Transcript for
Episode 4: Sahil Shah on Scaling Seaweed
[Intro music]
Matthew
Debates about the future of food have become more polarized than ever, and little attention is paid to why people hold genuinely different beliefs.
Samara
We are here to fill this gap by exploring the evidence, worldviews and values that people bring the global food system debates.
Matthew
Welcome to Feed, a podcast and conversation with those who are trying to transform the food system. I'm Matthew Kessler,
Samara
And I'm Samara Brock. And we've been engaging with these issues for years through our work on farms, around policy tables and at universities.
Matthew
This show is presented by TABLE, a food systems collaboration between the University of Oxford, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, and Wageningen University.
Samara
So Matthew, what's on the Table today?
Sahil
I think it is somewhat over simplistic to say there's either a global or a local food system, no matter how you want to talk about it. I mean, you often have your agricultural inputs from one place, your production taking place in somewhere else, the labor for that production coming from a third place, exporting to a fourth place, and then actually processing that in the fifth place, which may well then be consumed in the sixth place.
Matthew
That was Sahil Shah, co founder of Sustainable Seaweed. Sahil looks at the food system from many different angles, from the lens of business, NGOs, and governments. Here are a few projects that he's involved in starting with his seaweed business.
Sahil
Primarily, I'm a co founder and director of an ag tech company called sustainable seaweed, where we have this novel technology to grow seaweed at a high yield and to mechanize it. And we're looking at projects both here in Europe and across in Southeast Asia as well.
Matthew
Sahil also looks at risks to food security through his role as a specialist advisor at ALL FED - the ALLiance to Feed the Earth in Disasters.
Sahil
I'm a non-resident fellow at the Geotech Center, the Atlantic Council, and an Honorary Fellow at the Jahn research group with University of Madison, Wisconsin,
Samara
And he sits on the food and land use table at Chatham House, where his work extends beyond Southeast Asia to also include sub-Saharan Africa.
Sahil
And through my seat on the World Bank's famine action mechanism, technical working group, I also span global food systems as well.
Matthew
Sahil brings his extensive background and different perspectives into our chat. We asked Sahil how he transitioned from his background in economics into food systems work.
Sahil
I initially came through food systems from a climate change lens. I used to work in climate consulting, specifically on smart buildings and how we can reduce emissions both from construction and building energy efficiency usage. Through that I came across an Australian climate scientist called Tim Flannery who looked at seaweed as one of the most promising nature based solutions - for both climate adaptation and climate mitigation. And it was through seaweed that I got into broader food systems.
Matthew
In this conversation, we’ll talk with Sahil about what role can seaweed and different technologies play in building a resilient food system, and what are the potential tradeoffs when scaling these technologies? We examine how livelihoods might be impacted by scaling, and whether marine-based solutions offer an alternative avenue for food production and climate change mitigation given how crowded the terrestrial ecosystems are!
Samara
So first, we asked Sahil how he got into growing seaweed.
Sahil
so I mean often it’s talked about there's no golden bullet within the food system, silver bullet sorry, but with seaweed, I'd almost disagree. I think that the quote that's often used is if you use 9% of the oceans to grow seaweed, you produce enough food to feed the world, you produce enough biomass to meet global energy demand and you have absorbed total global carbon dioxide emissions. And with new technologies that have increased yields that that number is now significantly lower than 9%. On top of that, as well, seaweed is incredibly nutrient dense, it doesn't need any land, fresh water or fertilizer.
Matthew
Does this sound too good to be true? Well we looked into the research and found that numerous studies support that expanding seaweed production could have plenty of benefits. One study that focuses on a regional level showed that if California converted under 4% of its coastline into seaweed farms, it could offset the carbon emissions of its $50 billion/year agricultural industry. This is however a massive upscaling of a novel technology. Oceans covers 70% of the Earth’s surface - Although 4 or 9 percent might sound like a small number, it is enormous increase in absolute terms.
Samara
We also found that the biggest challenge around scaling is the lack of a market. The ability of seaweed “to feed the world” deserves a second look. In Japan and Korea, for example, the countries that consume the most seaweed, people eat less than 2 kg per year. It is also found in thickening agents in some processed food such as desserts and processed meats.
Matthew
Yes, and this can suggest a tradeoff between benefits for the environment and human health goals. But there are also other uses outside of human consumption. We asked Sahil what are some other market potentials for seaweed and how he would like to scale his business?
Sahil
That's a really good question. I think that there are two aspects. It's what are we looking to do as an institution? But then also, where do we see the industry as a whole going? And I think the more interesting answer is actually for the industry. And I answered that question with that 9%. And I think with new technology, sort of three, or 4% would be a huge number. However, there, there are a number of complexities that are there. Currently, we grow at about 30 million tons of seaweed a year, I think with a value of over $12 billion, I could quite easily see this increasing to 10 times the amount in upcoming decades. And I'd be curious for that to go even further, I think it has the potential to, and I think when scaling seaweed we’d be looking at purely beyond food, and other uses as well. So animal feed is a clear one - where if it it's 1% of a cow's diet, it reduces their methane emissions in excess of 99%.
Matthew
My colleague, Dr. Mikaela Lindberg at Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences informed me about the ongoing research in this field. Seaweed has been a traditional part of cattle diets for hundreds of years and a particular species - Asparagopsis taxiformis - when consumed as a tiny fraction of a cattle’s diet, can generate a reduction of methane emissions ranging from 50-98% across numerous experiments. Some studies, however, showed a slight reduction in feed intake for dairy cattle and therefore reduced milk yield. This is ongoing research and Mikaela will continue running experiments this Fall 2021.
Samara
That’s interesting. But what are the broader implications of seaweed being part of cows’ diets? We looked into it, and there are several divergent views. One is that this could encourage a highly intensive livestock production system that has broader negative social and ecological impacts beyond methane emissions. On the other hand, this approach could continue the production of meat and dairy and retain livelihoods for farmers. On the other other hand, some critics will argue that this approach takes attention away from the broader issue - that we, especially those of us in the global North, are consuming too much meat. These are ongoing debates.
Matthew
Now back to Sahil’s response on scaling seaweed.
Sahil
And not just looking at cattle feed, but also looking at fish feed as well. It's much more climate friendly than soy, for example, as a crop. So I think that the potential is there really to scale seaweed at orders of magnitude higher than it is currently grown at. And it's just assuring that the enabling environment is there from a regulatory standpoint, from a financial standpoint, that the biological challenges are tackled, or the engineering challenges are tackled, and the cultural challenges are tackled.
Matthew
And continuing on scale, from your perspective as a food entrepreneur who is in the process of scaling up your operations, What is your experience in implementing this technology at different scales?
Sahil
So yeah, it's a relatively novel technology. So the technology really has been trialed at smaller scales, and has now been looking at sort of larger commercial scale deployment. And I think that's the case with any type of technology where you try it, and then you iterate it. And then once you've proven a model that it works, that you're then able to scale it. However, I think that the broader question scale was really looking at, I guess, what are the benefits of scale or what scale should we be looking at? And again, I think you always have trade offs, and I think the benefit of the larger scale really is one of efficiency. And two is economies of scale. The larger scale your farm is, the greater your ability to invest in technology, both when it comes to increasing efficiency, but also when it comes to risk transfer as well, the greater your ability to purchase insurance. And generally when we looked at an efficiency standpoint, and we've seen countries that have shifted from a more agrarian towards an industrial and a service based economy, they have done that through mechanization and automation, robotics, and stuff like the combine harvester.
Matthew
Quick aside on the combine harvester. This is a machine whose name comes from taking three separate parts of harvesting – reaping, threshing, and winnowing - and combining them into a single process for different grains including wheat, rice, corn, oats, rye, barley, sorghum, and soy. These processes of cleaning and separating the seeds were previously done individually and required much more labor. The combine is also an expensive piece of farm equipment, and therefore leads itself to economies of scale, which decreases the total population of farmers.
Sahil
And you'll see in proportions working in agriculture dropped from over half the population to I think somewhere between one and 5% in most developed countries. So I think there are a huge number of benefits to operating the scale, but I think there are risks as well. And I think often technologists speak about this as if it's clear, and if it's easy to do so. However, there are huge numbers of smallholder farmers. You have you have countries such as Ethiopia, where the majority of their population, and a huge chunk of their GDP is from smallholder farmers. And as you're shifting people across, it's really about understanding how are you able to maintain these livelihoods? What are the other potential climate beneficial activities that these people are able to do? If you're shifting them across to working within larger farms, what is their new role? Especially as we're shifting people across from being owner operator towards an employee type model. And I think these are all really important considerations that are required, as we transition away from smallholder type farms towards those which are larger and more commercial. And I think ultimately, as we look towards price parity, and we look at competition, I think, especially if we look towards global competition, ultimately, there will be a need for larger scale farming, just in terms of being able to provide lower cost and lower price whilst maintaining high quality produce for consumers. So I do think a shift towards more scale will happen. However, I think it's an incredibly important transition to be made, for example, with the current process that we're seeing across India.
Matthew
Sahil here is referring to the India Farmers Protest that began in September 2020, when the Indian government passed three laws to broadly open up the agricultural market to privatization. It’s a deeply complicated topic with a long social, political, economic history to unpack. - On one hand, some welcome a new environment for private investment in the agri-food supply chain. On the other hand, this trend of private investment into the agri-food system has historically produced larger, more capital-intensive farms focused on export markets thus squeezing small farms out. And over 250 million smalllholder farmers in India worry what impacts this will have on their livelihood and food security. We’ll link to several different perspectives in the shownotes. Samara asked a follow up question on this topic.
Samara
So, you mention the current farmer protests in India which center around the link between smallholder farming, culture, and history. So in that transition you're talking about - what is the role of culture and history? How can you implement those kinds of transformations in a way that doesn't discard people's lives and livelihoods and understandings of who they are and their sense of belonging to a place?
Sahil
Yeah, that's a huge challenge. And I do think at times, you do lose those smallholders when you agglomerate into scale, however, at times, and I'm a big proponent of the cooperative model, where actually, you're able to combine a large number of small holders under a cooperative, and everything from social protection through to investments in technology to increase yields and productivity and efficiency, can be gained through a cooperative type system. However, I think culture and history play an incredibly important role in the food system. And that's not just on the farming side, but also on the consumer side, when it comes to what we're used to eating and why. And, ultimately, if we are looking to transform it, I think it's one that will still need to be transformed slowly, rather than overnight. And in doing so, it is really important to maintain those livelihoods and transition these people across whether transitioning them into new farms, or fully transitioning them into new occupations.
Matthew
Speaking of tradeoffs, with scaling technologies - it’s not only livelihoods that are impacted, but also the environment. Depending on one’s goals and production systems scaling an operation may positively or negatively impact the environment. Some studies show that large scale seaweed operations are said to have a higher risk to the environment than small scale seaweed. I was wondering how you think about marine conservation as part of your business?
Sahil
So there are always environmental impacts when you're putting new installations out into the ocean. For the most part with seaweed farms, they're net positive, they reverse ocean acidification through absorbing carbon dioxide; they provide sheltering habitats for fish and marine life, especially juveniles who can then grow, and they replenish fish stock through that as well, as well as being biotopes. And I think it's the consideration. So for example, when you're introducing an invasive species into a particular area that can outcompete local species, you then may well end up with a fall in diversity. So I think having a regulatory process when you ensure seaweed that is scaled is grown as it would when it is local, that's very important. And it's also about the way that these farms are grown, and about having gaps between these ocean fields, if you will. So even for example, if we look at disease spreading, the denser, this is all packed without any gaps, the greater the impact of disease spread. However, if you start to look at modules, where then have gaps between them, we're then able to look at both risk diversification and environmental impact diversification. One way in which mariculture is different to agriculture, or aquaculture, is different is really looking at ocean tides and currents and when that comes to nutrient recycling, as often you're able to have relatively large scale but widely dispersed farms that still have net positive impacts. And I think you're able to look at this in regions of the world, especially Indonesia, where huge amounts of seaweed are grown, I think, close to 4 million tonnes across different smallholders. But because these fields are interspersed, for the most part, there are really significant environmental benefits from it.
Matthew
Yeah, that's really interesting thinking about the ecological considerations and how these principles of ecology can be scaled. One other question on this topic is - from what I understand you're looking at scaling these technologies in different geographies across the world. I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your experience has been in scaling in different regions, and what are maybe some points of acceptance and points of resistance that are particular to those regions.
Sahil
I think there are different steps to the process and I think one of the things that we found especially when you're looking at new things at a scale is that the regulatory process and the regulatory environment can be challenging. And that's often the case for both Europe and the US as well, compared to environments in countries where these foods are less novel, and these processes are less novel. So I think we have definitely found the regulatory environment challenging in terms of being able to have the permissions to conduct activities, here, so in Europe. Whereas in other parts of the world, your issues are very much less regulatory. But it can be when you are looking to shift an incumbent market and bring either new technologies and new actors into it. So there are definitely pros and cons versus being the first actor and the first mover somewhere, versus going somewhere where to a certain extent this is already established.
Samara
We’re going to shift now to look more broadly at food system resilience. Given the many hats you wear in your work, what do you think are some ways to mitigate food system risks?
Sahil
I think first we need to look at how do they impact different aspects of food security. So if you look at the small smallholder livelihood standpoint, that's really about social protection. It's about either at the country level, or through private financial markets, ensuring that farmers have that financial protection so that they then have sufficient funds not just for that season, but then to be able to purchase their agricultural inputs for subsequent seasons and be able to continue to grow. I think we need to look at resilience building. So when we look at a food system as a whole, when we look at our different hazards, we look at how resilient are we to different shocks. So say, for example, with new changes in biotechnology, we’re able to develop core grains that are significantly more drought resistant than traditional strains of crop. And strains, for example, of sorghum and millet can be more drought resistant than rice and maize. So I think part of it is looking at what are the different shocks that we're facing and how can our existing food systems become more resilient to that? However, I think we can go one step further really look at food system diversification and food system transformation. Particularly looking at aquaculture, we can look at scalable aquaculture that really doesn't face the same base, same type of risk as land based agriculture does.
Samara
You mentioned biotech crops. And of course, you're aware of the debates around this issue and the worry that turning towards that kind of technology can actually undermine local food systems through putting control over the ability to produce crops in the hands of multinational corporations, rather than in the hands of farmers. Can you talk about your thoughts on this?
Sahil
Yeah, and I guess rather than using the phrase debate, I would use the phrase consideration. And I think we have seen a number of scandals, I think if we just look at the Indian farmer suicides, for example. And I mean, I do think there are a number of risks with power concentration and regulation is definitely needed. It's certainly the case within the EU that there's sufficient regulation, when it comes to GMOs, for example, to ensure that they're safe at the point of use. And I think, again, it's about putting both the farmer and the consumer at the heart of this. But if you're able to build the farmer and the consumer into this process, so are the seeds that we're producing, which might be drought resistant, or flood resistant, or resistant to extreme temperatures, or they might be fortified with a particular vitamin or have a particular yield. And it's looking at the benefits to everyone involved in the whole supply chain. And I think, based upon historic precedent albeit understandable, there can often be villainization of big agriculture, when some of the steps that they are taking are very much more smallholder centric and farmer centric, and they have substantive consumer benefits as well.
Samara
What do you see as the relative role of business versus government in implementing food system transformation?
Sahil
I think it depends through what lens that you look at it. I think, government often have the ability to take a longer term lens. So if we're looking from a climate standpoint, and we're shifting away towards reducing emissions within systems, then I think that's definitely something that you see driven by government. In the UK, we had the agriculture bill, I think it was announced either last week or the week before, which the UK decouples from the EU, really looking at how do we renumerated farmers? And how do we subsidize them for more climate friendly stances and activities such as reforestation versus more traditional livestock activities? And I think really, government play an enabling environment and government effectively use the nudges, whether that's through taxation through subsidies or through policy, and then it's really business that drives on the production and processing side. So I think when you're looking at the longer term transformation, whether that's sustainability, whether it's resilience, it's what do we want to see society in the long run? How can government create the right incentives for private enterprise to do so? And in turn, how can that then lead to system change? And I think there's a really interesting role for academia within this as well. And I think often it's important that this is data driven and research led.
Samara
What's most inspiring to you about the work you do? In what direction do you see your work and business developing?
Sahil
I'll first answer that from an emissions and mitigation standpoint. And I'll talk about the seaweed I think there's huge potential in terms of kelp forests, large scale seaweed farms to absorb really large amounts of emissions. And through scaling it as a cattle feed additive, to put a huge dent into current agricultural emissions, can actually have a material impact into whether we see it 2 degree rise versus a 1.7 degree rise by the end of the century. So I think first is really looking at climate mitigation. nd I think the other part is technological as well. So scaling seaweed is one example, but when it comes to what's happening within food tech, if you look at the way, for example, where sunlight and bacteria are being used together to create proteins, by companies, such as Novo Nutrients, and Solar Foods, we’re actually looking at being able to create food without having to use aquaculture or agriculture for the first time, which is new and novel. And that adds and creates resilience to a whole new bunch of risks. So there are so many different lenses that you can take, and there's so much through which you're able to find inspiration. And it's really now looking at what's been trialed, what has the potential to scale to have real sustainability and resilience benefits and ensuring that we have the right incentives. And we have the right friendly environment to enable that to scale.
Samara
Have you seen other future visions that you find inspiring? You can talk about grand visions or more specific technologies that you think have transformative potential.
Sahil
I think one that is that's getting a lot of press at the moment is looking at both plant based and clean meat, and especially cellular agriculture. We recently saw the first cell-based chicken nuggets that are currently being sold in Singapore. And I think with the leaps that are being made, I think we will see price parity for this within about a decade or so. And when it comes to, again, reducing the amount of arable land and inputs that we need to create meat through to the animal welfare implications, being able to do so from a lab based standpoint, I think the impact of clean meat will be huge. Again, when it comes to reducing emissions, but also when it comes to increasing resilience, as these aren't susceptible to the same types of constraints that traditional livestock agriculture is.
Matthew
Cellular agriculture is a new and growing technology. And though it might be promising, we don’t yet know all the risks and implications of it. But it’s a subject we’ll explore in more depth in later episodes.
Samara
An argument that people apply to cultured meat is that it makes animal production less accessible and puts it into the hands of those who have the technological means. - So I asked Sahil - how do we have a just transition with these kind of technologies?
Sahil
It's really looking what we can do with existing livestock farmers today, and what they may be able to do in the future. So if we're gonna go back to the UK agricultural bill, and if we look at where subsidies are being provided, it's shifting away from livestock farming, to encourage them, encourage them with grazing and also with reforestation, to how can we actually incentivize climate positive ecosystem services, which can have beneficial environmental effects, whilst at the same time providing these rural communities with the income that they need. So especially when they have that emotional relationship with the land. I do understand that it is taking that away from them. However, if you look at the consumer side, from a price standpoint, if we look at the environmental impact, if we look at the animal welfare implications, it's abundantly clear that from the long term standpoint, that a shift toward cell based meat has greater advantages than it does disadvantages.
Matthew
I think in some of these conversations, when people think of scaling technologies, they think that there's going to be some sort of infringement of their lives. And in the vision you're describing you're talking about both environmental benefits and social protections. I wonder if you're painting, maybe a rosier picture of it, or, or the other group might be mischaracterizing your position? So I was wondering if you could comment on that. And then also, what do you think is the best argument that people of the opposing view might make?
Sahil
So I think this is where it's really interesting to look at history, right. And as we've seen from the Industrial Revolution through to now and Yuval Noah Harari, I think is very eloquent in how he articulates it. But it's, jobs and industries are constantly created and destroyed, especially as there’s technological change. And so many times they have been harbingers of doom, where they're saying that automation become mechanization become people won't have jobs and income in the future. Yet we have seen every time the creation of new jobs and new opportunities. So the more complex question is, how do we ensure the distribution? And how do we ensure that this is equitable, and just and fair? I think that's what I've heard where this is really inevitable. But you have a relatively small number of winners from this, you have a large number of people that lose out, and how do you transition this when you're transferring production from a very large number of people to a very small number of people? How do you ensure that you don't increase inequality at the same time? And that's a really difficult question to answer without really having a crystal ball and being able to peer into the future. I think, really, it'll be investments in education and retraining. Ultimately, I think if we look longer term, we work quite closely with rural communities, especially fishing communities, which have been really hard to hit not just in the UK, but other parts of the world, especially as fish stocks have dwindled. And when we've spoken to them about seaweed, for example, it's a really positive way for diversification of income, for their children's to have new jobs of the future. And I think there will be jobs that are created through this. There may not be as many jobs and there may be in different places, but there will still be a large number of jobs that will be created in the food systems of the future. We will still be needing to feed more people that we have on this planet, I think as we shift towards 10 or 11 billion people, depending upon which we top out when we hit halfway through the century. But it is really going to be about that education, and that training and managing that transition that we've seen across developed economies numerous times in the preceding decades.
Samara
A question that we like to ask all of our guests is where do you gain your information about the food system? Who do you look to and where do you look to for current research and information?
Sahil
That's a really good question. And I think that that brings in the food systems handbook quite a well actually. So I also run an open source project called the food systems Handbook, along with a number of other people. And really what we've done there is actually to collate and categorize information initially about the current global food crisis, but then also broadly broader about food system resilience, and how we can improve and have more resilient food systems in the future. So I am tremendously privileged to work with a wide number of people on this who are constantly diving through different places or resources, whether it's across governments and policy, whether it's across different academic groups, agricultural research centers and industry, whether it's across major multilateral and humanitarian NGOs, just having a team that is really going through this information in depth, as well as the privilege of having contacts and knowing people in each of these individual communities, both working on the ground through from a top down management and leadership position, where I'm able to surmise and gain a wide array of information from a very diverse set of stakeholders. And I think diversity is really important here that, again, often we can exist in silos and only see information that confirms the biases that we have. So ensuring that we overcome that by proactively reaching out to a diverse and variegated set of stakeholders is really critical to have a more holistic and accurate view.
Samara
So who else do you think we should be speaking to, that would have a perspective not often shared in these conversations?
Sahil
I think it's leaders of government, actually. I think government can often be relatively siloed, when you have departments of Agriculture, you have departments of Energy, you might have departments of climate change. But you don't often necessarily have people that will look at food systems holistically, from the domestic and international standpoint. You also have national security elements within food systems. So that might sit with a military or defense departments. So actually, I think the executive branch of governments, especially for large grain producers, and large consumers are increasingly important. I think engaging more with industry is something that research can definitely do better for. So large companies, such as Cargill, Bayer, etc, I think are really important to have on this. And I think a lot of learning can happen as well from the humanitarian development nexus. So really looking, for example, how WFP collaborate, for example, when it comes to providing humanitarian aid, and the importance of how you operate differently in different local contexts, are probably the three groups that I would recommend would be worth reaching out to, to begin with.
Matthew
So these 3 groups are leaders of government, industry and humanitarian development - like the World Food Program. That gives us a lot of a lot of homework and a lot of fodder to be thinking about. Our last question is, as we’re working through this podcast to build out dialogue across these conversations, what question would you like to ask a politician who holds influences on food policy and strategy?
Sahil
I think it would be how they really look at the future. So in the UK, we have DEFRA and they do an amount of horizon scanning, but it's really what do they see as the future of food for their country? From every standpoint. So how are they ensuring resilience? What are they insurance resilience to? How are they ensuring sustainability? And, again, that's sustainability in the broadest sense of the word. I think sustainability is often entrenched in just the environmental and the emissions at the moment, but the social aspects and the economic aspects of sustainability are just as important when it comes to transitioning the food system. And I think the question that I would ask just to bring all of that together would be one of the questions that you asked me and actually asking what their ideal vision of their food system is in, let's say, 2050, as sort of the Rockefeller Foundation had with their food vision prize, and what are the different steps that they need to take as a country? And what are the different steps that they need to take in conjunction with other countries in order to get that? And what type of multilateral and or supranational governance might we need for a more secure world?
Matthew
So we wanted to thank you very much, Sahil. It was a really interesting conversation.
Sahil
Thank you so much for having me on the podcast. It's been a privilege to be here.
Samara
Yes. Thank you very much.
Matthew
And that wraps our conversation with Sahil Shah. Thanks for listening all the way to the outro! Do you know someone who’d enjoy listening to this podcast and you haven’t told them about it yet? Please share this episode and others with them! Another way you can help people find the show is leaving us a review on Apple podcast!
What other topics and food system debates would you like to hear more about? Send us an email to podcast@tabledebates.org.
The show is presented by TABLE. To stay up to date with new research, job listings and upcoming events, visit our website and subscribe to our newsletter Fodder @ www.tabledebates.org . We’ve also linked various resources connected to this episode on our website.
Today's episode was edited and mixed by me Matthew Kessler, with special thanks to co-host Samara Brock and the extended Table community! Music in this episode by Blue dot sessions. We'll be back in your feed next week when I speak to Jennifer Clapp on food system financialization, corporate consolidation, and why she finds it so important to diversify:
Jennifer Clapp
I think the key here is diversity, not just sort of demonizing all food corporations and saying that's all bad. We actually need to have a diversity of different types of food system firms and different sizes of food system firms, and we need to have competition, and we need to have an ability for firms to enter the market, like at the moment where we have certain sectors that are so concentrated, and in those sectors, the barriers to entry can be really, really high. It's not like we're gonna see a new pesticide or seed Company emerge just out of nowhere, right? These companies, there were hundreds of them at the beginning of the 20th century. And they gradually became more and more and more and more concentrated. Now we're down to just a handful.
