Content area
Abstract
A narrative and evaluative framework that covers multi-sector negotiations that influence the functioning of the food system can be conceptualized as Food Systems Diplomacy. Historically, multi-sector negotiations related to food have been connected with the production and movement of raw food goods, general food production, and food trade. These negotiations and agreements have prioritized economic outcomes for the most part. The movement of commodities and foods through global trade networks has contributed to improved GDP and wealth creation, for most countries. However, it is a matter of some concern that parallel issues of public health, health equity, environmental impact, climate change, and social and cultural welfare have not received equal emphasis. In today’s world, these issues need to be considered.
The Food Systems Diplomacy framework provides a language and process with which to evaluate the consequences and trade-offs in a more holistic way. In particular, it allows us to recognize that economic outcomes have been the singular priority to date. We explore the consequences of this and provide a framework that includes additional priorities that are relevant to health, society and the environment. Diplomacy has evolved and in today’s world, the influence of transnational food companies, multinational agricultural, food, and beverage companies is undebatable.
We present an evaluative framework for food systems diplomacy that includes four problem domains of food systems analysis: health and food security, social concerns, climate change/environment, and the economy. Four US free trade agreements are evaluated against this framework. We find that although several free trade agreements include language around protecting the environment and labor force, they are often included to augment and support economic goals. Nutrition, food, food systems, the connection between the agriculture food products and the environment, and the influence and importance of food in social cultural settings are not mentioned. We then examine the case of the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems and evaluate its suggestions against the Food Diplomacy Framework. The social and economic domains are not considered in their analysis.
