On a day-to-day basis, people, businesses and governments do not always know the impact of their decisions on the sustainability of agrifood systems – be they positive or negative. On the one hand, agrifood systems generate vital benefits to society, not least because they produce the food that nourishes us and provide jobs and livelihoods to over a billion people. Consequently, the value to society of agrifood systems is probably well beyond what is measured in GDP. On the other hand, market, policy and institutional failures underpinning agrifood systems contribute to hidden costs, such as climate change, natural resource degradation and the unaffordability of healthy diets. The question then becomes: how do we transform agrifood systems so that they deliver even greater value to society? In other words, how do we mitigate their hidden costs and enhance their hidden benefits?
This edition of The State of Food and Agriculture focuses on the true cost of agrifood systems. By introducing the concept of the hidden costs and benefits of agrifood systems and providing a framework through which these can be assessed, this report aims to initiate a process that will better prepare decision-makers for actions to steer agrifood systems towards environmental, social and economic sustainability.
Factoring the costs and benefits of agrifood systems into decisions
Accounting for agrifood systems costs and benefits to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals
International consensus has grown around the idea that transforming agrifood systems – towards greater efficiency, resilience, inclusiveness and sustainability – is an essential condition for realizing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In this regard, folding a holistic assessment of agrifood systems into the process of decision-making is critical to achieving many, if not all, of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
The interactions of agrifood systems with the environment, the economy, nutrition, health and society are ultimately connected to the SDGs. Of particular relevance is the impact agrifood systems transformation can have on SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) as a result of the relevance of agrifood systems to agricultural productivity, rural livelihoods, health, food security and nutrition. The transition to sustainable agrifood systems arising from better decision-making also implies progress on SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 12 (Responsible Production and Consumption) and SDGs 13, 14 and 15 on Climate Action, Life below Water and Life on Land. This transition will rely on new technologies that can function as a catalyst for progress towards SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure). By assessing how human capital is formed and treated, it can also contribute to decent work and economic growth (SDG 8) as well as reduce gender inequality (SDG 5).
True cost accounting in support of agrifood systems transformation
The true cost accounting (TCA) approach creates an unprecedented opportunity for such comprehensive assessments – it is defined as a holistic and systemic approach to measure and value the environmental, social, health and economic costs and benefits generated by agrifood systems to facilitate improved decisions by policymakers, businesses, farmers, investors and consumers.
This broad definition allows a variety of methods to be adopted, depending on a country’s resources, data, capacity and reporting systems. True cost accounting is also not a new concept. Rather, it is an evolved and improved approach that goes beyond market exchanges to account for all flows to and from agrifood systems, including those not captured by market transactions.
While the TCA approach is aspirational, as covering all hidden costs and benefits of agrifood systems is a massively resource- and data-intensive exercise, the aim is for policymakers and other stakeholders to avoid making decisions without a full assessment. In this regard, TCA enables decision-makers to pragmatically leverage already available data and information for an initial understanding of agrifood systems, including the most important data gaps, to better guide interventions.
Unpacking the impacts and dependencies of agrifood systems on society and the natural environment
Agrifood systems are influenced by policy, business and consumer decisions. Their activities also depend on – as well as affect – natural, human, social and produced capitals, which form the foundation of human well-being, economic success and environmental sustainability. For example, natural capital contributes biomass growth and freshwater to agrifood systems. In return, agrifood systems can negatively affect natural capital with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and pollution. In contrast, if regenerative agriculture is used, production practices can contribute to ecosystem restoration. Social capital can contribute to agrifood systems through cultural knowledge and shape customs of access to resources such as land, while agrifood systems produce food security and nutrition (or food insecurity and malnutrition) in return, depending on their efficiency, resilience and inclusiveness. Produced capital contributes research and development, while agrifood systems generate income, profits, rent and taxes in return.
While these flows seem intuitive, little has been done to measure them and manage their impacts, with the exception of produced capital. Data that are commonly included in economic assessments pertain to the flows and impacts of produced capital and, to some extent, human capital (for example, labour and wages), which are transacted through market mechanisms and therefore easily observed, measured and quantified. Flows and impacts related to natural, social and (part of) human capital, in contrast, are not, so their inclusion in economic assessments is largely partial and not systematic. For example, while market-based inputs are directly reflected in the private production costs of producers, the inputs of ecosystem services (for example, clean freshwater and pollination) are not, despite being fundamental for agricultural productivity.
However, when decision-makers lack a full assessment of the activities of agrifood systems causing impacts on capital stocks and flows – for example, relating to ecosystem services – the resulting knowledge gap can hinder progress towards more sustainable agrifood systems. This is especially so because, although some positive progress has been made towards improved food security and nutrition, negative impacts have become increasingly significant. Negative impacts that are not reflected in the market price of a product or a service are referred to in this report as hidden costs. For the sake of simplicity – and given that most benefits are likely to be internalized by markets – the term “hidden costs” herein encompasses net hidden costs, thus also including hidden benefits expressed as negative hidden costs. An example of a negative hidden cost would be farmers converting pastureland/cropland to forestland, which reduces GHG emissions, but for which farmers do not receive compensation.
Barriers to integrating the hidden impacts of agrifood systems into decision-making
Given the wide range of effects associated with the economic activities of agrifood systems and the many different stakeholders affected, integrating all of the hidden costs and benefits into decision-making processes is not an easy task. Decision-makers face conflicting objectives, and addressing the hidden costs of agrifood systems can require significant changes to current production and consumption practices, which may be met with resistance from governments, businesses, producers and consumers, who may prefer the status quo for fear of high transition costs or changes in habits, culture or traditions.
Another reason for resistance to change is the fact that trade-offs may arise. For example, the use of agrochemicals to increase productivity can reduce poverty, but also lead to ecological degradation over time. This makes policy decisions more complicated. There is also a significant disparity between who receives the benefits of agrifood systems globally and who pays the costs, that is, the distributional impacts of the transition to new patterns of production and consumption. Transforming agrifood systems to address key environmental stresses and health problems can involve trade-offs with improvements in social equality.
Resistance to change can also be driven by a dearth of sufficient data and information. An associated challenge is quantifying the costs of policy change (that is, the abatement costs) and comparing them with the benefits of reducing hidden costs to help guide policy direction. This raises the issue of valuing costs in a way that is practical. There will be little progress on agrifood systems transformation if methods to improve abatement costing languish. Investing resources in achieving the disclosure of relevant information should be prioritized.
True cost accounting: an opportunity for understanding agrifood systems
True cost accounting builds on the body of existing measurement work reflected in established international statistical standards. As far as produced and natural capital and associated flows are concerned, these standards include the System of National Accounts (SNA) for the measurement of produced assets and associated flows of production, income and consumption, and the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) for the measurement of environmental flows and assets.
Given the challenges of collecting the necessary data and quantifying all flows across the four capitals, the already available data and information take priority for an initial understanding of agrifood systems. Such initial analyses can be used to start a dialogue with relevant stakeholders on the most important challenges in agrifood systems and the most urgent data gaps that need to be filled to better guide interventions. In this regard, the principle of “materiality” will be key – defined as a measure of how important a piece of information is when making a decision. Materiality helps focus the scope of TCA assessments on the impacts and flows that have the potential to alter a decision-making process. This can determine which important data are unavailable and should be collected.
A proposed two-phase assessment using true cost accounting
Against this backdrop, this report proposes a two-phase assessment using TCA to provide decision-makers with a comprehensive understanding of agrifood systems and identify intervention areas to improve their sustainability. The first phase is to undertake initial national-level assessments that analyse and quantify as much as possible the hidden costs of agrifood systems across the different capitals using readily available data. The main role of the first phase is to raise awareness about the magnitude of the challenges.
The second phase is devoted to in-depth assessments targeting specific components, value chains or sectors of agrifood systems to guide transformational policy actions and investments in a specific country. The selection can be inspired by the results of the first phase, but can also be guided by country priorities per consultations with relevant stakeholders. The stakeholders involved may vary by context, but they are generally policymakers, research and accounting institutions (especially those with good knowledge of the country’s major agrifood systems challenges) and representatives of key actors in agrifood systems, such as agricultural producers, processors and distributors.
Preliminary assessment of the hidden costs of agrifood systems for 154 countries
Hidden costs are undeniably substantial, even after accounting for uncertainty
To date, there have been various attempts to estimate the hidden costs associated with global agrifood systems. Two studies, by the Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU) (2019) and Hendricks et al. (2023), in particular, conclude that the magnitude of hidden costs is sizeable relative to the value of food products transacted in markets. Despite their comprehensiveness, however, both studies are aggregate in nature and do not provide estimates at a national level.
Against this background, and as a starting point for the first phase of the two-phase process, a preliminary TCA analysis was conducted for this report to quantify the hidden costs of agrifood systems for 154 countries. It uses national-level data (from various global datasets) to model impacts and combines these with monetary estimates to value (monetize) the hidden costs. This enables the results to be aggregated and compared on different dimensions and geographical scales and to be used as a foundation for dialogue with decision-makers. In this exercise, both hidden costs and benefits are factored in as much as possible, with hidden benefits (for example, afforestation) expressed as negative hidden costs.
However, because food holds intangible value – for example, in terms of the cultural identity associated with agrifood systems – some benefits cannot be monetized, so are excluded from the analysis, despite their importance. In addition, some hidden costs have been omitted due to data gaps across the set of countries being analysed, for example, costs associated with child stunting, pesticide exposure, land degradation, antimicrobial resistance and illness from unsafe food.
This report estimates that the global quantified hidden costs of agrifood systems were approximately 12.7 trillion 2020 PPP dollars in 2020. This includes environmental hidden costs from GHG and nitrogen emissions, water use, and land-use change; health hidden costs from losses in productivity due to unhealthy dietary patterns; and social hidden costs from poverty and productivity losses associated with undernourishment. Both unhealthy dietary patterns and undernourishment result in productivity losses affecting national economies; however, because the drivers differ significantly – undernourishment is driven by extreme deprivation, while unhealthy dietary patterns by overconsumption – hidden costs from unhealthy dietary patterns are linked to the health dimension, while those from undernourishment are related to the social dimension alongside poverty.
While not monetizing all benefits and costs is a limitation, it does not necessarily restrict the ability of the exercise to guide improvements in agrifood systems. Indeed, the hidden costs covered are more than sufficient to highlight the need for action. When compared to the value of the world’s economy, these are equivalent to almost 10 percent of global GDP PPP in 2020. Per day, these costs are equivalent to 35 billion 2020 PPP dollars.
These estimates take into account the large uncertainty in cost calculations resulting from a lack of data on various hidden costs, as well as for some countries and regions, by using probability distributions. An attractive feature of this exercise is that it allows for confidence intervals that reflect this uncertainty: it is estimated that global hidden costs have a 95 percent chance of being 10.8 trillion 2020 PPP dollars or higher. Uncertainty was largest for environmental hidden costs, due to a lack of knowledge about the impact of nitrogen emissions on ecosystem services. Yet, even the lower bound reveals the undeniable urgency of agrifood systems transformation. In other words, uncertainty should not be used as a reason to postpone action.
Hidden costs of agrifood systems vary substantially in magnitude and composition across country income levels
Aggregating the quantified hidden costs of agrifood systems at the global level hides significant variation across the income levels of countries that are key decision-makers in reducing these costs. The majority of hidden costs are generated in upper-middle-income countries (5 trillion 2020 PPP dollars, or 39 percent of total quantified hidden costs) and high-income countries (4.6 trillion 2020 PPP dollars, or 36 percent of total costs). Lower-middle-income countries account for 22 percent, while low-income countries make up 3 percent.
Hidden costs differ not only in their magnitude, but also in their composition by income level. In all country groups apart from low income, productivity losses from dietary patterns that lead to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the most significant contributor to agrifood systems damages, followed by environmental costs. In lower-middle-income countries, social hidden costs from poverty and undernourishment are relatively more significant, accounting for an average of 12 percent of all quantified hidden costs. Unsurprisingly, these social hidden costs are the main issue in low-income countries (more than 50 percent of all quantified hidden costs).
Presenting hidden costs as a share of GDP gives a better sense of the burden placed on national economies and provides an indication as to where to prioritize international resources to address these costs. Globally, the quantified hidden costs are equivalent, on average, to almost 10 percent of 2020 GDP in PPP terms. However, this share is far higher in low-income countries, at an average of 27 percent. This signals that improving agrifood systems in low-income countries will be instrumental in addressing these hidden costs, especially those related to poverty and undernourishment, which alone are equivalent to 14 percent of GDP. The ratio of hidden costs to GDP is 12 percent and 11 percent in lower- and upper-middle-income countries, respectively. However, social hidden costs are of notable relevance only in lower-middle-income countries. In upper-middle-income countries, the majority of hidden costs come from unhealthy dietary patterns. The same occurs in high-income countries, where the ratio of all quantified hidden costs is only 8 percent.
Quantifying hidden costs to inform the policy entry points that, in turn, can address them
The hidden costs described are meant to help identify entry points for the prioritization of interventions and investments. In this respect, the first step should be to identify where in a given agrifood system hidden costs are more significant and due to what activities. Starting with the environmental dimension, estimates suggest that these costs occur mostly in primary production, with pre- and post-production costs comprising less than 2 percent of total quantified hidden costs. In other words, the primary sector should be seen as the main entry point for effecting change in environmental pathways. Globally, hidden costs from agriculture – through environmental pathways – are equivalent to almost one-third of agricultural value added.
For some countries the focus will likely be on the vulnerable actors and specifically on the contribution of agrifood systems to moderate poverty – that is, the overall distributional failure of sufficient revenues and calories needed to ensure productive lives. The report finds that, to avoid distributional failure costs in agrifood systems, the incomes of the moderately poor working in agrifood systems need to increase, on average, by 57 percent in low-income countries and 27 percent in lower-middle-income countries.
Another area that emerged as clearly important is that of average productivity losses per person from dietary intake. Globally, this value is equivalent to 7 percent of GDP PPP in 2020; low-income countries report the lowest value (4 percent), while other income categories report 7 percent or higher.
Overall, the results suggest that the quantified hidden costs associated with agrifood systems are substantial for all countries, even after accounting for uncertainty. They reveal the magnitude of transformation required but do not measure the cost of mitigating or preventing the different challenges, nor do they express whether it is feasible to do so. Rather, they indicate the relative contributions of various activities or pollutants and highlight areas for further investigation in targeted assessments to fill data gaps and understand the abatement costs. Only with such targeted assessments is it possible to guide interventions by both public and private entities to transform agrifood systems for the better.
Moving on to targeted TRUE COST ACCOUNTING assessments: the second phase of a two-phase process
From initial estimation of hidden costs to identification of actions
The results of this stocktaking exercise of national estimates are preliminary and therefore need to be complemented with more accurate and disaggregated data from targeted assessments. This is enabled by the second phase of the assessment process, focusing on conducting targeted assessments to support decision-making to improve the sustainability of agrifood systems. The objective is to identify the potentially preferred transformational actions, comparing the costs and benefits of each – for example, through scenario analysis – in order to allocate resources to the most feasible and cost-effective ones, compare future options and manage trade-offs and synergies. This would then lead to implementation of levers to reform policies, investments and other interventions to address the concerns identified.
Defining the scope of targeted assessments
When setting up a targeted assessment, it is important to establish the boundary of analysis to keep the scope of the study feasible while allowing it to sufficiently meet its goal. This starts with choosing the functional unit of analysis, that is, what is being assessed and measured, which can be broken down into agrifood systems, dietary patterns, investment, organization and product. The chosen functional unit depends on the policy focus or research question. Generally, boundaries of analysis that incorporate the higher level of agrifood systems are most suitable for policymaking, as they are more holistic and consider the potential to steer systemic impact.
Activating levers for change usually requires analyses on a more granular level in order to be effective. This may require product or investment to be the functional units that inform concrete decisions. If the policy concern is to promote healthy diets, then choosing the dietary patterns level as the functional unit would be more appropriate. Choosing organization as the functional unit might also be suitable in certain cases. While it is mostly used for the private sector, organization as the functional unit can produce valuable insights if the policy goal is to identify areas in which businesses need support either to conduct TCA themselves or to reduce their negative impacts.
Policy and scenario analyses: their fundamental and complementary roles in targeted TCA assessments
Scenario analysis is a critical feature of any TCA exercise, regardless of the boundaries of the analysis. Whether the domain of a TCA application is national agrifood systems, a local diet, a public investment or a value chain, scenario analysis allows the comparison of potential future paths and assesses the impact and effectiveness of different policies and management options. Doing so is essential for identifying emerging issues from inaction, as well as synergies and trade-offs from action. Such trade-offs can then be carefully weighed to formulate stronger strategies and assess the effectiveness of different potential actions.
These scenarios can help to reframe the problem in order to set a policy agenda more effectively. They typically have both qualitative and quantitative components and are often combined with participatory approaches involving local and regional stakeholders. For example, population growth projections can be used to estimate expected land-cover changes when investigating trends in agricultural expansion or urbanization.
Results of scenario analysis can be interpreted using cost–benefit analysis that compares the benefits and costs of different interventions and determines their economic and financial viability. Alternatively a cost-effectiveness approach compares the costs of meeting a given objective when using different intervention options, such as the cost per tonne of avoided emissions through energy efficiency, renewable energy and reduced deforestation. The latter approach is particularly relevant when considering options for reducing hidden costs of agrifood systems that have not been quantified in monetary terms.
True cost accounting can help nudge agrifood business and investment towards sustainability
It is unlikely that all issues can be addressed through policy alone. Agrifood systems are, at their core, private-sector endeavours, and the private sector will have to take on some of the responsibility for minimizing hidden costs. True cost accounting provides a framework for businesses to assess and manage their impacts and dependencies more comprehensively and accurately. By integrating TCA into everyday decision-making and management strategies, agrifood businesses can monitor and unlock opportunities at different stages of the supply chain, achieve sustainable production, attract private investment and avail of government incentives. When adopted by policy and backed by laws and regulations, TCA redefines key performance indicators and changes the bottom line of business success by including human, social and natural capitals. In brief, it redefines the concept of “successful business”.
Financial institutions such as banks and insurance companies can also use TCA to determine credit and insurance conditions based on better risk assessments, thus improving credit and insurance conditions for sustainable businesses. A comprehensive assessment of costs and benefits with TCA can also help businesses mobilize financial resources for the transition to sustainability, opening up opportunities for new investment and upscaling. True cost accounting can also help businesses respond to the growing demand for supply-chain transparency from consumers who are increasingly becoming conscious of the different aspects of production, including working conditions and environmental impacts. In this regard, TCA can also help businesses qualify for voluntary certifications (such as fair trade) and government incentives.
Faced with the growing urgency of quantifying the hidden costs of businesses, particularly those of agrifood products, various initiatives have taken the first steps. The existing initiatives cover a significant amount of ground when it comes to the business applications of TCA. However, there are still areas where further development is needed to fully realize the potential of TCA in the private sector. These include frameworks and standards, methods, corporate governance and strategy, and reporting guidelines.
Mainstreaming TRUE COST ACCOUNTING for agrifood systems transformation: opportunities and challenges
When based on TCA, levers can be used to improve agrifood systems sustainability
Different levers can influence the inner workings of agrifood systems and be strategically employed to propel systems to sustainability. Levers can affect the supply side (production and intermediaries), the demand side (consumption) and public goods supporting agrifood systems. No single lever is new, but the innovation lies in how they are used. When informed by targeted TCA assessments, existing levers in agrifood systems, such as agrifood subsidies, can be redirected or reformed to support and scale up promising and emerging strategies for sustainable businesses and investments. The choice of lever will depend on the results of scenario and policy analyses, context-specific needs, priorities and available resources. While governments have the broadest and most influential toolkit, other actors – research institutions, civil society organizations, businesses and financial institutions – also play significant roles in shaping the performance of agrifood systems. Likewise, other sectors outside agrifood systems (for example, the health care and energy sectors) need to be considered in the interim and in terms of synergies and trade-offs to create incentives that are coherent to this end.
Will addressing hidden costs raise the price of food?
A commonly asked question is whether addressing the hidden costs of agrifood systems will raise food prices. The report lays the foundations to answer this question. The basic premise is that it will depend on the hidden cost being addressed and the instruments being used. Considering the distinct categories of hidden costs being investigated is helpful: social hidden costs associated with distributional failures, which result in poverty and undernourishment; environmental hidden costs from damages linked to externalities; and health hidden costs due to dietary patterns that lead to obesity and NCDs. The way in which each of these categories is addressed has distinct implications for incomes and food prices.
Addressing the social hidden costs from distributional failure, for instance, could improve productivity in the food and agriculture sector, exerting downward pressure on food prices, broadly benefiting consumers. Conversely, if producers are made to pay for measures (polluter pays principle) – for example, through taxes or regulations stipulating less environmentally harmful practices – not complemented by advice on how to limit costs where a hidden cost occurs, then these will be passed down the value chain or on to consumers in the form of higher food prices.
The alternative is to apply the beneficiary pays principle, which places the burden of covering the true costs of agrifood systems activities on the beneficiaries – usually the public, but also specific groups particularly affected by activities in which they are not involved. In such cases, policies should not result in an increase in the price of food. One example is payment for environmental services, where the beneficiary pays the parties whose activities may be damaging to the environment to modify their behaviour.
One set of policies involving a mixture of the polluter pays principle and the beneficiary pays principle is the repurposing of agricultural subsidies. Shifting underperforming agricultural subsidies to protect and restore degraded farmland can better support local communities and help countries achieve their climate, biodiversity and rural development goals. If carefully designed and targeted, it also has the potential to increase the availability and the affordability of healthy diets, and in particular those that are environmentally sustainable. However, subsidy-based schemes place a burden on already scarce fiscal resources and competing objectives might lead to trade-offs. The choice between the policy instruments will depend on equity implications, which, in turn, depend on who the beneficiaries are. Priority should be given to situations where synergies exist.
Targeted TCA assessments can inform the design of taxation and repurposing schemes to change relative food prices in favour of more nutritious and sustainable options. When tax revenues are directed to promote healthy and sustainable diets, household food budgets might remain unchanged. In the long term, improvements in public health leading to increased productivity could translate into higher household incomes. In this case, even if healthier diets may be costlier, the increase in incomes could help offset this additional expense. However, more research is needed to understand the costs involved.
Creating an enabling environment to scale TCA for agrifood systems transformation
Scaling up the adoption of TCA cannot be achieved by a single set of actors; it requires complementary contributions from different stakeholders that influence the functioning of agrifood businesses. Governments, with their policies, funds, investments, laws and regulations, play the central role in creating a conducive environment for the scaling up of TCA to transform agrifood systems. Research organizations and standard setters are also key for advancing methodologies and setting standards for data to be collected and used in TCA assessments. This is essential to guarantee the transparency of the true costs and benefits of agrifood systems. The applications of TCA studies will largely be facilitated by accounting firms and business consultancies, which advise and support agrifood producers, businesses and other relevant stakeholders in their sustainability transition. Financial institutions and credit rating agencies could be instrumental if they favour sustainable production, business and investment. Ultimately, it is the producers, businesses and consumers – and the alliances they create – that will make the change and implement new standards, in particular, voluntary standards.
For this to happen on a large scale, especially in middle- and low-income countries, two major barriers must be overcome: data scarcity and lack of capacity.
For the first time ever, FAO will dedicate two consecutive editions of The State of Food and Agriculture to the same theme
By dedicating two editions to this topic, FAO is investing in the disclosure of relevant information to guide decision-making in agrifood systems towards sustainability. In this year’s report, novel findings of the preliminary national assessments have been presented, creating an unprecedented opportunity to support decision-makers worldwide in pinpointing the broad (hidden) challenges faced by their systems and initiate a process to construct a joint vision for agrifood systems transformation. These preliminary results, to be improved and updated, emphasize the importance of repurposing current public support and of laws, regulations and standards that influence the behaviours of other actors, such as consumers. Private capital – amounting to about 14 times global public support – also plays an important role in shaping sectoral sustainability, as do financial institutions, by further influencing, advising and supporting actors in their sustainability transition.
Next year’s report will emphasize how targeted assessments can be tailored based on the priorities of policymakers in specific contexts. The aim will be to showcase the flexibility of TCA in its application to different scopes, from an entire agrifood system down to a single product. Regardless of analysis scope, TCA can be used to compare different policy and management choices. As a continuation of the work started in this report, scenario and policy analyses will feed into TCA, examining a range of plausible futures, including the outcomes and effectiveness of various policy or management options to guide the transformation of agrifood systems for the better.
