quantitative research about food industry and its contribution

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Quantitative Methods for Food Safety and Quality in the Vegetable Industry

2018, Quantitative Methods for Food Safety and Quality in the Vegetable Industry

Related Papers

Food Control

Stavros Manios

meg fernandes

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Brijesh Tiwari

Y. Kourkoutas

Paula Bourke

Ivan Nastasijevic

Predictive microbiology is a recent area within food microbiology, which studies the responses of microorganisms in foods to environmental factors (e.g. temperature, pH, NaCl) through mathematical functions. These functions enable scientists to predict the behavior of pathogens and spoilage microorganisms under different combinations of factors. Predictive microbiology models have immediate practical applications to improve microbial food safety and quality, and are leading to the development of a quantitative understanding of the microbial ecology of foods. Predictive models in foods have developed significantly in the last 20 years due to the emergence of powerful computational resources and sophisticated statistical packages. Modeling microbial responses in food requires the interdisciplinary collaboration of food microbiologists and mathematicians; food technologists and computing scientists; molecular microbiologists and statisticians.

Microbial Food Safety and Preservation Techniques

Maria Selma

European Food Research and Technology

Sterile apple juice inoculated with S. cerevisiae ATCC 9763 (103 CFU/mL) was processed in a bubble column with gaseous ozone of flow rate of 0.12 L/min and concentration of 33–40 μg/mL for 8 min. The growth kinetics of S. cerevisiae as an indicator of juice spoilage was monitored at 4, 8, 12 and 16 °C for up to 30 days. The kinetics was quantitatively described by the primary model of Baranyi and Roberts, and the maximum specific growth rate was further modeled as a function of temperature by the Ratkowsky type model. The developed model was successfully validated for the microbial growth of control and ozonated samples during dynamic storage temperature of periodic changes from 4 to 16 °C. Two more characteristic parameters were also evaluated, the time of spoilage of the product under static temperature conditions and the temperature quotient, Q 10. At lower static storage temperature (4 °C), no spoilage occurred either for unprocessed or ozone-processed apple juice. In the case of ozone-processed apple juice, the shelf life was increased when compared with the controls, and the Q 10 was found to be 7.17, which appear much higher than that of the controls, indicating the effectiveness of ozonation for the extension of shelf life of apple juice.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Current Research in Nutrition and Food Science Journal

Ruhi Pathania

Panagiotis Skandamis

Frontiers in microbiology

Alfredo Palop

Ukrainian Food Journal

Nilgün Öncül

International Journal of Food Microbiology

Food Research International

Maria Corradini

Applied Microbiology

Stanisław Błażejak

Vittorio Capozzi , Salvatore MASSA

Journal of Food Science

Daniel Longhi , Donald Schaffner

Handbook of Natural Antimicrobials for Food Safety and Quality

Ankit Jaiswal

Noyan-Poyraz Bilek

Food and Bioprocess Technology

James Caleb

Annals of Agricultural Science, Moshtohor

Ashraf Sharoba

Renald Blundell

Bernadette Franco

Robert L Buchanan

International Journal of Food and Biosystems Engineering

Stefanos Leontopoulos

Johann Scollard

Integrating Safety and Environmental Knowledge Into Food Studies towards European Sustainable Development

Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition

George-john Nychas , John Sofos

Anna Aladjadjiyan , H. Cecilia

Lisa Lonigro , Silvia de Candia

Italian Journal of Food Safety

Liliana Pérez-Lavalle

Luka Yelwa Barde

EFSA Journal

Journal of food safety

Triona O'Brien

Postharvest Handling

Afam Jideani

Dima Faour-Klingbeil

Food Microbiology

Alberto Garre

Tascila Ferreira

Public Finance Finances Publiques

Geoffrey Brennan

ANA ALLENDE

BioMed Research International

Abhinav Upadhyay

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Paula Teixeira

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Open access
• Published: 20 April 2021

Beyond nutrition and physical activity: food industry shaping of the very principles of scientific integrity

• Mélissa Mialon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9883-6441 1 ,
• Matthew Ho 2 ,
• Angela Carriedo 3 ,
• Gary Ruskin 4 &
• Eric Crosbie 5 , 2  

Globalization and Health volume  17 , Article number:  37 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

12k Accesses

14 Citations

156 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is evidence that food industry actors try to shape science on nutrition and physical activity. But they are also involved in influencing the principles of scientific integrity. Our research objective was to study the extent of that involvement, with a case study of ILSI as a key actor in that space. We conducted a qualitative document analysis, triangulating data from an existing scoping review, publicly available information, internal industry documents, and existing freedom of information requests.

Food companies have joined forces through ILSI to shape the development of scientific integrity principles. These activities started in 2007, in direct response to the growing criticism of the food industry’s funding of research. ILSI first built a niche literature on COI in food science and nutrition at the individual and study levels. Because the literature was scarce on that topic, these publications were used and cited in ILSI’s and others’ further work on COI, scientific integrity, and PPP, beyond the fields of nutrition and food science. In the past few years, ILSI started to shape the very principles of scientific integrity then and to propose that government agencies, professional associations, non-for-profits, and others, adopt these principles. In the process, ILSI built a reputation in the scientific integrity space. ILSI’s work on scientific integrity ignores the risks of accepting corporate funding and fails to provide guidelines to protect from these risks.

Conclusions

The activities developed by ILSI on scientific integrity principles are part of a broader set of political practices of industry actors to influence public health policy, research, and practice. It is important to learn about and counter these practices as they risk shaping scientific standards to suit the industry’s interests rather than public health ones.

Actors in the tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food industries use a broad range of political strategies to protect and expand their markets [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. These practices include direct influence on public health policy, and more subtle actions like cultivating support from communities and the media [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. The shaping of science is one of these political practices [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ], as science can be used to influence policy [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Studies that link the consumption of harmful products to ill-health, or those which provide evidence on the effectiveness of a policy that limits consumption, are systematically questioned, attacked, or undermined by companies and third parties working on their behalf [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Industry actors are also shaping the research agenda by funding commercially-driven science (research supported by the industry) to support their products or practices [ 12 ].

When evidence emerged about cigarette smoking’s harmfulness in the 1960s, tobacco companies mounted an attack on science to bury that evidence [ 13 ]. However, the tobacco industry understood that it could not credibly question scientific evidence criticizing its products. In the 1980s and 1990s, tobacco companies developed a “ sound science ” program, hiring respected academics and scientists and using third parties to deny secondhand smoke’s harmful effects [ 14 , 15 ]. Through this program, tobacco companies intended to shape scientific proof standards so that no study could prove that secondhand smoking was harmful [ 14 , 15 ]. In response, in 2003, the World Health Organization adopted a Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, in which Article 5.3 insulated public health policymaking from the tobacco industry [ 16 ]. Although the implementation of Article 5.3 is successful in some contexts [ 17 ] and could serve as a model for other industries [ 18 ], the tobacco industry is still able to participate in the development of principles for using scientific evidence in policy along with academics and government officials [ 19 ].

Similar to the tobacco industry, the food industry also shapes science, through the funding and dissemination of research and information serving its interests and criticizes evidence that may thwart these interests [ 3 , 12 , 20 ]. The food industry established and funded scientific-sounding groups such as the International Life Science Institute (ILSI), set up in 1978 by a former executive from Coca-Cola, to push for its agenda in the scientific and policy spaces [ 21 ]. ILSI also represented tobacco companies in the 1980–90s [ 22 , 23 ]. ILSI is currently composed of fifteen branches [ 24 ], each with a broad range of industry and academic members. The global branch of ILSI is governed by a Board of Trustees that mixes employees from the food industry, including the agribusiness sector (Ajinomoto, PepsiCo, Cargill) and academics [ 25 ]. Industry-supported research is also subject to peer-review by the industry itself. ILSI has its own journal, Nutrition Reviews, amongst the most popular journals in nutrition [ 26 ]. A recent study found that Nutrition Reviews has the highest proportion of articles with industry involvement (a quarter of all articles from that journal) amongst the top top 10 journals in nutrition [ 26 ].

From a public health perspective, somehow, the food industry’s involvement in science and policy is not seen as controversial and harmful as that of the tobacco industry [ 27 , 28 ]. Some think there is a space for collaboration with that industry, as illustrated in a recent study that tried to build consensus on the interactions between researchers and the food industry [ 29 ]. When criticism of the food industry’s involvement in science grew in the 2000s [ 30 , 31 , 32 ], ILSI developed guidelines on conflicts of interest (COI) and scientific integrity [ 20 ]. These principles call for the involvement of all actors in science, including those from industry actors, and are, not surprisingly, silent on the risks associated with such engagement with industry actors [ 20 , 33 ]. While there is growing evidence of the food industry’s involvement in science on nutrition and physical activity, little is known of their broader influence on the very principles of scientific integrity.

Our objective was to study the extent of the food industry’s involvement in developing scientific integrity principles, with a case study of ILSI as a key actor in that space.

We conducted a qualitative document analysis between February–November 2020, where we triangulated multiple sources of information. We started with initial searches based on an existing scoping review on principles for the interactions between researchers and the food industry. MH conducted searches on the industry’s websites, their social media, and in the Food Industry Documents Library of the University of California, San Francisco [ 34 ], an archive containing previously secret internal industry documents. We also used documents from existing freedom of information (FOI) requests made by U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit investigative public health group. MH and GR independently conducted an initial review of the material for their inclusion against our research objective. MM led the searches on Web of Science and data analysis for all sources of information.

We searched these sources for information related to the development of principles, codes of conduct, frameworks, standards, or other scientific integrity guidelines and responsible research. An analysis of the content and implementation of those principles was beyond the scope of our study.

For the present study, we used the definition of ‘scientific integrity’ from the U.S. National Research Council: “ Integrity characterizes both individual researchers and the institutions in which they work. For individuals, it is an aspect of moral character and experience. For institutions, it is a matter of creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct by embracing standards of excellence, trustworthiness, and lawfulness that inform institutional practices. For the individual scientist, integrity embodies above all a commitment to intellectual honesty and personal responsibility for one’s actions and to a range of practices that characterize responsible research conduct ” [ 35 ].

Initial identification of industry actors

In 2019, MM conducted a backward search, using a recent scoping review by Cullerton et al. and a commentary published in response to that review [ 36 , 37 ]. The scoping review was purposively selected for our initial searches because it represented the most recent and comprehensive summary of existing principles “ to guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry ” [ 36 ]. The publications identified in the scoping review included work that was funded independently but also work that was supported by the food industry. A response to that review identified additional material from the review sponsored by the food industry [ 37 ]. These publications constituted our initial samples of scientific integrity documents developed with industry support (Table  1 ). This initial sample only included documents where the food industry had direct involvement, through the declarations of interest sections or funding acknowledgments sections or institutions to which the authors were affiliated. By ‘food industry’, we meant any actor along the food supply chain, in the production of raw material, manufacturing, marketing, retailing, and public relations sectors, as well as third parties working on their behalf. We only included those publications that proposed scientific integrity principles, not those broadly discussing the industry’s involvement in science, without providing any guidelines (such as [ 47 , 48 ]). We also excluded publications on the implementation of such principles at the organizational level, as falling outside the present study’s scope.

With these initial searches, we identified five documents: three scientific articles and two reports. The North American branch of ILSI published four of the five publications, with support from large US-based food manufacturers. Two authors from ILSI also published a fifth article with an author from DuPont Nutrition (DuPont), a dietary supplement manufacturer for the food industry. Therefore, we decided to restrict our following searches to ILSI and DuPont, as they were the only industry actors publishing in the peer-reviewed literature on the topic of scientific integrity.

Systematic searches on web of science

As a second step, we conducted a literature search to identify further publications on the topic by the ILSI and DuPont, based on the findings of our initial search. On 14 November 2020, MM searched Web of Science Core Collection (Web of Knowledge interface) (our search strategy is available in Additional file  1 ).

We used the terms (principle* or guid* or ‘codes of conduct’ or framework* or standard* or transparen* or fund*) AND (partner* or integrity or ethic* or inter*) as identified in the titles of publications. We refined the search to publications from ILSI and DuPont, as stated in the declarations of interest sections; funding acknowledgments sections; or institutions to which the authors were affiliated. We had no restriction on the publication time.

All data were extracted from WoS and managed on Mendeley. The publications retrieved from that search were screened for eligibility, based on their titles and abstracts. All data were independently double-screened by A.C. There was no disagreement on the inclusion of documents.

From these systematic searches, no relevant work by DuPont was identified; we, therefore, further restricted our searches for the next steps and focused on ILSI only.

Industry websites and twitter accounts

MH, with support from EC, identified all websites and Twitter accounts of ILSI Global and its fifteen branches. ILSI’s websites are presented in Additional file  2 . MH searched these websites, and social media accounts, for information related to the development of scientific integrity principles. MM then analyzed all data. Our data collection was limited to data available on these websites, and we did not use internet archives to retrieve data that may have been published and then subsequently deleted. In February 2021, ILSI North America transformed into the “Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences” (IAFNS), a “a non-profit organization that catalyzes science for the benefit of public health” [ 49 ]. The URLs for ILSI NA’s webpages in Additional file 2 now redirect to the new IAFNS website. The webpages consulted during data collection could still be consulted using internet acrchives tools like the Wayback Machine [ 50 ].

Archive from industry documents library

Between February and July 2020, MH searched food industry documents in the Food Industry Documents Library of the University of California, San Francisco [ 34 ], using standard snowball search methods [ 51 ]. Initial keyword search terms included ‘ILSI’, ‘International Life Sciences Institute’, ‘research integrity’, and ‘research transparency’. Twenty-one documents between 2012 and 2018 were located, with most records dated between 2015 and 2017. Documents were screened (MH) and analyzed (MH and MM) for the direct mentioning of information outlining ILSI’s development of scientific integrity principles. Sixteen documents were deemed relevant based on how applicable their contents were to the research objective.

Documents from existing FOI requests

Additionally, we drew upon nine U.S. federal and state FOI data sets to triangulate our other sources of information: (1) Louisiana State University (Tim Church); (2) University of Colorado (John Peters); (3) Louisiana State University (Peter Katzmarzyk); (4) Texas A&M University (Joanne Lupton); (5) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Maureen Culbertson); (6) University of Colorado (James Hill); (7) University of South Carolina (Steven Blair); (8) Louisiana State University (Pennington Biomedical Research Center); (9) U.S. Department of Agriculture (David Klurfeld). U.S. Right to Know filed these FOI requests between 17 July 2015 and 27 December 2017. The requests covered issues regarding sugar sweetened beverages, candy and food companies, and their public relations firms, trade associations, and other allied organizations. The identification of relevant documents for our study was made by GR and his colleague Rebecca Morrison, for their relevance to our research objective.

In November 2020, MM reviewed all data from the sources mentioned above and mapped the actors, timeline of events, and other relevant information related to the food industry’s involvement in the development of scientific integrity principles. In the present manuscript, we present a narrative synthesis of our findings. All authors reviewed the analysis and presentation of findings in the manuscript. We had regular meetings during data collection and analysis, and any disagreement was resolved through discussion within the team. Our existing knowledge informed our analysis of industry influence on science. In the present document, we use the acronym ‘ILSI’ to refer to ILSI North-America, unless otherwise stated. In the results section, we use a code starting with the letter A to refer to our data, all available in Additional file  3 .

Our Web of Science systematic searches yielded 42 publications, 33 of which were excluded as not meeting our inclusion criteria. In addition, one article from 2014, by an author from DuPont, discussed funding by the food industry but did not provide any specific guidelines, so it was excluded [ 52 ]. There were eight publications relevant to our research objective on WoS, for our sample of food industry actors. Amongst these eight publications, five were already identified through our initial searches (Table 1 - [ 38 , 44 , 46 ]) with three copies of the same article by ILSI published in different scientific journals simultaneously. The three other studies were also published by ILSI [ 53 , 54 , 55 ]. With our searches in internal documents, we found two other publications from the food industry on scientific integrity, both supported by ILSI [ 56 , 57 ].

In total, we found eight scientific papers from ILSI on scientific integrity, published between 2009 and 2019. In Nov 2020, when writing the current manuscript, these documents were, when combined, cited 364 times (Google Scholar). ILSI also presented its principles in scientific events, reports, and other platforms, as described in Table 1 and below.

Additional file  4 presents a list of authors who published these scientific papers: 63 authors in total, 24 (38%) were from the food industry (as disclosed in the publications). Other authors were from academia, government agencies, and professionals associations, amongst other institutions (see Additional file 4 ). The majority of the authors were U.S.-based (70%). Five individuals authored four publications (the maximum for a single author), four of them from ILSI and one from academia.

Of note, ILSI promotes these publications on its website, stating, “ILSI North America has become a leader in scientific integrity and public-private research partnerships for the food and nutrition community. Our work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, endorsed by Federal agencies and professional nutrition and food science societies, and cited broadly throughout the scientific community ” [ 58 ].

Figure  1 summarizes our findings.

Food industry’s development of scientific integrity principles overtime

In the period 2009–2015, ILSI published articles on conflicts of interest that mainly covered food science, of relevance to food companies, and nutrition, a sub-field of health sciences. During that period, the target audience was researchers. In 2013, a shift occurred, from publishing recommendations on conflicts of interest and the good conduct of research, particularly at the individual and study levels, to proposing guidelines for public-private partnerships (PPP), assuming that PPP would benefit nutrition research. Then, from 2015, ILSI began to target a broader audience, outside academia, such as government agencies and civil society organizations, in its development of scientific integrity principles. At that time, ILSI also started targeting the entire scientific field, and not only the area of nutrition and health.

2007–2012: addressing COI in food science and nutrition research

Based on the information we collected, ILSI’s development of scientific integrity principles started in 2007. At that time, the organization “ initiated a program to address COI issues ”, with the rationale that “ despite a wealth of benefits industry sponsored research and science programs have provided, there continues to be significant public debate on the credibility of such support ” [A1]. Over the period 2007–2012, ILSI published COI principles focusing on food science and nutrition research. These publications resulted from different meetings of individuals from the food and agro-industries and academia. At that time, ILSI published on financial conflicts and scientific integrity in food science and nutrition research [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ].

The first publication is from 2009. The paper originated from a working group at ILSI, the “COI and scientific integrity” working group, and was supported by ten food companies through “ educational grants ” to ILSI [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Its authors included a mix of employees from ILSI, food companies (Coca-Cola, Kraft, PepsiCo, Cadbury, and Mars), and academics in food science, nutrition, and pediatrics from the U.S. and Canada [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. ILSI said it published this material in six different scientific journals [A2], although we found no trace of the publication in the Journal of Food Science. The article was published in Nutrition Reviews, a journal run by ILSI, the only one of the six journals where the article underwent peer-review. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly American Dietetic Association), who published one copy in its journal, and the American Society for Nutrition (ASN), who published three copies in its American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Journal of Nutrition, and Nutrition Today, are known to be industry-friendly and receive funding from the food industry [ 20 , 59 , 60 ], which may explain their willingness to publish the paper. The 2009 publication was also adapted, in 2012, into a report of the International Union of Food Science and Technology [ 38 ].

In 2011, the ILSI Europe’s Functional Foods Task Force published “ guidelines for the design, conduct and reporting of human intervention studies to evaluate the health benefits of foods ” [ 53 ]. The paper named 38 food (including agribusiness) and pharmaceutical companies as members of the taskforce [ 53 ]. Amongst the list of authors of the article, six were from the food industry (ILSI, Danone, DuPont (Danisco), Nestlé, and Beneo), three were consultants, and five were academics [ 53 ].

In a 2012 letter to ILSI members, Rhona Applebaum, then ILSI’s President and Coca-Cola’s chief health- and science officer, concluded ‘ the program has been highly successful in developing “guiding principles” for industry funding of research ’ [A2]. The success was in the guidelines being “ endorsed by the leadership of three major professional societies. Results of this work have been published in six different peer-reviewed journals and presented at numerous scientific conferences ” [A2]. In that same correspondence, Applebaum sent a list of ILSI’s publications on scientific integrity, where one additional article published in 2011 was included. The latter discussed funding in nutrition research and was published with support from ILSI [ 56 ]. The publication was written by four individuals: two from the AND, a consultant, and an academic [ 56 ].

2012–2015: pushing for public-private partnerships in nutrition research

The period 2012–2013 was a turning point for ILSI, where the discussion on COI in science shifted to the use of science in policy. In her 2012 letter mentioned above to ILSI members, Applebaum stated that there was a “ demand by some that all industry-funded research, whether conducted at contract research organizations or universities, be denied consideration in the formulation of public policy. Furthermore, scientists who have conducted industry-funded research have been barred from serving on public advisory committees ” [A2]. Applebaum, therefore, called ILSI’s food companies members for the “ development of criteria for participation on scientific advisory panels and establishment of appropriate protocols for successful public/private partnerships to advance public health ” [A2]. Food companies were asked to contribute to this task by paying a fee of US$10,000 each [A2].

Therefore, a series of ILSI’s publications on PPP appeared in the scientific literature between 2012 and 2015. In 2012, ILSI’s “ COI and scientific integrity ” working group produced two publications. The first provided suggestions on selecting experts to advise in public policy decision making [ 57 ]. The second publication, published in Nutrition Reviews, proposed “ principles for building public-private partnerships to benefit food safety, nutrition, and health research ” [ 44 ]. The authors of both publications were a mix of academic experts on the topic, industry employees, and ILSI’s staff.

In January 2014, in a personal communication to prominent physical activity researchers from the US, Applebaum explained that she “ asked ILSI to consider drafting a set of principles on civil discourse in science by scientists similar to what they have done for conflict of interest and public private partnerships .” She also mentioned: “ There must be a set of guidelines to avoid the current demonizing. They [ILSI] had also been asked to work on principles re selection on gov’t panels since our own U.S. gov’t has raised the issue of working w/ industry as a criterion for non-inclusion ” [A4].

This idea soon translated into concrete action. ILSI first published an article that “ offers counsel on meeting [challenges] in communicating about the work of emerging public-private partnerships ” [ 61 ]. This article does not set principles on scientific integrity per se. Still, it is to be understood as part of ILSI’s work in promoting PPP as a means to pursue industry interests.

In 2014, ILSI also started working with third parties on PPP principles, thus accelerating the translation of their work into practice and policy. ILSI proposed to “have a manuscript to share with FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] on best practices for advisory committees”, when the FDA was developing its own COI guidelines [A9].

In parallel, during late 2013, the ASN “ approached ILSI North America to collaborate ” [A109] on activities that would “ stimulate the expansion, accessibility, and acceptance of PPPs by unifying and moving existing principles for food and nutrition research PPPs forward ” [A49]. The ASN convened representatives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ASN, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, American Heart Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FDA, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and National Institutes for Health, amongst others [A50]. An individual from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Klurfeld, and Rowe, a consultant for ILSI, co-chaired a newly formed “ Working Group on Conflict of Interest & Scientific Integrity ” [a name similar to that of ILSI’s “COI and scientific integrity” working group] [A10–1, A14–5]. In 2014, the working group had regular emails, calls, and a face-to-face group meeting in December [later called the “ COI Summit Consortium ”], to agree on a set of PPP principles [A10–5, A29–30]. An ad-hoc steering group was also formed with three USDA staff and a consultant from ILSI, and an ASN staff member [A29].

The whole project was formally led through a “ U.S. government-wide Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research ” [A29]. It was formed in 2011 and included a component on PPP, “ in part in response to [a] 2011 Presidential memo directing agencies to develop public-private partnerships in areas of importance to an agency’s mission ” [A29]. In our FOI documents and when justifying the PPP, the ASN made further reference to President Obama, who “ issued a Presidential memorandum in July 2014 encouraging government at all levels to work with private partners on developing infrastructure to lay the foundation for future prosperity ” [A41].

In May 2014, an employee from ILSI sent an email to lead American researchers and employees of federal agencies (U.S. Government Accountability Office and National Institutes for Health), describing the proposed outcome of the newly formed PPP project, a “ summit or collection of major professional societies and federal agencies coming together in support of PPP principles ( … ). At the conclusion of the summit, the professional societies would agree to a consensus statement on private funding for research and general acceptance of principles for PPPs ( …). it might be helpful for societies who publish journals to have their editors participate in summit ” [A8].

Soon after, in 2015, a peer-reviewed paper outlining the PPP principles in food and nutrition research was published in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition [ 46 ] and “ an excerpt of the article appeared in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Journal of Food Science, Nutrition Reviews, and Nutrition Today ” [A66]. In the publication, the authors made clear that the group took “ the ILSI North America published principles as a starting point ” [ 46 ], given that “ most reports were not readily accessible in the public domain until, in 2013, a group organized by ( … ) ILSI North America ( …) published proposed criteria ” [ 46 ]. The principles were endorsed by the “ ASN, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, American Gastroenterological Association, Institute of Food Technologists, International Association for Food Protection, and ILSI, collectively representing approximately 113,000 professionals ” [A31]. The American Public Health Association declined to endorse the principles but did not justify its decision [A24].

On 16 June 2015, the PPP principles were launched at the National Academy of Sciences. ILSI, in its internal communication, talked of the event and principles as its own: “ There is a meeting today at the National Academies to discuss [PPP] as defined by work that ILSI North America did. ASN and U.S. Department of Agriculture organized the meeting and we expect a number of scientific organizations to adopt the ILSI North America principles ” [A26, A34]. Speakers at that event included the U.S. Department of Agriculture Chief Scientist and Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics Dr. Catherine Woteki (keynote address), as well as an ILSI consultant, and an Institute of Medicine Senior Scholar, amongst others [A15, A31].

ILSI and the ASN also had other avenues for disseminating the PPP principles, as detailed in Table  2 . The ASN and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics were also keen to support a “ Conclave on public-private partnerships ”, where a Declaration would be issued “ to provide a transparent and actionable framework for interested public and private organizations that will minimize external criticism ” [A110].

Therefore, by having built its own literature on COI principles, scientific integrity, and PPP, and by reaching out to potential allies outside the industry, ILSI naturally became a central and pivotal actor in that discussion.

Hereafter, ILSI took yet another step in disseminating its principles into the scientific and policy spheres, beyond that of nutrition research.

2015–2019: beyond nutrition, influencing the very principles of scientific integrity

Hence, after having developed principles for research, and having these principles used to create PPP, ILSI started to evaluate the efforts made by a range of actors to implement scientific integrity principles.

Indeed, in parallel to the work undertaken by the “ U.S. government-wide Interagency Committee on Human Nutrition Research ” working group, ILSI, in 2015, through its own working group, proposed to “ seek a broader group of collaborators than we have previously worked with in order to have a greater impact; ones that have impeccable reputations and are not focused on only one area of science. Possible candidates are: a. American Association for the Advancement of Science; b. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities; c. Association of American Universities; d. The National Academies ” [A80]. ILSI’s working group also suggested that ILSI’s focus “ should be on implementation of these principles/best practices” [A80]. The group also proposed that when the COI Summit Consortium “reconvene [s] in two years to reassess the PPP principles ( …) ILSI North America could introduce the principles/best practices for scientific integrity and seek endorsement from the nutrition, food science, and food safety professional societies ” [A80].

As part of that work, in 2017, ILSI set up an “ Assembly on Scientific Integrity ”, whose steering committee included three academics from the University of Illinois, the University of Wisconsin, and Tufts Medical Center, and five employees from Coca Cola, General Mills, Abbott Nutrition, Ocean Spray Cranberries and Biofortis [A79]. The Assembly was made of “ ILSI North America Board of Trustees, all Member Companies of ILSI North America, and the ILSI North America Canadian Advisory Committee ” [A58, A84]. The Assembly was also “ hoping to include government liaisons in the Assembly on Scientific Integrity and it is likely that the ILSI North America Mid-Year meeting in Washington, DC is a better location for government officials to be able to join in-person ” [A107]. In 2017, the budget of the Assembly was US$122,000 [A107].

Then, two authors from ILSI and one from academia, also on the newly formed steering committee and author of other ILSI publications, produced a review of “ efforts by federal agencies, foundations, nonprofit organizations, professional societies, and academia in the United States ” [ 54 ]. The review was then translated into a Resource Guide and regularly updated, and similar activity was planned for Canada [A85–6, A98]. Here, the focus was not on food science and nutrition anymore, and the article reported on efforts made by a broad range of institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Institute Of Medicine, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation [ 54 ]. The article was published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. ILSI seems to have opened a discussion that is meant to last in that space by inviting readers to “ help keep this document current by pointing out areas that need to be expanded or updated or additional organizations that should be included ” [ 54 ].

ILSI’ scientific integrity working group also proposed to “develop and publish a second paper in collaboration with [the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and the Association of American Universities] that builds on the first manuscript ( …) to establish the first” rulebook “ on scientific integrity ” [A81]. ILSI convened a meeting in March 2017, where a broad range of actors would discuss the new scientific integrity principles [A86, A101]. The new “ Scientific Integrity Consortium ” was made of “ representatives from four U.S. government agencies, three Canadian government agencies, eleven professional societies, six universities, and three nonprofit scientific organizations ” [A57, A86, A101]. The meeting was organized at the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine as part of the “ Government University Industry Research Roundtable ” [A86, A101], in the same venue used for the launch of the 2015 PPP principles. The group then continued to meet virtually and in-person in 2017 and 2018 [A57, A69, A86]. The “ Scientific Integrity Principles and Best Practices ” were finally published in 2019 in Science and Engineering Ethics [ 55 ], reaching a broader audience than merely the nutrition space. ILSI was satisfied that “ the convening of the Scientific Integrity Consortium was a significant step for ILSI North America in building upon our work on scientific integrity and engaging the scientific community beyond the nutrition and food safety community ” [A86]. The long COI section in that publication reports on the many interactions between several of its authors and industry actors [ 55 ]. Here again, the Consortium used ILSI’s 2017 findings “ as the basis of the discussion and reconstructed them to form the final set of recommended principles and best practices for scientific integrity ” [ 55 ], in combination to some work of the American Society for Microbiology on that topic.

The scientific integrity principles, like those for PPP, were disseminated through different scientific events, in what ILSI called a “ roadshow ” [A104] (see Table  3 for a list of events), with the goal of “ educating attendees (with a focus on young researchers/post docs) on the components of scientific integrity ” [A81]. This time, the audience reached beyond that of nutrition.

In some of these events, ILSI’s official role in developing the principles was presented as a Consortium member, not its convener [A71]. In October 2017, ILSI shared its Resource Guide directly with the World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation, who considered using the material for their work [A73, A87]. ILSI, at that time, was seeking to collaborate with the Foundation to further expand its principles globally [A73, A87]. ILSI also planned to develop a training module to implement the new scientific integrity principles and “ a certification program or accreditation ( …) for individuals or organizations to certify their use of the principles and best practices. ( …). It would be beneficial if government agencies would require the certification or accreditation in order to apply for a grant ” [A106].

ILSI is now planning to “ share what we’ve learned with the entire federation of global ILSI entities ” [A67]. ILSI NA’s 2019 Mid-Year Science Program included a presentation on the “ Benefits of More Transparent Research Practices and Bias Reduction Tools ” from a speaker from the Center for Open Science [A59]. ILSI started collaborating with that Center in 2017 [A74, A78]. In 2017 as well, ILSI Argentina formed a new Scientific Integrity Group [A107]. In 2019, the Brazilian branch of ILSI put the question of scientific integrity in the food area as the main topic of its annual congress [A64], with speakers from different Brazilian federal agencies and universities. That same year, an academic from Chile gave a presentation on scientific integrity for the South Andean branch of ILSI [A65].

ILSI continues to try to drive the discussion on scientific integrity in the present COVID-19 pandemic context. In November 2020, ILSI held a webinar where “ invited experts [discussed] some of the challenges that exist for scientists and journals when attempts are made to correct the scientific record - through retractions, corrections or letters/commentaries ”, in response to the “ heightened visibility of retracted publications during the COVID-19 pandemic ” [A68]. The experts in question included some of the authors of the ILSI’s publications presented in our study.

In our study, we found that ILSI is a leading actor, not only in the food industry but more broadly in the scientific community, on the development of scientific integrity standards and principles. Internal and FOI documents revealed the food companies’ motives in developing scientific integrity principles. Food companies have joined forces through ILSI, funded its first activities on COI, and have 38% of the authorship of its scientific integrity publications. We have shown that ILSI built a niche literature, one that would become useful for the food industry, when criticism of its funding of researchers emerged in the U.S. in the mid-2000s [ 30 , 32 ]. ILSI first focused on COI in food science and nutrition at the individual and study levels, from 2007. Because the literature was scarce on that topic, its publications were used and cited in ILSI’s and others’ further work on COI, scientific integrity and PPP, beyond the field of nutrition and food science. In the past few years, ILSI started to shape the very principles of scientific integrity then and to propose that government agencies, professional associations, non-for-profits, and others, adopt these principles. In the process, ILSI built a reputation in the scientific integrity space. Our study found that ILSI proposed a compulsory certification or accreditation, based on the adoption of its scientific integrity principles, for anyone willing to apply for a research grant. If that were to happen, then ILSI could make it impossible to avoid adhering to its principles. Transparency is often prioritized as per ILSI’s current scientific integrity principles and by government agencies and scientific journals. Transparency should, however, be understood as only one aspect of scientific integrity. It is reasonable to promote the involvement of a broad range of actors in science and to promote good principles for the use of evidence in policy, but ILSI’s work on scientific integrity ignores the risks associated with accepting industry funding [ 20 , 37 ] and fails to provide guidelines to protect from these risks [ 19 , 37 ].

It may be that not all individuals and organizations cited in our manuscript were aware that ILSI was founded and is funded by food companies, and that it is food companies that are shaping scientific integrity principles. ILSI, in its publications and communications, presents itself as an independent organization. However, in several of the documents consulted for our study, such as minutes of meetings and emails, and in the scientific publications mentioned here, industry actors were omnipresent. This reveals a state of affairs where the food industry is seen as a legitimate actor in science and policy and where academics see no problem in working with industry actors [ 28 ]. In the very process of developing scientific integrity principles, food companies may use their connections with these reputable individuals and organizations to further their influence on science and policy [ 62 , 63 ].

What we describe here will not be a surprise for ILSI, as they are transparent on these activities, the researchers they fund and indeed promote these principles widely. Some of the information we found during our study was indeed made public. However, internal and FOI documents revealed the true intentions of ILSI behind their development of scientific integrity principles.

This study is novel and builds on several sources to triangulate its findings. Internal industry documents provide a unique behind the scenes look at industry activity and reveal and expose industry behavior rather than speculating about it. This study also has limitations. First, it was beyond the article’s scope to examine all the COI that the individuals identified in our study had with ILSI or other actors in the food industry. Hence, it is highly likely that their relationships extend beyond their authorship on the publications identified here. It is also possible that these authors have published on scientific integrity elsewhere without disclosing their links with ILSI and the food industry. For example, Rowe, a consultant for ILSI on scientific integrity since 2009, published in 2015 a summary of the activities undertaken by ILSI in that space, in one of the chapters, entitled “Principles for Building Public/Private Partnerships to Benefit Public Health”, in the book “Integrity In The Global Research Arena” [ 64 ]. In the chapter, there is no reference to the fact that Rowe worked for ILSI and that ISLI has ties with food industry actors. Nevertheless, a broader extent of industry participation would not change the essence of the current findings. Second, this study neither evaluated the content and scientific merit of the scientific integrity principles developed by ILSI and others, nor their implementation. Lastly, our primary focus was ILSI’s work, as our initial searches pointed in that direction, hence potentially leaving out some other work on scientific integrity from other companies and industries, like the pharmaceutical industry. This could be the subject of future investigations.

Our study goes beyond what we know of the food industry’s nutrition and physical activity research funding. It shows that the food industry, like the alcohol and tobacco industries [ 19 ], tries to influence science’s very principles, such as scientific integrity and the good conduct of research. Similar to the findings of Ong and Glantz, published 20 years ago on the tobacco industry, the activities described in our paper reflect “ sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives ( …) whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients ” [ 14 ]. Importantly, public health professionals should understand the activities presented here as only one of many practices through which the food industry tries to influence science and policy [ 15 ]. This reinforces the call for considering researching the political practices undertaken across industries [ 65 ].

ILSI’s work on scientific integrity, conflicts of interest and public-private partnerships waters down independent work in that space, puts profits before science, and undermines efforts to address undue influence of industry actors on public policy, research, and practice. The industry-established principles have already shaped the evidence on scientific integrity. In the scoping review we identified as a starting point for our searches by Cullerton et al. [ 36 ], 14 of the 54 documents included in the review were funded or had involvement of the food industry, despite the clear vested interests that the food industry has in that discussion [ 37 ]. Mc Cambridge et al. recently wrote that “ calls for research integrity reflect core values of the research community. They should not be used as instruments to undermine science or to assist harmful industries ” [ 19 ]. Therefore, it is crucial that the public health community monitors this work done by ILSI and others and recognizes that seemingly independent organizations like ILSI may represent industry’s interests [ 15 , 19 ]. This is even more crucial now that ILSI North America transformed itself nto the “Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences”, a new organization that lacks transparency about its ties with the industry and whose current and future activities remain to be studied [ 49 ]. It risks shaping public agencies’ work, which may not be aware of the issues discussed in our paper. The literature we have described here must be understood not to have emerged from within the dietetics or nutrition or even medical professions, but rather from the food industry [ 14 ].

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Savell E, Gilmore AB, Fooks G. How does the tobacco industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e87389. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087389 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Savell E, Fooks G, Gilmore AB. How does the alcohol industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review. Addiction. 2016;111(1):18–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13048 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mialon M, Swinburn B, Sacks G. A proposed approach to systematically identify and monitor the corporate political activity of the food industry with respect to public health using publicly available information. Obes Rev. 2015;16(7):519–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12289 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, Sheron N, Neal B, Thamarangsi T, et al. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):670–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62089-3 .

Gilbert SG. Doubt is their product: how Industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Vol. 117, environmental health perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 372.

Google Scholar  

Goldberg RF, Vandenberg LN. Distract, delay, disrupt: examples of manufactured doubt from five industries. Rev Environ Health. 2019;34(4):349–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2019-0004 .

Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming; 2010.

Rampton S, Stauber J. Trust Us, We’re Experts PA: how industry manipulates science and gambles with your future. New York: Penguin; 2002. p. 368.

McCambridge J, Mialon M. Alcohol industry involvement in science: A systematic review of the perspectives of the alcohol research community. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2018;37:565–79.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fooks GJ, Williams S, Box G, Sacks G. Corporations’ use and misuse of evidence to influence health policy: A case study of sugar-sweetened beverage taxation. Glob Health. 2019;15(1):56 Available from: https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-019-0495-5 .

Ulucanlar S, Fooks GJ, Hatchard JL, Gilmore AB. Representation and Misrepresentation of Scientific Evidence in Contemporary Tobacco Regulation: A Review of Tobacco Industry Submissions to the UK Government Consultation on Standardised Packaging. PLoS Med. 2014;11(3):e1001629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001629 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Fabbri A, Lai A, Grundy Q, Bero LA. The influence of industry sponsorship on the research agenda: a scoping review. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(11):e9–16. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304677 .

Proctor RN. Golden holocaust: origins of the cigarette catastrophe and the case for abolition; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520950436 .

Book   Google Scholar  

Ong EK, Glantz SA. Constructing “sound science” and “good epidemiology”: tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1749–57. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.91.11.1749 .

Samet JM, Burke TA. Turning science into junk: The tobacco industry and passive smoking. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1742–4.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva; 2003. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42811/9241591013.pdf?sequence=1

Fooks GJ, Smith J, Lee K, Holden C. Controlling corporate influence in health policy making? An assessment of the implementation of article 5.3 of the World Health Organization framework convention on tobacco control. Glob Health. 2017;13(1):12. [cited 2019 Jun 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0234-8 .

Mialon M, Vandevijvere S, Carriedo-Lutzenkirchen A, Bero L, Gomes F, Petticrew M, et al. Mechanisms for addressing and managing the influence of corporations on public health policy, research and practice: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e034082. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034082 .

McCambridge J, Daube M, McKee M. Brussels declaration: a vehicle for the advancement of tobacco and alcohol industry interests at the science/policy interface? Tob Control. 2019;28(1):7–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054264 .

Nestle M. Unsavory truth: how food companies skew the science of what we eat. In: Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 53. 1st ed. New York: Basic Books; 2017. p. 323.

McKee M, Steele S, Stuckler D. The hidden power of corporations. BMJ. 2019;364:l4. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4 .

World Health Organization. The Tobacco Industry and Scientific Groups ILSI: a case study. 2001. Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/ILSI.pdf

Shatenstein S. Letters to the editor. Addiction. 2001t;96(10):1509–10 Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9610150914.x .

International Life Sciences Institute. One ILSI. 2020. Available from: https://ilsi.org/one/

International Life Science Institute. Staff & Leadership. 2020. Available from: https://ilsi.org/about/staff-leadership/

Sacks G, Riesenberg D, Mialon M, Dean S, Cameron AJ. The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutritionrelated journals in 2018. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0243144.

Collin J, Hill SE, Eltanani MK, Plotnikova E, Ralston R, Smith KE. Can public health reconcile profits and pandemics? An analysis of attitudes to commercial sector engagement in health policy and research. PLoS One. 2017;12:9.

Smith K, Dorfman L, Freudenberg N, Hawkins B, Hilton S, Razum O, et al. Tobacco, Alcohol, and Processed Food Industries - Why Do Public Health Practitioners View Them So Differently? Front Public Health. 2016;4:64. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00064 .

Cullerton K, Adams J, Francis O, Forouhi N, White M. Building consensus on interactions between population health researchers and the food industry: Two-stage, online, international Delphi study and stakeholder survey. PLoS One. 2019;14:8.

Nestle M. Food politics: how the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2013. p. 457.

Ludwig DS, Nestle M. Can the food industry play a constructive role in the obesity epidemic? JAMA. 2008;300(15):1808–11. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.15.1808 .

Brownell KD, Warner KE. The perils of ignoring history: Big tobacco played dirty and millions died. how similar is big food. Milbank Q. 2009;87(1):259–94. Available from:. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x .

Marks JH. The perils of partnership : industry influence, institutional integrity, and public health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 236. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190907082.001.0001 .

University of California San Francisco. Industry Documents Library. 2020. Available from: https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/

National Research Council. Integrity in scientific research: creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct Washington, DC; 2002. https://doi.org/10.17226/10430 .

Cullerton K, Adams J, Forouhi N, Francis O, White M. What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature. Obes Rev. 2019;20(8):1073–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12851 .

Mialon M, Fabbri A, Fooks G. Reply to the article: “What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature.”. Obes Rev. 2019;20:1504–6.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale F, Applebaum R, Atkinson S, Black R, et al. Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109(5):929–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2009.02.003 .

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale FM, Applebaum RS, Atkinson S, Black RM, et al. Funding food science and nutrition research: Financial conflicts and scientific integrity. J Nutr. 2009;139:1051–3.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale F, Applebaum R, Atkinson S, Black R, et al. Funding food science and nutrition research: Financial conflicts and scientific integrity. Nutr Rev. 2009;67:264–72.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale FM, Applebaum RS, Atkinson S, Black RM, et al. Funding food science and nutrition research: Financial conflicts and scientific integrity. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:1285–91.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Clydesdale FM, Applebaum RS, Atkinson S, Black RM, et al. Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity. Nutr Today. 2009;44(3):112–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0b013e3181a4b304 .

Rowe, Sylvia; Alexander N. International Union of Food Science and Technology Scientific Information Bulletin: Ensuring Scientific Integrity: Guidelines for Managing Conflicts. 2012 Jan [cited 2019 Apr 14]. Available from: http://iufost.org/iufostftp/IUF.SIB.EnsuringScientificIntegrity.pd .

Rowe S, Alexander N, Kretser A, Steele R, Kretsch M, Applebaum R, et al. Principles for building public-private partnerships to benefit food safety, nutrition, and health research. Nutr Rev. 2013;71(10):682–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/nure.12072 .

International Life Science Institute. Principles and Philosophies for Development of Ongoing Partnerships to Support Food-Health Research - Food for Health Workshop at the Canadian Nutrition Society Annual Meeting. 2014 [cited 2019 Apr 14]. Available from: https://ilsi.org/event/food-for-health-workshop-at-the-canadian-nutrition-society-annual-meeting/

Alexander N, Rowe S, Brackett RE, Burton-Freeman B, Hentges EJ, Kretser A, et al. Achieving a transparent, actionable framework for public-private partnerships for food and nutrition research. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(6):1359–63. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.112805 .

Zachwieja J, Hentges E, Hill JO, Black R, Vassileva M. Public-private partnerships: the evolving role of industry funding in nutrition research. Adv Nutr. 2013;4(5):570–2. https://doi.org/10.3945/an.113.004382 .

Woteki CE. Ethics opinion: conflicts of interest in presentations and publications and dietetics research. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(1):27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2005.11.011 .

Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences. 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 4]. Available from: https://iafns.org/

The Internet Archive. Wayback Machine. 2021 [cited 2021 Mar 4]. Available from: https://archive.org/web/

Malone RE, Balbach ED. Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire? Tob Control. 2000;9(3):334–8 Available from: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/tc.9.3.334 .

Sale J. Funding from industry for research: cash cow or professional partnership? Can Assoc Radiol J. 1994;45(4):267–9.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Welch RW, Antoine J-M, Berta J-L, Bub A, de Vries J, Guarner F, et al. Guidelines for the design, conduct and reporting of human intervention studies to evaluate the health benefits of foods. Br J Nutr. 2011 Nov;106(2):S3–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114511003606 .

Kretser A, Murphy D, Dwyer J. Scientific integrity resource guide: efforts by federal agencies, foundations, nonprofit organizations, professional societies, and academia in the United States. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(1):163–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1221794 .

Kretser A, Murphy D, Bertuzzi S, Abraham T, Allison DB, Boor KJ, et al. Scientific integrity principles and best practices: recommendations from a scientific integrity consortium. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019;25(2):327–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00094-3 .

Myers EF, Parrott JS, Cummins DS, Splett P. Funding source and research report quality in nutrition practice-related research. PLoS One. 2011;6:12.

Rowe S, Alexander N, Weaver CM, Dwyer JT, Drew C, Applebaum RS, et al. How experts are chosen to inform public policy: Can the process be improved? Health Policy. 2013;112:172–8.

ILSI North America. Scientific Integrity Review. [cited 2020 Nov 18]. Available from: https://ilsina.org/scientific-integrity-review/

Simon M. And now a word from our sponsors. Eat Drink Politics; 2013.

Simon M. Nutrition scientists on the take from big food: has the American Society for Nutrition lost all credibility? Eat drink politics,; 2015. Available from: http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/ASNReportFinal.pdf

Rowe S, Alexander N. Public-private partnerships in nutrition: meeting the public-private communication challenge. Nutr Today. 2014;49(2):83–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/NT.0000000000000023 .

Greenhalgh S. Inside ILSI: How Coca-Cola, Working through Its Scientific Nonprofit, Created a Global Science of Exercise for Obesity and Got It Embedded in Chinese Policy (1995–2015). J Health Polit Policy Law. 2020 Sep [cited 2020 Sep 25]; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-8802174

Maani Hessari N, Ruskin G, McKEE MARTIN, Stuckler D. Public meets private: conversations between Coca-Cola and the CDC. Milbank Q. 2019;97(1):74–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12368 .

Steneck N, Anderson M, Kleinert S, Mayer T, Rowe S. Principles for Building Public/Private Partnerships to Benefit Public Health. In: Steneck NH, Mayer T, Anderson MS, Kleinert S, editors. Integrity in the Global Research Arena. World Scientific; 2015. p. 295–301.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Maani N, McKee M, Petticrew M, Galea S. Corporate practices and the health of populations: a research and translational agenda. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(2):e80–1. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2468266719302701 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30270-1 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

This work received funding from U.S. Right to Know, via a grant from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The sponsor had no input in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the report’s writing; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. All authors are independent of funders and had full access to all of the data in the study. They can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

GR is an employee of U.S. Right to Know, whose major donors have been: Organic Consumers Association ($907,500); Dr. Bronner’s Family Foundation ($500,000); Laura and John Arnold Foundation ($392,600); U.S. Small Business Administration (loans) ($119,970); Westreich Foundation ($85,000); Schmidt Family Foundation ($50,000); CrossFit Foundation ($50,000); Thousand Currents ($42,500); Community Foundation of Western North Carolina ($25,000); Panta Rhea Foundation ($20,000); ImpactAssets ReGen Fund ($10,000); Aurora Foundation ($5,000); Janet Buck ($5,000).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Mélissa Mialon

School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, USA

Matthew Ho & Eric Crosbie

World Public Health and Nutrition Association, London, UK

Angela Carriedo

U.S. Right to Know, Oakland, USA

Gary Ruskin

Ozmen Institute for Global Studies, University of Nevada, Reno, USA

Eric Crosbie

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MM led the conception of the work. MH, GR, and MM led data collection, with support from EC and AC. MM led data analysis, with support from all authors and the manuscript’s writing. All authors have substantively revised it. All authors have approved the submitted version. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mélissa Mialon .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable, we only used publicly available information.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Search strategy.

Additional file 2.

Websites and Twitter accounts of the different branches of ILSI.

Additional file 3.

Authors on ILSI’s publications on scientific integrity, 2009-2019.

Additional file 4.

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mialon, M., Ho, M., Carriedo, A. et al. Beyond nutrition and physical activity: food industry shaping of the very principles of scientific integrity. Global Health 17 , 37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00689-1

Download citation

Received : 08 January 2021

Accepted : 18 March 2021

Published : 20 April 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00689-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Conflitct of interest
• Commercial determinants of health
• Food industry
• Corporate political activity

Globalization and Health

ISSN: 1744-8603

• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

A research vision for food systems in the 2020s: Defying the status quo

Jessica fanzo.

a Berman Institute of Bioethics, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and Bloomberg School of Public Health Johns Hopkins University 1717 Massachusetts Ave NW 730 Washington DC 20036 USA

Namukolo Covic

b International Food Policy Research Institute, Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Achim Dobermann

c International Fertilizer Association, Paris, France

Spencer Henson

d University of Guelph Department of Food Agricultural and Resource Economics, Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Mario Herrero

e Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Prabhu Pingali

f Cornell University Charles H Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Ithaca, New York, United States

Steve Staal

g Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

• • Research and science should not only inform food and environmental policy but should be adopted and mainstreamed into actions at all levels.
• • Food systems are faced with grander and interconnected challenges and constraints that bring about new research questions.
• • Research has a vital role in charting a positive and sustainable direction for global food security, nutrition, and health.
• • The status quo must be challenged to shape food systems transformation to deliver sustainable, healthier diets.
• • Global Food Security provides a platform where evidence is shared in an accessible manner for those who need to act on it.

1. Vision for a future food systems research agenda

As we enter the third decade of the 21st century, the world is at a crossroads. As the Editors of the journal Global Food Security , we share our perspectives on the food security challenges that face humanity and lay out our vision and call for stronger food systems research and science in this decade. The challenges and opportunities for food systems research that lay ahead are significant, requiring that high-quality science be translated into policy and action faster than ever before. Our vision is one in which research and science, and the evidence stemming from their application, not only inform food and environmental policy, but are adopted and mainstreamed into actions at the national, regional, and global levels. Global Food Security provides a platform where such evidence is shared in an accessible manner for those who need to use it and act on it.

2. Food security and nutrition: the path to sustainable development

Food security and nutrition have been prominent features of the international development agenda for decades ( Byerlee and Fanzo, 2019 ). However, over time, development priorities and challenges have fluctuated, and the needed investment has not been sustained ( Fukuda-Parr, 2012 ; Hulme et al., 2015 ). A broader consensus has emerged. One that ensures food security and eliminates hunger and malnutrition in all its forms to achieve thriving economies, human and planetary health, and sustainable development ( Baye, 2017 ; Blesh et al., 2019 ; Schipanski et al., 2016 ). Following the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) era, the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2030 agenda has given the global community a renewed opportunity to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition by integrating related objectives into a more comprehensive and actionable development agenda ( Gödecke et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, tackling global food insecurity and malnutrition can only be achieved in the context of broader food systems thinking and policymaking ( Ericksen et al., 2012 ; Haddad et al., 2016 ; Ingram, 2011 ), particularly in a world that will be increasingly affected by inter-connected, multi-sectoral risks.

The FAO et al., 2019 report Food Security and Nutrition In the World: Safeguarding Against Economic Slowdowns And Downturn highlights that after decades of steady declines, world hunger prevalence remains unchanged, whilst the actual numbers of people suffering from hunger are increasing ( FAO et al., 2019 ). It seems to presage the current global downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlights the importance of policies and plans to counteract the adverse effects of such shocks ( Barrett, 2020a , Barrett, 2020b ).

Several recent landmark reports focusing on food systems have amplified the message that if we do not address the stark food insecurity and multiple forms of malnutrition that many people still experience, the world will have significant challenges in moving sustainably forward. Numerous bodies including, for example, the Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition and UN High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE), have produced seminal reports that arrive at similar conclusions and have informed the global nutrition and the food system action agenda ( GNR, 2020 ; Haddad et al., 2016 ; High Level Panel of Experts, 2017 ).

The environmental pressures exerted by food systems have increasingly dominated the research agenda on food security, focusing on agricultural and livestock production practices and related sustainability and welfare considerations. On the back of the increased attention to climate change and the momentum of the Convention of Parties (COP), more integrated views of food systems have featured in the reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the EAT-Lancet Commission Report on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems , the Food and Land Use Coalition's Growing Better and the World Resource Institute's Creating a Sustainable Food Future ( FOLU, 2019 ; Searchinger et al., 2019 ; Watson et al., 2000 ; Willett et al., 2019 ). The recent FAO/WHO Sustainable Healthy Diets Guiding Principles have added to these voices ( FAO and WHO, 2019 ). Each of these reports recognizes the need to transform food systems holistically, including addressing all forms of malnutrition without transgressing vital planetary boundaries. Environmental sustainability is now seen as critical to sustaining food security, nutrition and health in the long term, and essential to achieving the Paris Agreement's emissions targets.

Some influential research and development ‘think tanks,’ including the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Brookings Institution and World Economic Forum (WEF), have furthered the case for mainstreaming food security and nutrition in development. The global network of international agricultural research institutes, the CGIAR, is undergoing reform towards a “One CGIAR” approach. Several proposals have advocated for the CGIAR's research agenda to be more inclusive, more focused on nutrition and more sustainable ( Barrett, 2020a , Barrett, 2020b ; Haddad, 2020 ; Lobell, 2020 ).

There are also moments and movements, such as the UN Decade of Action on Nutrition and the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement, that have served to increase attention to food security and nutrition in the UN system. The UN Food Summit in 2021 will hopefully be a pivotal moment within the broader UN system as well as global, regional and country commitments to address food system challenges head-on and with urgency. The theme of the 53rd Session of the UN Commission on Population and Develop for 2020 is “Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainable Development.” The UN Committee of World Food Security has held consultations across the different UN regions on developing Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition that will hopefully be adopted at the 2020 Committee on Food Security and taken seriously by member states. In Africa, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program, that many African Union member states are implementing, has a strong sustainability component and has diet diversity as a critical outcome area.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has cast a new light on the governance, efficiency, resilience and functionality of food systems, with potentially long-lasting implications. The pandemic has also highlighted the strong interconnections between food and health. What began as a health crisis quickly became an economic, employment, energy, and social crisis, highlighting the inherent interdependencies of global risks. While it exposed significant vulnerabilities, it may also provide an opportunity for reimagining the system, if bold policies are chosen that accelerate economic, societal, and technological transformations towards a more socially just and sustainable global economy ( WEF, 2020 ). At minimum, there is an urgent need for agri-food policies to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the ‘One Health’ approach.

Food systems and their health, economic, environment and sociocultural outcomes are high on the sustainable development agenda. The key question for research communities then is how to exploit the opportunities that this attention presents? And are we getting the right people's attention? Where are the crucial gaps in knowledge and influence that we still do not understand that stymie policy action? Where can evidence make a difference? How do we generate quality evidence faster as the solution space becomes broader while dealing with grander and more interconnected challenges across food systems?

3. Grander and interconnected challenges and constraints

We are heading on a trajectory that is far from ideal. The global population is forecast to grow by as much as five billion by the end of the century ( UN, 2018 ). At the same time, more people now live in urban rather than rural areas; 55 percent of the world's population resided in urban areas in 2018, rising to a projected 68 percent being urban by 2050 ( UN, 2018 ). Some of the poorest countries will experience high and sustained growth rates, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). On the other hand, Asia's population growth is slowing, while some countries are beginning to see negative population pressure and aging populations as a threat to sustained economic growth ( Bai and Lei, 2020 ; Espenshade and Serow, 2013 ). Food systems will have to feed this ever-growing and shifting population using the same resources that are on hand, but with additional pressure from climate change, environmental degradation and loss ( EU European Commission, 2011 ; Willett et al., 2019 ). Food systems are further challenged by a global pandemic that is like nothing we have witnessed before.

While levels of hunger and undernutrition remain high in many of the world's poorer countries, diets are changing in rapidly-developing parts of the world along with income growth, urbanization, and shifting demographics ( Popkin et al., 2020 , 2012 ). Unhealthy diets are considered a top global risk factor for deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost, surpassing other risks such as air pollution, tobacco smoking and high blood pressure ( Afshin et al., 2019 ). Most of these deaths are from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and are occurring in low- and middle-income contexts ( Ezzati et al., 2018 ; Miranda et al., 2019 ). Many countries, including low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), now face challenges of rapidly increasing rates of overweight, obesity, and diet-related non-communicable diseases alongside persistent undernutrition ( Popkin et al., 2020 ). These multiple burdens of malnutrition are wreaking havoc on already weak health systems. This further limits the capacity to move towards more sustainable development, with crippling consequences for human health, the environment, and social cohesion ( Swinburn et al., 2019 ; Willett et al., 2019 ).

In the context of these broad global trends, food production will need to increase by upwards of 50 percent to meet the nutritional needs of the world's population in 2050 ( FAO, 2018 ). Additionally, rising incomes will likely increase the demand for animal-source foods, some of which tend to have higher negative environmental impacts ( Herrero and Thornton, 2013 ; Keating et al., 2014 ; Perry and Grace, 2015 ). These projections indicate that without new technology and significant transformation towards more sustainable food production practices, less waste and healthier diets, food systems will continue to exert high pressure on critical environmental functions and their currently known boundaries ( Clark et al., 2019 ; Springmann et al., 2018 ). Transgressing these boundaries could constrain food systems' resiliency and the ability to provide safe and sufficient food for all, particularly in times of disturbances and shocks ( Gaupp et al., 2019 ; Steffen, 2016 ). With the COVID-19 pandemic, there are significant new uncertainties and profound implications for achieving and maintaining this resiliency and sustainability across the globe ( Barrett, 2020a , Barrett, 2020b ; Gaupp et al., 2019 ).

Food systems are constantly bombarded by shocks, including climate-related natural disasters, global and local market distortions, and political upheavals and conflict, and now, the COVID-19 pandemic ( Barrett, 2020a , Barrett, 2020b ). The long, insidious shock of climate change is coming into sharp focus ( Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2018 ; Watson et al., 2000 ). Climate change means that the fundamental realities of how the global food system operates will and must shift ( Mbow et al., 2019 ). Every component of food systems, from farm to waste, contributes to climate change and environmental degradation ( Aiking, 2019 ). Food systems account for 21 to 34 percent of global emissions, taking into account land-use changes ( FAOSTAT, 2020 ; Rosenzweig et al., 2020 ; Watson et al., 2000 ). Expanding agricultural land use, in particular, is a significant contributor to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and biodiversity loss due to deforestation and the draining of wetlands ( Foley et al., 2005 ).

The intensification paradigm, which has been in place since the 1950s, has been tremendously successful in increasing agricultural productivity and keeping food prices low. However, it also led to a global imbalance, including many unintended consequences for the environment and health. During 1960–2000, in the developing countries across the world, every half-ton increase in staple yields generated a 14 to 19 percent higher GDP per capita and a 4.6 to 5.6 percent lower labor share in agriculture five years later, suggesting a strong role for agricultural productivity as a driver of structural change ( McArthur and McCord, 2017 ). Increases in agricultural productivity have helped save some forests and vulnerable land, but the reality is also that deforestation and land-use change is accelerating ( WRI, 2019 ).

Substantial progress has been made in many countries to increase nutrient efficiency in agriculture, while in others, this has not happened yet ( Zhang et al., 2015 ). In most of SSA, the lack of fertilizer is the primary driver for insufficient crop yields and continuing mining of soils for nutrients. On the other hand, in other world regions, the excessive use of fertilizers or manure is responsible for nutrient pollution of rivers, lakes, or marine estuaries ( Glibert et al., 2018 ; Nixon et al., 2008 ). Eutrophication can cause toxic algae blooms and hypoxia resulting in substantial environmental harm to aquatic wildlife and reducing water quality ( Hester et al., 1996 ; O'Neil et al., 2012 ).

Impacts on the health system can have dramatic consequences for food systems as the world is currently witnessing in the COVID-19 pandemic ( Fanzo, 2016 ). At the same time, we must contend with shifting biosecurity and emerging diseases and pests that can present new risks to public health and threaten food production ( Drummond et al., 1978 ; Evans and Inglesby, 2019 ). Examples of threats include Fall Armyworm, African Swine Fever, and the desert locust infestation in the Horn of Africa. As the pandemic has demonstrated, a crowded, more connected, more mobile world provides a perfect ground for the faster spread of such biotic threats ( Gilbert, 2020 ). This is further complicated by insufficient preventative measures to contain the spread, which presents a challenge for many people not accustomed to their freedoms being limited.

The broader economic and political context is a critical influence on the operation of food systems. Some of the worst food insecurity problems today are seen in countries under conflict or conditions of political instability ( Breisinger et al., 2015 ; FAO, 2018 ; Hendrix and Brinkman, 2013 ). Indeed, much of the increase in undernutrition in recent years can be attributed to acute food insecurity in unstable situations, for example in Central and West Africa and the Middle East ( Dunn, 2018 ; Dureab et al., 2019 ; Kah, 2017 ). Furthermore, many countries are currently struggling with large-scale migration. Because food and nutrition insecurity can be both a cause and a consequence of instability and conflict, global chronic undernutrition has become increasingly concentrated in fragile countries ( Harttgen and Klasen, 2013 ; Taylor et al., 2015 ).

Food systems are under pressure not only to deliver adequate quantity, safe, and quality food, but to also help address poverty by creating jobs and sustainable livelihoods ( Mullen et al., 2020 ). Poverty remains the leading underlying cause of persistent hunger. While rural poverty is expected to decline faster than urban poverty due to the rural-urban migration, there are significant pockets of poverty in poorly designed urban slums which often go uncounted ( Glaeser, 2014 ; Lucci et al., 2018 ). Many of the extremely poor are the producers of food; particularly smallholder farmers living in rural places where two out of three people are living in extreme poverty ( Kharas et al., 2019 ; World Poverty Clock, 2020 ). In addition to farming, many of the resource-poor are involved in other roles in food systems, such as processing and packaging, transport, and retail and marketing ( Tomich et al., 2019 ). In poorer countries, many of these roles and the markets they operate within are informal, lack investment or training, and are atomized ( Dorward, 2006 ; Grace et al., 2014 ; Poulton et al., 2006 ). The foods needed to improve dietary quality in LMICs are also the ones that have increasingly become unaffordable to the poor ( Headey and Alderman, 2019 ; Hirvonen et al., 2020 ). Food systems must ensure healthy foods are affordable even for the poor by improving supply chain infrastructure and supporting the competitiveness of smallholder farmers and fishers.

Modernizing food systems with targeted public support and partnership with private actors can increase the human capital of all participants, which is a primary means out of poverty. Rapid innovations in mobile data systems and technology, and financial services and partnership models are beginning to accelerate this change, and these new learnings need to be better understood and replicated with inclusivity in mind ( Reardon et al., 2012 ; Reardon and Berdegué, 2002 ; Reardon and Hopkins, 2006 ).

The role of the private sector and the large role of multinational agri-food corporation voices and actions in the global food system is an important issue, although it tends to be clouded by entrenched positions and ideological perspectives ( Swinburn et al., 2019 ). Global corporations have indeed played a role in the selling of unhealthy, highly-processed foods globally, and both their past and continuing behaviors in the nutrition space are issues of contention ( Stuckler et al., 2012 ). At the same time, however, small rural farm and agricultural enterprises and large corporations often work closely together and are significant contributors to food system functioning and rural livelihoods and thus food security through various forms of contract farming. For many in the research community addressing food and nutrition, however, there is a reluctance to engage with the private sector due to real or perceived conflicts of interest ( Brownell and Warner, 2009 ; Haddad, 2018 ), but often also due lack of knowledge about what the private sector actually does and their motivating factors. Such a lack of trust does not provide fertile grounds for partnership with the private sector in research or in practice ( Brownell, 2012 ; Freedhoff and Hébert, 2011 ; Garrett et al., 2019 ). Research must support continued evolution of positive food corporation impacts on diet quality and consumption patterns, and positive innovative arrangements on food production and value chain developments for smallholder farmers. This support should, together with public service partners, lead to more constructive and balanced engagement and impacts across food systems.

We encourage researchers working in the public or ‘not-for-profit’ world in food and nutrition to become better informed about the private sector and its role as an agent of change concerning sustainability standards and practices, and the behavior of billions of people across the world. Whilst it is right that researchers should question the motivations and behaviors of commercial enterprises and highlight transgressions, they also need to be open-minded in order to find desirable solutions in areas of contention. Arguably, it will be difficult to achieve the true transformation of global or national food systems without more public-private collaboration ( Fanzo et al., 2020 ). Many of the major companies operating in the food sector have already embraced the new SDGs as a framework for transforming their businesses, often in the face of consumer and investor demand. While we are yet to see the concrete impacts of many of these commitments, they do present new opportunities for researchers to engage with both small and large enterprises within the private sector.

4. Turning challenges into moments of opportunity

Ensuring food systems are equitable, sustainable, and healthy on all counts is impossible if the status quo is not significantly challenged. While the world often seems to be on its knees, when we look at the whole picture and try not to react to the sensationalized news feed that inundates us 24/7, things have improved for many people in the world.

Steven Pinker, the author of The Better Angels of Our Nature , argues that we are doing better than we did 30 years ago and that the number of conflicts and genocides has declined since the end of the Second World War ( Pinker, 2011 ). Furthermore, several countries have recovered since the end of the conflict. At the height of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, for example, the child mortality rate was 282 children per 1000 live births. The child mortality rate has since declined enormously, to 35 deaths per 1000 births in 2018 ( UNICEF, 2019 ). In the book Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think , Hans Rosling, likewise, argues that there are reasons to be hopeful. He contends that, by looking at data over time and in the right way, one can see that the world is making huge strides overall ( Rosling et al., 2018 ). It is just a matter of looking at the bigger picture and the broader trends over time. Indeed, many argue that there has never been a time in history as there is now when progress can be made towards a better world in the context of communication and other technologies, innovation, big data, and global integration.

Pre-COVID 19, the number of extremely poor people (those that live on less than $1.90 a day) had declined from 36 percent of the global population in 1990 to 10 percent in 2015 (The World Bank estimates that 40 million to 60 million people will fall into extreme poverty in 2020 as a result of COVID-19, depending on the magnitude of the global economic shock) ( Bank, 2019 ; Mahler et al., 2020 ; Maloney and Taskin, 2020 ). Over the same period, premature mortality amongst children under the age of five has fallen by more than half from 93 per 1000 live births in 1990 to 38 in 2018 (Unicef, 2019). Chronic undernutrition, as indicated by rates of stunting, has also been declining. In 2000, 33 percent of children under the age of five were stunted, compared to 21 percent in 2019 ( UNICEF et al 2019 ). However, this progress is too slow for the 2030 SDG to be met for many LMICs, especially in SSA. Research must provide innovative policy and program actions to accelerate progress.

Of course, progress in food security and nutrition is far from a finished agenda, even when there is sustained and substantial economic development, it is often distributed unevenly. Hunger numbers have risen over the last three years, and overweight and obesity continue to increase around the world ( FAO et al., 2019 ; GNR, 2020 ). The gains of economic growth are diverge greatly. As a result, inequality has increased almost everywhere, suggesting that even more considerable progress would have occurred if the gains of economic development had been shared more equally. Indeed, in many contexts, these inequities come to bear in food systems - resulting in the poorest of the poor, the disadvantaged and marginalized, taking on the brunt of food insecurity and malnutrition ( GNR, 2020 ).

Positive change comes through an almost unnoticed series of multiple, small changes as often as large-scale and dramatic advances that are instantly noticeable. Failures that counteract historic gains are also a frequent occurrence, although all too often, these are disguised and rarely diagnosed and analyzed. The task of researchers is to seek out where and how progress has (or has not) been made, to learn from what has (or has not) worked, and to make valid extrapolations to other contexts. Arguably, we know a lot about what has worked and why, particularly in places where hunger and undernutrition have rapidly declined; China, Brazil, and Ethiopia are all examples of where significant progress has been made to reduce hunger and malnutrition, yet much remains to be done ( Chen et al., 2015 ; Headey and Others, 2014 ; Monteiro et al., 2009 ; Singh, 2014 ; Yosef and Pandya-Lorch, 2016 ).

We can also point to the success of policy efforts to tackle poor diets to combat overweight and obesity, including a tax on sugary beverages in Mexico ( Colchero et al., 2017 ) and front of the pack labels on unhealthy foods in Chile ( Taillie et al., 2020 ). There are other successes across food systems to improve food security, nutrition and livelihoods. In China, new agricultural policies focus on a greener development model with millions of smallholder farmers changing their management practices towards more sustainable crop production ( Cui et al., 2018 ). In Western Europe and North America, productivity gains in crop production in the past 20–30 years have largely been achieved without parallel increases in fertilizer consumption ( Cui et al., 2018 ). There have been advances in biofortification and the wide acceptance of its potential contribution to addressing selected micronutrient deficiencies ( Bouis and Saltzman, 2017 ).

Shifts in aquaculture towards low-trophic species, those feeding lower on the food chain, have increased efficiency of resource use ( Waite et al., 2014 ). A recent paper by Belton and colleagues ( Belton et al., 2020 ) proposes three pillars of action to support sustainable commoditization of the current and future supply of seafood including sustainable intensification, supply chain transformation, and policy and regulation that the Global North and South could invest and scale.

The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) of the African Union now includes dietary indicators in the Results Framework ( NEPAD, 2015 ). This means that the 44 member states currently implementing CAADP must ensure that agriculture works to improve dietary quality providing an opportunity for research to support the desired progress. The world is changing rapidly and there are essential contextual differences that need to be taken into account when translating evidence into policy and program actions.

We also have the tools, innovations and knowledge that are backed by decades of research on how to adapt to and mitigate climate change, and how to protect natural resources and biodiversity ( Herrero et al., 2020 ; Rosenzweig et al., 2020 ). The Food Systems Dashboard is a tool that brings together 170 plus indicators representing most countries and territories in the world, to better describe, diagnose and decide on actions to improve food systems ( Fanzo et al., 2020a , Fanzo et al., 2020b ). FAO has developed two innovative tools, SmartForms and Calipseo, that collect and review fishery data and integrate and streamline fisheries data along the national data supply chain respectively ( FAO, 2020 ). These are just a few of the many tools and databases available to better inform decision making. Innovations extend to circular economy thinking and technologies to reduce food loss and waste, nutrition value chains, and agriculture technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, drones, algae feedstocks and bioplastics ( El-Gayar and Ofori, 2020 ; Jurgilevich et al., 2016 ; Klerkx and Rose, 2020 ). Cultivated meats, crowd farming and 3D printing are no longer future technologies but “now” technologies. These innovations could be game-changers for food security and nutrition when responsibly implemented ( Downs and Fanzo, 2016 ; Neff et al., 2015 ). We cannot forget about the importance of knowledge, in particular, indigenous peoples’ expert traditional knowledge on ecosystems, biocultural and biodiversity. It is a matter of translating their evidence into practice and scaling up solutions, focusing on food system actors who need the most technical assistance for rapid transformation ( Reardon et al., 2019 ).

While we tend to think of technological advancements in high-income countries (HICs), there are many advances in LMICs that improve the lives of the poor. Kenya, for example, is a demonstrated leader within SSA in electronic transactions using mobile telephones, where the M-Pesa service has addressed many of the common challenges that the poor face in accessing banking services ( Deichmann et al., 2016 ). The recent and widespread uptake of cellular telephones across SSA as a whole has been phenomenal. When technology meets a recognized need and is cost-effective for the intended beneficiary, uptake can be rapid. This should challenge researchers to foster innovation to bring about the positive transformation of food systems and related livelihoods.

Women are essential players in food systems, especially in LMICs. They not only make up a significant proportion of the food system labor force but are also the care custodians including the preparation of food for families and feeding of infant and young children ( Quisimbing et al., 2000 ; Quisumbing et al., 2005 ; van den Bold et al., 2013 ). Attention to women's empowerment is an important element in fostering household food security and nutrition ( Meinzen-Dick et al., 2019 ; Sraboni et al., 2014 ). The #MeToo and the Black Lives Matter movements that began in the United States could serve as powerful vehicles to address systemic injustices across food systems. Extending their message to address equity across resources, including land, extension and finance as well as education, law and health services, is critical ( Rasanathan and Rasanathan, 2020 ). Cutting-edge research could highlight the interrelated and compounded nature of disadvantages and inequities that perpetuate across food systems. For example, food and nutrition policies and interventions should effectively address inequities faced by women and not only women as mothers, but also women across the life course and as entrepreneurs ( Fox et al., 2019 ).

Food safety and zoonotic borne diseases are critical issues for food security, as COVID-19 has so vividly demonstrated. The world has seen several zoonotic disease outbreaks; HIV-AIDS, MERS, SARS and now the COVID-19 pandemic that is thought to have emanated from a wet market in China ( Wu et al., 2020 ). Zoonotic diseases are infectious diseases that cross over from animals to humans or vise-versa. For some time, One Health advocates warned of the need to consider the interrelationship between humans and animals on zoonotic diseases ( National Research Council et al., 2010 ). They have called for addressing food safety concerns around animal source foods. Scaling up a “One Health” approach is one way to prevent future pandemics by integrating animal, human and environmental connections. Humans coexist with animals - as companions for our overall well-being, as producers of food, and as a source of livelihoods. This interface between animals and humans and their shared environments can be a source of disease too ( Deem et al., 2019 ). There is a need for smart crop and animal solutions grounded in agroecological and food systems thinking ( Di Marco et al., 2020 ).

5. Research and innovation remain essential

Given the above information, it is clear that research has a vital role in charting a positive and sustainable direction for global food security, nutrition, and health. The needed research will require a creative, holistic approach across disciplines, bringing knowledge together into publications that inform action at different levels from sub-national, national, regional, global.

At a time when facts, science, and evidence are under ever greater scrutiny, and even openly disregarded as suspect by some political and business leaders, the rigors of research have never been more critical ( Oreskes and Conway, 2011 ). It is also important not to become disheartened by the slow speed of change in policy and practice, even when the appropriate course of action is clear ‘to us.’ Research can and does bring about wholesale changes in attitudes, political thought, and action, but change takes time ( Higgins, 2019 ). We have seen this with climate change science. It may have taken 40 years for scientists to convince political leaders, but we are now approaching consensus at a global level on the need for near-term action to combat climate change and many countries have taken some positive actions that would have been unthinkable in the not too distant past to change the behavior of their citizens ( Rich, 2018 ). Researchers must continue to generate evidence that can help speed progress in time to sustain planetary integrity and human development.

At the same time, researchers need to better communicate their research findings to the wider world ( Miller et al., 2006 ; Rowe, 2002 ). For too many researchers, the sole focus is on academic publishing. Researchers need to see their role in terms of knowledge generation and the translation of this knowledge into a form that is understandable and relevant to decision-makers in government, business, and civil society. Those who design, shape and enact policies and practices at the subnational, national and international levels need to access the research they need in a digestible and accessible way. Failure to achieve this brings a very considerable risk of being ignored. Researchers must learn to sit at policy dialogue tables not set for them, but for the users of their research – that is, the policymakers. By listening to challenges policymakers face, the research community can better design studies that result in practical and relevant findings that policymakers look forward to receiving and using ( Fracassi et al., 2020 ; Sogoba et al., 2014 ).

Food systems is often viewed as a source of problems needing innovative solutions ( Béné et al., 2019 ). This view belies the fact that food systems themselves can be a source of innovations, and that many of the fundamental food security and nutrition problems facing the world are behavioral and require systemic change, including the perspective of the social sciences ( Tallis et al., 2019 ). Embracing this more inclusive perspective on solutions to food security and nutrition challenges requires a fundamental cultural shift on the part of researchers, funders and business and policy decision-makers, and shifts in incentives ( Karp et al., 2015 ). There is a need for research to be problem-focused and systems-based. Research and their funding agencies should embrace multiple perspectives (including those of individuals who live and work within food systems), and integrate natural and social science, innovation, policy, institutions and practice ( Herrero et al., 2020 ). Taking this approach requires consideration for both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Generalizability is not always what is most desired in research, as many food system challenges require contextual solutions.

One of the most significant weaknesses in research on food security, nutrition, and food systems across the globe is the muted voice of LMIC researchers ( Lachat et al., 2014a , 2014b ). A simple scan of any of the key academic journals in this area will reveal the considerable bias towards researchers coming from HICs and contexts and universities with substantive resources. Indeed, much of the diagnoses of food security and nutrition problems facing poorer parts of the world come from researchers from HICs or work in institutions funded by HIC donors. Many LMIC researchers struggle to gain access to these journals, lack support or incentive systems to publish refereed journal articles, or simply do not have the infrastructure or resources to undertake cutting-edge research ( Van Royen et al., 2013 ). The reality is that we very much have an elite HIC view of food security and nutrition for those living in LMICs. This situation presents not only huge questions over democracy and equity of research in this area, but also serves to ignore LMIC knowledge, experiences, and perspectives of their challenges ( Lawrence et al., 2016 ). HIC bias has also meant that there has been significant underinvestment in research and technology development for crops and livestock important to poor farmers living in low-income contexts. Advances made in some institutions in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, for example, have not been as well recognized globally or have been under-funded. This must change.

Accessing cutting edge research is also problematic. The Global Food Security offers two options to publish. One is gold access in which open access is immediate and permanent to everyone to read and download. The article publishing costs are covered by the author or by their institution on their behalf. The other option is the green access in which an article published under a subscription model in which no fee is payable by the author because publishing costs are covered by subscriptions and only subscribed readers can access these articles. As the editors, we acknowledge that the high cost of subscribing to the Journal excludes many in poorer parts of the world from accessing the work that we publish. Furthermore, the high cost of fully open access prevents many researchers from ensuring their publications are available to all. This situation both maintains and perpetuates the North-South divide in research on food security and nutrition we highlight above. The Global Food Security, which belongs to an Elsevier, has not found an equitable way with the parent company in which to overcome these barriers. As editors, however, we remain committed to reducing these barriers, for the good of all in the research community, and wider society.

Perhaps the most welcome and vital trend in research related to food security and nutrition is the breaking down of disciplinary silos and the shift to more multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral research. There is also evidence that this multi-sectoral approach is influencing policy and development practice. For example, efforts to promote nutrition and agricultural development and environmental sustainability are arguably better aligned today than ever before. Nevertheless, there are still knowledge gaps in how to scale-up and improve the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of interventions and programs that bridge nutrition and agriculture ( Pingali, 2015 ; Ruel et al., 2018 ).

6. Challenging the status quo to shape food systems transformation

While the challenges we face are daunting, the opportunities are also vast. Food systems must adapt and transform to deliver sustainable, healthier diets, and durable livelihoods without decimating the planet. The research community should rise to this challenge, and we provide a platform to challenge the status quo and take food system transformation in a direction we have not yet imagined.

Global Food Security strives to publish evidence-informed strategic views of experts from a wide range of disciplinary perspectives on prospects for ensuring food security, nutrition, and health across food system issues. We wish to publish reviews, perspectives articles, and debates that synthesize, critique and extend findings from the rapidly growing body of original publications on global food security, nutrition, food systems, and related areas; and special issues on critical topics across food security, food systems, and nutrition including how these are impacted by climate and environmental dynamics.

There are still many areas that require more research, evidence, and knowledge. Some of these topics need a jumpstart or a fresh look. The Journal has had several special calls on high-tech agriculture 4.0, sustainable diets, and zoonotic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Journal has also hosted several special issues including price volatility and food security; social protection and agriculture; ethics and global food security; food security governance in Latin America; stories of change in nutrition; measuring food and nutrition security; biofuels and food security, drivers of dietary choice; and biodiversity, ecosystem services, and food security.

Through this vision paper, we are making a call to action to researchers to challenge the status quo and bring forth knowledge syntheses that can inform the desired actions across food systems. We encourage strategic reviews and perspectives submissions that synthesize lessons and recent learnings, ask critical questions that challenge the status quo, and foster new ways of thinking that can propel new research questions to drive progress. We are looking for key research papers that will disrupt and move the field forward and impact policies and programs.

Positively transforming food systems to ensure that the food we produce is accessible, sustainable, safe, healthy, and equitable for all is our moral imperative. At the same time, food systems should continue to be a vehicle to reduce poverty, directly improving food security for everyone. Current food system transformation is creating significant sustainability and equity gaps that will make future food security and continuity of life on the planet difficult. As global citizens, we will have to fill in those gaps: We all have a role to play in ensuring we meet the demands of a growing population sustainably while co-existing in amity with the planet. We need to find the stitched pockets of progress and small glimmers of hope as the basis of our knowledge to move forward; ever-changing and ever-evolving in the remarkable pattern of human endeavor.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

• Afshin A., Sur P.J., Fay K.A., Cornaby L., Ferrara G., Salama J.S., Mullany E.C., Abate K.H., Abbafati C., Abebe Z., Afarideh M. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2019; 393 (10184):1958–1972. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aiking H. Environmental Nutrition (pp. 123–138) Academic Press; 2019. Environmental degradation—An undesirable output of the food system. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bai C., Lei X. New trends in population aging and challenges for China's sustainable development. China Econ. J. 2020; 13 :3–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bank W., World Bank . World Bank Annual Report; Washington DC: 2019. The World Bank Annual Report 2019: Ending Poverty, Investing in Opportunity. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrett C.B. Actions now can curb food systems fallout from COVID-19. Nature Food. 2020; 1 :319–320. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrett C.B. 2020. On Research Strategy for the New One CGIAR: Editor's Introduction. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baye K. The Sustainable Development Goals cannot be achieved without improving maternal and child nutrition. J. Publ. Health Pol. 2017; 38 :137–145. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belton B., Reardon T., Zilberman D. Sustainable commoditization of seafood. Nat Sustain. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
• Béné C., Oosterveer P., Lamotte L., Brouwer I.D., de Haan S., Prager S.D., Talsma E.F., Khoury C.K. When food systems meet sustainability--Current narratives and implications for actions. World Dev. 2019; 113 :116–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blesh J., Hoey L., Jones A.D., Friedmann H., Perfecto I. Development pathways toward “zero hunger. World Dev. 2019; 118 :1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bouis H.E., Saltzman A. Improving nutrition through biofortification: a review of evidence from HarvestPlus, 2003 through 2016. Glob Food Sec. 2017; 12 :49–58. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breisinger C., Ecker O., Trinh Tan J.-F., Others Conflict and food insecurity: how do we break the links? IFPRI Book Chapt. 2015:51–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell K.D. Thinking forward: the quicksand of appeasing the food industry. PLoS Med. 2012; 9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brownell K.D., Warner K.E. The perils of ignoring history: big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food? Milbank Q. 2009; 87 :259–294. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byerlee D., Fanzo J. The SDG of zero hunger 75 years on: turning full circle on agriculture and nutrition. Global Food Sec. 2019; 21 :52–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen K.Z., Fan S., Babu S.C., Rue C. Achieving food and nutrition security under rapid transformation in China and India. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2015; 7 (4):530–540. 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark M.A., Springmann M., Hill J., Tilman D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2019; 116 :23357–23362. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colchero M.A., Rivera-Dommarco J., Popkin B.M., Ng S.W. In Mexico, evidence of sustained consumer response two years after implementing A sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Health Aff. 2017; 36 :564–571. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cui Z., Zhang H., Chen X., Zhang C., Ma W., Huang C., Zhang W., Mi G., Miao Y., Li X., Gao Q., Yang J., Wang Z., Ye Y., Guo S., Lu J., Huang J., Lv S., Sun Y., Liu Y., Peng X., Ren J., Li S., Deng X., Shi X., Zhang Q., Yang Z., Tang L., Wei C., Jia L., Zhang J., He M., Tong Y., Tang Q., Zhong X., Liu Z., Cao N., Kou C., Ying H., Yin Y., Jiao X., Zhang Q., Fan M., Jiang R., Zhang F., Dou Z. Pursuing sustainable productivity with millions of smallholder farmers. Nature. 2018; 555 :363–366. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deem S.L., Lane-deGraaf K.E., Rayhel E.A. John Wiley & Sons; 2019. Introduction to One Health: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Planetary Health. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deichmann U., Goyal A., Mishra D. The World Bank; 2016. Will Digital Technologies Transform Agriculture in Developing Countries? [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Marco M., Baker M.L., Daszak P., De Barro P., Eskew E.A., Godde C.M., Harwood T.D., Herrero M., Hoskins A.J., Johnson E., Karesh W.B., Machalaba C., Garcia J.N., Paini D., Pirzl R., Smith M.S., Zambrana-Torrelio C., Ferrier S. Opinion: sustainable development must account for pandemic risk. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2020; 117 :3888–3892. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorward A. Markets and pro-poor agricultural growth: insights from livelihood and informal rural economy models in Malawi. Agric. Econ. 2006; 35 :157–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Downs S., Fanzo J. Good Nutrition: Perspectives for the 21st Century. Karger Publishers; 2016. Managing value chains for improved nutrition. good nutrition: perspectives for the 21st century. [ Google Scholar ]
• Drummond R.O., Bram R.A., Konnerup N. Animal pests and world food production. World Food, Pest Losses and the Environment. 1978:63–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunn G. The impact of the Boko Haram insurgency in Northeast Nigeria on childhood wasting: a double-difference study. Conflict Health. 2018; 12 (1):6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dureab F., Al-Sakkaf M., Ismail O., Kuunibe N., Krisam J., Müller O., Jahn A. Diphtheria outbreak in Yemen: the impact of conflict on a fragile health system. Conflict Health. 2019; 13 (1):19. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• El-Gayar O.F., Ofori M.Q. AI and Big Data's Potential for Disruptive Innovation. IGI Global; 2020. Disrupting agriculture: the status and prospects for AI and big data in smart agriculture; pp. 174–215. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ericksen P., Stewart B., Dixon J., Barling D., Loring P., Anderson M., Ingram J. The value of a food system approach. Food Secur. Global Environ. Change. 2010; 25 :24–25. [ Google Scholar ]
• Espenshade T.J., Serow W.J., editors. The Economic Consequences of Slowing Population Growth. Elsevier. Academic Press; New York: 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission Sustainable food consumption and production in a resource-constrained world: 3rd SCAR foresight exercise. 2011. https://ec.europa.eu/research/scar/pdf/scar_3rd-foresight_2011.pdf Brussels, Belgium.
• Evans N., Inglesby T. Biosecurity and Public Health Ethics Issues Raised by Biological Threats. In: Mastroianni Anna C., Kahn Jeffrey P., Kass Nancy E., editors. The Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics. 2019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ezzati M., Pearson-Stuttard J., Bennett J.E., Mathers C.D. Acting on non-communicable diseases in low- and middle-income tropical countries. Nature. 2018; 559 :507–516. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fanzo J. International Food Law and Policy. Springer; Cham. UK: 2016. Food policies' roles on nutrition goals and outcomes: connecting of food and public health systems; pp. 213–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fanzo J., Haddad L., McLaren R., Marshall Q., Davis C., Herforth A., Jones A., Beal T., Tschirley D., Bellows A., Miachon L., Gu Y., Bloem M., Kapuria A. The Food Systems Dashboard is a new tool to inform better food policy. Nat Food. 2020; 1 :243–246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fanzo J., Shawar Y.R., Shyam T., Das S., Shiffman J. GAIN; Geneva Switzerland: 2020. Food System PPPs: Can They Advance Public Health and Business Golas at the Same Time? [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO . 2018. The Future of Food and Agriculture – Alternative Pathways to 2050; p. 224. Rome. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2020. Sustainability in action. 2020. Rome. [ CrossRef ]
• FAO and WHO . FAO; Rome: 2019. Sustainable Healthy Diets – Guiding Principles. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6640en/ca6640en.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• FAOSTAT, 2020, FAO, Rome. Access faostat.org June 5, 2020.
• Foley J.A., Defries R., Asner G.P., Barford C., Bonan G., Carpenter S.R., Chapin F.S., Coe M.T., Daily G.C., Gibbs H.K., Helkowski J.H., Holloway T., Howard E.A., Kucharik C.J., Monfreda C., Patz J.A., Prentice I.C., Ramankutty N., Snyder P.K. Global consequences of land use. Science. 2005; 309 :570–574. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• FOLU . Food and Land Use Coalition; London, UK: 2019. Growing Better: Ten Critical Transitions to Transform Food and Land Use. https://www.foodandlandusecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/FOLU-GrowingBetter-GlobalReport.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. World Health Organization, World Food Programme, International Fund for Agriculture Development . Food & Agriculture Org; Rome: 2018. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018: Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. FAO. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox E.L., Davis C., Downs S.M., Schultink W., Fanzo J. Who is the woman in women's nutrition? A narrative review of evidence and actions to support women's nutrition throughout life. Current Developments in Nutrition. 2019; 3 (1):nzy076. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fracassi P., Siekmans K., Baker P. Galvanizing political commitment in the UN decade of action for nutrition: assessing commitment in member-countries of the scaling up nutrition (SUN) movement. Food Pol. 2020; 90 :101788. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101788. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freedhoff Y., Hébert P.C. Partnerships between health organizations and the food industry risk derailing public health nutrition. CMAJ. 2011; 183 (3):291–292. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.110085. February 22, 2011. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fukuda-Parr S. Should global goal setting continue, and how, in the post-2015 era? In: Alonso J.A., Cornia G.A., Vos R., editors. Alternative Development Strategies for the Post-2015 Era. Bloomsbury Publishing; UK: 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garrett G.S., Platenkamp L., Mbuya M.N.N. Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). Discussion Paper 2; Geneva, Switzerland: 2019. Policies and Finance to Spur Appropriate Private Sector Engagement in Food Systems. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaupp F., Hall J., Hochrainer-Stigler S., Dadson S. Changing risks of simultaneous global breadbasket failure. Nat. Clim. Change. 2019; 10 :54–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilbert G.L. SARS, MERS and COVID-19—new threats; old lessons. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2020; 2020 :1–3. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyaa061. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaeser E.L. A world of cities: the causes and consequences of urbanization in poorer countries. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2014; 12 :1154–1199. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glibert P.M., Beusen A.H.W., Harrison J.A., Dürr H.H., Bouwman A.F., Laruelle G.G. Changing land-, sea-, and airscapes: sources of nutrient pollution affecting habitat suitability for harmful algae. In: Glibert P.M., Berdalet E., Burford M.A., Pitcher G.C., Zhou M., editors. Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2018. pp. 53–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• GNR . Development Initiatives; Bristol, UK: 2020. Global Nutrition Report: Action on Equity to End Malnutrition. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gödecke T., Stein A.J., Qaim M. The global burden of chronic and hidden hunger: trends and determinants. Global Food Sec. 2018; 17 :21–29. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grace D., Roesel K., Lore T. 2014. Poverty and Gender Aspects of Food Safety and Informal Markets in Sub-saharan Africa. ILRI (Aka ILCA and ILRAD) [ Google Scholar ]
• Haddad L. Reward food companies for improving nutrition. Nature. 2018; 556 :19–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haddad L. Food Policy; 2020. A View on the Key Research Issues that the CGIAR Should Lead on 2020–2030. 101824. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haddad L., Hawkes C., Waage J., Webb P., Godfray C., Toulmin C. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition; London, UK: 2016. Food Systems and Diets: Facing the Challenges of the 21st Century. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harttgen K., Klasen S. Do fragile countries experience worse MDG progress? J. Dev. Stud. 2013; 49 :134–159. [ Google Scholar ]
• Headey D.D., Alderman H.H. The Relative Caloric Prices of Healthy and Unhealthy Foods Differ Systematically across Income Levels and Continents. J. Nutr. 2019; 149 (11):2020–2033. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Headey D. No 70 International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); Washington DC: 2014. An Analysis of Trends and Determinants of Child Undernutrition in Ethiopia, 2000–2011. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.671.7196&rep=rep1&type=pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Hendrix C., Brinkman H.-J. Food insecurity and conflict dynamics: causal linkages and complex feedbacks. Stabil. Int. J. Secur. Dev. 2013; 2 [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrero M., Thornton P.K. Livestock and global change: emerging issues for sustainable food systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013; 110 :20878–20881. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrero M., Thornton P.K., Mason-D’Croz D., Palmer J., Benton T.G., Bodirsky B.L., Bogard J.R., Hall A., Lee B., Nyborg K., Pradhan P., Bonnett G.D., Bryan B.A., Campbell B.M., Christensen S., Clark M., Cook M.T., de Boer I.J.M., Downs C., Dizyee K., Folberth C., Godde C.M., Gerber J.S., Grundy M., Havlik P., Jarvis A., King R., Loboguerrero A.M., Lopes M.A., McIntyre C.L., Naylor R., Navarro J., Obersteiner M., Parodi A., Peoples M.B., Pikaar I., Popp A., Rockström J., Robertson M.J., Smith P., Stehfest E., Swain S.M., Valin H., van Wijk M., van Zanten H.H.E., Vermeulen S., Vervoort J., West P.C. Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat Food. 2020; 1 :266–272. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hester R.E., Harrison R.M., Ferguson A.J., Pearson M.J., Reynolds C.S. Eutrophication of natural waters and toxic algal blooms. Agricul Chem and the Environ. 1996:27–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins P. Routledge; New York, NY: 2019. Knocking on doors in the policy corridor – can research in outdoor studies contribute to policy change? Research Methods in Outdoor Studies. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirvonen K., Bai Y., Headey D., Masters W.A. Affordability of the EAT-Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob Health. 2020; 8 :e59–e66. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• High Level Panel of Experts . FAO; Rome: 2017. Nutrition and Food Systems. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts of the UN World Committee on Food Security. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7846e.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoegh-Guldberg O., Jacob D., Bindi M., Brown S., Camilloni I., Diedhiou A., Djalante R., Ebi K., Engelbrecht F., Guiot J., Others . 2018. Impacts of 1.5 C Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems. Global Warming of 1. 5° C. An IPCC Special Report. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hulme D., Savoia A., Sen K. Governance as a global development goal? Setting, measuring and monitoring the post‐2015 development agenda. Global Pol. 2015; 6 (2):85–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ingram J. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change. Food Security. 2011; 3 (4):417–431. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jurgilevich A., Birge T., Kentala-Lehtonen J., Korhonen-Kurki K., Pietikäinen J., Saikku L., Schösler H. Transition towards circular economy in the food system. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 2016; 8 :69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kah H.K. “Boko Haram is losing, but so is food production”: conflict and food insecurity in Nigeria and Cameroon. Afr. Dev. 2017; 42 :177–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karp A., Beale M.H., Beaudoin F., Eastmond P.J., Neal A.L., Shield I.F., Townsend B.J., Dobermann A. Growing innovations for the bioeconomy. Native Plants. 2015; 1 :15193. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keating B.A., Herrero M., Carberry P.S., Gardner J., Cole M.B. Food wedges: framing the global food demand and supply challenge towards 2050. Global Food Sec. 2014; 3 :125–132. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kharas H., McArthur J.W., Ohno I. Brookings Institution Press; 2019. Leave No One behind: Time for Specifics on the Sustainable Development Goals. [ Google Scholar ]
• Klerkx L., Rose D. Dealing with the game-changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0: how do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? Global Food Sec. 2020; 24 :100347. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lachat C., Kolsteren P., Roberfroid D. Let poor countries into rich research. Nature. 2014; 515 (7526) pp.198-198. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lachat C., Nago E., Roberfroid D., Holdsworth M., Smit K., Kinabo J., Pinxten W., Kruger A., Kolsteren P. Developing a Sustainable Nutrition Research Agenda in Sub-Saharan Africa—Findings from the SUNRAY Project. PLoS Med. 2014; 11 (1):e1001593. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawrence M., Naude C., Armstrong R., Bero L., Covic N., Durao S., Ghersi D., Macdonald G., MacLehose H., Margetts B., Tovey D., Volmink J., Young T. A call to action to reshape evidence synthesis and use for nutrition policy. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016; 11 :ED000118. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lobell D.B. Principles and priorities for one CGIAR. Food Pol. 2020; 91 (C) doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101825. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lucci P., Bhatkal T., Khan A. Are we underestimating urban poverty? World Dev. 2018; 103 :297–310. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahler D.G., Lakner C., Aguilar R.A.C., Wu H. World Bank blog; 2020. The Impact of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) on Global Poverty: Why Sub-saharan Africa Might Be the Region Hardest Hit. April 20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maloney W., Taskin T. World Bank; Washington DC: 2020. Determinants of Social Distancing and Economic Activity during COVID-19: A Global View. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mbow C., Rosenzweig C., Barioni L.G., Benton T.G., Herrero M., Krishnapillai M., Liwenga E., Pradhan P., Rivera-Ferre M.G., Sapkota T.B. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. IPCC; 2019. Food security; pp. 437–550. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/08_Chapter-5.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• McArthur J.W., McCord G.C. Fertilizing growth: agricultural inputs and their effects in economic development. J. Dev. Econ. 2017; 127 :133–152. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meinzen-Dick R.S., Rubin D., Elias M., Mulema A.A., Myers E. Intl Food Policy Res Inst; Washington DC: 2019. Women’s empowerment in agriculture: Lessons from qualitative research. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller G.D., Cohen N.L., Fulgoni V.L., Heymsfield S.B., Wellman N.S. From nutrition scientist to nutrition communicator: why you should take the leap. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2006; 83 :1272–1275. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miranda J.J., Barrientos-Gutiérrez T., Corvalan C., Hyder A.A., Lazo-Porras M., Oni T., Wells J.C.K. Understanding the rise of cardiometabolic diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Nat. Med. 2019; 25 :1667–1679. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Monteiro C.A., Benicio M.H.D., Konno S.C., Silva A.C.F. da, Lima A.L.L. de, Conde W.L. Causes for the decline in child under-nutrition in Brazil, 1996-2007. Rev. Saude Publica. 2009; 43 :35–43. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mullen Food system stress-test. Nat Food. 2020; 1 :186. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Research Council . 2010. Division on earth and life studies, board on agriculture and natural resources, institute of medicine, board on global health, committee on achieving sustainable global capacity for surveillance and response to emerging diseases of zoonotic origin. Sustaining Global Surveillance and Response to Emerging Zoonotic Diseases. National Academies Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neff R.A., Kanter R., Vandevijvere S. Reducing food loss and waste while improving the public's health. Health Aff. 2015; 34 :1821–1829. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• NEPAD . NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency; 2015. The CAADP Results Framework (2015-2025) [ Google Scholar ]
• Nixon S.W., Buckley B.A., Granger S.L., Harris L.A., Oczkowski A.J., Fulweiler R.W., Cole L.W. Science for Ecosystem-Based Management. Springer; New York, NY: 2008. Nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to Narragansett Bay: past, present, and future; pp. 101–175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oreskes N., Conway E.M. Bloomsbury Publishing USA; 2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Neil J.M., Davis T.W., Burford M.A., Gobler C.J. The rise of harmful cyanobacteria blooms: The potential roles of eutrophication and climate change. Harmful Algae. 2012; 4 :313–334. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry B.D., Grace D.C. How Growing Complexity of Consumer Choices and Drivers of Consumption Behaviour Affect Demand for Animal Source Foods. EcoHealth. 2015; 12 (4):703–712. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pingali P. Agricultural policy and nutrition outcomes--getting beyond the preoccupation with staple grains. Food Security. 2015; 7 :583–591. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinker S. Penguin uk; 2011. The Better Angels of Our Nature: the Decline of Violence in History and its Causes. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popkin B.M., Adair L.S., Ng S.W. Global nutrition transition and the pandemic of obesity in developing countries. Nutr. Rev. 2012; 70 :3–21. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popkin B.M., Corvalan C., Grummer-Strawn L.M. Dynamics of the double burden of malnutrition and the changing nutrition reality. Lancet. 2020; 395 :65–74. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Poulton C., Kydd J., Dorward A. Overcoming market constraints on pro-poor agricultural growth in Sub-Saharan Africa. Dev. Pol. Rev. 2006; 24 :243–277. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quisimbing A., Brown L.R., Feldstein H.S., Haddad L., Peńa C. 2000. Women: the Key to Food Security. Looking into the Household. [ Google Scholar ]
• Quisumbing A.R., Meinzen-Dick R.S., Smith L.C. 2020 Africa Conference Brief 4 (No. 566-2016-38941) The International Food Policy Institute; Washington DC: 2005. Increasing the effective participation of women in food and nutrition security in Africa; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasanathan K., Rasanathan J.J.K. Reimagining global health as the sharing of power. BMJ Glob Health. 2020; 5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reardon T., Berdegué J.A. The rapid rise of supermarkets in Latin America: challenges and opportunities for development. Dev. Pol. Rev. 2002; 20 :371–388. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reardon T., Hopkins R. The supermarket revolution in developing countries: policies to address emerging tensions among supermarkets, suppliers and traditional retailers. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2006; 18 :522–545. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reardon T., Timmer C.P., Minten B. Supermarket revolution in Asia and emerging development strategies to include small farmers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2012; 109 :12332–12337. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reardon T., Echeverria R., Berdegué J., Minten B., Liverpool-Tasie S., Tschirley D., Zilberman D. Rapid transformation of food systems in developing regions: highlighting the role of agricultural research & innovations. Agric. Syst. 2019; 172 :47–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rich N. vol. 1. New York Times Magazine; 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/01/magazine/climate-change-losing-earth.html (Losing Earth: the Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change). [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenzweig C., Mbow C., Barioni L.G., Benton T.G., Herrero M., Krishnapillai M., Liwenga E.T., Pradhan P., Rivera-Ferre M.G., Sapkota T., Tubiello F.N., Xu Y., Contreras E.M., Portugal-Pereira J. Climate change responses benefit from a global food system approach. Nat Food. 2020; 1 :94–97. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosling H., Rönnlund A.R., Rosling O. Flatiron Books; New York: 2018. Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong about the World–And Why Things Are Better than You Think. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe S.B. Communicating science-based food and nutrition information. J. Nutr. 2002; 132 :2481S–2482S. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruel M.T., Quisumbing A.R., Balagamwala M. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture: what have we learned so far? Global Food Sec. 2018; 17 :128–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schipanski M.E., MacDonald G.K., Rosenzweig S., Chappell M.J., Bennett E.M., Kerr R.B., Blesh J., Crews T., Drinkwater L., Lundgren J.G., Schnarr C. Realizing resilient food systems. Bioscience. 2016; 66 :600–610. [ Google Scholar ]
• Searchinger T., Waite R., Hanson C., Ranganathan J., Dumas P., Matthews E., Klirs C. World Resources Institute; Washington DC: 2019. Creating a Sustainable Food Future: A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050. Final Report. https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh A. Why are economic growth and reductions in child undernutrition so weakly correlated—and what can public policy do? The Lancet Global Health. 2014; 2 (4):e185–e186. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sogoba B., Ba A., Zougmoré R.B., Samaké O.B. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security; Copenhagen, Denmark: 2014. How to Establish Dialogue between Researchers and Policymakers for Climate Change Adaptation in Mali: Analysis of Challenges, Constraints and Opportunities. Working Paper No. 84. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/56669 [ Google Scholar ]
• Springmann M., Clark M., Mason-D’Croz D., Wiebe K., Bodirsky B.L., Lassaletta L., de Vries W., Vermeulen S.J., Herrero M., Carlson K.M., Jonell M., Troell M., DeClerck F., Gordon L.J., Zurayk R., Scarborough P., Rayner M., Loken B., Fanzo J., Godfray H.C.J., Tilman D., Rockström J., Willett W. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature. 2018; 562 :519–525. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sraboni E., Malapit H.J., Quisumbing A.R., Ahmed A.U. Women's empowerment in agriculture: what role for food security in Bangladesh? World Dev. 2014; 61 :11–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steffen W. Qatar University Life Science Symposium 2016: Biodiversity, Sustainability and Climate Change, with Perspectives from Qatar (Vol. 2016, No. 4, p. 5) Hamad bin Khalifa University Press (HBKU Press); 2016, November. Climate change, the Anthropocene and planetary boundaries. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stuckler D., McKee M., Ebrahim S., Basu S. Manufacturing epidemics: the role of global producers in increased consumption of unhealthy commodities including processed foods, alcohol, and tobacco. PLoS Med. 2012; 9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swinburn B.A., Kraak V.I., Allender S., Atkins V.J., Baker P.I., Bogard J.R., Brinsden H., Calvillo A., De Schutter O., Devarajan R., Ezzati M., Friel S., Goenka S., Hammond R.A., Hastings G., Hawkes C., Herrero M., Hovmand P.S., Howden M., Jaacks L.M., Kapetanaki A.B., Kasman M., Kuhnlein H.V., Kumanyika S.K., Larijani B., Lobstein T., Long M.W., Matsudo V.K.R., Mills S.D.H., Morgan G., Morshed A., Nece P.M., Pan A., Patterson D.W., Sacks G., Shekar M., Simmons G.L., Smit W., Tootee A., Vandevijvere S., Waterlander W.E., Wolfenden L., Dietz W.H. The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: the lancet commission report. Lancet. 2019; 393 :791–846. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taillie L.S., Reyes M., Colchero M.A., Popkin B., Corvalán C. An evaluation of Chile's Law of Food Labeling and Advertising on sugar-sweetened beverage purchases from 2015 to 2017: a before-and-after study. PLoS Med. 2020; 17 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tallis H., Kreis K., Olander L., Ringler C., Ameyaw D., Borsuk M.E., Fletschner D., Game E., Gilligan D.O., Jeuland M., Kennedy G., Masuda Y.J., Mehta S., Miller N., Parker M., Pollino C., Rajaratnam J., Wilkie D., Zhang W., Ahmed S., Ajayi O.C., Alderman H., Arhonditsis G., Azevedo I., Badola R., Bailis R., Balvanera P., Barbour E., Bardini M., Barton D.N., Baumgartner J., Benton T.G., Bobrow E., Bossio D., Bostrom A., Braimoh A., Brondizio E., Brown J., Bryant B.P., Calder R.S.D., Chaplin-Kramer B., Cullen A., DeMello N., Dickinson K.L., Ebi K.L., Eves H.E., Fanzo J., Ferraro P.J., Fisher B., Frongillo E.A., Galford G., Garrity D., Gatere L., Grieshop A.P., Grigg N.J., Groves C., Gugerty M.K., Hamm M., Hou X., Huang C., Imhoff M., Jack D., Jones A.D., Kelsey R., Kothari M., Kumar R., Lachat C., Larsen A., Lawrence M., DeClerck F., Levin P.S., Mabaya E., Gibson J.M., McDonald R.I., Mace G., Maertens R., Mangale D.I., Martino R., Mason S., Mehta L., Meinzen-Dick R., Merz B., Msangi S., Murray G., Murray K.A., Naude C.E., Newlands N.K., Nkonya E., Peterman A., Petruney T., Possingham H., Puri J., Remans R., Remlinger L., Ricketts T.H., Reta B., Robinson B.E., Roe D., Rosenthal J., Shen G., Shindell D., Stewart-Koster B., Sunderland T., Sutherland W.J., Tewksbury J., Wasser H., Wear S., Webb C., Whittington D., Wilkerson M., Wittmer H., Wood B.D.K., Wood S., Wu J., Yadama G., Zobrist S. Aligning evidence generation and use across health, development, and environment. Current Opinion in Environ Sustain. 2019; 39 :81–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor S.A.J., Perez-Ferrer C., Griffiths A., Brunner E. Scaling up nutrition in fragile and conflict-affected states: the pivotal role of governance. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015; 126 :119–127. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomich T.P., Lidder P., Coley M., Gollin D., Meinzen-Dick R., Webb P., Carberry P. Food and agricultural innovation pathways for prosperity. Agric. Syst. 2019; 172 :1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNICEF . UNICEF; New York: 2019. The State of the World's Children 2019. Children, Food and Nutrition: Growing Well in a Changing World. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division . 2018. The World's Cities in 2018—Data Booklet (ST/ESA/SER.A/417) [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank . World Health Organization; Geneva: 2019. Levels and Trends in Child Malnutrition: Key Findings of the 2019 Edition of the Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van den Bold M., Quisumbing A.R., Gillespie S. The International Food Policy Institute; Washington DC: 2013. Women S Empowerment and Nutrition: an Evidence Review. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01294. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Royen K., Lachat C., Holdsworth M., Smit K., Kinabo J., Roberfroid D., Nago E., Orach C.G., Kolsteren P. How Can the Operating Environment for Nutrition Research Be Improved in Sub-Saharan Africa? The Views of African Researchers. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8 (6):e66355. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waite R., Beveridge M., Brummett R., Castine S., Chaiyawannakarn N., Kaushik S., Mungkung R., Nawapakpilai S., Phillips M. World Resources Institute; Washington DC: 2014. Improving productivity and environmental performance of aquaculture. [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson R.T., Noble I.R., Bolin B., Ravindranath N.H., Verardo D.J., Dokken D.J. 2000. IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. [ Google Scholar ]
• WEF . World Economic Forum; Geneva, Switzerland: 2020. COVID-19 Risk Outlook: A Preliminary Mapping and its Implications. Insight Report. [ Google Scholar ]
• Willett W., Rockström J., Loken B., Springmann M., Lang T., Vermeulen S., Garnett T., Tilman D., DeClerck F., Wood A., Jonell M., Clark M., Gordon L.J., Fanzo J., Hawkes C., Zurayk R., Rivera J.A., De Vries W., Majele Sibanda L., Afshin A., Chaudhary A., Herrero M., Agustina R., Branca F., Lartey A., Fan S., Crona B., Fox E., Bignet V., Troell M., Lindahl T., Singh S., Cornell S.E., Srinath Reddy K., Narain S., Nishtar S., Murray C.J.L. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 2019; 393 :447–492. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• World Poverty Clock World data lab. 2020. https://worldpoverty.io/
• WRI . World Resources Institute; Washington DC: 2019. Creating a Sustainable Food Future. https://www.wri.org/publication/creating-sustainable-food-future [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu Y.-C., Chen C.-S., Chan Y.-J. The outbreak of COVID-19: an overview. J. Chin. Med. Assoc. 2020; 83 :217–220. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yosef S., Pandya-Lorch R. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); Washington, D.C: 2016. Nourishing millions: Stories of change in nutrition: Synopsis. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang X., Davidson E.A., Mauzerall D.L., Searchinger T.D., Dumas P., Shen Y. Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature. 2015; 528 :51–59. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Further reading

• FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WHO and WFP . FAO; Rome: 2019. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. Safeguarding against Economic Slowdowns and Downturns. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5162en/ca5162en.pdf [ Google Scholar ]

A systematic literature review of food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM): building blocks and research trends

The TQM Journal

ISSN : 1754-2731

Article publication date: 6 December 2021

Issue publication date: 19 December 2022

The purpose of this paper is to explore the increased research attention gained by sustainability in food supply chain management. Although previous review studies have focused on aspects such as traceability, food safety, and performance measurement, sustainability has rarely been considered as a means of integrating these issues.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper presents a comprehensive review of the literature on food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM). Using systematic review methods, relevant studies published from 1997 to early 2021 are explored to reveal the research landscape and the gaps and trends.

The paper shows the building blocks and the main research directions in FSSCM, particularly considering the opportunities in “neglected” emerging countries. Insights are provided into the various elements of the sustainability supply chain in the food industry, which have previously been analysed separately.

Originality/value

Only a few researchers have systematically reviewed the literature or taken a bibliometric approach in their analyses to provide an overview of the current trends and links between sustainability and food supply chain management.

• Systematic literature review
• Food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM)
• Food industry
• Global supply chain
• Emerging countries
• Sustainability

Palazzo, M. and Vollero, A. (2022), "A systematic literature review of food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM): building blocks and research trends", The TQM Journal , Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 54-72. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2021-0300

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Maria Palazzo and Agostino Vollero

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

The debate over the approach to sustainability has become central to most businesses, as a proper sustainability perspective holistically considers all of a company's functions and business relationships along supply chains, which are increasingly interconnected globally ( Carter and Rogers, 2008 ; Solér et al. , 2010 ). Managing the integration of sustainable environmental, social and economic criteria along the multiple aspects of the supply chain represents a major challenge for manufacturers and producers ( Massaroni et al. , 2015 ).

Supply chain management (SCM) has been defined as “the configuration and operation of efficient and effective production and logistics networks and the intra- and inter-organizational management of supply, transformation and delivery processes” ( Brandenburg and Rebs, 2015 ). A revolution in SCM has occurred in recent years, which has been noted by many scholars and researchers, as its focus has shifted from economic performance to an integrated social and environmental approach ( Seuring and Müller, 2008 ; Ahi and Searcy, 2013 ; Khan et al. , 2020 ).

Exploring the intersection between sustainability and SCM involves considering different viewpoints, as SCM is based on both downstream and upstream flows of goods ( Cosimato and Troisi, 2015 ; Fahimnia et al. , 2015 ; Maditati et al. , 2018 ). The downstream flows of goods (towards the final customer) has been traditionally viewed as involving responsibility and ethical issues ( Seuring and Müller, 2008 ), while upstream flows of products/services (towards the supplier) are explored from manufacturing, product recovery and reverse logistics perspectives ( Feng et al. , 2017 ), and thus more concerned with environmental issues, such as energy and waste reduction ( Naik and Suresh, 2018 ; Kumar et al. , 2020 ; Kumari et al. , 2021 ). There is general agreement that the sustainable management of a supply chain requires an integrated approach to social, environmental and economic goals ( Carter and Rogers, 2008 ; Hassini et al. , 2012 ; Juettner et al. , 2020 ). Thus, the means by which SCM can develop sustainable features and follow the path of sustainable development have been considered ( Manning, 2013 ; Zhu et al. , 2018 ). This can be challenging in industries such as food, in which the SCM can have a strong effect on not only the final consumer but also other stakeholders in the value chain ( Matopoulos et al. , 2015 ; Ghadge et al. , 2017 ; Mangla et al. , 2019 ).

A food supply chain (FSC) is particularly complex, as it connects different sectors of the economy (agriculture and the food-processing industry and distribution sector) in a market dominated by rapidly changing customer preferences ( Beske et al. , 2014 ). Food types can affect the natural environment, due to the food production systems, transport distances from producers and consumers, waste management, and workers' conditions in the sectors involved ( Beer and Lemmer, 2011 ). The situation is even more complicated in the agri-fresh food sector due to the perishability of products and the short shelf-life ( Siddh et al. , 2017 ). Thus, examining sustainable development in the FSC is extremely complex due to the high level of unpredictability in terms of demand and cost, the fragile nature of food and consumers' increased awareness of risks and safety issues associated with diets and eating disorders ( Siddh et al. , 2018 ). Finally, many firms in the FSC are small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) ( Beer and Lemmer, 2011 ; Ghadge et al. , 2017 ) that may find it difficult to address sustainability challenges and implement practices. The various FSC duties and tasks are often perceived as more demanding when sustainability is applied to enrich conventional profit-oriented models ( Allaoui et al. , 2018 ). Studies in this area have addressed issues such as the triple bottom line, ethics and corporate social responsible principles in their analyses ( Siddh et al. , 2018 ; Allaoui et al. , 2018 ), but few have provided an integrated overview of the phenomenon.

Only a few researchers have systematically reviewed the literature or taken a bibliometric approach in their analyses to provide an overview of the current trends and links between sustainability and food supply chain management (FSCM). However, many articles have applied specific methods to explore particular themes or typical processes. These themes and processes include sustainable sourcing ( Ghadge et al. , 2017 ), food traceability ( Bosona and Gebresenbet, 2013 ), approaches for enhancing sustainability in SCM ( Sharma et al. , 2017 ; Dania et al. , 2018 ), sustainable supply chain strategies and tactics ( Beske et al. , 2014 ; Zhong et al. , 2017 ), food safety ( Siddh et al. , 2018 ), controls of the level of sustainability ( Sharma et al. , 2017 ), measurements of sustainable items ( Sharma et al. , 2021 ) and the circular economy ( Corallo et al. , 2020 ).

Bosona and Gebresenbet (2013) , for example, presented a literature review that focussed mainly on food traceability, which highlights several features, definitions, items and measurements of the food traceability system. The bibliometric approach was also taken by Beske et al. (2014) , who described how sustainable supply chain management tactics allow organizations to manage their supply chain while putting into practice dynamic capabilities. Zhong et al. (2017) used the bibliometric approach to review the FSCM, and considered it in terms of systems and implementations. Siddh et al. (2017) explored the agri-fresh food supply chain quality features and definitions, by collecting and analysing relevant academic papers. Using the same method, Sharma et al. (2017) analysed the performance indicators and sub-indicators of green SCM implementation. Dania et al. (2018) proposed a systematic review of sustainable agri-food supply chains to assess and manage collaborative performances, while Govindan (2018) focused on the influence of stakeholders in the food industry.

Thomé et al . (2020) recently provided several insights into food supply chains and short food supply chains based on a bibliometric analysis, while Kamble et al. (2020) proposed a framework for managers in the agri-food supply chain based on an extensive literature review, to increase supply chain visibility and resources. Finally, Sharma et al. (2020) applied a systematic literature review of machine learning applications in agricultural supply chains.

These studies demonstrate the pressing need to examine the “green” side of SCM in the food sector. They show that the number of empirical papers in this area is increasing, but that there is a lack of an integrated perspective for holistically linking recent trends and facets of the FSCM. The focus is on very specific viewpoints rather than a broader exploration. To increase our understanding of the intellectual progress and knowledge structure of food sustainable supply chain management (FSSCM), a comprehensive analysis is required. Thus, in the present paper, we aim to outline a comprehensive framework of the research and current trends in the FSSCM, and to identify specific research gaps that must be addressed.

To achieve this, earlier review analyses of FSSCM and broad research trends are identified objectively and systematically, by providing an analysis of the evolution of FSSCM over the past years, exploring the international research, studying the mainly empirical FSSCM research, examining the research tools applied, identifying any issues that arise, and by identifying the main gaps and directions for future research in the field of FSSCM.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology used for the literature review. Section 3 provides the results and analyses of the selected papers. Sections 4 and 5 present the findings, a discussion and the implications in terms of FSSCM that can enrich further research. Finally, a conclusion and limitations are presented in Section 6 .

2. Methodology

As other studies take various specific perspectives, we applied a comprehensive analysis of the literature focussing on the link between sustainability and FSCM. This offers a complete view and several insights for further studies in various emerging business contexts.

Unlike other conventionally structured literature reviews, a systematic review was selected as this can be effective in managing the exploration of a huge number of academic publications and enables the development of a complex framework for the research subjects ( Garcia-Buendia et al. , 2021 ). The method can also help researchers and scholars explore the literature by considering its bibliographic elements ( Xu et al. , 2020 ). This analytical approach also helps in terms of recognizing the main features and definitions of specific research field(s), identifying the main research questions and gaps, identifying the theoretical area in which the analyses will have an effect, understanding the theoretical concepts and their terminology, providing a list of the relevant resources available, and highlighting the research designs, methodologies and approaches that can be applied ( Soni and Kodali, 2011 ; Fahimnia et al. , 2015 ; Feng et al. , 2017 ).

Time horizon: The first step is the selection of a time period. The exploration period for academic and research articles is between 1997 and early 2021, as SCM and corporate social responsibility (CSR) were implemented in the food industry to a greater extent after 1997 ( Henk and Hans, 1997 ). We end our paper collection in early 2021.

Selection of publications: Only papers written in English were selected, and the articles were selected in Scopus. This database is commonly used by management science researchers (or in related fields) for bibliometric analyses or systematic literature review methods in SCM ( Soni and Kodali, 2011 ; Fahimnia et al. , 2015 ). The Scopus database has greater coverage than the Web of Science, and it was deemed more appropriate for exploring complex research areas that are constantly changing and developing ( Feng et al. , 2017 ).

The keywords used for the selection of the publications: The keywords chosen for developing the search of the main publications in Scopus were “supply”, “food”, and “sustainabl*”. In total, after using the “title, abstract, keywords” search in the Scopus, 1,930 papers were found by searching with these keywords. “Sustainabl*” involves environmental, economic, and social facets, and thus papers identified by searching for “sustainabl*” and “supply” were examined. The papers resulting from the searches were then analysed for information including title, author(s), affiliation(s), source title, number of citations, keywords, abstract and references.

The categorization of academic publications according to the Association of Business Schools (ABS) 2018 list: The number of papers was further reduced by selecting only academic and well-referred journals that were considered in this list. Of the 1,930 papers, some were non-referred publications appearing in 0-star journals, magazines and conference proceedings that did not follow a rigorous scientific editorial approach. Chapters of books and whole books were also not selected for the analysis. After deleting these, 733 articles remained and were filtered from the total number of downloaded publications.

Categorization of academic publications: After reading the abstracts and the complete papers, the number was further reduced by considering the relevance of the publications. The sample size was condensed in this phase to create a representative data set. The rule for selecting the articles was that they had to be related to the food sector, supply chain management and sustainability. Thus, 176 papers remained.

Systematic classifications of the papers: The articles were then categorized according to leading journals in FSSCM research and journal name per number of published articles; number of published articles in FSSCM research per field; number of publications; trending articles about the food sustainable supply chain; geographical locations by region of the first author's affiliation; the methodology used; theoretical frameworks; tool/research methods; data collection; the entity of analysis and sustainability issues.

3. Results and analysis

All of the identified papers are presented, discussed and analysed in the following sections in terms of their various aspects and features.

3.1 Year-based classification of number of publications

The number of articles about FSSCM has increased, probably due to the increased interest and awareness of managers and academics in the area of sustainability and SCM. The annual number of published articles has increased in recent times (2017–2020) to three times that of the 2015–2016 period (in fact, in 2017, 26 papers were published; in 2018, 29 articles were proposed; while in 2019 and 2020, 23 and 27 studies were focused on the selected topics).

3.2 Journal-based categorization of papers

This categorization illustrates the frequency of papers presented in various leading academic journals. Many of these appear to be very interested in issues and problems related to FSSCM. These include Business Strategy and the Environment (BSE), the British Food Journal (BFJ), Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (CSREM), Food Policy (FP), Industrial Management and Data Systems (IMDS), International Journal of Production Economics (IJPE), International Journal of Production Research (IJPR), Journal of Cleaner Production (JCP), Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management (JMTM), Production Planning and Control (PPC), and Supply Chain Management – An International Journal (SCM-IJ).

In total, 176 papers that focused on SCM definitions and features in the food industry from the perspective of sustainability were selected. This demonstrates that a considerable number of papers were published in the relevant fields of study. Table 1 shows the number of total articles published (PSC) and average global citations received per paper (AGC), and most are from JCP (49 PSC, 28.24 AGC), followed by IJPE (18 PSC, 94.56 AGC), PPC (7 PSC, 4.14 AGC), SCM-IJ (7 PSC, 17.29 AGC), and BSE (6 PSC, 21.67 AGC). Considering the average global citations received per paper (AGC), the journals with the highest are IJPE (18 PSC, 94.56 AGC), IJPR (5 PSC, 81.60 AGC), FP (4 PSC, 75.50 AGC), CSREM (4 PSC, 41.25 AGC) and JCP (49 PSC, 28.24 AGC).

Moreover, the distribution of published articles in FSSCM research per field (economics; ethics-csr management; international business and area; information management; marketing; operations research and management science; organizational studies; regional studies; sector; social studies), based on how they are ranked in the ABS Journal Guide of 2018 was analysed.

It was highlighted that, especially, in the fields of “Operations Research and Management Science” and “Sector”, there were many articles published in 2018, 2019 and 2020 in the realm of FSSCM.

3.3 Categorization of publications based on the geographical location of first authors

Publications are classified based on the first authors' affiliated regions and include developed and emerging economies. This classification clearly shows that most papers are from developed countries in Europe (63%), Asia (18%) and North America (8%), with less attention paid to FSSCM in developing areas such as South America (5%) and Africa (1%), although many countries in these regions are still mainly agrarian.

3.4 Categorization of trending articles in the field of FSSCM

Several of the papers achieved a remarkable number of total citations. The data presented in Table 2 show that two papers gained more than 300 total citations, four achieved over 200, and the remaining four publications gained more than 100 total citations.

3.5 Categorization based on methodology and tools/research methods

FSSCM papers can be analysed according to the methodology (approach) applied. Most publications utilized a qualitative approach (78%) and only 22% take a quantitative approach.

Table 3 shows that theoretical and empirical explorations of SCM sustainability in the food sector have been conducted ( Pohlmann et al. , 2020 ; Yakavenka et al. , 2020 ; Khan et al. , 2021 ).

Case study analysis is the most used (26%: 46 papers) followed by statistical analysis (22%: 38 papers), conceptual analysis and/or frameworks (19%: 34 articles), mathematical models (13%: 23 articles), quality tool (11%: 19 articles) and finally bibliometric analysis and/or literature review (9%: 16 papers). Examples of the methodologies and tools applied to this complex concept include the following: Taghikhah et al. (2020) used several mathematical models to explore the relation between consumer preferences and environmental factors related to food production. Morley (2020) used case studies to analyse the impact of public procurement on various food company strategies. Thomé et al . (2020) used a structured literature review to examine studies of short food supply chains. Sharma et al. (2020) statistically analysed aspects of food and other industries during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

3.6 Research publications categorization on the basis of data collection

We first examine the data collection (data sources) applied in the FSSCM papers and find that the majority of the publications use primary data (i.e. survey, experiment, interviews, focus groups, observation, etc.) (56%: 99 papers). Secondary data (i.e. archival, content extraction, bibliometric records, etc.) are used in 46 papers (26%), a combination of primary and secondary data is used in 10 (6%), and 21 papers (12%) do not use data collection as they are based on conceptual analyses, viewpoint research, etc.

3.7 Research publications categorization based on issues of FSSCM

We then categorize the papers based on the FSSCM issues addressed, as shown in Figure 2 . FSSCM involves multiple sustainability issues, and the majority of articles focused on “supplier management” (20%: 36 papers). “Sustainable development” was the next most common (17%: 30 papers), followed by “collaboration and coordination management” in 25 (14%), “performance management” in 17 (10%), “circular economy” in 15 (9%), “logistic management” in 14 (8%), “strategic management” in 11 (6%), “innovation” in 10 (6%), “agriculture” in 6 (3%), a “comprehensive view” (involving more than one issue) in 5 (3%), “quality management” in 4 (2%), and “other issues” were analysed in 3 papers (2%).

Thus, “supplier management”, “sustainable development” and “collaboration and coordination management” were the most common issues, covered by over half of the total selected publications. Other issues are also significant in the area of FSSCM, but not to the same extent, while others are mainly neglected (i.e. “agriculture” and “quality management”)

3.8 Research publications categorization on the basis of theoretical framework

The theoretical framework applied to develop the selected papers was then explored. Nearly two-thirds (114) of the articles did not follow any specific theoretical approach. The stakeholder approach was considered in 11 articles, 8 papers were based on the triple bottom line, 8 took the life cycle approach, 7 the circular economy approach, 6 applied resource-based view (RBV) and knowledge-based view (KBV) frameworks, 6 the institutional theory, 4 applied the resource dependency theory and 2 the decision theory-based framework. Other approaches (i.e. country of origin, TOE, critical success factors, etc.) were taken in ten articles.

3.9 Publications categorization on the basis of entity of analysis

Finally, we examined the main perspectives taken when exploring FSSCM issues.

Many research publications use the supply chain as the entity of analysis (EOA) (70 papers). However, a significant number (23) consider the whole supply network or the manufacturer's point of view (21); 18 are mainly conceptual; 10 are based on the distributor's perspective; 10 take a dyadic view (more than 1 EOA); 9 take the suppliers'/farmers' perspectives; the logistic industry is examined in 7; consumers in 5; and the remaining 3 papers do not use any of these EOA.

4. Discussion: main themes and trends in FSSCM

The increase and evolution of FSSC studies suggests that supply chains in the food sector are moving towards a sustainable approach. Several new trends have emerged in the field, which focus on both intra- and inter-firm dimensions ( Figure 3 ).

Increasingly, the multiplicity of stakeholders in FSSCM and the collaboration/coordination challenges this brings have been explored throughout the food supply chain phases. These include the sustainable purchasing relationships of food retailers ( Chkanikova, 2016 ); increasing legitimacy in the food industry ( Czinkota et al. , 2014 ); strategies for reducing food waste within the circular economy framework ( Dora, 2019 ); and tools for increasing collaboration and coordination throughout the food supply chain ( Vodenicharova, 2020 ). Collaboration has gained the attention of researchers exploring the competitive advantages derived from a sustainable approach by leveraging environmental information along the supply chain ( Solér et al. , 2010 ), the alignment of sourcing with marketing and branding strategies ( Croom et al. , 2007 ), and dynamic capabilities ( Beske et al. , 2014 ).

“Collaboration and coordination management”, “supplier management” and “sustainable development” are the most common issues, covered by over half of the total publications. These include collaboration with partners along the supply chain ( Pakdeechoho and Sukhotu, 2018 ), the criteria for selecting suppliers ( Wilhelm et al. , 2016 ), the alignment of supplier-producer procedures ( Vodenicharova, 2020 ), the overall efficiency of the supply chain ( Danny and Priscila, 2004 ), and collaborations adopting mandatory and voluntary standards when assessing environmental, social and economic performances ( Glover et al. , 2014 ; Touboulic and Walker, 2015 ; Govindan, 2018 ). Other recent emerging challenges include more general sustainability-related aspects, such as innovation and the circular economy. On the other hand, the inclusion of quality management in the field of FSCM seems to be scarce in academic literature ( Ting et al. , 2014 ; Siddh et al. , 2018 ; Feng et al. , 2020 ), even though, there are several authors who tried to build a more centred approach in reviewing quality issues inside the analysis of sustainable supply chain. For example, Manzini et al. (2014) highlighted the existing connection between food quality and environmental sustainability of supply chain strategies and tactics, while Winter and Knemeyer (2013) explored how sustainability can be included in supply chain quality and, Ilbery and Maye (2005) presented a list of important sustainable food standards linked with environmental quality, socially inclusiveness and other relevant items.

Besides, the findings suggest that an integration of intra- and inter-firm processes can be crucial for the effective sustainable performance of organizations, as if FSSCM is based on sustainability it can have a positive effect on all stages of the supply chain ( Erol et al. , 2011 ; Kahi et al. , 2017 ). Unlike traditional performance measurements, sustainable performance involves comprehensively considering social, economic, and environmental factors ( Sharma et al. , 2017 ; Siddh et al. , 2018 ). Pullman et al. (2009) focussed on how to improve the quality performance of the food supply chain, which in turn improves cost performance. Raut et al. (2019) analysed operational/technology-based and human resource-based performance indicators of the sustainable value chain that help those in the food sector minimize their effect on the environment while boosting their economic performance. Thus, when proposing new “green” performance measurements, food industry researchers should include the bases of sustainability in their analyses of FSSCM.

The development of these new FSSCM trends suggests that this field of research will continue to grow as many scholars and academics explore the specific features and perspectives applicable to developed countries. The literature review shows that few studies consider less developed countries, with just 1% having African authors. Developing economies, such as those in Asia, have however had more attention in recent years. Some studies show that a lack of infrastructure or inefficient logistics could result in more food waste and inefficient processes ( Naik and Suresh, 2018 ; Kumar et al. , 2020 ). This is a major issue in FSSCM, as it is expected that 90% of the global population will live in developing countries by 2050 ( PRB, 2020 ). Sustainability is therefore vital in the food global supply chains of these countries, which are characterized by strong interdependencies along the north-south axis.

Most scholars investigating the sustainability of the food supply chain directly collect their data using tools such as surveys, experiments, interviews, and focus groups. The case study is the most common method for these explorations, as indicated in previous research ( Ashby et al. , 2012 ; Massaroni et al. , 2015 ). This emphasis on case studies indicates the novel and fast-changing nature of the field, and that more in-depth investigations are required to identify its boundaries and foundations. However, modelling-based studies are increasing in number (e.g. Chen et al. , 2018 ) as they address the need for a more integrated understanding of sustainable supply chains ( Brandenburg et al. , 2014 ). In addition, the lack of specific theoretical frameworks in two-thirds of the studies indicates that the research field is still emerging, and thus extensive opportunities for research that bridges the gap between theory and practice are presented.

5. Implications and research directions

This systematic literature review offers several implications for practitioners, and insights for further research in the field of FSSCM.

Food supply chains make a significant contribution to the global economy and sustainable development, as they involve suppliers and other stakeholders from various industries working together so food can reach the final consumer ( Joshi et al. , 2020 ; Kamble et al. , 2020 ; Thomé et al. , 2020 ). Kamble et al. (2020) suggest that better economic performance and social wellbeing can be achieved by food suppliers, retailers and others only if critical post-harvest losses can be avoided by applying new methods linked with supply chain visibility and sustainable resources. Thus, the focus should be on the upstream of the supply chain, particularly in many under-developed and developing nations where agriculture is still the essential basis of the economy ( Taghikhah et al. , 2020 ). Some studies were identified as being conducted in developing geographic areas, but more should be encouraged due to the greater potential FSSCM can bring.

The specific directions identified include those of Kumar Sharma et al. (2019) , who stated that the circular economy and sustainability are complex and must be managed by decision makers and practitioners in both developed and developing nations. They proposed a model that can inform the implementation of circular economy-driven sustainability FSC activities in emerging and under-developed economies, particularly in India.

Asian et al. (2019) examined how the increasing costs of logistics, lower yields, and strategic barriers have a negative impact on the level of competitiveness of farmers in developing countries. The authors proposed an algorithm to help key decision makers address the challenges of the FSC and sustainable development. Further studies can also develop theories and practical tools based on specific features, as these geographic areas can support the food industry through new sustainable strategies and tactics.

Such strategies and tactics are high on the agendas of many types of companies, but the business models of start-ups differ from those of other organizations and thus affect their creation and implementation. Larger companies may be able to better sustain the impact of the evolving trends of FSSCM, but they may also be less flexible than start-ups in finding opportunities and innovating ( Suchek et al. , 2021 ).

As suggested in previous sections, researchers must also focus on assessing the reliability and trustworthiness of FSSCM theories, as we found that many papers focussed on theory building. However, these theories generally address specific facets and thus the results cannot be easily generalized. Our study enriches the research by reviewing the most common theoretical approaches (e.g. the stakeholder approach, triple bottom line, the life cycle approach), and others that are less used (i.e. RBV and KBV, institutional theory, resource dependency theory, decision theory-based framework, etc.). This requires further exploration as a need to build a more solid conceptual framework for FSSCM research has also emerged.

In terms of FSSCM measurement and control, our analysis reveals an increase in the development of standardized constructs, which can be used to monitor and control how companies involved in the FSC achieve a successful level of sustainable development ( Folkerts and Koehorst, 1998 ; Yakovleva et al. , 2012 ; Sharma et al. , 2017 ). This is required as most aspects of FSSCM are associated with government regulation, incentive policies, stakeholders' approval of pioneering “green” products/services and the associated cultural and social consequences, and entrepreneurs' inclinations to follow ground-breaking sustainable principles. These trends are often related to the market, and involve accessibility, the costs of raw materials, and new technology, which require specific knowledge and thus may incur huge costs that many companies cannot afford.

In terms of the EOA, we suggest that future empirical research should focus on intra-functional and intra-firm exploration at corporate and network levels, or on dyads that reveal the relationships between pairs of organizations (i.e. farms, manufacturers, distributors, etc.). Similarly, Siddh et al. (2017) also emphasized that empirical research should focus on exploring intra-firm and intra-functional relations, as integration between companies should be encouraged before sustainability at different levels of the FSC is achieved. Finally, the role of end consumers in the FSSCM is still largely unexplored but important, as they can prompt organizations, dyads and networks to adopt more efficient and effective methods of introducing sustainable innovations and identifying new niche opportunities in this area.

6. Conclusion

In this paper we provide a literature review of papers focussed on the various facets of the FSSCM. We identify relevant papers published over the past 23 years (1997 to early 2021), with the aim of informing academics and practitioners about the research landscape, gaps, and current and future trends in the FSSCM. The literature review considers 176 influential peer-reviewed articles using accurate selection procedures and content investigation.

The majority of the selected papers were published in the last eight years (2014–2021), probably due to the increased awareness of environmental problems and of the need to reduce hunger globally (Zero Hunger is Goal Two of the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda), the increased food risks, an awareness of the benefits of decreasing food wastage, health management and of the well-being of people in all geographical areas (Goal Three: Good Health and Well-being).

FSSCM research is undoubtedly increasing, but few studies succeed in combining the various sustainability constructs with the main elements of the FSCM, particularly in the context of developing/under-developed countries. Thus, there are opportunities to increase our understanding of the integrative factors, particularly in less-developed regions of the world.

Our research has various limitations, like most studies. First, we used the specific keywords “supply”, “food”, and “sustainabl*” to select the articles from the Scopus database. While this identified nearly 2000 articles, using different keywords may have a different outcome. Additionally, only one database was used, so researchers can explore others such as Web of Science and compare their findings to ours, and although many analyses were identified, other methods of bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review may offer different insights into the specific context. Thus, we suggest that researchers apply different bibliometric methods when addressing this research domain.

Steps of the systematic literature review

Main sustainability issues in the field of FSSCM

Trends in FSSCM research

Leading journals in FSSCM research