Development Pathways Toward Zero Hunger

World Development 118 (2019) 1–14
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
World Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev
Development pathways toward ‘‘zero hunger”

Jennifer Blesh a,⇑, Lesli Hoey b, Andrew D. Jones c, Harriet Friedmann d, Ivette Perfecto a
a
School for Environment and Sustainability, 440 Church St., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
b
Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2000 Bonisteel Blvd., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
c
Department of Nutritional Sciences, School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
d
Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, 315 Bloor St. W, Toronto, ON M5S0A7, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Globally, industrial agriculture threatens critical ecosystem processes on which crop production depends,
while 815 million people are undernourished and many more suffer from malnutrition. The second
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 2), Zero Hunger, seeks to simultaneously address global environ-
Keywords: mental sustainability and food security challenges. We conducted an integrated literature review orga-
Sustainable development goals nized around three disciplinary perspectives central to realizing SDG 2: ecology and agricultural
Agroecology sciences, nutrition and public health, and political economy and policy science. Within each discipline
Agricultural productivity
we first draw on a wide range of literature to summarize the state of knowledge on effective pathways
Food system
Food sovereignty
to achieve food security while ensuring the sustainability of food systems. We then conduct a compre-
Policy science hensive review of articles in each of these disciplines that discuss SDG 2, using the pathways we outline
Malnutrition initially to frame our analysis. In particular, we ask whether the framing of SDG 2 is appropriate given
Food security current understandings of transitions to sustainable food systems. By applying a food systems lens,
Sustainable diet our review identifies several limitations in the way SDG 2 is applied by researchers including a produc-
tionist perspective, limited attention to ecological processes on farms, a definition of food security that
lacks a food systems perspective, and a lack of attention to historical and structural factors that shape
opportunities for equity and food security in different contexts. Finally, we consider possibilities for
expanding the research agenda and associated implications for development practice. We argue that
the pathway to achieving Zero Hunger should center on place-based, adaptive, participatory solutions
that simultaneously attend to local institutional capacities, agroecosystem diversification and ecological
management, and the quality of local diets. Two conceptual frameworks – social-ecological systems and
sustainable diets – offer systems-based lenses for integrated analysis of agriculture and food security,
which could inform the development of effective policies.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction production depends (IPCC, 2013; Rockstrom et al., 2009). These

well-documented consequences include biodiversity loss,
What if agriculture and food systems were guided by a goal of increased pest pressure, soil erosion, losses of soil organic matter,
human and environmental health? Concerns about the sustainabil- greenhouse gas emissions, and eutrophication and pollution of
ity of global food systems are reflected in the ‘‘Zero Hunger” Sus- water bodies (Diaz & Rosenberg, 2008; Foley et al., 2011;
tainable Development Goal adopted by the United Nations (UN) Matson, Parton, Power, & Swift, 1997).
General Assembly in 2015. To acknowledge that health, environ- While environmental tradeoffs were long considered to be a
ment, and agriculture are linked signals an emerging shift in schol- Faustian bargain in efforts to combat hunger and malnutrition,
arly and public understanding. Specifically, by integrating targets industrial agriculture has not delivered on the promise to eliminate
on sustainable agriculture in the overall effort to end hunger, the hunger. Indeed, while the world is afloat in ‘‘calories,” it is only
Zero Hunger goal reflects a long overdue recognition that industrial recently that the Food and Agriculture Organization changed the
agriculture threatens critical ecosystem processes on which food language of food security to ‘‘food and nutrition security,” reflect-
ing an increase in micronutrient deficiencies. Today, 815 million
⇑ Corresponding author. people are undernourished, and as many as two billion suffer from
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Blesh), [email protected] (L. Hoey), micronutrient deficiencies (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO, 2017;
[email protected] (A.D. Jones), [email protected] (H. Friedmann), Initiative, 2009). In 2003, the World Health Organization defined
[email protected] (I. Perfecto).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.02.004
0305-750X/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 J. Blesh et al. / World Development 118 (2019) 1–14
an obesity ‘‘epidemic” in poor as well as rich countries. There is Table 1

mounting evidence that both obesity and diet-related chronic dis- Search terms used to identify papers referencing SDG 2.
ease are principal contributors to lost years of healthy life and Search terms
instead of contributing to society, ill people are an enormous eco- ‘‘Sustainable Development Goal 2”
nomic burden (Murray et al., 2013). These environmental and ‘‘Zero Hunger Challenge”
health-related impacts are compounded by economic and political ‘‘United Nations Sustainable Development Goal*”
power inequities as corporations have consolidated control over ‘‘Sustainable Development Goal*” AND ‘‘hunger”
‘‘SDG” AND ‘‘food” AND ‘‘agr*”
global markets and agrifood governance (Howard, 2016; ‘‘Sustainable Development Goal*” AND ‘‘ecology” OR ‘‘agroecology” OR
McMichael, 2009; Otero, Pechlaner, & Gürcan, 2013). ‘‘nutrition” OR ‘‘policy”
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 bridges disciplinary ‘‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” AND ‘‘food” AND ‘‘agr*” OR
realms with its call to: ‘‘End hunger, achieve food security and ‘‘hunger” OR ‘‘nutrition”
improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.” The fram-
ing of the Zero Hunger SDG thus implies that addressing global public health, and political economy and policy science referencing
environmental sustainability and food security challenges simulta- SDG 2. Table 1 shows the specific search terms we used to identify
neously will require transformative political and economic change. papers. Our searches returned 239 hits, which we screened for rel-
The specific targets of SDG 2 span environmental concerns (biodi- evance. We also checked the literature cited sections of papers for
versity, agricultural productivity, sustainable and resilient produc- any additional references. In total, our review identified 47 papers
tion systems, climate change adaptation), the domain of public from the three disciplinary areas. We reviewed three papers twice
health (ending hunger and malnutrition, targets on stunting and because they equally covered two of the three disciplinary cate-
wasting, nutritional needs of women and girls) and socioeconomic gories (Battersby, 2017; Gao & Bryan, 2017; Kharas, McArthur, &
factors (farmer incomes, markets and opportunities for value addi- von Braun, 2017), for a total of 19 papers in the ecology and envi-
tion, agricultural research and extension, trade distortions). By ronment category, 8 on nutrition and public health, and 23 on
tackling the global food system, SDG 2 stands out as an inherently political economy and policy science. Although we interpreted
interdisciplinary goal. Indeed, a recent article used the Zero Hunger these papers using the wider literature on transdisciplinary
goal to exemplify that individual SDGs are components of a larger approaches to food systems change, a comprehensive review of
whole, and must be considered as an integrated unit (Nilsson, the food systems literature was outside of the scope of our review
Griggs, & Visbeck, 2016). focused on SDG 2.
In this review, we ask whether and to what extent the scholar-
ship on SDG 2 aligns with broader conceptualizations of sustain-
able food systems, organized around three central disciplinary 3. The state of the science in agriculture, ecology and
perspectives: ecology and agricultural sciences, nutrition and pub- environment
lic health, and political economy and policy science. Within each
component discipline we first summarize the state of knowledge The second SDG has targets for developing sustainable agricul-
on the most effective pathways to achieve ‘‘zero hunger” while tural systems. These targets – adaptive capacity, ecosystem quality,
ensuring the sustainability of food systems, drawing on a wide and genetic diversity – are rooted in a growing consensus on scien-
range of literature. Specifically, following the lead of a recent tific principles that govern agroecosystems, and their impacts on
report by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food natural ecosystems (Gliessman, 2007; Kremen & Miles, 2012;
Systems (IPES, 2016), our summary of the literature takes a sys- Matson, 1997; Robertson et al., 2014; Shennan, 2008). All farms
tems perspective on transition processes to consider opportunities are agroecosystems, which follow general principles of ecology,
and lock-ins across scales. The IPES report sought to identify all even those that are highly industrialized. Industrial agriculture is
possible solutions – including transformative ones – that are nec- therefore limited by a continued lack of engagement with concepts
essary to sustain food systems, rather than limiting the scope to from ecological science. For example, the success or performance
solutions considered pragmatic within current power relations of agroecosystems is typically evaluated according to exceptionally
(Friedmann, 2017). narrow efficiency criteria, particularly yield per unit area (Foley
Within each disciplinary area, we then conduct a comprehen- et al., 2011; Matson et al., 1997). As a result, gains in yield are real-
sive review of articles that discuss SDG 2 using the pathways we ized without accounting for ecosystem degradation or the long-
outline initially to frame our analysis. As the SDGs were adopted term capacity to sustain food production (Holling & Meffe, 1996;
in 2015, unsurprisingly, we primarily identified papers published Liu et al., 2007), and the focus on single crops (monocultures)
between 2016 and 2017 that engaged with the Zero Hunger SDG. ignores loss of crop diversity and thus quality of human diets.
We also include a subset of papers published in 2014 and 2015, Yet industrial agriculture practices continue to be promoted as
particularly written by social scientists, which discussed the nego- long as a productionist perspective on achieving food security
tiations that led to the formulation of SDG 2. A growing number of (i.e., a focus on increasing production as the primary solution)
reports in the non-peer reviewed literature also build directly on dominates current debates (Fraser et al., 2016).
the second SDG, often using transdisciplinary approaches that These debates hinge on the perceived causes of food insecurity.
bring together the perspectives and expertise of multiple scholars. For scholars who argue that increasing production of major field
Our focus is on the peer-reviewed literature, but we briefly touch crops will increase food security, proposed solutions center on
on the other publications to address whether current framings technological innovations within industrial agriculture, such as
align with evidence on effective pathways for transitions toward precision agriculture, genetic modification, and other practices fre-
sustainable food systems. quently lumped under the umbrella of sustainable intensification,
although their actual impacts are highly variable and context
dependent. Fundamental questions remain regarding the extent
2. Methods to which production itself must increase. Scholars point to the cur-
rent surplus of available calories per capita globally (Fraser et al.,
Between November 2017 and January 2018, we searched Web 2016; Hunter, Smith, Schipanski, Atwood, & Mortensen, 2017),
of Science and Google Scholar databases for articles in the fields food waste, and the primary destinations of commodity produc-
of ecology, agronomy, and related natural sciences, nutrition and tion, which together indicate that poverty and inequitable access
J. Blesh et al. / World Development 118 (2019) 1–14 3
to food are the root causes of food insecurity (Chappell et al., 2013; sustainability. Compared with use of inorganic nitrogen fertilizers
Schipanski et al., 2016). For example, 36% of the calories produced in industrial agriculture, crop rotations with legumes as the primary
globally are used as animal feed (and animal products that tend to nitrogen source are better for balancing nitrogen inputs to soil with
be consumed by higher income populations) and 4% for biofuels, nitrogen exports in harvested crops (Blesh & Drinkwater, 2013;
both of which not only divert food away from direct human con- Zhang et al., 2015), reducing nitrogen losses that pollute waterways
sumption but also contribute to larger ecological and water foot- and the atmosphere (David, Drinkwater, & McIsaac, 2010; Robertson
prints (Mason & Lang, 2017). Assessing yields without also et al., 2014). When harvested for human consumption, high protein
assessing whether the food that is produced ultimately increases grain legumes can increase dietary diversity and quality (Snapp,
food security is therefore problematic. Blackie, Gilbert, Bezner-Kerr, & Kanyama-Phiri, 2010). However,
In spite of these limitations, many studies continue to compare from an ecological perspective, legume cover crops, which are
agroecosystems in terms of yield. For instance, global comparisons non-harvested and thus decompose in the field, are essential for
of ‘‘organic” and ‘‘conventional” crop yields ask a question that is supplying net carbon and nitrogen inputs that boost soil fertility in
too simplistic for the reasons described above – often because agroecosystems (King & Blesh, 2018).
these are the only data available to researchers. Furthermore, each Soil organic matter (comprised primarily of soil organic carbon)
of these broad management categories encompasses a wide variety is a critical determinant of soil fertility and productivity in terres-
of practices and associated agroecosystem attributes and out- trial ecosystems. Increasing plant functional trait diversity in
comes. For example, a range of different management practices agroecosystems with particular functional groups of crops, such
exist within certified organic agriculture, including ones with as perennials or legume cover crops, builds soil organic matter
extensive greenhouse gas emissions (Clark & Tilman, 2017). By (King & Blesh, 2018) and increases nutrient cycling capacity, by
focusing on yield, and coarse production categories, then, research- increasing the proportion of the year with living plant roots and
ers miss identifying the ecological mechanisms that drive out- interactions between plants and microorganisms in the root zone
comes of different production systems, which would be more (Cotrufo, Wallenstein, Boot, Denef, & Paul, 2013; Liang & Balser,
useful for informing policies for sustainable development. In order 2010). These interactions allow for reductions in external nutrient
to link practices to outcomes, researchers need to ask more inputs (Drinkwater & Snapp, 2007). Increasing agroecosystem
nuanced research questions and collect new primary data. We par- diversity by re-integrating crops and livestock could also improve
ticularly lack data about agroecosystems in which ecological pro- nutrient recycling and soil fertility on farms (Russelle, Entz, &
cesses are intentionally managed for particular goals. Franzluebbers, 2007). Unlike annual species, perennial species,
In response to these challenges, and central to this aspect of such as those in livestock pastures or hay fields, do not need to
SDG2, ecological principles are increasingly applied to assess the be replanted each year and result in reduced soil disturbance. Sim-
sustainability and resilience of agroecosystems (Folke et al., ilar dynamics also occur in agroforestry systems (Munroe & Isaac,
2004; Kremen & Miles, 2012; Schipanski et al., 2016). Although 2014), which combine crops and trees, and have large potential
agroecology is a broad field covering all aspects of agroecosystem for soil carbon sequestration and carbon storage, especially in the
management (e.g., weed, insect, pest, and disease management, humid tropics (Montagnini & Nair, 2004). Also very promising
and livestock and pasture management; Altieri, 1995; Gliessman, are breeding programs developing perennial grain crops, with early
2007), soil fertility is a foundational component. Because agroe- success for perennial wheat, rice, pigeon pea, sorghum, and oil-
cosystems are managed to produce food for human consumption, seeds (Kantar et al., 2016). Perennial grain agriculture has the
soil nutrients are regularly exported from fields in harvested crops, potential to manage trade-offs by producing food while maintain-
which must be replenished to sustain production over time. Given ing or building soil organic matter and retaining nutrients (Crews
that soil fertility is a dominant constraint on the productivity and et al., 2016), better mimicking the functioning of natural
resilience of agroecosystems, it is the primary focus of our review ecosystems.
of the science connecting agriculture and environment. Agroecosystem diversification also contributes to conservation
Soil fertility, and overall agroecosystem resilience, can be bol- of wild biodiversity which, in turn, can improve pest control and
stered by increasing plant diversity at farm and landscape scales pollination. For example, practices such as intercropping, polycul-
(Isbell et al., 2017; Jackson, Pascual, & Hodgkin, 2007). Farmers tures, hedgerows and addition of flowers, have been shown to
can manipulate plant diversity through crop rotation, cover crop- increase natural enemies, contribute to herbivore suppression,
ping, intercropping, agroforestry, rotational grazing, or other prac- and reduce crop damage (Iverson et al., 2014; Letourneau et al.,
tices to provide ecosystem functions such as weed and pest 2011). Agroecosystems with high levels of biodiversity can main-
suppression, enhanced pollination, soil organic matter accumula- tain complex networks of interacting species. Such networks pro-
tion, or nitrogen supply through legume nitrogen fixation vide autonomous pest control that is resilient and can reduce the
(Blesh, 2018; Garibaldi et al., 2013; Lundgren & Fausti, 2015). need to apply costly pesticides, which can affect the health of farm-
These practices allow farmers to manage ecological processes, such ers, farmworkers, and the environment (Perfecto, Vandermeer, &
as nutrient cycling, for functions such as productivity, while reduc- Philpott, 2014; Vandermeer, Perfecto, & Philpott, 2010). Diversified
ing non-renewable inputs (Shennan, 2008). In agroecosystems, systems can also contribute to biodiversity conservation at the
much of the plant diversity is selected by farmers. The composition landscape level by forming a high-quality agroecological matrix
of the planned aspect of biodiversity may be more important to that permits forest species to move from forest fragment to forest
overall ecosystem functioning than total species richness fragment therefore maintaining species – in the long run – in a
(Fornara & Tilman, 2008; Shennan, 2008) because certain groups metapopulation structure (Perfecto, Vandermeer, & Wright,
of plants (e.g., legumes, perennials, cover crops) can greatly 2009). Finally, ecologists have also long recognized the phe-
enhance ecosystem functions (Brooker et al., 2015; King & Blesh, nomenon of ‘‘overyielding” for diversified agroecosystems (e.g.,
2018). Metrics of functional diversity – based on plant traits that agroforestry, intercropping, Brooker et al., 2015), which more fully
determine their responses to, or effects on, the environment – exploit resources above- and below-ground in time and space.
are increasingly recognized as stronger predictors of ecosystem Such multifunctional systems can increase food production along-
function than species richness or other taxonomic diversity metrics side other social and ecological benefits, for instance, rehabilitating
(Martin & Isaac, 2015; Wood et al., 2015). degraded lands and contributing to income diversification in rural
Biological nitrogen fixation by legume species is a key areas (Leakey, 2012), thereby supporting multiple SDGs (Waldron
component of functional diversity supporting agroecosystem et al., 2017).
Taken together, this body of research highlights enormous (Gao & Bryan, 2017; Mugambiwa & Tirivangasi, 2017; Nilsson
opportunities for ecological principles to inform the design and et al., 2016). However, none of these papers mentioned ecological
management of more sustainable agroecosystems that build soil management of agriculture as an option for realizing these goals.
organic matter, balance nutrient budgets, control pests and dis- A couple of papers went further to identify specific production sys-
eases, and conserve wild biodiversity. In particular, managing crop tems – such as second-generation biofuel production on marginal-
and livestock diversity – especially plant functional diversity – at ized lands, agroforestry, or sustainable forest management – that
field- and farm-scales is critical for realizing multiple goals at once, may enhance agroecosystem resilience via distinct mechanisms
a key aspect of sustainability. When agroecological farms are clus- (Bonfante et al., 2017; Gratzer & Keeton, 2017; Waldron et al.,
tered together they generate diversified agricultural landscapes 2017), but did so without specifying how ecological management
that can conserve terrestrial ecosystems at larger spatial scales. is predicted to enhance resilience (e.g., by reducing input intensity
and associated emissions, fostering complementary species interac-
tions by increasing functional diversity, or building soil organic
4. The treatment of SDG 2 in the fields of agriculture, ecology matter). One paper, which discussed ecological management
and environment approaches directly (Garibaldi et al., 2017), including diversified,
agroecological, and organic systems, also did not describe the eco-
Considering that the Zero Hunger goal and current scientific logical principles that underpin their potential to help achieve
understanding of agroecosystems point to the need for a funda- SDG 2.
mental transition of agriculture toward management based on eco- Three additional papers made important arguments relevant to
logical principles, in this portion of our review we asked how SDG ecology without fully situating them in a broader ecological context.
2 is influencing research on pathways to agricultural sustainability. For example, one author pointed out that soil conservation was
Our review identified that ecologists and scholars in related fields neglected in the initial framing of the SDGs, and also noted the need
such as soil science have engaged with the second SDG to a limited for soil scientists to take ‘‘ecosystem approaches” (Bouma, 2014,
extent to date, which we expected given how recent the SDGs are. 2015). He then linked precision agriculture to an ecosystem
Our search identified 19 publications that met our search criteria, approach even though it usually falls within an industrial rather
and four of these cited SDG 2 as justification for their study than ecological management framework, because the aim is
(Goicoechea & Antolín, 2017; Pandey, 2017; Winkler, Viers, & improved efficiency of agrichemical input use (i.e., a paradigm
Nicholas, 2017; Wright et al., 2016). We found wide variation in focused on suppressing rather than harnessing ecological processes
how scholars apply and frame the goal, particularly in terms of within fields). Goicoechea and Antolín (2017) addressed plant-
the degree to which they draw upon the ecological science microbe interactions in the root zone, which is a critical research
reviewed above. The majority of these papers limited their ecolog- frontier relevant to agroecosystem sustainability and nutritional
ical science to discussion of global environmental crises, and quality of crops. Yet the authors did not specify how ecological prac-
neglected relevant ecological principles when discussing crop pro- tices could shape these interactions despite growing recognition of
duction on farms. A common thread among papers, however, was the need to understand how agroecosystem diversity and manage-
recognition that interdisciplinary approaches are essential for ment practices impact the soil microbiome and associated ecosys-
achieving sustainable and resilient agricultural systems specified tem processes and functions (Vries & Wallenstein, 2017).
in SDG 2, particularly noting the challenge of understanding inter- Two recent special issues in ecological journals linked their
actions among goals. work to SDG 2 in contrasting ways. The first, in Frontiers in Ecology
The degree to which natural science scholars engaged with eco- and Evolution, focused on optimizing multiple ecosystem services
logical literature varied across papers, even though the language of from agricultural systems, and cited SDG 2 through a predomi-
SDG 2 specifically includes these concepts. For example, despite nately productionist lens, stating the ‘‘need for management
growing recognition that productionist perspectives based on regimes that enhance both agricultural production and the provi-
industrial monocultures are too narrow, productionism was a com- sion of multiple ecosystem services” (Tsiafouli et al., 2017, p. 1).
mon theme in the papers reviewed here (Bouma, 2014, 2015; Gao In contrast, the introductory article to a special feature in the Jour-
& Bryan, 2017; Sims & Kienzle, 2016; Trimmer, Cusick, & Guest, nal of Applied Ecology also referenced SDG 2 to justify the need for
2017; Tsiafouli, Drakou, Orgiazzi, Hedlund, & Ritz, 2017; Wright empirical and theoretical research in agroecology, but, rather than
et al., 2016). In particular, these papers made general statements emphasizing production or intensification, the piece directly
about needing to increase agricultural productivity without a more explored how ecological science could inform the design of more
nuanced discussion about what is produced, how it is produced, sustainable agroecosystems (Martin & Isaac, 2018). For example,
and to what effect. For instance, these articles did not engage with component papers applied concepts from functional ecology to
more holistic framings of productivity such as nutritional yield per analysis of agroecosystems (e.g., identifying plant traits that
area (Cassidy, West, Gerber, & Foley, 2013), nor did they reference directly or indirectly influence ecosystem functions). One author
the full suite of management options available for increasing went further to extend these ecological concepts to the assessment
agroecosystem productivity including diversification and ecologi- of nutritional diversity in agroecosystems (Wood, 2018).
cal approaches. The predominance of productionist and techno- A final theme was the need for interdisciplinary research, and to
cratic perspectives in these papers was, however, unsurprising identify interactions between SDG 2 and other SDGs. For instance,
given the insights from critical social sciences that we discuss in several papers addressed the multiple functions of agroecosystems
the political economy and policy science section of this review. through empirical studies on biofuel production (Bonfante et al.,
Other papers were firmly grounded in ecological science, but 2017) and forest coffee systems (Nischalke, Abebe,
rarely considered agricultural management practices based on eco- Wondimagegnhu, Kriesemer, & Beuchelt, 2017), conceptual frame-
logical principles. Griggs et al. (2014) framed the SDGs in terms of works based on agroforestry (Waldron et al., 2017), and modeling
planetary boundaries and resilience, arguing that development approaches in the context of Australian land use (Gao & Bryan,
must be sustained without crossing critical thresholds for biodiver- 2017). Gao and Bryan (2017) identified potential synergies
sity loss, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, climate change, and land between second-generation biofuels using crop residues and SDG
and water use. Several other papers used a resilience framework to 2, although the ecological literature indicates the importance of
identify potential trade-offs between production and climate also considering potential trade-offs for soil organic matter storage
change mitigation, or between food security and climate change if more crop residues are removed. Nilsson et al. (2016) identified
competition for land and water as the primary threat food produc- burden of ill health globally (Global Panel, 2016). In fact, 6 of the
tion poses to terrestrial ecosystems. This framing assumes that top 11 risk factors for the global burden of disease are related to
agriculture is polluting, without recognizing the literature on diets (Forouzanfar et al., 2015). These risks reflect not only defi-
diversified, low-input agroecosystems that are more sustainable. ciencies of macro- and micronutrients, but also the health costs
Finally, these papers, and others focused on interactions (Gratzer of obesity and associated diet-related chronic disease. Nearly 30%
& Keeton, 2017; Griggs et al., 2014; Trimmer et al., 2017), argued of the world’s population is overweight or obese, and two-thirds
for addressing the SDGs, or subsets of them, collectively, noting of these individuals reside in low- and middle-income countries
the important challenge of taking an integrated approach to the (LMICs) (Ng et al., 2014). Obesity is associated with a wide range
goals and their component targets to maximize synergies and of chronic health conditions (Kopelman, 2007), and is responsible
reduce trade-offs. However, for the most part, in these papers there for an increasingly large burden of morbidity, mortality, and asso-
was a notable lack of a systems approach. ciated health care costs worldwide (Council, 2014). Few countries
have been able to halt the rise of adult obesity (IFPRI, 2015).
The need is great for widespread adoption of diets that prevent
5. The state of science linking nutrition and food systems the multiple burdens of malnutrition. Yet, the most common
approaches to addressing undernutrition have not primarily
The most conspicuous output of food systems is the production focused on changing dietary patterns, but have instead emphasized
of food for direct or indirect human consumption. The extent to providing supplements and pharmaceutical treatments to vulnera-
which the food produced by food systems contributes to human ble populations (e.g., supplementation of women of reproductive
health and well-being through healthy diets is thus an important age and preschool-aged children with micronutrients; deworming
indicator of the health of the food system itself (Barilla, 2017). It medication; and malaria prophylaxis) (Bhutta et al., 2013). In turn,
is also foundational to the study of pathways that could achieve medications and bariatric surgery are among the most common
Zero Hunger. Much like the divergent solutions that agricultural approaches to addressing obesity (Cawley & Meyerhoefer, 2012).
scientists propose based on incomplete definitions of sustainability While these solutions are important components of an overall
and productivity, there is also no single definition of a ‘‘healthy strategy to reduce malnutrition, they do not often address the
diet.” A broad assessment of dietary patterns worldwide suggests underlying causes of the problems. Unhealthy diets are one such
that ‘‘a diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predom- cause, and to transform diets, the food systems that enable such
inantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and unhealthy diets must also be transformed.
disease prevention” (Katz & Meller, 2014, p. 83). Other definitions Efforts to transform food systems to improve diets have not his-
of healthy diets focus on adequacy of macro- and micronutrients, torically emphasized improving dietary quality so much as produc-
limits on additives, trans fats, added sugars and salt, as well as ing more food—an approach putatively linked to the goal of
overall diversity (HLPE, 2017). reducing food insecurity. Public health scholars, then, often echo
The lack of consensus on a definition of a healthy diet stems in the productionist view of many natural scientists, conceptualizing
part from the unique combination of diet-related health concerns food insecurity as a problem of food availability (Simmons &
faced across different global regions. In many countries of Sub- Saundry, 2012). Yet, understanding of food insecurity has evolved
Saharan Africa and South Asia, for example, child growth stunting considerably with evidence that physical and economic access to
remains a primary concern (Onis & Branca, 2016). The etiology of high-quality food, as well as proper utilization of that food, are cen-
stunting is complex and not thoroughly understood; however, tral to ensuring food security (Jones, Ngure, Pelto, & Young, 2013).
low-quality diets associated with poor complementary feeding The promotion of sustainable agriculture alongside ensuring food
practices are one important determinant of the syndrome security in SDG 2 is a further sign of the evolution of our under-
(Prendergast & Humphrey, 2014). It is clear that more diverse diets standing of food security. Several UN reports, notably the IAASTD
are associated with a lower risk of stunting (Arimond & Ruel, (2008) and those of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food,
2004), and there is mixed evidence in particular that animal- have linked the ‘‘right to food” to both ‘‘sustainable rural liveli-
source foods (ASFs) rich in bioavailable micronutrients (e.g., iron, hoods” and the ‘‘right to a sustainable agroecosystem”. The aca-
zinc, vitamin A) may be protective against stunting (Dror & Allen, demic and policy literature has recently begun to interpret these
2011). Yet, in contexts where nutrient deficiencies are not a pre- issues within the broader framework of ‘‘sustainable diets” (Jones
dominant concern, overconsumption of ASFs, especially meat, is et al., 2015; Mason & Lang, 2017), a topic addressed further in our
common and may have deleterious health impacts. Consumption discussion and conclusions. Reflecting these more holistic under-
of unprocessed and processed red meat, for example, is associated standings of food security, a report published in 2016 by the Global
with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and colorectal can- Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition offers a com-
cer (Bouvard et al., 2015; Chan et al., 2011). This example high- prehensive outline of four broad pathways through which food sys-
lights the need to assess the nature and extent of the disease tems might influence diet quality: 1) agricultural production
burden in a given context when considering the desired dietary systems; 2) food storage, transport, and trade; 3) food transforma-
outputs of a food system. tion; and 4) food retail and provisioning (Global Panel, 2016).
Diet diversity offers another example of the challenge of a ‘‘one- Briefly, within the first pathway, agroecosystem diversity can
size-fits-all” approach to cultivating healthy food systems. Con- influence diet quality. Crop species richness on farms is consis-
sumption of a diverse diet, primarily fruits and vegetables, aligns tently associated with more diverse diets among farming house-
with international guidance for disease prevention and is a consis- holds in LMICs (Jones, 2017a). If consumed, this agricultural
tent focus of national dietary recommendations (FAO & WHO, diversity can directly influence the diets of subsistence farmers,
2004; Fischer & Garnett, 2016). However, diversity within food sys- and if sold, can indirectly contribute to healthy diets if appropriate
tems varies widely, and the contribution of specific foods to meet- foods are purchased that promote health and/or prevent disease
ing nutrient requirements also differs with varietal differences, soil (Jones, 2017b). The production of diverse food crops at regional
conditions, and local consumption patterns (Ruel, 2003). Therefore, scales can also contribute to local consumption diversity because
the desired extent and nature of crop diversity within a food sys- most production in LMICs is sold to local markets and purchased
tem must also be assessed in light of local conditions and norms. and consumed locally (Herrero et al., 2017).
Despite the lack of a universal definition of a healthy diet, the The second pathway outlined in the Global Panel report – food
evidence is clear that poor-quality diets underlie the largest storage, transport and trade – is primarily concerned with support-
ing improved consumer access to healthy foods. Approximately food insecurity among cassava farmers in Nigeria. They recom-
one-third or more of global food production is lost or wasted mended increased land planted to cassava, diversified incomes
through the supply chain (Gustavsson, Cederberg, Sonesson, van among farming households, greater participation in cooperative
Otterdijk, & Meybeck, 2011). Reducing such losses is important groups, greater involvement of youth in agriculture, efforts to
for ensuring consumers have timely access to healthy, diverse empower women, and strengthened family planning efforts, as
foods. Reducing food safety risks (both chemical and microbial) is important approaches to reducing food insecurity in the country.
also a priority and requires improved post-harvest processing and Zhou and Hendriks (2017) evaluated the impact of cash and food
storage, improved screening technology, monitoring systems, and transfers by the World Food Programme on the diversity and qual-
regulation throughout the supply chain. ity of diets among households in Mozambique. They observed that
The third pathway linking food systems and diet quality high- both cash and food transfers can improve diets, albeit through dis-
lights the importance of food processing and transformation. The tinct mechanisms, and that a combination of both approaches
relative abundance of specific food and agricultural commodities would likely increase demand for nutritious foods with multiplier
has important influences on diets; yet, how foods are processed, effects for local food systems. Finally, Naughton, Deubel, and
substituted, and marketed relative to one another is likely to have Mihelcic (2017) proposed that the increased use of shea butter,
an even stronger influence on consumer diets (Hawkes, Friel, an edible oil commonly used throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, could
Lobstein, & Lang, 2012). Though consumption of processed foods contribute to achieving SDG 2 (among other SDGs). Using data col-
may contribute to risk of some chronic diseases (Martínez Steele lected in Mali from 2009 to 2014, the authors reported on the cul-
et al. 2016; Yang et al., 2014), ‘‘food processing” encompasses an tural and social importance of shea butter for gifting customs,
enormous diversity of processes aimed at altering the properties cooperative labor, and religious ceremonies, as well as its role as
of fresh foods, many of which have positive effects on the health- a gap food during the hungry season, and as an exchange commod-
fulness of diets. Extending the seasonality of fruits and vegetables, ity to buy seeds and staple foods when these essentials run out
for example, through freezing, drying, fermenting, and other tech- during the lean season. Overall, the conceptual underpinnings of
niques to reduce perishability, is critically important for increasing the SDG 2 were not clearly articulated in these studies. Rather,
access to such foods among low-income, rural residents in many the goal simply provided a backdrop for discussing determinants
world regions (Gómez & Ricketts, 2013). of, and potential solutions to, food insecurity and poor quality diets
The final pathway linking food systems and diet quality empha- in these three settings.
sizes the importance of food outlets in informing food availability, Reddy (2016) assessed India’s progress in advancing food secu-
prices, and preferences. Supermarkets may have contrasting influ- rity goals from 1990 to 2016. Although this study examined food
ences on diets. While food safety standards in supermarkets are security in a specific country, its focus was broader than a single
often dramatically higher relative to traditional retail outlets, thus commodity or program, examining trends in the country’s chang-
potentially conveying health benefits to consumers, supermarkets ing food security. The authors observed that food calories were suf-
have also become the dominant distributors of processed foods ficient to meet population demand in India, and furthermore that
globally (Global Panel, 2016). Therefore, the precise impacts of domestic food price stability was comparatively high in India.
supermarkets on the health of diets is not clear. Supermarkets also However, in assessing other components of food security, he found
favor the expansion of low diversity agricultural systems that rely that India’s performance was less than adequate. Specifically, pro-
on large external inputs of non-renewable resources (Reardon, tein availability, and the production of legumes in particular were
Barrett, Berdegué, & Swinnen, 2009). below needed levels, while the prevalence of undernourishment
among women and children was among the highest in the world,
suggesting that food access and utilization are still prominent con-
6. The treatment of SDG 2 in the fields of nutrition and public cerns despite adequate calorie availability. As with the previous
health studies, SDG 2 was not explicitly critiqued or comprehensively
assessed, but was rather used to motivate an examination of food
Given the impacts that agroecosystem diversity and post- security trends in India.
harvest activities have on the health of diets, we asked in this por- SDG 2 was more prominently discussed in two additional stud-
tion of our literature review whether SDG 2 is motivating more ies. Conceição, Levine, Lipton, and Warren-Rodríguez (2016)
systemic research within health and nutrition fields. We identified argued that agricultural production is key to reducing food insecu-
only eight studies focused on nutrition and public health that men- rity and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. The aims of SDG 2 were
tioned SDG 2. In total, SDG 2 does not appear to be strongly inform- clearly articulated in the justification for discussing agriculture as
ing discussions of food insecurity in this field to date. Where it was a solution to food insecurity. However, rather than focusing on sus-
mentioned, it was used to justify, in broad terms, a diversity of tainable agriculture, authors emphasized increasing agricultural
research questions that centered largely on increasing agricultural yields through more intensive use of synthetic inputs such as fer-
food production to increase food availability, based on the produc- tilizers, and improved farm technology, as well as strengthened
tionist paradigm. Second, recognition of the role of food access and trade at local, national, regional and global scales. They further
diet quality as core components of food security was not promi- cited the importance of reducing gender inequalities in rural
nent in these articles. Finally, with few exceptions, the studies economies, and in particular noted the lack of robust and equitable
did not comprehensively address the multiple components of food legal frameworks for ownership and inheritance of land between
systems beyond agricultural production (i.e., food storage, trans- men and women as an important contributor to gender inequali-
port, and trade; food transformation; food waste; food retail and ties. Though not limited to Sub-Saharan Africa, Kharas et al.
provisioning). These aspects are increasingly influential in inform- (2017) developed a similar set of arguments for achieving the aims
ing consumer behavior, access to food, and the quality of diets, as of SDG 2 globally, but gave recommendations for strategies the
highlighted by the Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems G20, in particular, could prioritize for ending rural hunger. These
for Nutrition. strategies included: 1) integrating global food markets, 2) increas-
Three studies that reported on how specific crops or food assis- ing access to input markets for improved seeds, fertilizer, machin-
tance programs in specific countries influenced food security and ery and finance, 3) investing in agricultural research and extension,
diet quality used SDG 2 to broadly motivate the need for their and 4) coordinating the targeting of country-level investments in
research. Amalu and Agbachom (2016) assessed determinants of agriculture at the global level. In both articles, the authors adopted
a narrow interpretation of food insecurity, positioning it largely in food sovereignty movement, spearheaded by La Via Campesina,
terms of insufficient caloric availability that gains in food produc- is among the most visible social movements that has mobilized
tion efficiency and improvements in trade will largely alleviate. hundreds of thousands of farmers globally and influenced UN dis-
Stephens, Jones, and Parsons (2017) provided a historical per- cussions as early as the mid-1990s, including SDG 2 negotiations
spective on the intersections between agricultural systems (Fontoura, Bharucha, & Böhm, 2016). A transformative concept,
research and global food security research—two fields explicitly food sovereignty scholarship highlights the need to preserve the
linked in the language of SDG 2. As with the first articles men- natural resource base for future food production and to democra-
tioned above, SDG 2 was used to motivate the discussion related tize food system governance, citing the role of corporate power
to the role of agricultural systems in addressing food insecurity. and capitalism in locking in unsustainable practices (Sexsmith &
The authors noted that agricultural systems are embedded within McMichael, 2015; Wittman, Desmarais, & Wiebe, 2010).
food systems, and shape and are shaped by the larger food systems Second, policy science (Clark, 2002) – the combined study of
via market interactions, trade, agroecological management prac- policy analysis (what to do) and the policy process (how to do it)
tices, institutions, and cultural influences. They noted that agricul- – offers important lessons for realizing SDG 2. While multiple
tural systems may not always be closely tied to improving food stakeholders are expected to collaborate on the SDGs, the 2030
security, especially in contexts with long supply chains where Agenda for Sustainable Development assumes that country gov-
non-agricultural components of the food system most strongly ernments bear the ultimate responsibility. As the Agenda states,
shape food access and dietary patterns. They further cited the need ‘‘national ownership is key to achieving sustainable development”
for more interdisciplinary collaboration to capture the complexity (UN, 2015) albeit regular progress reviews are intended to
of these interacting systems. ‘‘support countries in making informed policy choices” (p. 32).
Only one identified article explicitly critiqued the framing of Many policy analysts assume that ensuring ‘‘informed policy
SDG 2 or analyzed it on its own merit, rather than employing it choices” simply requires rational decision-making, a process that
as a leverage point for a more indirect discussion of food and nutri- involves establishing a goal (like SDG 2), weighing all the data,
tion security issues. Battersby (2017) argued that SDG 2 does not and comparing strategies systematically (Heracleous, 1994). As
adequately reflect the reality of food and nutrition insecurity in the discussion of agriculture and health has shown, there is little
Sub-Saharan Africa, namely, the vulnerabilities of urban residents agreement about basic definitions of the problem, so there is little
and the dual nature of the malnutrition problem that encompasses basis for this assumption.
not just undernutrition, but also obesity and diet-related chronic Policy science instead shows that decision-makers have
illness (Battersby, 2017). The author critiqued the so-called ‘‘bounded rationality” (Simon, 1957), requiring cognitive short-
‘‘twin-track” approach to addressing food insecurity (i.e., social cuts to make decisions that draw on available information but also
welfare investments coupled with programs to enhance agricul- emotions, interests, values, habits, bureaucratic inertia, and long-
tural development) as narrow, not equipped to address the under- held beliefs (Cairney & Weible, 2017). This research also shows
lying causes of the problem, and as overlooking the need to that political pressure and bargaining – whether through coalitions
simultaneously confront obesity alongside undernutrition in both or social movements (Andrews, 2001) or the more subtle, ongoing
rural and urban settings. This broader food systems perspective, work of policy champions (Kingdon, 1984) – is also critical for rais-
acknowledging the complexity of food security and the food envi- ing awareness about public problems, promoting new solutions,
ronments within which it occurs, is needed to advance the goals of holding governments accountable, and ultimately, shifting deci-
SDG 2. sions (Jones & Baumgartner, 2012). Furthermore, research on
‘‘street-level bureaucrats” (Lipsky, 2010) also demonstrates how
high-level adoption of a plan is necessary, but not sufficient, as
7. The state of the science in political economy and policy front-line staff can either enhance or undermine a policy based
science on how equipped and motivated they are to carry out an
intervention.
A final area of scholarship reiterates the importance of ensuring Additionally, policy science research highlights the challenges
stakeholder agreement about the underlying source of problems of collaborative efforts, which the SDGs conceivably encourage
implied by SDG 2 and the institutional mechanisms for accom- through goals that are considered ‘‘integrated and indivisible”
plishing ‘‘zero hunger.” First, food regime theory offers one of the (UN, 2015, p. 1). Contrasting mandates and professional norms,
most widely used political economy frameworks for explaining incongruent legal, regulatory and procedural structures, and clash-
how today’s industrialized food system emerged and what might ing interest groups often get in the way of efforts to align the
lead to its transformation (McMichael, 2009). Food regimes are actions of multiple agencies (Agranoff, 2006). In the early stages
characterized by relatively stable periods in history when norms, of agenda setting, policy networks can break apart when they
institutional structures, and the interactions between govern- attempt to attribute blame for a problem, even if they agree that
ments, publics, and market actors shape food and agriculture prac- a problem exists (Benford & Snow, 2000). If policy communities
tices that become hegemonic, with transition periods when can coalesce and remain united, however, they are often vital to
pressure begins to mount to reshape food systems (Friedmann, sustaining attention on an issue even after a policy has begun to
2005). After WWII and the 1940s, Otero et al. (2013) argue that be implemented (Patashnik, 2008). Policy science concludes that
national food security was largely managed through state protec- any effort to shift policy requires sustained coalitions alongside a
tion of domestic markets, with only surpluses traded. The current, problem framing that speaks to the interests of decision-makers,
corporate food regime, however, began to form during the 1980s solutions that outline adaptable implementation processes, and a
when agricultural trade liberalization was framed as a more cost- keen awareness of opportune moments to act (Cairney & Weible,
effective and efficient way to ensure local food security (Otero 2017).
et al., 2013). As agri-food corporations have consolidated power Building on policy science research, another concept that offers
over food systems, the growing number of alternative food move- lessons for accomplishing SDG 2 – strategic capacity – emerged
ments signal that efforts are gaining strength to disrupt the current from a concern that nutrition advocates in the Global South had
food regime. These movements ultimately aim to build a new accumulated tremendous technical knowledge through many
regime, based on equity, health-promotion and sustainable food examples of successful, efficacy-trialed interventions, and often
production (Friedmann, 2005; Galt, 2017; McMichael, 2009). The unprecedented funding to implement policies, yet had largely
failed to accomplish large-scale societal or institutional change search criteria by social scientists working in a variety
(Bryce et al., 2008). This research also reflected decades of attempts of fields – especially in development sociology, but also public pol-
to address food insecurity and malnutrition through top-down icy, technology studies, economics, ecology, and nutrition.
approaches. The largest of these efforts, implemented in dozens Similar to our review of ecology and nutrition literature, several
of countries by multiple universities and donors in the 1960s, social science articles we reviewed only mentioned SDG 2 to justify
failed categorically (Field, 1987). However, technocratic, expert- the significance of their research, including two on the food-biofuel
led efforts to design food and nutrition interventions have been tradeoff (Das, 2017; Renzaho, Kamara, & Toole, 2017) and one on
repeated many times with similar outcomes (Pelletier et al., seasonality in price gaps of certain crops in Africa (Gilbert,
2012). Policy science researchers argue that policy champions in Christiaensen, & Kaminski, 2017). Most social scientists writing
each of these contexts lacked strategic capacity, defined as the about SDG 2, however, wrote articles that directly engaged the
capacity to negotiate opposing views, build trust and ownership, way the goal was established and its potential implications. A
customize solutions, address logistical bottlenecks, and incorpo- number of these scholars discussed how efforts to be holistic and
rate multiple types of knowledge – especially the views of to incorporate so many voices in the development of SDG 2 did
marginalized actors with experiential knowledge. These and other not allow for adequate debate about historical underpinnings and
socio-political skills are critical for guiding reforms through all underlying causes of hunger and poverty (Weber, 2014), resulting
stages of the policy process, from forming coalitions, to getting in a goal and numerous targets that are too ambiguous to warrant a
and keeping an issue on political agendas, to policy formulation clear path forward (Griggs et al., 2014; Holden, Linnerud, &
and implementation (Agranoff, 2006; Pelletier et al., 2012). Banister, 2017; Hunter et al., 2016). This may explain why tensions
Strategic capacity research has shown, for instance, that nutri- exist among the various writings about SDG 2, notably whether to
tion policy communities may agree on the broad goal, but often support a food sovereignty or a productionist and market-oriented
cannot move forward because they disagree about which approach to food security. Other tensions concerned how to con-
evidence-based strategies to implement (Bryce et al., 2008; ceive of solutions in urban or rural areas, and how to agree on a
Gillespie, Menon, & Kennedy, 2015). Like broader findings on col- more explicit plan of action. We elaborate each of these below.
laboration, this line of research has identified key challenges to First, a major contradiction that emerged from the many unex-
cross-sector approaches to food systems reform, including compet- amined ideas within SDG 2 is that a food sovereignty framing
ing priorities that can create governance gaps, leaving no one to exists alongside strong support for corporate interests. As some
focus on food security or malnutrition when neither agriculture scholars described, private sector actors that were part of SDG 2
nor health ministries assume it is their responsibility (Hoey & negotiations, including some researchers, unquestioningly see cor-
Pelletier, 2011). Even if national agendas are established, other porations, the technologies they are developing to increase produc-
research shows the importance of engaging in policy advocacy tion, and market-based solutions as critical solutions to hunger;
and capacity building at local levels to enable decentralized food these actors support increasing public-private partnerships and
and nutrition plans (Gillespie et al., 2015; Harris, Frongillo, launching a second Green Revolution with strategies like climate
Nguyen, Kim, & Menon, 2017). This research also identifies the smart agriculture, agricultural trade, and efforts to incorporate
importance of feedback mechanisms based on the practical knowl- smallholders into global markets (Eggersdorfer & Bird, 2016;
edge of communities, front-line staff and mid-level managers, all of Kharas et al., 2017; Swaminathan, 2014). While some civil society
whom can either improve or halt implementation (Heidkamp et al., groups also encouraged public-private partnerships, scholars writ-
2012; Hoey, 2015). ing about SDG noted that most of the NGOs that participated in
This latter conclusion is reinforced by Duncan (2016), who these early negotiations criticized the industrialization of agricul-
argues that opportunities are especially needed for grassroots ture and the commercialization of food policy (Battersby, 2017;
groups and historically marginalized actors to meaningfully partic- Fontoura et al., 2016). Many social scientists were also concerned
ipate in food security governance. Two successful cases where this that because the causes of food insecurity were not adequately dis-
has occurred can be found in Brazil, where the Movement of Land- cussed during the formulation of SDG 2 – including free trade, cap-
less Rural Workers (MST) has cultivated skilled policy advocates ital flight, corporate-dominated markets, investment policies, and
from within who have been able to influence national policy land dispossession – a productionist paradigm dominated. Similar
(Tarlau, 2015), and conversely, a holistic food security program to discussions in earlier sections, these scholars noted that the pro-
started by the Belo Horizonte government that linked the right to ductionist paradigm allowed the incorporation of solutions that are
food with markets for family farmers and biodiversity conserva- likely to exacerbate rather than reduce hunger: short-term, tech-
tion, and strengthened rural-urban linkages (Chappell, 2018; nocratic solutions such as food aid, food supplements, fortification,
Rocha & Lessa, 2009). Policy champions were essential in both of and biofortification along with labor saving agricultural technolo-
these cases by playing a bridging role between government legisla- gies despite high levels of rural unemployment and emigration
tors and grassroots movements. Champions are also critical for (Battersby, 2017; Holden et al., 2017; Hunter et al., 2016;
moving food systems efforts beyond ‘‘superficial change” to struc- Sexsmith & McMichael, 2015; Weber, 2014).
tural change (Holt Giménez & Shattuck, 2011), and for preventing As an extension of this debate, a number of scholars pointed out
national governments from undermining and pacifying grassroots how many NGOs, social movement groups, and some researchers
movements (Giraldo & Rosset, 2017). are advocating for food sovereignty to be the prime framework
guiding SDG 2, such as supporting environmental sustainability
and protecting peasant agriculture and local food economies from
8. The treatment of SDG 2 in the fields of political economy and global markets (Battersby, 2017; Fontoura et al., 2016). Similarly,
policy science others wrote about the need to address the economic and political
barriers that limit efforts to resolve food insecurity (Fukuda-Parr &
Considering the importance of having a clear conception of the Yamin, 2013; Weber, 2014), particularly discussions that emerged
problem, and concrete skills and strategies for translating food and during the 1996 World Food Summit around land redistribution
nutrition goals into action, we asked in this section whether the and gender equality (Fukuda-Parr & Yamin, 2013). Two develop-
Zero Hunger SDG is sparking similar conversations, particularly ment sociologists also pointed out how the International Assess-
in line with food regime theory and scholarship on strategic capac- ment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for
ity. Our literature review identified 23 publications that met our Development (IAASTD), a three-year, multi-stakeholder UN-led
expert report, also recommended ending subsidies in the Global the institutional politics involved in negotiating such tradeoffs, or
North, offering subsidies for small-scale sustainable farming, and the capacity needed to carry out the actions that are determined
supporting farmer knowledge and seed exchange as a way to revi- as optimal.
talize rural communities – none of which is apparent in SDG 2 Alternatively, Hunter et al. (2016) discussed the importance of
(Sexsmith & McMichael, 2015). enabling cross-sector commitments to SDG 2, such as capacity
Second, another group of scholars pointed out potential trade- building to improve vertical and horizontal coordination among
offs – or unexplored opportunities – in dealing with SDG 2 along- government institutions, and financing for agricultural and nutri-
side SDG 11, which is focused on sustainable cities (Battersby, tion sectors to better understand and incorporate mutually rein-
2017). A few scholars worried that the SDGs frame urbanization forcing strategies. Also moving beyond technocratic attempts to
as natural and inevitable, as the primary place to increase jobs, achieve certain benchmarks (Moore, 2015), a number of scholars
implying that crops should be grown via labor-saving, who echo food sovereignty arguments instead suggested that
commercial-based agriculture that will continue to push small- SDG 2 should be seen as an opportunity to reconfigure governing
scale farmers off their land (Anderson, 2015; Sexsmith & institutions and decision-making processes (Fukuda-Parr &
McMichael, 2015). Others, however, pointed out how cities – and Yamin, 2013; Holden et al., 2017; Weber, 2014). Engaging
mayoral coalitions around the world – are becoming active agents marginalized groups, one group of scholars pointed out, would
in driving innovative food system transitions, but are not consid- help address inequalities of underlying development paradigms
ered sufficiently in either SDG 2 or 11 for the potential synergies that have led to present day problems with food security, creating
they could play in addressing hunger, nutrition, and production opportunities to devise more innovative and customized theories
goals (Battersby, 2017; Ilieva, 2017). Battersby (2017) also sug- of social change (Battersby, 2017; Fukuda-Parr & Yamin, 2013;
gested that urban food insecurity may be underestimated. She Holden et al., 2017; Moore, 2015).
described how the continued growth of urban areas and the high
cost of living, the dependency of urban residents on a cash econ- 9. Discussion and conclusions
omy, and the rapid pace of change in the urban food environment
likely mean urban food insecurity requires different solutions not SDG 2 reflects an emerging public consensus that collective
considered in SDG 2, related to post-harvest processors, market action is needed to address the global environmental, public
structures, food transportation, and food safety. health, and social equity crises confronting the current food system
Finally, scholars also disagreed about the process for moving (Ericksen, 2008; Liu et al., 2007; Wittman et al., 2017). We argue in
forward; in other words, how to translate SDG 2 ideas into action. this paper that the pathway to achieving the Zero Hunger goal
Many social scientists writing about SDG 2 agreed that the SDGs should center on place-based, adaptive, and participatory solutions
generally, like the Millennium Development Goals, allow indica- that simultaneously attend to local institutional capacities, agroe-
tors to become both blinders and the focus, without adequately cosystem diversification and ecological management, and the qual-
offering guidelines to actors on the ground about the decision- ity of local diets. However, our review of the literature referencing
making and implementation processes needed to operationalize SDG 2 from three disciplinary areas suggests that scholars are gen-
the goal (Battersby, 2017; Fukuda-Parr & Yamin, 2013; Gao & erally not linking these dimensions when they study food systems.
Bryan, 2017; Gore, 2015; Hunter et al., 2016; Koehler, 2015; van Social scientists were more likely to discuss the issues of gover-
Vuuren et al., 2015). Especially because SDG 2 does not discuss nance (i.e. how to prioritize among SDGs or SDG 2 targets, who
who should be involved in implementation, Battersby (2017) noted should be part of decision-making, etc.), but this literature also
that major donors and the private sector will likely take the lead – reveals a number of tensions, with articles spanning opposing con-
as evidenced by the significant role that initiatives like the Alliance cepts such as food sovereignty and industrial agriculture, or con-
for a Green Revolution in Africa and Scaling-Up Nutrition already cerns over farmer livelihoods versus a need to attend to urban
play in addressing food insecurity – rather than governments or food insecurity. Ecology and nutrition literature on SDG 2 tended
grassroots groups. Others worried that too little attention has been to be limited in similar ways: scholars from both fields often pro-
placed on the cross-cutting nature of SDG 2, which has clear inter- posed reductionist, treatment-focused approaches (e.g., sustain-
actions with other goals, particularly SDG 1 (poverty eradication), able intensification, micronutrient supplements, etc.) and applied
SDG 3 (health promotion), SDG 4 (high quality education for all), an empirically outdated productionist framework, rooted in per-
SDG 7 (clean energy), SDG 11 (sustainable cities), SDG 12 (sustain- ceptions that ecological management reduces yields and that
able consumption, including halving food waste), SDG 13 (climate insufficient food availability is the primary cause of food insecurity.
action), and SDG 15 (sustainable forest management). Without These findings are not entirely surprising. The political economy
guidance about how to coordinate actions across each of these and policy science literature we outlined explains why research
goals, some scholars suggested the SDGs could perpetuate a siloed outputs like the articles on SDG 2 we reviewed, along with global
approach, while missing opportunities to create synergies to boost and local policies, allocation of research dollars, and institutional
SDG 2 actions, or even undermining such efforts (Battersby, 2017; actions, tend to focus on reductionist approaches. As the history
Koehler, 2015). of science suggests, the process of shifting research paradigms is
A few scholars promoted a comprehensive, rational decision- slow, given that epistemologies and methodologies become hege-
making approach that models and compares various options for monic (Devlin & Bokulich, 2015; Kuhn, 1996). Polarized arguments
accomplishing SDG 2 and other goals simultaneously (Gao & about the root causes of food security in academia, which were
Bryan, 2017). Two teams of scholars, for instance, have conducted apparent in the nutrition and ecology literature, also stem in part
modeling exercises to consider how to achieve SDG 2 alongside from differences in power among the relevant disciplines address-
other SDGs – including goals on emissions, energy, water use, ing food system challenges (Vanloqueren & Baret, 2009). For exam-
biodiversity, climate change, air pollution and/or land use goals ple, researchers in natural science fields usually have a larger
– yet they concluded that multiple goals can rarely be achieved platform in social-ecological debates about food security. Yet these
together without having to make trade-offs (Gao & Bryan, 2017; scientists often enter these debates with limited understanding of
van Vuuren et al., 2015). Kharas et al. (2017) also suggested that social theory and the historical and political processes that have
the G20 could speed the rate of progress on SDG 2 if it ranked produced today’s industrial food system (Glamann, Hanspach,
countries on several criteria to determine where to direct private Abson, Collier, & Fischer, 2017; Lélé & Norgaard, 2005). Many nat-
direct investment. However, none of these studies acknowledged ural scientists, then, assume the current social structures shaping
the food system are inevitable and impractical to change, leading from production of commodity crops for international markets,
them to promote industrial management practices that extend where wealth is concentrated among a small group of farmers
and deepen a ‘‘command-and-control” management approach and agribusinesses, to supporting development of local, regional,
(Holling & Meffe, 1996; Taylor, 2014), which reduces agroecosys- and domestic markets for smallholders to produce diverse and
tem resilience and human health. This perspective also reinforces nutritious foods.
the problematic lack of empirical data on diversified agroecosys- The similarly comprehensive sustainable diets framework, pro-
tems. Funding often perpetuates reductionist research approaches moted in particular by Mason and Lang (2017), is another concept
as well. For instance, globally, systemic imbalances in research that is gaining attention among scholars and increasingly being
investments have led to limited empirical data on the most diver- used to frame national dietary guidelines (Jones et al., 2015;
sified agroecosystems (DeLonge, Miles, & Carlisle, 2016). As a con- Joseph & Clancy, 2015). Firm believers in measurement to assess
sequence, diversified, ecologically-based systems are either left out problems, set goals, and evaluate progress in achieving them,
of large-scale modeling efforts or meta-analyses, or the models are Mason and Lang provide a catalogue of metrics related to diet,
not properly validated, meaning these approaches risk missing health, and sustainable crop production, and suggest ways to com-
important potential solutions (Jones et al., 2016). bine them into useful indexes. Their approach builds on Lang’s
If much of the SDG 2 literature to date is still based on a produc- longstanding idea of ecological public health (Lang & Heasman,
tionist perspective, and if SDG 2 was established without adequate 2015; Lang, Barling, & Caraher, 2009). At the same time, Mason
consideration of the root causes of food system crises, this raises and Lang (2017) note that many crucial aspects of food security,
the question of whether SDG 2 should be promoted as a guiding such as quality of food related to individual and public health,
framework for global and local action. Certainly, many organiza- and even more elusive aspects such as food cultures, cannot be
tions within the UN system are part of the legacy of industrial agri- easily quantified, but might better be approached through indica-
culture, according to some scholars, having been key proponents of tors that link qualitative and quantitative perspectives, such as
the Green Revolution and serving as major partners in the second the number of people ‘‘nourished per hectare” (p. 45). Others pro-
wave of Green Revolution interventions (Zeigler & Mohanty, 2010). pose more holistic food system performance metrics, such as nutri-
However, the UN is large and complex. Along with promoting the tional functional diversity (Remans et al., 2011) or nutritional yield
SDGs, it has also initiated or supported findings from IAASTD, the per acre (Cassidy et al., 2013). In contrast, the more commonly
UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Food for Cities, the used ‘‘yield per unit area” – which is included in the SDG 2 target
Committee on World Food Security, and the Global Panel on Agri- to increase agricultural productivity – obscures the suite of com-
culture and Food Systems for Nutrition, most of which are initia- plex factors that drive food insecurity by narrowly focusing on food
tives that include civil society perspectives as well as powerful availability (Hunter et al., 2017; Schipanski et al., 2016; Wittman
private and state actors. In any case, similar to the MDGs, the SDGs et al., 2017). Mason and Lang’s suggestions also extend SDG 2 pro-
will likely continue to influence international discourse and have a posals, for instance, to end agricultural export subsidies, by
mobilizing effect – even if uneven – on national governments, proposing regulations that create positive incentives for sustain-
donors, and researchers (Manning, 2010). able production and consumption of quality foods.
Ultimately, the broad, multi-pronged framing of SDG 2 is prob- The idea of sustainable diets also echoes what the Global Panel
lematic in many ways, but it also opens the possibility of shifting on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition suggests, namely to
the conversation in a more holistic direction, especially if the look beyond production to include processing, distribution, and
science informing SDG 2 becomes more robust. Our review shows retail steps in food systems. This builds on an earlier argument
that, to date, a significant number of articles reference SDG 2 by Lang (2010, 87) that food policy must attend not only to agricul-
mainly to legitimize the basis of their research, rather than as a ture but also to food supply chains, as ‘‘power and capital have
point of departure. Research may also be slower to incorporate moved off the land, controlling access [by farmers] to mostly urban
applied questions in some fields, such as public health, where we markets.” Focusing on increasing agricultural production as the
found the smallest number of articles mentioning SDG 2. Given prime way to address hunger, in other words, hides the fact that
that the SDGs are still relatively new, however, this opens possibil- the food system is a major employer that includes not only farm-
ities for motivating future research on SDG 2 that reflects a more ers, but also workers in food manufacturing, retail and food ser-
transformative, integrated, and structurally-grounded analysis vices, delivery and other logistical aspects of supply chains, and
(Vandermeer et al., 2018). Two conceptual frameworks, in particu- of course, migrant and often non-citizen farm workers. If these
lar, offer systems-based lenses for integrated analysis of agricul- workers had sufficient incomes, it would make a real contribution
ture and food security, which could also inform the development to achieving SDG 2.
of effective policies: the social-ecological systems approach and the This perspective also acknowledges the need to integrate urban
sustainable diets framework. areas into food systems analysis – especially because most people
A growing body of scholarship builds on Ostrom’s (2009) con- live in cities for the first time in history – and to recognize the pro-
ceptual framework to consider agricultural landscapes as gressive environmental, health and equity solutions that are
social-ecological systems, with interacting social and ecological increasingly emerging from urban governments and urban food
properties nested across scales from farm to globe (Fischer et al., movements (Battersby, 2017). A food systems view, like sustainable
2017; Wittman et al., 2017). These scholars call for applying eco- diets, however, simultaneously recognizes that as long as techno-
logical principles to food production, such as managing biodiver- logical change is assumed to be in the direction of agricultural
sity to reduce dependence on non-renewable inputs, and for industrialization, it is likely to retain its historical purpose of shed-
moving beyond productionist perspectives. Key arguments are ding labor, and to use reduced labor as a measure of productivity.
the need to acknowledge the contributions that biodiversity itself That most of the food insecure people in the world are rural
can make to food security (Smith & Haddad, 2015; Wittman & (IAASTD, 2009; IPES, 2016) highlights another dubious aspect of
Blesh, 2015), and to attend to social and institutional constraints the inherited supposition that there must be trade-offs between
to food security – including land tenure systems, trade agreements, addressing food insecurity and accepting the ecological harms of
and infrastructure – so that rural landscapes can more effectively industrial agriculture (Wittman et al., 2017). In the context of mas-
support food security, environmental sustainability, and viable sive technological change in other sectors, all of the SDGs are
livelihoods (Wittman et al., 2017). Furthermore, emphasizing potentially undermined if remaining small scale farmers are
social issues such as equity and access to resources shifts the focus encouraged to leave the land or are prevented from living well as
farmers. Indeed, young people who wish to enter farming and to Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition and Economist Intelligence Unit. 2017. Food
Sustainability Index [accessed December 14, 2017]. http://foodsustainability.
supply healthy food to urban markets face barriers to accessing
eiu.com/.
land and capital. Adaptive, ecological management is knowledge- Brooker, R. W., Bennett, A. E., Cong, W. F., Daniell, T. J., George, T. S., Hallett, P. D., ...
intensive and could be a rare bright spot for good work if the poli- Karley, A. J. (2015). Improving intercropping: A synthesis of research in
cies were right. This could help to achieve the goals of food and agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytologist, 206, 107–117.
Bryce, J., Coitinho, D., Darnton-Hill, I., Pelletier, D., ... Pinstrup-Andersen, P. (2008).
nutritional security in rural and urban areas, which research shows Maternal and child undernutrition: Effective action at national level. The Lancet,
is better served by production systems that support ecosystem 371, 510–526.
functions while providing a diverse mix of crops. Cairney, P., & Weible, C. M. (2017). The new policy sciences: Combining the
cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied
Finally, Mason and Lang (2017) articulate clear roles that gov- analysis. Policy Sciences, 50, 619–627.
ernments, private sector organizations, and especially civil society Cassidy, E. S., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S., & Foley, J. A. (2013). Redefining agricultural
actors should play in defining actions and monitoring progress yields: From tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environmental Research
Letters, 8 034015.
toward Zero Hunger. This focus on governance resonates with Cawley, J., & Meyerhoefer, C. (2012). The medical care costs of obesity: An
social movement and wider civil society ideas such as food sover- instrumental variables approach. Journal of Health Economics, 31, 219–230.
eignty. The challenges to integrating food and nutrition security Chan, D. S., Lau, R., Aune, D., Vieira, R., Greenwood, D. C., Kampman, E., & Norat, T.
(2011). Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: Meta-analysis
with ecological sustainability documented in this review, together of prospective studies. PloS One, 6 e20456.
with the near silence on implementation, suggest the need for pub- Chappell, J. (2018). Beginning to end hunger: Food and the environment in belo
lic discussion to actively interrogate the history and power of horizonte, Brazil, and beyond. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Chappell, M. J., Wittman, H., Bacon, C. M., Ferguson, B. G., Barrios, L. G., Barrios, R. G.,
corporate-dominated, industrial food systems. This could help
... Morales, H. (2013). Food sovereignty: An alternative paradigm for poverty
SDG 2 to integrate the health of individuals, democratic systems, reduction and biodiversity conservation in Latin America. F1000Research, 2.
and ecosystems as a unifying matrix for food security and Clark, M., & Tilman, D. (2017). Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of
sustainability. agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice.
Environmental Research Letters.
Clark, T. (2002). The policy process: A practical guide for natural resources
professionals. Hartford, CT: Yale University Press.
Acknowledgement
Conceição, P., Levine, S., Lipton, M., & Warren-Rodríguez, A. (2016). Toward a food
secure future: Ensuring food security for sustainable human development in
We thank two anonymous World Development reviewers for Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 60, 1–9.
their constructive comments, which greatly improved the paper. Cotrufo, M. F., Wallenstein, M. D., Boot, C. M., Denef, K., & Paul, E. (2013). The
Microbial Efficiency-Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant
litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: Do labile plant
inputs form stable soil organic matter? Global Change Biology, 19, 988–995.
Conflict of interest Council. 2014. Council on Foreign Relations. (2014). The emerging global health
crisis: Noncommunicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries. New
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. York, NY: Council on Foreign Relations.
Crews, T. E., Blesh, J., Culman, S. W., Hayes, R. C., Jensen, E. S., Mack, M. C., Peoples,
M. B., & Schipanski, M. E. (2016). Going where no grains have gone before:
References From early to mid-succession. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 223,
223–238.
Das, G. G. (2017). Food–feed–biofuel trilemma: Biotechnological innovation policy
Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers.
for sustainable development. Journal of Policy Modeling..
Public Administration Review, 66, 56–65.
David, M. B., Drinkwater, L. E., & McIsaac, G. F. (2010). Sources of nitrate yields in the
Altieri, M. A. (1995). Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Boulder CO:
Mississippi River Basin. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39, 1657–1667.
Westview Press.
DeLonge, M. S., Miles, A., & Carlisle, L. (2016). Investing in the transition to
Amalu, E. M., & Agbachom, E. E. (2016). Promoting implementation of sustainable
sustainable agriculture. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 266–273.
development goals in rural Nigeria: II Food security issues and their
Devlin, W., & Bokulich, A. (2015). Kuhn’s structure of scientific revolutions – 50 Years
determinants among cassava-based farming households in Akpabuyo Local
On. Boston, MA: Springer.
Government Area, Cross River State, Nigeria. Global Journal of Pure and Applied
Diaz, R. J., & Rosenberg, R. (2008). Spreading dead zones and consequences for
Sciences, 22, 21.
marine ecosystems. Science, 321, 926–929.
Anderson, M. D. (2015). Roles of rural areas in sustainable food system
Drinkwater, L. E., & Snapp, S. S. (2007). Nutrients in agroecosystems: Rethinking the
transformations. Development, 58, 256–262.
management paradigm. Advances in Agronomy, 92, 163–186.
Andrews, K. T. (2001). Social movements and policy implementation: The
Dror, D. K., & Allen, L. H. (2011). The importance of milk and other animal-source
Mississippi civil rights movement and the war on poverty, 1965 to 1971.
foods for children in low-income countries. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 32,
American Sociological Review, 66, 71–95.
227–243.
Arimond, M., & Ruel, M. T. (2004). Dietary diversity is associated with child
Duncan, J. (2016). Governing in a postpolitical era: Civil society participation for
nutritional status: Evidence from 11 demographic and health surveys. The
improved food security governance. Advances in Food Security and Sustainability,
Journal of Nutrition, 134, 2579–2585.
1, 2452–2635.
Battersby, J. (2017). MDGs to SDGs–new goals, same gaps: The continued absence of
Eggersdorfer, M., & Bird, J. K. (2016). How to achieve transparency in public-private
urban food security in the post-2015 global development agenda. African
partnerships engaged in hunger and malnutrition reduction. Hidden Hunger.
Geographical Review, 36, 115–129.
Karger Publishers.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An
Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental
overview and assessment. Annual review of sociology, 26, 611–639.
change research. Global Environmental Change, 18, 234–245.
Bhutta, Z. A., Das, J. K., Rizvi, A., Gaffey, M. F., Walker, N., ... Horton, S. T.L.N.I.R.
FAOIFADUNICEFWFPWHO. (2017). The state of food insecurity in the world 2017.
Group. (2013). Evidence-based interventions for improvement of maternal and
Building resilience for peace and food security. Rome: Food and Agriculture
child nutrition: What can be done and at what cost? The Lancet, 382, 452–477.
Organization of the United Nations.
Blesh, J. (2018). Functional traits in cover crop mixtures: Biological nitrogen fixation
FAO, and WHO. 2004. Fruit and vegetables for health: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO
and multifunctionality. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 38–48.
Workshop, 1–3 September, 2004, Kobe, Japan.
Blesh, J., & Drinkwater, L. (2013). The impact of nitrogen source and crop rotation on
Field, J. O. (1987). Multisectoral nutrition planning: A post-mortem. Food Policy, 12,
nitrogen mass balances in the Mississippi River Basin. Ecological Applications, 23,
15–28.
1017–1035.
Fischer, C. G., & Garnett, T. (2016). Plates, pyramids, planet: Developments in national
Bonfante, A., Impagliazzo, A., Fiorentino, N., Langella, G., Mori, M., & Fagnano, M.
healthy and sustainable dietary guidelines: A state of play assessment. Rome: Food
(2017). Supporting local farming communities and crop production resilience to
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and The Food Climate
climate change through giant reed (Arundo donax L.) cultivation: An Italian case
Research Network at The University of Oxford.
study. Science of the Total Environment, 601, 603–613.
Fischer, J., Abson, D. J., Bergsten, A., Collier, N. F., Dorresteijn, I., Hanspach, J., ...
Bouma, J. (2014). Soil science contributions towards Sustainable Development
Senbeta, F. (2017). Reframing the food–biodiversity challenge. Trends in Ecology
Goals and their implementation: Linking soil functions with ecosystem services.
& Evolution, 32, 335–345.
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 177, 111–120.
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., ...
Bouma, J. (2015). Reaching out from the soil-box in pursuit of soil security. Soil
Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342.
Science and Plant Nutrition, 61, 556–565.
Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., & Holling,
Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., El Ghissassi, F., Benbrahim-Tallaa,
C. S. (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem
L., ... Straif, K. (2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed
management. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 557–581.
meat. The Lancet Oncology, 16, 1599–1600.
Fontoura, Y., Bharucha, Z. P., & Böhm, S. (2016). A transnational agri-food system for Hoey, L., & Pelletier, D. L. (2011). Bolivia’s multisectoral Zero Malnutrition Program:
whom? The struggle for hegemony at Rio+ 20. Revista de Administração de Insights on commitment, collaboration, and capacities. Food and Nutrition
Empresas, 56, 424–437. Bulletin, 32, S70–S81.
Fornara, D. A., & Tilman, D. (2008). Plant functional composition influences rates of Holden, E., Linnerud, K., & Banister, D. (2017). The imperatives of sustainable
soil carbon and nitrogen accumulation. Journal of Ecology, 96, 314–322. development. Sustainable Development, 25, 213–226.
Forouzanfar, M. H., Alexander, L., Anderson, H. R., Bachman, V. F., Biryukov, S., Holling, C. S., & Meffe, G. K. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of
Brauer, M., ... Cohen, A. (2015). Global, regional, and national comparative risk natural resource management. Conservation Biology, 10, 328–337.
assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic Holt Giménez, E., & Shattuck, A. (2011). Food crises, food regimes and food
risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: A systematic analysis for movements: Rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? The Journal of
the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet, 386, 2287–2323. peasant studies, 38, 109–144.
Fraser, E., Legwegoh, A., Krishna, K., CoDyre, M., Dias, G., Hazen, S., ... Sethuratnam, S. Howard, P. H. (2016). Concentration and power in the food system: Who controls what
(2016). Biotechnology or organic? Extensive or intensive? Global or local? A we eat? New York: Bloomsbury.
critical review of potential pathways to resolve the global food crisis. Trends in Hunter, D., Özkan, I., de Oliveira Beltrame, D. M., Samarasinghe, W. L. G., Wasike, V.
Food Science & Technology, 48, 78–87. W., Charrondière, U. R., ... Sokolow, J. (2016). Enabled or disabled: Is the
Friedmann, H. (2005). From colonialism to green capitalism: Social movements and environment right for using biodiversity to improve nutrition? Frontiers in
emergence of food regimes. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, 11, Nutrition, 3.
229–267. Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W., & Mortensen, D. A.
Friedmann, H. (2017). Paradox of transition: Two reports on how to move towards (2017). Agriculture in 2050: Recalibrating targets for sustainable
sustainable food systems. Development and Change, 48, 1210–1226. intensification. Bioscience, 67, 386–391.
Fukuda-Parr, S., & Yamin, A. E. (2013). The power of numbers: A critical review of IAASTD (2009). Agriculture at a crossroads. The global report of the International
MDG targets for human development and human rights. Development, 56, Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology. Washington, D.C.:
58–65. Island Press.
Galt, R. E. (2017). Alternative food movement. In D. Richardson, N. Castree, M. IFPRI. 2015. International Food Policy Research Institute. (2015). Global Nutrition
Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu, & R. Marston (Eds.), The international Report 2015: Actions and Accountability to Advance Nutrition and Sustainable
encyclopedia of geography. Manchester, MI: John Wiley & Sons. Development. Washington, DC.
Gao, L., & Bryan, B. A. (2017). Finding pathways to national-scale land-sector Ilieva, R. T. (2017). Urban food systems strategies: A promising tool for
sustainability. Nature, 544, 217–222. implementing the SDGs in practice. Sustainability, 9, 1707.
Garibaldi, L. A., Gemmill-Herren, B., D’Annolfo, R., Graeub, B. E., Cunningham, S. A., & Initiative, M. 2009. Investing in the Future: A united call to action on vitamin and
Breeze, T. D. (2017). Farming approaches for greater biodiversity, livelihoods, mineral deficiencies–Global report 2009.
and food security. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32, 68–80. IPCC. 2013. Climate change 2013. The physical science basis. Summary for
Garibaldi, L. A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., Aizen, M. A., Bommarco, R., policymakers. United Nations, http://www.ipcc.ch/.
Cunningham, S. A., ... Afik, O. (2013). Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops IPES. 2016. From uniformity to diversity: A paradigm shift from industrial
regardless of honey bee abundance. Science, 339, 1608–1611. agriculture to diversified agroecological systems.
Gilbert, C. L., Christiaensen, L., & Kaminski, J. (2017). Food price seasonality in Isbell, F., Adler, P. R., Eisenhauer, N., Fornara, D., Kimmel, K., Kremen, C., ... Quijas, S.
Africa: Measurement and extent. Food Policy, 67, 119–132. (2017). Benefits of increasing plant diversity in sustainable agroecosystems.
Gillespie, S., Menon, P., & Kennedy, A. L. (2015). Scaling up impact on nutrition: Journal of Ecology, 105, 871–879.
What will it take? Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal, 6, Iverson, A. L., Marín, L. E., Ennis, K. K., Gonthier, D. J., Connor-Barrie, B. T., Remfert, J.
440–451. L., ... Perfecto, I. (2014). Do polycultures promote win-wins or trade-offs in
Giraldo, O. F., & Rosset, P. M. (2017). Agroecology as a territory in dispute: Between agricultural ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51,
institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1–20. 1593–1602.
Glamann, J., Hanspach, J., Abson, D. J., Collier, N., & Fischer, J. (2017). The Jackson, L. E., Pascual, U., & Hodgkin, T. (2007). Utilizing and conserving
intersection of food security and biodiversity conservation: A review. Regional agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environmental Change, 17, 1303–1313. Environment, 121, 196–210.
Gliessman, S. R. (2007). Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. Boca Jones, J., & Baumbgartner, F. (2012). From there to here: Punctuated equilibrium to
Raton, FL: CRC Press. the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information
Global. Panel on agriculture and food systems for nutrition. (2016). Food systems processing. Policy Studies Journal, 40, 1–20.
and diets: Facing the challenges of the 21st century. London, UK Jones, A., Hoey, L., Blesh, J., Green, A., Miller, L., & Shapiro, L. (2015). A systematic
Goicoechea, N., & Antolín, M. C. (2017). Increased nutritional value in food crops. review of the conceptualization and measurement of sustainable diets. The
Microbial Biotechnology, 10, 1004–1007. FASEB Journal, 29(898), 827.
Gómez, M. I., & Ricketts, K. D. (2013). Food value chain transformations in Jones, A. D. (2017a). Critical review of the emerging research evidence on
developing countries: Selected hypotheses on nutritional implications. Food agricultural biodiversity, diet diversity, and nutritional status in low-and
Policy, 42, 139–150. middle-income countries. Nutrition Reviews, 75, 769–782.
Gore, C. (2015). The post-2015 moment: Towards sustainable development goals Jones, A. D. (2017b). On-farm crop species richness is associated with household
and a new global development paradigm. Journal of International Development, diet diversity and quality in subsistence-and market-oriented farming
27, 717–732. households in Malawi. The Journal of Nutrition, 147, 86–96.
Gratzer, G., & Keeton, W. S. (2017). Mountain forests and sustainable development: Jones, A. D., Ngure, F. M., Pelto, G., & Young, S. L. (2013). What are we assessing
The potential for achieving the United Nations’ 2030 agenda. Mountain Research when we measure food security? A compendium and review of current metrics.
and Development, 37, 246–253. Adv Nutr, 4, 481–505.
Griggs, D., Stafford Smith, M., Rockström, J., Öhman, M. C., Gaffney, O., Glaser, G., Jones, J. W., Antle, J. M., Basso, B., Boote, K. J., Conant, R. T., Foster, I., ... Janssen, S.
Kanie, N., Noble, I., Steffen, W., & Shyamsundar, P. (2014). An integrated (2016). Toward a new generation of agricultural system data, models, and
framework for sustainable development goals. Ecology and Society. knowledge products: State of agricultural systems science. Agricultural systems,
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). 155, 269–288.
Global food losses and food waste: Extent, causes and prevention. Rome: FAO. Joseph, H., Clancy, K. (2015). Dietary guidelines and sustainable diets: Pathways to
Harris, J., Frongillo, E. A., Nguyen, P. H., Kim, S. S., & Menon, P. (2017). Changes in progress. Global alliance for the future of food, Advancing health and well-being
the policy environment for infant and young child feeding in Vietnam, in food systems: Strategic opportunities for funders: 88–107.
Bangladesh, and Ethiopia, and the role of targeted advocacy. BMC Public Kantar, M. B., Tyl, C. E., Dorn, K. M., Zhang, X., Jungers, J. M., Kaser, J. M., ... Bunzel, M.
Health, 17, 492. (2016). Perennial grain and oilseed crops. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 67,
Hawkes, C., Friel, S., Lobstein, T., & Lang, T. (2012). Linking agricultural policies with 703–729.
obesity and noncommunicable diseases: A new perspective for a globalising Katz, D., & Meller, S. (2014). Can we say what diet is best for health? Annual Review
world. Food Policy, 37, 343–353. of Public Health, 35, 83–103.
Heidkamp, R. A., Teta, I. N., Gervais, S., Stoltzfus, R. J., Pelletier, D. L., Habicht, J.-P., ... Kharas, H., McArthur, J. W., & von Braun, J. (2017). An evidence-based approach to
Ayoya, M. A. (2012). How are maternal-child nutrition activities integrated at ending rural hunger. Economics, 11.
the community level? Lessons from Haiti. The FASEB Journal, 26. 1029.1023- King, A. E., & Blesh, J. (2018). Crop rotations for increased soil carbon: Perenniality
1029.1023. as a guiding principle. Ecological Applications, 28, 249–261.
Heracleous, L. T. (1994). Rational decision making: Myth or reality? Management Kingdon, J. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Little, Brown & Co.,
Development Review, 7, 16–23. Boston.
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Power, B., Bogard, J. R., Remans, R., Fritz, S., ... Waha, K. Koehler, G. (2015). Seven decades of ‘development’, and now what? Journal of
(2017). Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: A International Development, 27, 733–751.
transdisciplinary analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1, e33–e42. Kopelman, P. (2007). Health risks associated with overweight and obesity. Obesity
HLPE (2017). Nutrition and food systems. Rome: A report by the High Level Panel of reviews, 8, 13–17.
Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Kremen, C., & Miles, A. (2012). Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus
Security. conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology
Hoey, L. (2015). ‘‘Show me the numbers”: Examining the dynamics between and Society, 17.
evaluation and government performance in developing countries. World Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL:
Development, 70, 1–12. University of Chicago Press.
Lang, T., Barling, D., & Caraher, M. (2009). Food policy: Integrating health, environment Pelletier, D. L., Frongillo, E. A., Gervais, S., Hoey, L., Menon, P., Ngo, T., ... Ahmed, T.
and society. OUP Oxford. (2012). Nutrition agenda setting, policy formulation and implementation:
Lang, T. (2010). Crisis? What crisis? The normality of the current food crisis. Journal Lessons from the Mainstreaming Nutrition Initiative. Health Policy and Planning,
of Agrarian Change, 10, 87–97. 27, 19–31.
Lang, T., & Heasman, M. (2015). Food wars: The global battle for mouths, minds and Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., & Philpott, S. M. (2014). Complex ecological interactions
markets. Routledge. in the coffee agroecosystem. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Leakey, R. R. (2012). Multifunctional agriculture and opportunities for agroforestry: Systematics, 45, 137–158.
Implications of IAASTD. In Agroforestry-the future of global land use Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. H., & Wright, A. L. (2009). Nature’s matrix: Linking
(pp. 203–214). Springer. agriculture, conservation and food sovereignty. Earthscan.
Lélé, S., & Norgaard, R. B. (2005). Practicing interdisciplinarity. Bioscience, 55, Prendergast, A. J., & Humphrey, J. H. (2014). The stunting syndrome in developing
967–975. countries. Paediatrics and International Child Health, 34, 250–265.
Letourneau, D. K., Armbrecht, I., Rivera, B. S., Lerma, J. M., Carmona, E. J., Daza, M. C., Reardon, T., Barrett, C. B., Berdegué, J. A., & Swinnen, J. F. (2009). Agrifood industry
... López, S. D. (2011). Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic transformation and small farmers in developing countries. World Development,
review. Ecological Applications, 21, 9–21. 37, 1717–1727.
Liang, C., & Balser, T. C. (2010). Microbial production of recalcitrant organic matter Reddy, A. A. (2016). Food security indicators in India compared to similar countries.
in global soils: Implications for productivity and climate policy. Nature Reviews Current Science, 111, 632.
Microbiology, 9. 75 75. Remans, R., Flynn, D. F., DeClerck, F., Diru, W., Fanzo, J., Gaynor, K., ... Nkhoma, P.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy, 30th ann. Ed.: Dilemmas of the individual (2011). Assessing nutritional diversity of cropping systems in African villages.
in public service. Russell Sage Foundation. PloS One, 6 e21235.
Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Alberti, M., Redman, C. L., ... Lubchenco, J. Renzaho, A. M., Kamara, J. K., & Toole, M. (2017). Biofuel production and its impact
(2007). Coupled human and natural systems. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human on food security in low and middle income countries: Implications for the post-
Environment, 36, 639–649. 2015 sustainable development goals. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Lundgren, J. G., & Fausti, S. W. (2015). Trading biodiversity for pest problems. 78, 503–516.
Science Advances, 1 e1500558. Robertson, G. P., Gross, K. L., Hamilton, S. K., Landis, D. A., Schmidt, T. M., Snapp, S. S.,
Manning, R. (2010). The impact and design of the MDGs: Some reflections. IDS & Swinton, S. M. (2014). Farming for ecosystem services: An ecological
Bulletin, 41, 7–14. approach to production agriculture. Bioscience, biu037.
Martin, A. R., & Isaac, M. E. (2015). Plant functional traits in agroecosystems: A Rocha, C., & Lessa, I. (2009). Urban governance for food security: The alternative
blueprint for research. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52, 1425–1435. food system in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. International Planning Studies, 14,
Martin, A. R., & Isaac, M. E. (2018). Functional traits in agroecology: Advancing 389–400.
description and prediction in agroecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 5–11. Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., ... Foley,
Martínez Steele, E., Baraldi, L. G., da Costa Louzada, M. L., Moubarac, J.-C., J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.
Mozaffarian, D., & Monteiro, C. A. (2016). Ultra-processed foods and added Ruel, M. T. (2003). Operationalizing dietary diversity: A review of measurement
sugars in the US diet: evidence from a nationally representative cross-sectional issues and research priorities. The Journal of Nutrition, 133, 3911S–3926S.
study. BMJ open, 6, e009892. Russelle, M. P., Entz, M. H., & Franzluebbers, A. J. (2007). Reconsidering integrated
Mason, P., & Lang, T. (2017). Sustainable diets: How ecological nutrition can transform crop-livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal, 99, 325.
consumption and the food system. New York, NY: Routledge. Schipanski, M. E., MacDonald, G. K., Rosenzweig, S., Chappell, M. J., Bennett, E. M.,
Matson, P. A. (1997). Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science, Kerr, R. B., Blesh, J., Crews, T., Drinkwater, L., & Lundgren, J. G. (2016). Realizing
277, 504–509. resilient food systems. Bioscience, biw052.
Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G., & Swift, M. J. (1997). Agricultural Sexsmith, K., & McMichael, P. (2015). Formulating the SDGs: Reproducing or
intensification and ecosystem properties. Science, 277, 504–509. reimagining state-centered development? Globalizations, 12, 581–596.
McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime analysis of the ‘world food crisis’. Agriculture Shennan, C. (2008). Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture.
and Human Values, 26, 281. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological
Montagnini, F., & Nair, P. (2004). Carbon sequestration: An underexploited Sciences, 363, 717–739.
environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. In New vistas in agroforestry Simmons, E., & Saundry, P. (2012). Food Security. Encyclopedia. of Earth.
(pp. 281–295). Springer. Simon, H. A. (1957). A behavioral model of rational choice. Models of man social and
Moore, H. L. (2015). Global prosperity and sustainable development goals. Journal of rational, mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. New
International Development, 27, 801–815. York: J. Wiley and Sons.
Mugambiwa, S. S., & Tirivangasi, H. M. (2017). Climate change: A threat towards Sims, B., & Kienzle, J. (2016). Making mechanization accessible to smallholder
achieving ‘Sustainable Development Goal number two’(end hunger, achieve farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environments, 3, 11.
food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture) in Smith, L. C., & Haddad, L. (2015). Reducing child undernutrition: Past drivers and
South Africa, Jàmbá. Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 9, 1–6. priorities for the post-MDG era. World Development, 68, 180–204.
Munroe, J. W., & Isaac, M. E. (2014). N2-fixing trees and the transfer of fixed-N for Snapp, S. S., Blackie, M. J., Gilbert, R. A., Bezner-Kerr, R., & Kanyama-Phiri, G. Y.
sustainable agroforestry: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34, (2010). Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa. Proceedings of
417–427. the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 20840–20845.
Murray, C. J., Vos, T., Lozano, R., Naghavi, M., Flaxman, A. D., Michaud, C., ... Abdalla, Stephens, E. C., Jones, A. D., & Parsons, D. (2017). Agricultural systems research and
S. (2013). Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in global food security in the 21st century: An overview and roadmap for future
21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease opportunities. Agricultural Systems.
Study 2010. The Lancet, 380, 2197–2223. Swaminathan, M. (2014). Role of international years in meeting the zero hunger
Naughton, C. C., Deubel, T. F., & Mihelcic, J. R. (2017). Household food security, challenge. Current Science, 107, 7–8.
economic empowerment, and the social capital of women’s shea butter Tarlau, R. (2015). Education of the countryside at a crossroads: Rural social
production in Mali. Food Security, 9, 773–784. movements and national policy reform in Brazil. The Journal of Peasant Studies,
Ng, M., Fleming, T., Robinson, M., Thomson, B., Graetz, N., Margono, C., ... Abera, S. F. 42, 1157–1177.
(2014). Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in Taylor, M. (2014). The political ecology of climate change adaptation: Livelihoods,
children and adults during 1980–2013: A systematic analysis for the Global agrarian change and the conflicts of development. Routledge.
Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet, 384, 766–781. Trimmer, J. T., Cusick, R. D., & Guest, J. S. (2017). Amplifying progress toward
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., & Visbeck, M. (2016). Map the interactions between multiple development goals through resource recovery from sanitation.
sustainable development goals: Mans Nilsson, Dave Griggs and Martin Visbeck Environmental Science & Technology, 51, 10765–10776.
present a simple way of rating relationships between the targets to highlight Tsiafouli, M. A., Drakou, E. G., Orgiazzi, A., Hedlund, K., & Ritz, K. (2017). Optimizing
priorities for integrated policy. Nature, 534, 320–323. the delivery of multiple ecosystem goods and services in agricultural systems.
Nischalke, S. M., Abebe, M., Wondimagegnhu, B. A., Kriesemer, S. K., & Beuchelt, T. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 97.
(2017). Forgotten forests? Food potential of ancient coffee forests and UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable
agroforestry systems in the southwestern Ethiopian mountains, seen through development., New York, NY.
a gender lens. Mountain Research and Development, 37, 254–262. van Vuuren, D. P., Kok, M., Lucas, P. L., Prins, A. G., Alkemade, R., van den Berg, M., ...
Onis, M., & Branca, F. (2016). Childhood stunting: A global perspective. Maternal & Kram, T. (2015). Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability
Child Nutrition, 12, 12–26. objectives by 2050: Explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social- model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 98, 303–323.
ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422. Vandermeer, J., Aga, A., Allgeier, J. E., Badgley, C., Baucom, R., Blesh, J., ... Perfecto, I.
Otero, G., Pechlaner, G., & Gürcan, E. C. (2013). The political economy of ‘‘food (2018). Feeding prometheus: An interdisciplinary approach for solving the
security” and trade: Uneven and combined dependency. Rural Sociology, 78, global food crisis. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2, 39.
263–289. Vandermeer, J., Perfecto, I., & Philpott, S. (2010). Ecological complexity and pest
Pandey, R. (2017). Farmers’ perception on agro-ecological implications of climate control in organic coffee production: Uncovering an autonomous ecosystem
change in the Middle-Mountains of Nepal: A case of Lumle Village, Kaski. service. Bioscience, 60, 527–537.
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–27. Vanloqueren, G., & Baret, P. V. (2009). How agricultural research systems shape a
Patashnik, E. (2008). Reforms at risk: What happens after major policy changes are technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out
enacted. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. agroecological innovations. Research Policy, 38, 971–983.
Vries, F. T., & Wallenstein, M. D. (2017). Below-ground connections underlying sovereignty: Reconnecting food, nature and community (pp. 1–14). Oakland,
above-ground food production: A framework for optimising ecological CA: Food First.
connections in the rhizosphere. Journal of Ecology, 105, 913–920. Wood, S. A. (2018). Nutritional functional trait diversity of crops in south-eastern
Waldron, A., Garrity, D., Malhi, Y., Girardin, C., Miller, D., & Seddon, N. (2017). Senegal. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55, 81–91.
Agroforestry can enhance food security while meeting other sustainable Wood, S. A., Karp, D. S., DeClerck, F., Kremen, C., Naeem, S., & Palm, C. A. (2015).
development goals. Tropical Conservation Science, 10. 1940082917720667. Functional traits in agriculture: Agrobiodiversity and ecosystem services. Trends
Weber, H. (2014). When goals collide: Politics of the MDGs and the post-2015 in Ecology & Evolution, 30, 531–539.
sustainable development goals agenda. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 34, Wright, H. J., Ochilo, W., Pearson, A., Finegold, C., Oronje, M., Wanjohi, J., ... Rumsey,
129–139. A. (2016). Using ICT to strengthen agricultural extension systems for plant
Winkler, K. J., Viers, J. H., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). Assessing ecosystem services and health. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 17, 23–36.
multifunctionality for vineyard systems. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 5, Yang, Q., Zhang, Z., Gregg, E. W., Flanders, W. D., Merritt, R., & Hu, F. B. (2014). Added
15. sugar intake and cardiovascular diseases mortality among US adults. JAMA
Wittman, H., & Blesh, J. (2015). Food sovereignty and Fome Zero: Connecting public Internal Medicine, 174, 516–524.
food procurement programs to sustainable rural development in Brazil. Journal Zeigler, R. S., & Mohanty, S. (2010). Support for international agricultural research:
of Agrarian Change. Current status and future challenges. New biotechnology, 27, 565–572.
Wittman, H., Chappell, M. J., Abson, D. J., Bezner Kerr, R., Blesh, J., Hanspach, J., ... Zhang, X., Davidson, E. A., Mauzerall, D. L., Searchinger, T. D., Dumas, P., & Shen, Y.
Fischer, J. (2017). A social-ecological perspective on harmonizing food security (2015). Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature, 528, 51–59.
and biodiversity conservation. Regional Environmental Change, 17, 1291–1301. Zhou, A. C., & Hendriks, S. L. (2017). Does food assistance improve recipients’ dietary
Wittman, H., Desmarais, A., & Wiebe, N. (2010). The origins and potential of diversity and food quality in Mozambique? Agrekon, 56, 248–262.
food sovereignty. In H. Wittman, A. Desmarais, & N. Wiebe (Eds.), Food

Development Pathways Toward Zero Hunger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development Pathways Toward Zero Hunger

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development Pathways Toward Zero Hunger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Development 118 (2019) 1–14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Development pathways toward ‘‘zero hunger”

1. Introduction production depends (IPCC, 2013; Rockstrom et al., 2009). These

an obesity ‘‘epidemic” in poor as well as rich countries. There is Table 1

You might also like