Simmer Down: COVID-19 Has Revealed the Resilience of the Food System, Not its Fragility

It seems that when I flip open my computer each morning during quarantine, I am greeted by yet another headline declaring that the coronavirus has ripped the mask off of a global food system in peril. Article after article warns that the pandemic has revealed fundamental and structural flaws of the system that were ever lurking, just below the surface.

I disagree.

It is nothing short of heartbreaking to hear stories of farmers forced to dispose of their own production or images of our neighbors waiting on assistance from food banks. But characterizing these wrenching losses as a wholistic failure of our modern food system grossly misrepresents the many positive ways that it has continued to function – even up against unprecedented challenges.

Facing a disaster of historic proportions, I believe the global food system has, in fact, demonstrated incredible resilience. Yes, there have been hiccups and missteps. And yes, there are prevailing and well documented ethical and environmental dilemmas that the food system needs to confront. But as one of the only industries continuing to fully operate during the pandemic, the global food industry has demonstrated its ability to adapt, adjust, and overcome challenges – keeping us fed while negotiating a jarring new reality.

Trouble in Paradise

Many of the voiced concerns have been prompted by product shortages at the retail level. Consumers, particularly in developed countries, who have become accustomed to purchasing almost any product they desire from their local grocery store, were unnerved to find store shelves emptied of some products. This frustration was then compounded by stories circulating of farmers forced to dispose of their produce and animals on the farm.

We understand now that these disruptions have largely been caused by shifts in demand, not a lack of supply. As foodservice demand evaporated, consumers ramped up retail purchases. But as it turns out, people eat different things in their homes than they do at restaurants. Furthermore, people are shopping less frequently, buying more at one time, showing a preference for more shelf stable products, and making more purchases online. As a result, product portfolios, packaging, and distribution have all had to shift to accommodate the new supply picture. This transition has not been seamless, but it has been for the most part successful.

Some argue that strategies should be implemented across the supply chain to prevent such product shortages in the future. In particular, some propose a movement away from just in time inventory management toward carrying larger stocks. However, having large inventories on the books is not free. Warehousing costs, insurance, and the potential for food waste all rise the longer food is expected to sit. The more perishable a product, the greater the logistical complexity. Does the benefit of holding months’ worth of product in storage outweigh these costs, which will certainly manifest as higher prices for consumers? I personally don’t think so.

On a more macro scale, the global food industry has also had to confront logistical challenges that have cropped up due to coronavirus policies. Examples include long wait times for border crossings, a misalignment of federal and local transportation directives, and complications at shipping ports. While these policies have created issues, the food industry has largely solved them by working with officials to amend policies, or when this was not possible, by creating work arounds such as revised distribution routes.

There have been recent grumblings about certain governments hoarding foodstuffs and concerns that these actions would spark shortages in other parts of the world. At the center of the story was Vietnam, the world’s third largest rice exporter, which effectively implemented an export ban on rice on March 24, while it reviewed domestic stock levels. The ban lasted less than three weeks and was lifted on April 11 with the reckoning that international sales create important foreign capital inflows that benefit stakeholders across the food chain. Indeed, the solution was to allow the food system to function, rather than to stand in its way.

Where’s the Beef?

Though I believe the argument that the pandemic has revealed our food system to be broken is vastly overstated, I would agree that it has highlighted the consolidation of certain sectors. Of course, the example at front of mind for everyone is the meat industry. Highly publicized plant closures in the United States due to coronavirus infections in the workforce, and subsequent warnings of shortages by the industry itself, ignited a flurry of concern. The cherry on top was the full-page ad taken out by Tyson Foods in the New York Times, The Washington Post, and Arkansas Democrat-Gazette where the Chairman of the Board pleaded to keep their plants operational.

The meat industry around the world, and especially in the United States, has undergone significant consolidation in recent years. Economists are quick to praise the cost efficiencies of the scale of larger facilities, while proponents of a more decentralized system point out that when one of these larger facilities is out of commission, a greater percent of the supply is affected. I certainly don’t disagree with this logic, but I believe there are significant benefits associated with consolidation that go beyond cheap meat.

Larger facilities create the conditions necessary for the standardization of health and safety practices across the food system. Furthermore, advanced traceability and sophisticated food safety monitoring systems are more likely to be implemented where the scale exists to support them. One may bemoan the role of large corporates in the food supply chain, but these are precisely the players that have enough capital to invest in the state-of-the-art technology that keeps our food supply safe. These companies also face enormous reputational risks if their controls fail and are thus highly motivated to ensure that they don’t.

Of course, this does not make them infallible. Big or small, a supply chain has not yet been created that is completely immune to either intentional or accidental threats. Moreover, it is also critical that we hold these large players accountable for their labor and environmental practices. But I don’t believe that consolidation, which has become more obvious during the pandemic, has been proven to substantially undermine the continuity of the food supply. In the United States, less than three weeks after Tyson’s letter, shoppers indicate that only minor shortages persist, and for the more quantitatively inclined, USDA data show that slaughter figures are climbing.

The Real Risks

Despite the considerable challenges brought about by COVID-19, the food system has stayed operational. In a testament to its success, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations states, “As of now, disruptions are minimal, as food supply has been adequate and markets have been stable so far.” But what about that last part? So far. For all of the success the food system has had enduring challenges to this point, I believe the biggest trials lie ahead.

The first will be the pervasive economic insecurity that is forthcoming. The impending global recession will plunge millions of people into poverty and deprive them of the means to purchase food. The World Food Programme estimates that the number of people facing acute food insecurity will double during 2020. Governments and social institutions must activate now to provide the safety nets necessary to support the world’s most vulnerable populations. For its part, it is a moral imperative that the food system continue to provide affordable and safe nutrition.

While our focus has been fixed almost exclusively on the coronavirus and its impact, many of us have shifted our attention away from other issues, especially climate change, which have the potential to create very serious supply shocks in the future. We have been fortunate during the pandemic that the complications facing the food system have not been compounded by major supply disruptions such as drought. Yet, we know these challenges will eventually occur, and we must be vigilantly searching for actionable solutions to ensure a robust food supply well into the future.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has radically altered the way we live our lives. Like every other industry, the food system has had to drastically rethink how it fulfills its function of providing a global population with food, feed, fiber, and fuel. This has not been an easy task, and there have been mistakes along the way, but I for one have been very impressed with the food system’s ability to reorient itself to a moving target.

By no means do I mean to imply that the system is perfect. As a society, we have many opportunities to improve the path that food takes from the farm to the table. Better environmental stewardship and more equitable distribution of risk and reward across the value chain are worthy goals that should be pursued. Any opportunity to get people more connected to the food they consume should be celebrated.

However, I do strongly believe that it is disingenuous to paint the picture that the food system has buckled under the weight of the coronavirus pandemic. From where I sit, quite the opposite has been true. Despite enormous challenges that no one could have predicted, the global food system has demonstrated its ability to adjust and continue to provide us with a stable and safe food supply.