Public lectures at 3:30 pm followed by reception
Location: Cape Cod Lounge, Student Union Building, UMass Amherst
Free and open to all.

Click here for PDF of Food Systems Flyer

Monday, February 26

The Future of Food Systems:  Global to Local
Molly D. Anderson, Research Coordinator, Farm and Food Policy Project

Molly Anderson is an independent consultant on science and policy for sustainability. Currently she manages a project through the Henry A. Wallace Center to set up indicators of sustainable food systems, and works as Research Coordinator on the Farm and Food Policy Project, a national convening of diverse non-governmental organizations to identify and support shared policies for the next Farm Bill. She serves as Coordinating Lead Author on the North America/Europe section of the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development, an international project to evaluate the last 50 years of international agricultural investment and make recommendations on the application of future agricultural science and technology. Between 2002 and 2005, Molly was employed by Oxfam America as Senior Program Officer and then Interim Director of the US Regional Office, supporting programs and policy that help poor rural communities in the United States. Before that, she worked at Tufts University for 14 years as a professor, administrator, partnership builder, and researcher. She directed the Tufts Institute of the Environment (TIE) and was a Faculty Fellow in the University College of Citizenship & Public Service. She co-founded and for five years directed the Agriculture, Food and Environment Graduate Degree Program in the School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts, where she now holds an Adjunct Associate Professor appointment. Molly is on the Governing Board of the Community Food Security Coalition and Editorial Boards of Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems and the Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition. She serves as co-Clerk of the New England Earthcare Ministry Committee (Religious Society of Friends).

Abstract:
Food systems are an interface between social and environmental systems, and therefore vulnerable to pressures from both. In planning for future food systems, we need to be aware of vulnerabilities and try to build in resilience and coping capacity. Among the most important social and environmental pressures converging on the global food system are climate change, water shortages, emerging and spreading infectious diseases, population growth and urbanization, and the approach of peak oil. The global food system has changed dramatically in the last few decades with creation of global value chains or networks, along with greater niche differentiation. The changing structure of the global food system—including the bifurcation of globalized and localized food supplies, and expansion of different worlds of production—has created openings for action that can help us to meet coming challenges. The agricultural and environmental expertise housed in US land-grant universities can be a valuable contribution to lasting solutions, if it is oriented to collaborative problem-solving.

PDF of Presentation
PowerPoint Presentation

Farm and Food Policy Project
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development
Food and Society Policy Fellows

Tuesday, March 13

Why Environmentalists Should Like Genetically Engineered Agricultural Crops
Robert L. Paarlberg, Betty F. Johnson Professor of Political Science, Wellesley College

Robert Paarlberg is the Betty Freyhof Johnson ‘44 Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College, and an Associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. Paarlberg received his undergraduate degree in political science from Carleton College and his PhD in government from Harvard University. He has served as an officer in the United States Navy, and as a legislative aide in the U.S. Senate. In the past year Paarlberg’s research has focused on science policy and international affairs, on international stem cell research policy, and on international food and agricultural policies, particularly in Africa. Paarlberg has been a member of the Board of Directors of Winrock International, a member of the Emerging Markets Advisory Committee at the United States Department of Agriculture, and a scientific liaison officer to the International Food Policy Research Institute. He is currently a member of the Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the National Research Council, and a consultant to the National Intelligence Council, USAID, and IFPRI. He has published books on agricultural trade and U.S. foreign policy (Food Trade and Foreign Policy, Cornell University Press), on international agricultural trade negotiations (Fixing Farm Trade, Council on Foreign Relations), on nvironmentally sustainable farming in developing countries (Countrysides at Risk, Overseas Development Council), on U.S. foreign economic policy (Leadership Abroad Begins at Home, Brookings), and on the reform of U.S. agricultural policy (Policy Reform in American Agriculture, Chicago University Press, with David Orden and Terry Roe). His most recent book, The Politics of Precaution: Policies toward GM Crops in the Developing World, was published by the Johns Hopkins University Press in November 2001.

Abstract:
Why are so many environmental activists opposed to genetically engineered agricultural crops (known as GMOs)? The opposition does not appear to derive from scientific evidence that GMOs do greater damage to the natural environment than conventional agricultural crops. In fact, evidence gathered over the past decade suggests GMOs have so far provided an improved environmental outcome, by helping reduce chemical use and soil tillage. In addition, by helping farmers raise yields on land already cultivated, GMOs have helped protect the remaining land from environmentally damaging use. Opposition to GMOs from the environmental community appears to derive instead from principled objection to what is seen as an arrogant human attempt to use science to dominate nature. The view that it is unwise for farmers to attempt to dominate nature has been a strong environmentalist precept since Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring. But perhaps this precept needs to be reconsidered; perhaps it now has become necessary to engineer nature more thoroughly on some parts of the agricultural landscape in order to protect more effectively what little is truly left of nature elsewhere.

PDF of Paarlberg Article:
AFRICA’S FOOD CRISIS: ARE GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) CROPS PART OF THE ANSWER?

Tuesday, April 3 

Terrorism and the Defense of the Food System
Frank F. Busta, Director of the National Center for Food Protection and Defense and
Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota

Dr. Busta is director of the National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD). Since 1999 he has been professor emeritus of food microbiology at the University of Minnesota, participating in resident instruction, research, and outreach. He has held faculty positions at the University of Minnesota, North Carolina State University, and the University of Florida, serving as chair of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition from 1984 to 1987 at the University of Florida and head of the Department of Food Science and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, from 1987 to 1997. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology, the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Institute of Food Science and Technology (United Kingdom), and the Academy of the International Union of Food Science and Technology. At IFT, Dr. Busta was on the executive committee and the long-range planning committee, served as president, and currently is senior science advisor of IFT's FDA contract titled "Analysis and Review of Topics in the Areas of Food Safety, Food Processing and Human Health." He serves on the FDA Food Advisory Committee and recently served on the US Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and as chair of the State of Minnesota Food Safety Advisory Committee.

Abstract:
Intentional contamination of the food supply poses a real and potentially catastrophic threat to society. Overall, it has the potential to result in disastrous and far-reaching effects, including direct morbidity and/or mortality, disruption of food distribution, loss of consumer confidence in the food supply, business failures, trade restrictions, and ripple effects on the economy. Key interrelated factors specific to food and the food system create this unusual vulnerability. The efficiency of the food system enables products derived from a wide range of global sources to be mass-produced in a single location and, due to the speed of national and global just-in time supply chains, distributed rapidly. The food industry’s routine food safety measures are not designed to protect against high-impact deliberate contamination. When contamination occurs, identification of its nature and extent may take days or even weeks.  Unintentional foodborne illness can further complicate recognition of intentional contamination events. The food/agriculture sector’s infrastructure must be strengthened to mitigate potential harm resulting from deliberate contamination, thereby making the food system less vulnerable to attack. Initiatives include the development of specific countermeasures to minimize or eliminate vulnerabilities, as well as the development of practical solutions that enhance the capability to rapidly identify, contain, respond, and recover from intentional contamination, both real and threatened. These activities must encompass the entire farm-to-table food system, from pre-farm inputs through retail sale to consumption at the consumer level.

Presentation PowerPoint
National Center for Food Protection and Defense

Tuesday, May 1

"Got Milk?" Nutrition and Environmental Impacts of Federal Food Advertising
Parke E. Wilde, Assistant Professor, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and Director, Food Policy and Applied Nutrition, Tufts University

Parke Wilde is an economist who teaches about U.S. food policy. He began his career as the Editor of Nutrition Week, the publication of the Community Nutrition Institute. His doctoral dissertation in Agricultural Economics at Cornell investigated the monthly cycle in food spending and food intake for low-income families that receive food stamps. Wilde worked from 1998 to 2003 for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, conducting research on the Food Stamp Program’s caseload fluctuations and its impact on healthy food choices. In 2003, he joined the faculty of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts, where he teaches graduate-level courses in econometrics and U.S. food policy. His research addresses federal dietary guidance, nutrition messages in federally sponsored generic commodity promotion programs, the economics of federal food assistance programs, and survey methods for measuring food insecurity and hunger.

Abstract

Many people recognize the advertising slogans: "Beef. It's what's for dinner," "Pork. The other white meat," and "Got Milk?" Fewer people may know that these advertisements are sponsored by the federal government's commodity promotion programs known as "checkoff" programs. These programs are established by Congress, approved by a majority of the commodity's producers, managed jointly by a producer board and the U.S.Department of Agriculture, and funded through more than $600 million in mandatory assessments on producers. The purpose of the checkoff programs is to increase consumer demand for the selected commodities, predominantly beef, pork, and dairy products. In contrast with the checkoff promotions, several compelling nutrition and environmental arguments have been advanced for promoting a diet that is high in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Modern animal agriculture has been linked to problems with chronic disease, food safety, soil quality, and pollution of water and air. This presentation focuses especially on checkoff campaigns with nutritional implications (such as encouraging low carb diets) and environmental implications (such as discrediting environmental concerns about animal production). The presentation reviews economic arguments that have been advanced to support the checkoff programs and explores tensions between federal goals for supporting farmers, promoting nutrition, and addressing environmental concerns.

Click here for PDF of Food Systems Flyer