Our Food System Is One Crisis Away From Breaking

Our food system is screwed.

We all witnessed the disappearance of meat from shelves during COVID-19. We also felt the jolt when Russia invaded Ukraine, causing ripple effects in global wheat exports to the point where India banned exports to make sure that it had enough for its own people.

Why would a pandemic or global instability so easily disrupt our food system? Let’s take a look at how we now find ourselves in a pickle with something as critical as feeding ourselves.

Our food system is fragile.

In other words, it is prone to breaking.

1. Long supply chains mean that breaks can and do happen at any point.

Our reliance on animal protein means we go from seed to growing crops (requiring time, land, and water). These crops are fed to animals in order to grow them (requiring more time, land, water, and feed). Then, the animals are slaughtered and transported—often across international borders—or they are transported live around the world and then slaughtered. Upon arrival, there is distribution to wholesales and then retailers, and finally to you.

The supply chain is long, slow, costly, inefficient, and susceptible to disruption. One break in the chain—due to decimated cow herds from the 2023 drought, avian flu, global trade wars or a myriad of other options—and the dominoes begin to fall.

2. Political tensions and wars mean food-dependent nations risk not getting food shipped to them.

Singapore only produces 10% of its own food. It is pushing hard to produce 20% of some of its veggies and 30% of its seafood and eggs by 2035. Food security is equally important for China which only has 7% arable land. While North America is extremely well-positioned, globally speaking, many countries have varying degrees of food dependence, relying on other nations to feed them. This is tricky in a geopolitically unstable world.

3. Disease.

Disease creates higher food prices and causes public health threats. Mad cow disease, Ebola, African swine fever, and avian flu are all examples of diseases spread by intensive factory farming. In fact, according to the United Nations (UN), the top two reasons for the next pandemic are related to the intensification of animal factories. Living butt-to-snout in feces in confined areas is a breeding ground for disease and disease causes disruption, in addition to public health issues.

Our World in Data chart showing that 80% of our agricultural land is used for animal protein giving us disproportionately only 17% of our calories.

Our food system is fractured.

In other words, some things can’t be fixed or tweaked.

1. The current system requires a disproportionate use of natural resources, and this makes continuing to produce food in this way uncertain for humanity. According to Our World in Data, 80% of our agricultural land is used for animal agriculture, yet this provides only 17% of our calories. This means that a disproportionate amount of land is used to give us very little. As we need to create more protein for a growing population, we are going to run out of agricultural land to do this.

Agriculture in general is also responsible for 70% of global clean water usage. This disproportionate use of natural capital means potential losses for other industries, such as AI, which also requires natural capital like water. As natural resources shrink due to climate change and a growing population, these become material risks to our food systems.

2. Our food system is bad math.

Animals are inefficient calorie converters. Cows are 2% energy efficient which means that 2% of calories in animal feed inputs were effectively converted to animal product. The remaining 98% of inputs are lost. Pigs are 8.6% efficient and chickens are 13% efficient. Even chicken means that 87% of inputs are lost. This is why 80% of our agricultural land used for animal only yields 18% of our calories. We use the land, to grow the animal feed and then we lose most of it in the conversion. Meanwhile, what is lost in conversion could have gone directly to people.

It’s bad math to give high-protein, high-fiber crops to animals who require massive amounts of land, water, time, and even more crops, when we could simply give thisfood directly to people.

3. The way we produce food is destructive and extractive.

Our food system creates 30% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Animal agriculture is responsible for 60% of that, or a total of 18% of the world’s global emissions. This is in addition to being the leading cause of deforestation and biodiversity loss.

We need to innovate and implement other options.

Our World in Data graph showing the energy conversion of crops to meat per animal. Cows are 2% energy efficient in making meat calories, meaning 98% of inputs are wasted.

I am not saying that meat is the only pain point. Of course, food waste is a tremendous issue, vertical crop growth can impact food security in places like the Middle East that have grave water concerns while solutions offering more efficiency in energy use and natural capital through AI are critical. The whole system needs a revamp for a brave, new, healthy world.

Still, the meat component is such a large factor that not addressing it means simply not addressing the disintegrating food system. The numbers are staggering and, honestly, hard to wrap one’s mind around.

Consider this: according to Our World in Data, Americans ate approximately 270 pounds of meat in 2023, up 33% from 1961. This excessive consumption in North America and elsewhere around the globe results in 88 billion animals in factories taking up enormous resources. As we human mammals are only 8 billion on the planet, this is a staggering ratio. To account for the smaller size of some factory animals such as chickens, this translates to 36% of the mammal biomass eating 54%-59% of the mammal biomass with wild animals dwindling down to a mere 5% of mammal biomass.

I am no Zen master, but this math seems f-bombed to me, and not in our favor.

I am also not saying that we must get rid of meat. I am simply pointing out the weaknesses in the system and the need to lighten the load.

I am saying we need to diversify - now, not later - according to a specific strategy to reduce the pressure on the system and prepare ourselves for system breaks, trade wars, and natural resource deficits that would leave us... hungry and screwed.

Our World in Data chart showing that livestock are 54%-59% of the mammal biomass on the planet

Our food system is F-bombed.

1. The meat industry, and the politicians that protect it, create obstacles for funding for innovative alternatives that would relieve pressure on the system, while also keeping vital information from consumers. Most consumers have no idea that deli meats, bacon, hot dogs, and sausages are Group 1 carcinogens, per the World Health Organization. They have no idea that processed foods, including but not limited to meat, have no fiber—a critical component of gut health—and most people don’t realize that “natural flavors” in foods often mean unnatural additives. If they knew these things, maybe they would naturally of their own accord lighten their consumption by 10%-20%, dramatically helping the situation.

This is why the UK is now prioritizing consumer education so that the industry doesn’t control the narrative at the consumer’s expense. Still, in the United States at least, the meat lobby is controlling the narrative and most politicians aren’t willing to take them on.

2. There is no food strategy in place from policymakers, and there is no will to go up against the meat industry and put one in place. Thus, we have no roadmap to address an uncertain future. This is not a sound business or political stance.

3. Investors are generally confused and reactive. It will take blended capital—an all-hands-on-deck approach to funding—to establish a new food system that works for the 10 billion people projected to inhabit the planet by 2050, per the UN. However, venture capitalists are confused and hesitant about what to bet on next. Wall Street is too obsessed with AI to care. Foundations often lack the information or connections to pursue a new path, and governments are, for the most part, dragging their heels. Yes, there are initiatives here and there, but not the kind of large-scale, concentrated funding connected to a plan of action that is needed. In short, there is no significant leadership. Anywhere.

What is interesting about this is that there is an opportunity for whomever steps up to lead to make a lot of money by building this new system and owning the technology at play. There is also an opportunity to secure political leadership. After all, whomever owns the technology to produce protein without heavy natural capital usage will be in a very advantageous position.

“Who Makes the Money?” will be an article coming in the future, but it isn’t a moral path to feeding people that is going to pave the way. It is the business opportunity, and it is a big one that is currently being overlooked.

Where do we go from here?

We would be wise to:

1. Develop a strategy for protein diversification, recycled food waste, and better farming and distribution with AI enhancements to render general farming and supply chain management more efficient. Plant proteins and fermented mycoproteins are both possible at scale and would be cheaper than meat while using fewer natural resources. Diversifying the system, even just 20%, would take pressure off natural capital and reduce disease risk. AI will also help to mitigate emissions and increase efficiency.
2. Fund this strategy with blended finance. Bring government, private, and philanthropic dollars together.
3. Work with current industry players to ensure that the strategy isn’t blocked.There is no point in reinventing the wheel. The people who currently make food have the distribution channels to keep a new strategy functional, and their support is critical. Ensuring they don’t bock efforts is key.

Creating a more diversified food system is well within our grasp. Compared to, say, the energy crisis, the funding needed to shift the food system isn’t as heavy; estimates sit at $400 billion -$650 billion yearly, as compared to the energy shift’s $3 trillion needed per Robert Barnett of Bloomberg News. Further, the innovations, in many instances, are already here, such as fermenting protein, and are, thus, relatively easy to implement.

Meanwhile, with no strategy in place, we leave ourselves open to many food disruptions that could be devastating to global stability.

Thankfully, we don’t run our companies like we run our food system, or we would all be fired.

Related: The $12.7 Trillion Food Problem Nobody Is Pricing In