From Corn and Beef to Fish and Seaweed

Lydia Wandmacher

Food is a vital part of life. It is vital both in terms of sustaining life but also in terms of the cultural and social aspects surrounding food practices. Nutritional food is important to provide us with essentials to continue living, but food policy cannot be discussed without also taking into consideration the economic availability and environmental impact of various available foods. Blue foods, edible aquatic organisms from fresh or marine water systems, can provide a comprehensive overview of all these considerations.

The United States federal government encourages the cultivation of certain foods by way of subsidies, which can make producing those foods cheaper and help prevent shortages of those foods. U.S. agricultural subsidies focus on corn, soy, wheat, dairy, and livestock, among other similar foods. These subsidies were vital when small farms were hitting hard times, but over decades, farms have moved from small farming families who benefited from aid to larger industrial farms who still receive millions through farm subsidies. Proposed budget cuts tend to also affect consumers who need aid to achieve food security, instead of reducing the amount of money received by industrial farms.

Americans face a problem of food insecurity. Low security and very low security are subsets of food insecurity. According to the USDA, “low food security” refers to having no reduction in quantity of food, but instead reductions in quality and variety of food. “Very low food security” is defined as an actual reduction of food quantity or disrupted patterns of food intake. The foods that are subsidized and promoted for consumption to avoid food insecurity—corn, soy, livestock, etc. —have low nutritional quality. In 2017, farmers received $11.5 billion in subsidies, but despite all this money spent subsidizing low-quality foods, less than 1% of the farm subsidies are dedicated for fruits and vegetables, which have higher nutritional quality. This means that for many people, the only economically available food is low in quality, and even then many people may still be skipping meals. This could be mitigated by shifting the recipients of farm subsidies to those producing higher quality foods, which would make them economically available. Moving from the promotion of unhealthy foods that also happen to be cheap due to subsidies to healthier options like more fruits and vegetables, especially if they cost the same, would have massive impacts on the overall health and nutrition of the population. The global pandemic is heightening food insecurity, so without a shift to economic and healthier foods, nutrition will continue to drop, which will in turn affect health, which is a priority during a pandemic.

All of these factors also revolve around concerns about environmental sustainability. Shifting from corn and soy to fruits and vegetables would certainly help economical, nutritional, and environmental impacts, but livestock is the pinnacle of subsidized food that desperately needs to change. Ninety-five percent of feed grain (crops grown for livestock rather than human consumption) is corn, which is subsidized, and most of the corn grown is used for feeding livestock. Livestock accounts for about 80% of agricultural lands and is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that around 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock, although other data has shown this number could be as high as 51% of greenhouse gas emissions. This affects mainly the atmosphere, increasing the rates of global warming and acid rain, which generate numerous other problems themselves. Other environmental problems from livestock include the required massive clearing of natural lands and habitats, increased amounts of water pollution, and increased levels of both physical waste and water waste.

A solution needs to be found, and there is a current push towards research and development of “blue foods,” edible aquatic organisms from fresh or marine water systems— such as all varieties of fish, shellfish, and even non-traditional foods like algae, seaweed, and kelp. The ocean could produce 75% more seafood than it is currently producing, which would help reduce food shortages and close the gap for those who are food insecure. Increased research on the variety of blue foods and the most sustainable farming practices for them can combat growing hunger in an economical and nutritious way. This is especially important in these trying times when food security is high and the need for health is vital. Blue foods are rich sources of a variety of essential nutrients, from proteins to fats to minerals, although a healthy variety in blue foods is needed to meet all nutritional needs. This is not a negative, however, because this would mean a variety of blue foods would be produced and harvested, as opposed to a focus on one type that may cause ecological and environmental impacts. Blue foods are not new, but an emphasis on a variety beyond just fish is essential. Plus, there are many varieties of inexpensive fish around the world, as well as inexpensive non-fish blue food options. These foods would especially be inexpensive if the government changed subsidies and promotions away from unhealthy and unsustainable products like corn and beef and towards blue food research and development. Then this push could become a widespread economical option for sustainable and healthy food to reduce food insecurity. Aquatic animals, which are a portion of blue foods, are one of the world’s most healthy food sources. They are high in protein, highly digestible, lean, and are rich in other vitamins and minerals. While research is ongoing, the Blue Food Assessment team believes that investment in blue food production and consumption could have sustainable solutions in the long-term. It is not a total solution and there is a lot of research to be done, such as moving away from historic overfishing and towards more sustainable aquaculture. The key to success will be shifting into viewing the food-chain as a whole and incorporating a variety of blue foods, instead of focusing on only certain fish. Benefits will include good nutrition as well as environmental sustainability.

Moving away from old-fashioned agricultural policies and governmental subsidies that made low-quality foods such as corn and environmentally unfriendly livestock a mainstay in American life will be difficult. There is a great deal of legislature and precedent towards these industries, not to mention the involved politics and power held by farming. Switching to a blue food focus still requires ample research and development to maximize its sustainable potential while still being able to provide economical, nutritious food. It may also be culturally difficult to move from corn and beef to fish and seaweed. These changes could mean an overhaul in multiple aspects of food, including cultural practices, economic subsidies, food supply chains, and farming practices. However, it could also mean a step towards a future of minimal food insecurity, where the earth is healing due to sustainable food practices despite a growing population, and where people are healthier. Maybe it is time for a blue food change.