Opinion: Stories about food systems and why they matter

In this Decade of Action on the Sustainable Development Goals, climate, and biodiversity loss, food systems are increasingly finding themselves on the political agenda. With that, we are steadily exposed, via the media and public discourse, to narratives around this topic that then become rooted at the very core of our mental models. Mental models are how we understand the world, shaping what we think and the connections and opportunities that we see.

The reason narratives are important is that they influence what we do. The late Donella Meadows, systems thinker and author of “Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System,” argued that narratives “are the sources of systems.”

In other words, from deeply held assumptions and beliefs, we build our economic and political systems, our social agreements, and the rules that define the functioning of our nations. The problem is that not all narratives are true or helpful and can impede progress and positive social change.

The danger is that many of the day-to-day narratives that we are subjected to about food systems are outdated or no longer relevant — and yet they continue to shape the political debate and much of our policy and practice.

It is in this context that the Global Alliance for the Future of Food has been working for almost a decade to identify and tackle false food systems narratives that impede positive progress, and replace them with new, visionary narratives on the collective future of food that support transformative change.

With the inaugural U.N. Food Systems Summit taking place on Sept. 23, along with mounting global attention on the centrality of our food systems to the achievement of the SDGs, there’s never been a better time to unpack and tackle the stubborn narratives that require a serious update. Here are just three that are problematic: 

1. Dietary choices are a personal responsibility

It’s not that this narrative is wrong; it’s just too narrow, simplistic, and highly ethnocentric — based on a Western emphasis on the primacy of the individual and personal choice. What’s more, diets are a function of broader food environments that involves, among other things, what’s available at your local grocery store, the marketing you are exposed to, the price of food, etc.

We must shift the focus from personal choice to the socio-economic factors in which people’s choices, or lack thereof, are embedded. Our work on true cost accounting through TEEBAgriFood reveals that choices are a product of “a systems context.”

We also found that, “The evolution of food systems via cheap inputs is directly responsible for substantial health impacts. Exposure pathways vary from access to food (or lack of), quality of food (determined by the production, packaging and cooking processes), quality of the environment (determined by agricultural inputs in soil, water and air) and occupational conditions of farmers and workers.”

2. We must increase food production to feed the world

This is a “productivist” narrative, which focuses on the quantity of food and calories produced based on assumptions that we need to “double food production by 2050,” maximize yields, and base our food production on export-oriented models from the “global north.”

This narrative has resulted in unsustainable food systems; encouraged the industrialization of food production, with a focus on a limited number of globally traded crops often transformed into animal feed or ultra-processed food and drink products; and crucially, pushed planetary boundaries. It doesn’t have to be this way. Here is a new narrative that focuses on empowering the world to feed itself — to nourish a growing global population while ensuring human, ecological, and animal health.

3. We must privilege foremost scientific evidence

Science is critical but all too often we focus narrowly on scientific evidence at the expense of evidence from a diversity of actors, sources of knowledge, and disciplines. This jeopardizes our understanding of how the system operates and ironically leaves us with major blind spots in the body of evidence for systemic action.

Much of the available evidence about food systems today relies on data gathered in North America and Europe, published in primarily English-language journals situated in those regions. Science is critical, but there are many other ways for generating verifiable, actionable knowledge, and these too must be recognized and respected.

We must question these narratives, test them and, as Meadows wrote in 1989, consider how they lead to the persistent counterproductive behavior of individuals and institutions. A crucial part of changing a narrative as part of systems transformation is to change the power dynamics — shift controls of the narrative from those who benefit from the dominant narrative to a broad, diverse, and engaged group representing the common good and the future of humanity.

Today, we have an unprecedented opportunity to keep challenging our assumptions, question the narratives we take for granted, and boldly rewrite the story that will shape the future of the world. We know enough to act differently. We now need to make the bold, cognitive shift and stand up bravely to advocate for the values and principles we stand for.

The future belongs to new, visionary narratives that are attractive, relevant, well-supported, powerful, viable, and give us hope.

Visit the Future of Food Systems series for more coverage on food and nutrition — and importantly, how we can make food fair and healthy for all. You can join the conversation using the hashtag #FoodSystems.