments due to concern over the potential for cross-contamination of human pathogens from soils to crops, in particular composted animal manure Baur et al.

1. Introduction

Replacing manure and compost with more highly-processed or synthetic fertilizers can affect soil health. For example, use of such fertilizers can reduce soil organic matter and disrupt a variety of key soil processes, including nutrient cycling and retention, water infiltration and retention, water filtration, erosion control, and carbon sequestration Drinkwater et al.

Our analysis reveals that some buyers discourage or prohibit growers from using compost due to food safety concerns Appendix D, Theme 1 in Supplementary Material. This poses a dilemma for growers who believe that compost is essential for soil health, especially in organic production Appendix D, Theme 3 in Supplementary Material. I mean, I love using them, but I hate using them ever since all these protocols came out… This was the first year I switched over in a big way and stopped using compost completely. Food safety regulations make it onerous and costly for growers to produce their own compost on site.

Also, some growers contend that using compost is risky. Our interviews tentatively suggest that growers without dedicated food safety staff, like Respondent 44, or with particularly strict buyers, seem to be shifting toward the physically heat-treated pellets or opting to build soil fertility through cover-cropping alone.

Food safety reform has also virtually ended the practice of purchasing and applying raw manure to fields Baur et al. Nonetheless, some growers continue to maintain strong relationships with their compost suppliers, who supply them with excellent documentation that eases the bureaucratic burden Appendix D, Theme 2 in Supplementary Material.


  • WOLFBANE WODEN BORN.
  • Water Transport in Brick, Stone and Concrete.
  • Food security.
  • A Collection of Rare and Curious Tracts on Witchcraft and the Second Sight With an Original Essay on Witchcraft.
  • Wheres Master?.
  • Sharp Sticks: Essays of Embarrassment and Reflections on Redemption!

You'll have healthier crops, and not just quality-wise. Scientific research on the impacts of compost and manure is mixed and appears to support both growers who view these soil amendments as risky, as well as those who perceive that they boost comprehensive soil health and enhance pathogen suppression.

For example, on the one hand, biological soil amendments can present food safety risks if not properly managed Ferens and Hovde, ; Oliveira et al. Composting via thermal treatment aims to reduce pathogen levels without eliminating beneficial microorganisms Fuchs, , but low levels of pathogens may survive in the soil for prolonged periods following incorporation Jiang et al. Determining appropriate time intervals between compost application and harvest is challenging, since pathogen persistence depends on field conditions Suslow et al.

On the other hand, if growers substitute synthetic fertilizers for compost and manures Lowell et al.