Peak Oil, Food Systems, and Public Health
Peak oil is the phenomenon
whereby global oil supplies
will peak, then decline,
with extraction growing
increasingly costly. Today’s
globalized industrial food
system depends on oil for
fueling farm machinery,
producing pesticides, and
transportinggoods. Biofuels
production links oil prices to
food prices.
We examined food system
vulnerability to rising
oil prices and the public
health consequences. In the
short term, high food prices
harm food security and equity.
Over time, high prices
will force the entire food
system to adapt. Strong
preparationandadvanceinvestment
may mitigate the
extent of dislocation and
hunger.
Certain social and policy
changes could smooth adaptation;
public health has
an essential role in promoting
a proactive, smart, and
equitable transition that increases
resilience and enables
adequate food for all.
(Am J Public Health. Published
online ahead of print
July 21, 2011: e1–e11. doi:
10.2105/AJPH.2011.300123)
Roni A. Neff, PhD, MS, Cindy L. Parker, MD, Frederick L. Kirschenmann, PhD, Jennifer Tinch, MD, MPH,
and Robert S. Lawrence, MD
PEAK OIL IS THE POINT AT
which national and world oil supplies
will peak, then decline in
coming decades, with extraction
growing increasingly costly per
unit retrieved. Figure 1shows how
industrial food production systems
depend heavily on petroleum for
fueling farm machinery, producing
pesticides, and transporting ingredients
and food.1---3Also, as petroleum
prices rise, cropland is
diverted to biofuels production,
affecting food supply. Oil so permeates
today’s food systems that,
as prices escalate, business-asusual
processes will be unlikely to
provide food security. As Kirschenmann
wrote,
the end of cheap energy will force
us to begin redesigning our food
economy as a subsystem of the
ecosystem.4(p110---111)
Public health has an essential role
to play in joining with others to
promote a healthy and equitable
transition to an oil-independent,
more resilient5 food system.
The challenge of ensuring future
food security is compounded
by the ecological and resource
threats intertwined with that of
peak oil, including climate change,
population growth, projected
peaks in other fuel sources (e.g.,
coal, natural gas, uranium), soil
depletion and contamination, water
shortages, and urbanization.6
These threats––and our responses
to them––will affect public health
and society, not only directly
through food security, but also via
myriad economic, social, and environmental
pathways.
Food systems are systems––
complex, and comprising all entities,
processes, and relationships
from soil and seed to table and
waste.7,8 In a system, changes to
one component ramify elsewhere9,10;
systems-based solutions
account for complexity to minimize
unintended negative consequences.
11 We aim to leave the
reader with a big picture understanding
of the issues and their
interconnections and related
leverage points. Although we emphasize
the tremendous implications
of peak oil for international
food security and agriculture, we
focus on the US context.
Without effective intervention,
peak oil will exacerbate existing
inequities; US food insecurity today
falls disproportionately on the
poor, minorities, single-parent
families, and children.12 Farmers
and other workers could also suffer
disproportionately as their
costs rise, potentially without adequate
compensation in food prices.
Small and midsize farms and
other businesses may not be able
to adapt quickly to rising fuel
prices if they have investments in
petroleum-dependent equipment.
We describe petroleum and
dependence upon it in industrialized
food systems, and how oil
scarcity may affect food production
and food security. As petroleum
prices escalate, short-term
consolidation of industrial agriculture
and potentially significant
increases in food insecurity may
occur. Food systems are likely to
adapt to an oil-constrained future
in 4 ways: reduced oil in food
production, increased food system
energy efficiency and renewable
energy, changed food consumption
patterns, and reduced food
transportation distances. These
shifts may present substantial
challenges for public health and
equity; nonetheless, they may ultimately
contribute to a more sustainable
food system. We discuss
the role for public health in working
with others to ensure as proactive,
smooth, and equitable a
transition as possible. We also
present policy and practice recommendations.
Public health is a relative newcomer
to both peak oil and agricultural
issues. We have much to
learn from the farmers, communities,
advocates, consumers, sociologists,
and scientists who have
been addressing the issues over
time. Public health, in turn, is a
needed ally.
PETROLEUM
Petroleum is energy-dense and
easily transported, and its supplies,
although plentiful and inexpensive,
have always been finite. Over
the course of the last century,
petroleum has revolutionized food
production and modern life; it is
now the dominant US fuel source
and a primary input in producing
chemicals and materials. Most
electricity, however, is powered by
nonoil sources, particularly coal.
The stored, concentrated energy
of fossil fuels is a limited resource.
There is broad scientific
and governmental recognition of
peak oil as a phenomenon,13---15
although skeptics and deniers remain.
16 By many estimates, the
peak will occur by 2030 or has
already occurred.15,17 One 2010
New York Times article projected
a time horizon up to 100 years,18
but there are reasons to doubt
PEAK PETROLEUM
Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011 | American Journal of Public Health Neff et al. | Peer Reviewed | Peak Petroleum | e1
The latest version is at http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300123
Published Ahead of Print on July 21, 2011, as 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300123
Copyright 2011 by the American Public Health Association
such estimates.19 Rate of decline
projections reflect not only oil
supply, but also projections for
population, the extent to which
oil prices affect demand, and development
of replacement fuel
sources. A slow decline would
allow time for adapting agriculture
and other sectors; a rapid decline
could portend short-term catastrophic
food insecurity. Such
projections are not mutually exclusive;
we could experience slow
overall decline with episodic extreme
shortages.
Some food system petroleum
can be replaced with renewable
energy (e.g., solar, wind, and geothermal
power) plus human and
animal labor. That shift requires
time, funds, and initiative, however,
and may still not produce
enough power to support current
US lifestyles, nor the spread of
such lifestyles worldwide.20,21
Further, to date, no cost-effective,
environmentally sound
alternative exists for gasoline or
diesel, critical fuels for transportation
and heavy equipment operation.
15,22---24 Plant-based liquid biofuels
require much water25 and
energy to manufacture, produce
low energy returns per energy
invested, and have incentivized
conversion of rainforest, prairie,
and wetlands to cropland––releasing,
by one estimate, 17 to 420
times more carbon dioxide than
their burning would mitigate.26
Moreover, these fuels create competition
between mouths and gas
tanks. Research continues into
less-damaging ways to make liquid
biofuels.27---29 Without a viable
substitute for gasoline and diesel,
existing practices in the food
system will not continue.
Rising oil prices will not affect
all industry sectors proportionate
to their consumption. Rather, society
will make choices regarding
optimal uses. Essentials such as
food may be prioritized––whether
by the market or purposeful strategy––
and more luxury goods (including
luxury foods) eschewed.
Industries with powerful advocacy
sectors may also be relatively
spared.
OIL-DEPENDENT FOOD
SYSTEMS
Industrial food production has
thrived on inexpensive oil, seeking
to maximize crop yields while
minimizing consumer prices. The
industrial economy’s fundamental
principles––specialization, standardization,
and economies of
scale––have been increasingly applied
to agriculture since World
War II. Particularly since the
1960s, new technologies have
transformed agricultural yields in
the United States and globally.
Most food crops eaten in the
United States are produced on
large land tracts planted in monocultures
(single crops). Animals are
raised separately from crops in
large confinement facilities, eating
specially formulated feeds made
from grains and manufactured inputs,
including antimicrobial
drugs, rendered animal proteins,
and arsenical compounds. Chemical
fertilizers, irrigation, pesticides,
herbicides, and new seed
varieties were the immediate
stimulants of the 20th-century
yield increases, but petroleum
was, and continues to be, their
essential energy source. Petroleum
contributes most ingredients for
manufacturing the pesticides and
herbicides essential for controlling
pests and weeds that thrive in
monoculture production and supplies
the energy to mine, process,
and deliver phosphate and potash
to farms. (Natural gas is the primary
ingredient in most nitrogen
fertilizers.) Petroleum also supplies
energy to manufacture and
operate the farm equipment that
prepares the soil, sows and harvests
FIGURE 1—Petroleum use in the industrial food system before peak oil.
PEAK PETROLEUM
e2 | Peak Petroleum | Peer Reviewed | Neff et al. American Journal of Public Health | Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011
crops, and irrigates fields. Finally,
petroleum transports agricultural
inputs such as pesticides and feed,
agricultural products, and food.
Oil facilitates globalization of
the food supply. In 2005, the
United States imported 44% of
fruits and 16% of vegetables, including
a significant portion of
those eaten when local produce
is available.30 Even within the
United States, food travels long
distances. One Iowa study found
that conventional produce traveled
on average 1494 miles to
institutional markets.31 Production
and processing often occur where
costs are lowest.32 An emphasis
on ‘‘just in time’’ delivery means
more trips are made. The petroleum
impacts of these food supply
chains vary, as fuel efficiency
varies by orders of magnitude
across vehicle types. Short trips in
inefficient trucks or family vehicles
often consume more energy
per unit of food than do lengthy
trips by train or ship. Regardless,
as oil prices rise, long-distance
transportation will increasingly
become a luxury, leading to substantial
changes in food distribution
networks to supply healthy
diets.33
Despite large absolute amounts
of petroleum used in food and
ingredient transportation, transportation
plays a relatively minor
role in food greenhouse gas emissions
(2% to 4%) and total energy
use (5% to 10%).1,34---38 Transportation
plays a larger role in food
petroleum footprints, although
specific estimates have not been
identified.
Oil in the food system has
helped produce a plentiful and
inexpensive food supply. The result,
however, has not been salubrious.
In 2004, the US food
supply contained 800 more
calories per person per day than
in 1960,39 and in 2008, food
purchases comprised about half
the percentage of disposable income
it did in the early1960s.40 By
enabling overabundant, caloriedense
foods, petroleum contributes
to diseases of over-nutrition, such
as obesity, cardiovascular disease,
diabetes, and some cancers.41 High
agricultural yields and speed are
achieved at the expense of flavor
that could help motivate more
produce consumption, food safety,
and the health and safety of
workers and rural communities.
Antimicrobial drugs heavily used in
food animal production also contribute
to the epidemic of antimicrobial
resistance compromising
these drugs’ effectiveness for human
use.42---45
Multiple policy drivers contribute
to food system oil intensity.
United States farm policy has particularly
incentivized oil-dependent
monocultures. The United
States also provides direct fuel
subsidies to agriculture––$2.4 billion
in 2004.46 Further incentives
come from transportation policies
that subsidize oil-inefficient modes
of transportation, and subsidies to
petroleum industries, including,
some would say, a military policy
aimed at maintaining imported oil
supplies.
LOWER-OIL FOOD
PRODUCTION
Food producers can reduce oil
in multiple ways. They can choose
energy-efficient vehicles and shift
to renewable energy including installing
solar, wind, and geothermal
energy systems, shifting some
labor back to humans and farm
animals, and devoting portions of
cropland to sustainable biofuels
production. Fuel is also conserved
with methods such as no-till agriculture,
under which soil is not
tilled (broken apart), leading to
fewer runs with farm equipment.
Unfortunately, most no-till agriculture
today leads to increased
herbicide and fertilizer usage;
however, low-input methods are
continually improving. Producers
can replace heavy pesticide use
with integrated pest management,
crop rotation, and raising multiple
plants and animals on the same
farm. Chemical fertilizers can be
replaced with compost, crop rotation,
reduced tillage, and other soil
management practices that also
increase drought tolerance. Further
reductions may be achieved
by selecting plant and animal species
adapted for local conditions
and bred for attributes such as
pest or disease resistance and
drought tolerance. Figure 2 describes
this lower-oil agriculture,
in which the food system is a
subsystem of the ecosystem.
The lower-oil agriculture we
describe is not a return to the
past. Rather, the shift is toward
knowledge-intensive ecological
agriculture, combining new science
and localized data analysis
with historical wisdom to manage
ecological forces in their complexity
and relationships for resilient
food yields.
Observers question whether
low-input methods can produce
sufficient food to feed the world’s
growing population and achieve
yields comparable to those of industrial
agriculture. Numerous
studies and United Nations (UN)
reports suggest they probably can,
and should be pursued, along with
expanded research to improve
and locally adapt methods.47---55
Some agribusiness firms and others
remain skeptical.56 The UN and
World Bank---convened International
Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology
for Development concluded
that the primary challenge for food
security is to increase sustainable
agricultural productivity at the
national level to achieve greater
food sovereignty.57
PETROLEUM FOOTPRINTS
Through history, solar-powered
agriculture generally has produced
more energy than it has
consumed.4 The fossil fuel era reversed
the equation; now it takes
about 7.3 to 10 calories of energy
inputs to produce, process, and
transport each calorie of food energy.
3,58 Pimentel et al. estimated
that feeding each American requires
approximately 528 gallons
of oil equivalents annually (including
nonoil energy).59 The
US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) found a 16.4% rise in per
capita US food system energy use
just between 1997 and 2002––
most importantly because of convenience
and restaurant foods using
mechanical instead of human
labor for food processing, preparation,
and cleanup. Although this
electrical energy generally comes
from nonpetroleum sources, it is
indicative of broader trends in
outsourcing tasks to fossil fuels.
We did not find analyses comparing
petroleum use across multiple
food categories, although
several studies have compared
energy use.3,22,60 Table 1 presents
USDA’s energy use findings,
showing that snacks, frozen foods,
canned foods, spices, and condiments
used the most energy per
capita. This finding is not limited
to electrical energy use; the category
also tops the list when one
limits the calculation to petroleumheavy
functions such as farming
and freight. Healthier foods including
fish, fruit, and vegetables
required less. The figures do account
for home cooking fuel,
which can use petroleum but does
not need to.1 The USDA’s table
aggregates the ‘‘snacks, etc.’’ category
across multiple sectors,
PEAK PETROLEUM
Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011 | American Journal of Public Health Neff et al. | Peer Reviewed | Peak Petroleum | e3
inflating its apparent impact, and
listing meat types separately, obscuring
their far higher summed
impact. Although high values for
food processing and retail may
reflect dominance of electrical
processes, these functions will also
be affected by peak oil, as petroleum
prices are linked with those
for other fuels.
How should people eat to lower
dietary petroleum? Although further
life cycle analysis is needed,
the most important steps include:
eat lower on the food chain (industrial
meat includes the embodied
energy of both grain feed
and animals), replace out-of-season
produce with seasonal items
whenever possible, avoid airtransported
produce, and seek
sustainably produced and regional
foods transported in higher-efficiency
vehicles. At all food system
levels, it is essential to minimize
food waste––currently about 1400
calories per person per day in the
United States.61 Finally, drivers
should minimize mileage in car
trips to stores and restaurants.
HOW OIL SCARCITY MAY
AFFECT FOOD SYSTEMS
In high-income countries such
as the United States, rising oil
prices could lead in the short term
to negative environmental impacts
and increased corporate concentration
(fewer corporations, each
holding a greater market share).
Over the longer term, high oil
prices will necessitate a shift toward
more resilient food production,
distribution, and consumption.
Potential Short-Term
Intensified Industrial
Agriculture and Food Price
Rises
Several reasons exist for a possible
short-term consolidation
of industrial agriculture.62 First,
larger operations may have more
resources than small and midsized
producers to buffer against financial
challenges and invest in new
equipment. Second, as food prices
rise, farmers have a financial incentive
to increase production to
reap the benefits––often by increasing
fossil-fueled interventions
and by removing lands from conservation
programs. Third, high
prices and economic dislocation
can result in fewer consumers able
to afford more sustainably produced
foods, thus challenging that
market. Finally, as rural economies
struggle with high fuel prices
and families struggle with high
food bills, political factors may
lead to increased governmental
investment in industrial agriculture.
63 All these shifts could further
drain petroleum resources
and limit options for timely adaptation.
Another short-term response
to high petroleum prices is that
farmers are motivated to shift
cropland from food to biofuels
production, exacerbating food
price volatility. Prices rise for
crops whose production is cut to
make room for biofuels. Naylor
et al. examined 7 articles modeling
9 scenarios of biofuels’ impacts
on crop prices.63 In all scenarios,
prices for all or most commodities
rose, although estimates varied.
Mean price impacts (range in parentheses)
were corn: +28%
(2.5% to 65%); wheat: +17%
(1.7% to 33%); soy: +18% (---11%
to 76% [averaged across soy meal
and soybean oil]); and sugar: +24%
(---8% to 66%).63
In 2006 to 2008, the world
observed what could be a foreshadowing
of oil price rises and their
short-term impacts on food systems.
Oil prices hit $147 per barrel
in July 2008,64 up from $35 in
FIGURE 2—After adaptation to peak petroleum, food system as a subsystem of the ecosystem.
PEAK PETROLEUM
e4 | Peak Petroleum | Peer Reviewed | Neff et al. American Journal of Public Health | Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011
January 2005.65 Food prices
spiked in the United States and
around the world, leading to exceptional
food insecurity rates in
the United States and pushing an
estimated 42 million additional
people worldwide into the undernourished
category.66 Studies
have identified numerous contributors
to the food price rises,67---71
but oil price is considered quite
important. Direct effects on farm
costs from high oil prices were
compounded by indirect effects on
food prices, particularly from
substitution to biofuels production
and a rising trend of stock
market speculation in food commodities,
which increased the
dependence of food prices on
broader economic and market
trends. Accordingly, when rising
oil prices impacted even nonfood
areas of the economy, food prices
were affected.
The implications of oil price---
influenced economic downturn
and volatility go beyond food prices.
There are disproportionate
impacts for the poor, reducing
their ability to afford food, gasoline,
and heating oil. Rising fuel
prices may hit farmers and other
food system workers hard. The
high cost of equipment investment––
not to mention the time it
takes to learn new systems and
obtain new jobs––places these
workers at risk.72 As in the recession
of 2008 and 2009,
farmers and other entrepreneurs
may also struggle to obtain credit.
Ironically, the extra grain used
to fuel the United States’ meat diet
and ethanol production provides
some level of buffering capacity
that could lessen peak oil’s immediate
impacts––if that grain cropland
were returned to producing
human food.
Food Insecurity
Already today, 1.02 billion
people worldwide are undernourished,
73 and even in the United
States 14.6% of the population is
food insecure.74 As oil scarcity
impacts food production quantities
and prices, food insecurity will
worsen. The UN projects that
there will be 9.1 billion humans
in 2050, and that with expected
changes in wealth and meat
consumption, world food production
will need to rise by 70% to
feed them all.75 Unfortunately, as
populations have grown, per capita
food production has declined
substantially, and declines are
expected to continue71 even without
peak oil. In the United States,
population is projected to climb
by nearly 30% by 2050,76 necessitating
a rise in food availability
here as well. At the same
time, food production capacity
will be challenged not only by
high oil prices, but also by soil and
water degradation and depletion,
climate change, biodiversity loss,
TABLE 1—Per Capita Energy Use (Petroleum and Nonpetroleum Combined; Thousand BTU) by Food Category and Stage of Food Production, 2002
Farm and Agribusinessa Food Processing Packagingb Freight Servicesa Wholesale/Retail Total
Individual food categories
Snacks, frozen and canned foods, spices, and condiments 679 1422a 370 205 1040b 3716
Alcoholic beverages 217 719 596 203 928 2663
Beverages 135 765 600 125 857 2482
Baking products 212 1129a 144 114 780 2379
Poultry products 694 585 87 103 368 1837
Sugar and sweets 187 632 136 71 378 1404
Dairy products 473 438 85 79 327 1402
Beef 562 360 37 90 315 1364
Fresh vegetables 672 25 29 166 428 1320
Cereal products 199 468 8 70 351 1096
Pork 410 262 27 60 209 968
Other meats 394 249 24 55 151 873
Fresh dairy 284 251 46 44 162 787
Processed fruits and vegetables 123 289 72 47 203 734
Fresh fruits 315 14 16 68 260 673
Fats and oil products 131 203 38 29 113 514
Eggs 201 69 9 23 63 365
Fish 89 81 9 15 111 305
Total 5977 7961 2333 1567 7044 24 882
Animal products summed 3107 2295 324 469 1706 7901
Meats summed 2060 1456 175 308 1043 5042
Fruits/vegetables fresh/processed summed 1110 328 117 281 891 2727
Note. This table presents per capita energy usage for selected categories of food items (2002), based on national level data. Figures were not broken down by energy type, and thus insights about
petroleum use are inferential.
Source. Adapted from Canning et al.1
aEspecially high petroleum usage.
bModerate petroleum usage.
PEAK PETROLEUM
Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011 | American Journal of Public Health Neff et al. | Peer Reviewed | Peak Petroleum | e5
TABLE 2—Needed Policy and Social Changes to Support a Smooth Food System Transition as Oil Prices Rise
Policy and Social Changes Promoting change
Planning and preparing (many of these are ongoing)
Conduct monitoring, including surveillance of food prices, nutrition, food security, and equity. Planning bodies, academic partners, with government funding
Develop and use planning infrastructure. Convene stakeholders, set standards, develop plans. Local, state, regional, national, international government bodies; food policy councils;
interagency work groups; emergency planning
Scrutinize proposed solutions for unintended consequences including through use of
Health Impact Assessment, and develop interventions to address these.
Planning bodies, academic partners, with government funding
To recruit a new generation of farmers, efforts are needed to make agriculture a more
desirable and economically stable profession, including through policy efforts to
stabilize farm prices, subsidizing both farm and health insurance.
Farm Bill,92 health care policy
Educate and communicate with the public, policymakers, farmers, and others about future
oil scarcity and benefits of early adaptation.
Media, governmental communications
Addressing short-term consequences of rising oil prices
Ensure as equitable distribution of food as possible as prices rise, including through
expanded food assistance programs, expanded funds for home and community
food production and distribution, and possible new mechanisms such as rationing.
Farm Bill; additional local, state, federal, international policies
Provide aid to support adaptation and crisis response internationally, where food security
impacts will be more dire.
Farm Bill, federal agencies
Restrict the concentration and market power of the major food corporations and retailers. Farm Bill, enforce competition laws, regulate fair prices
Adaptation 1: Reduced oil in food production
Incentivize lower-oil food production methods and farm transitioning Farm Bill, climate policy carbon offsets
Make available information and technical assistance for farmers. Provide training to new
agricultural workers and retrain existing ones.
Farm Bill, economic stimulus and green jobs programs
While ensuring an adequate safety net and transition plan, move away from incentives for
high-oil food production, including relevant policies in Farm Bill; funds
for infrastructure and marketing to support industrial production.
Farm Bill, climate policy, trade policy, check-off programs
‘‘Internalize the externalities’’—require firms to pay more fully for costs such as environmental
and social impacts.
Environmental policy enforcement, legal challenges, ecotaxation
Fund agricultural and economic research to optimize and regionally adapt low-oil agricultural
methods and systems, including developing appropriate plant and animal breeds.
Farm Bill, state land grant university funding
Adaptation 2: Increased food system energy efficiency and renewable energy
Regulate and incentivize energy efficiency in farm, cargo, and consumer vehicles
and equipment.
Climate policy, energy policy, transportation policy, Farm Bill
Invest in research and incentives for renewable energy transitions. Climate policy, energy policy, Farm Bill
Adaptation 3: Changed food consumption patterns
To the extent possible, work to ensure availability and accessibility of healthy food to enable
meeting dietary needs.
Farm Bill, food policy councils, CDC, state and local health departments,
planning departments, agriculture departments, etc.
Support consumer education and social marketing about relative oil inputs in different foods
and about making lower-oil food choices generally. Link to public health cobenefits.
CDC; state, local health department funding; foundation and corporate-sponsored
campaigns; HHS/USDA interagency working group to increase visibility of
adhering to DRI for total protein and reducing animal protein
Provide incentives for purchasing lower-oil foods to provide demand-driven incentives to shift
the food supply.
Tax or subsidy incentives through state and local governments
Support psychological, communications, and behavioral economics research on effectively,
relatively painlessly shifting oil-relevant social norms and expectations, and individual
behavior, while avoiding alienating the public.
CDC; state, local public health budgets
Challenge food industry formulations, placements, and marketing that make it difficult
even for motivated consumers to avoid overconsumption.
Legal challenges, voluntary programs, FDA regulation
Continued
PEAK PETROLEUM
e6 | Peak Petroleum | Peer Reviewed | Neff et al. American Journal of Public Health | Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011
and social and political disagreements.
57
Food insecurity has significant
public health consequences. The
World Bank found that a 35%
food price increase––within the
range seen in the previous biofuels
scenarios––would result in
an additional 80 million undernourished
individuals worldwide.
77 One analysis found that
undernutrition already results in
35% of child mortality and 11%
of disease burden globally.78
Consequences of nutritional deficiency,
particularly in young
children, can be lifelong and
multigenerational and can include
not only physical effects but
also reduced educational attainment
and economic productivity,
and lower birth weight in offspring.
79,80 Even at less severe
deprivation levels, already common
in the United States, high
prices and food insecurity can
lead to significant stress, with
implications for individual, family,
and social well-being. Further,
needs such as medicine and
shelter may be sacrificed to pay
for food.
Food Systems Adapting to
Oil Scarcity
Transitioning to a postpetroleum
food system is not optional.
The extent to which peak oil
represents food catastrophe or
challenge will be driven not only
by the rate of decline in oil production,
but also by how rapidly
we shift to more resilient food
production, distribution, and
consumption; the priority given
to food among essential uses of
oil; and efforts to ensure equity.
As described earlier, rising oil
prices may initially reinforce industrial
food systems. Eventually,
however, economic forces may
lead to substantial adaptations to
enable the population to be
fed. There will be challenges
along the way, including in
public health and equity. Public
health has a key role to play in
joining with others to encourage
smart and rapid transitions
now, to reduce the risk of catastrophic
impacts if oil prices rise
quickly.
We expect the following 4 adaptations
to occur: (1) reduced oil
in food production, (2) increased
food system energy efficiency and
renewable energy, (3) changed
food consumption patterns, and
(4) reduced food transportation
distances.
Reduced oil in food production.
Multiple studies have found farm
production to respond little to
energy prices in the short term,81
although a USDA analysis suggested
that farm energy use did
decline as energy prices rose from
2002 to 2006.1 Eventually, however,
farmers will respond to price
and need to shift to lower-oil food
production methods such as those
described previously. Financial incentives
and assistance will be
needed to facilitate this transition,
as well as training and retraining to
provide the workforce for these
more labor-intensive methods. A
concern is that, by the time these
investments are seriously needed,
governmental ability to invest in
far-reaching change may be limited.
Social or financial insecurity can
also limit openness to innovation.
A shift to lower-oil agriculture
will improve long-term food security.
Further positive health effects
may include reduced pesticide
exposures, improved water quality,
and reduced development of antimicrobial
resistance.44,45 Some
negative health effects of this transition
may occur, not only from the
stress of forced change, but also
from a learning curve and transition
period in which food yields
may be substantially reduced.
Increased food system energy
efficiency and renewable energy. As
oil prices rise, equipment energy
efficiency will increasingly be prioritized
throughout the food system.
Food transporters (including
consumers) will recognize cost
savings from energy-efficient vehicles,
with air-transported items
becoming especially impractical.
Planning smartly at the consumer,
farm, corporate, and systemic
levels will minimize trips. Food
producers will reduce reliance
on oil-fueled mechanical devices
by scaling farm size and equipment
appropriately, optimizing
methods, and innovation in products
and processes. Petroleum
use related to marketing, such as
excess food packaging, will be
trimmed. Considerably expanded
investment is needed to improve
TABLE 2—Continued
Adaptation 4: Reduced food transportation distance
Develop regionally adapted nutrition guidance for year-round foodshed eating under
dietary guidelines. Develop food preservation–safety information.
CDC authorization
Support re-regionalizing efforts including development of local production, processing,
distribution, marketing infrastructures, and maintenance of food reserves for emergencies.
Farm Bill, food policy councils
Integrate agricultural change with regional and urban planning. Food policy councils, zoning policy, other planning policy
Transition away from reliance on food imports and exports. Trade policy, marketing and social norms efforts
Government and other institutional purchasers shift their purchasing to help stimulate
development of re-regionalized food economies.
Legislation mandating governmental purchasing changes, incentives for local/regional
purchasing and disincentives for nonlocal/nonregional
Plan for and continue to support food aid in areas of critical need; plan for cross-foodshed
emergency support.
Bilateral and multilateral aid policy, planning policy
Study and model food production and delivery systems and impacts of policy decisions on
health outputs associated with food.
Farm Bill, state and local governments, CDC authorization
Promote worker safety and health in changed conditions, including through training,
regulation, research, and mandating OSHA oversight of all agricultural workplaces
OSHA standards and enforcement, OSHA policy, NIOSH funds
Note. CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; DRI = dietary reference intake; FDA = United States Food and Drug Administration; HHS = United States Department of Health and Human
Services; NIOSH = National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; OSHA = Occupational Safety and Health Administration; USDA = United States Department of Agriculture.
PEAK PETROLEUM
Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011 | American Journal of Public Health Neff et al. | Peer Reviewed | Peak Petroleum | e7
renewable energy technologies
and reduce costs rapidly. This
adaptation will have benefits in
environment, cost savings (particularly
after investments are paid
off), and job creation. Further
work is needed, however, to address
important limitations of biofuels
and other renewable energy
technologies.
Changed food consumption patterns.
Evidence from economics
suggests that food purchasing decisions
are only somewhat responsive
to small price changes,
and that it could take substantial
price rises before economic incentives
motivate significant dietary
change.82 Additionally, psychology
and behavioral economics literature
suggests that as stresses increase
(as in economic downturns),
consumers may be more
likely to opt for foods their
rational brains would decline,
such as those that are more costly
and less healthy.83,84
Nonetheless, price will eventually
motivate consumers to eat less
of those foods requiring the most
oil to produce, process, and transport.
As described earlier, these
tend to be less-healthy options, so
such a change could ultimately
benefit the public’s health. Unfortunately,
produce prices and overall
food prices are also affected.
Public health voices will be needed
to amplify pressure on governments
to prioritize access and affordability
of nutritious diets.
Food satisfies needs beyond
nutrition, including pleasure, security,
culture, and habit; convenience
foods are seen by many as
essential because of demanding
lifestyles and women’s roles.
Many will resent adapting habits,
particularly in the face of inequities.
Food security, community
food security, and other interventions
can mitigate these consequences.
A systems approach is
critical to minimize unanticipated
consequences, health impacts, and
costs.
Reduced distances in food transportation.
Although transportation
is not the top oil usage in the food
system, it is significant. Eventually,
oil prices are likely to rise high
enough to reduce globalization
and incentivize re-regionalizing
food networks.33
In the ‘‘foodshed’’ concept, regions
varying in size appropriate
to local circumstances aim to supply
and process as much of their
own food as possible.85 These
areas are generally broad; extreme
‘‘locavore’’ goals such as the ‘‘100-
mile diet’’ may be neither optimal
nor feasible. Foodsheds allow for
sourcing elsewhere those items for
which local production is inefficient
or impractical.86 For example,
experts are currently assessing
the portion of food the Northeastern
United States foodshed could
produce under optimal conditions
and evaluating ways to aggregate
production and delivery.87
There are multiple challenges in
re-regionalizing food:
d Nutrition: Re-regionalizing food
will require planning and education
to enable populations to
meet dietary guidelines. Adequate
year-round nutrition
should still be feasible in many
or most areas, as it was historically,
based on wise choices of
local and seasonal foods, protein
from sources such as legumes
and grains plus some meat, food
Public Health Roles in Addressing Peak Oil, Based on Core Functions
Assessment
Engage in relevant surveillance and monitoring, including examining nutrition, food security, variation in ability to obtain healthy diets, related
health outcomes, and food prices.
Evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the previously described interventions to adapt to peak oil.
Scrutinize proposed solutions for potential unintended consequences, communicate about these, and develop interventions to address these.
Conduct research including to develop and refine responses to peak oil health threats, improve adaptation, and identify costs and benefits of
differing approaches.
Study and model food production and delivery system and impacts of policy decisions on health outputs associated with food.
Policy development
Amplify the public health voice in peak oil–relevant policy debates, including the Farm Bill (renewed every 4–5 years, most recently in 2008),
climate policy, transportation policy, local planning policy, trade policy, and aid policy. Highlight the potential public health ramifications of
inaction. Speak out through letters to the editor and in other venues. Strengthen coalitions of public health environmental, health policy,
nutrition, chronic disease epidemiology, social and behavior, and other professionals to collaborate on policy development and advocacy.
Health departments and other public health professionals should collaborate with planners and local stakeholders on planning and emergency
planning efforts relevant to peak oil adaptation and allocating adequate food and petroleum reserves.
Monitor and, where appropriate, challenge food and agribusiness industry actions.
Convene bodies to grapple with equity concerns in food allocation, in face of not only peak oil but also potential concurrent economic dislocation.
Mechanisms of reallocation might include rationing, expanded food assistance programs, expanded funds for community food production,
distribution networks, and funds for home production.
Assurance
Educate about how to obtain healthy diets with available foods.
Communicate about energy impacts of varying food choices, including developing peak oil–adapted dietary messages. Inform, educate, motivate,
and empower the public regarding dietary change—especially where change is both health-promoting and environment protecting.
Ensure a competent public health workforce, including providing training in agricultural policy and other functions needed to address new realities.
Mobilize community and regional partnerships including food policy councils to identify and address food system concerns.
PEAK PETROLEUM
e8 | Peak Petroleum | Peer Reviewed | Neff et al. American Journal of Public Health | Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011
preservation, plus methods such
as covered hoop-houses for
winter produce production.
Wilkins and Gussow demonstrated
this in detail for the
Northeast.88 Public health will
have a critical role in adapting
nutrition messages to the new
reality, and in communicating
about food preservation and
forage safety. Additionally, reregionalized
food systems will
require adjusting cultural norms
and tastes, particularly regarding
seasonal eating and food variety.
d Sprawl: Most cities were built on
the country’s most fertile land;
cities and their surrounding
sprawl now cover that essential
farmland.89 As rising gasoline
prices discourage commuting,
repurposing developed areas for
food production may become
a priority. Yet, relocating families
and communities, demolishing
buildings, and tearing up
roads is socially distressing, energy
intensive, and expensive.
Remediating contaminated, compacted
soils presents additional
challenges.90 Smaller farms may
be better able to work around
geographic discontinuities. A
burgeoning movement today is
exploring the necessary zoning
changes, soil remediation, production
techniques, and distributional
models to scale up urban
and periurban production and
make its products more affordable
and accessible.
d Geography: Some areas will find
it nearly impossible to support
existing population levels on local
or regional inputs, including
areas of Alaska and the Southwest.
Production capacity in
other areas exceeds population
needs. Planning must take account
of these realities to optimize
outcomes, including the
possibility of fostering geographic
shifts in population.
Despite challenges, a foodshed
model offers potential public health
and community cobenefits. Food
security can increase as regions join
in concerted planning. Consuming
less-processed food and reducing
meat consumption could improve
physical health.44 Reduced truck
miles could mean reduced vehicle
crash injuries and exposures to
particulate air emissions, which
have been linked with respiratory
illnesses and cardiovascular morbidity
and mortality.92 Foodshed
production can constrain foodborne
outbreak size, as fewer consumers
may be exposed to any
single contamination event. Finally,
there can be health cobenefits
based on foodshed systems’ contributions
to equitable area economic
development.
STRATEGIES AND ROLES
FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
The previously mentioned food
system adaptations may be forced
upon us as petroleum prices rise,
but proactive efforts can minimize
their negative consequences. In
Table 2, we identify a set of needed
social or policy changes and suggest
tools for promoting them.
The table first presents ‘‘planning
and preparing’’ strategies
needed both in advance of oil price
rises and on an ongoing basis.
These strategies include monitoring,
working with stakeholders on
planning, scrutinizing for unintended
consequences, building
a more economically secure cohort
of farmers with an adequate safety
net, and educating and communicating
about the threat. To address
short-term consequences of rising
oil prices, key efforts include
working to remedy inequities, providing
domestic and international
food assistance, and addressing the
increases in corporate concentration
that may ensue.
To adapt to (1) reduced oil in
food production, society will have
to create the needed financial
support, technical assistance,
training, and both positive and
negative incentives to help businesses
move in needed directions.
Research to optimize methods will
be needed. Smoothing the adaptation
to (2) increased energy efficiency
may require incentives,
transition support, research, and
regulation. Public health has
a particular role to play in facilitating
(3) healthy changes in eating
patterns, including working to ensure
adequate healthy food is
available, accessible, and affordable.
Additional efforts will include
lifecycle analysis to better
understand petroleum footprints,
and educating about, incentivizing,
and promoting lower-oil social
norms while challenging pressures
in the opposite direction. Finally,
(4) reducing transportation distance
and adapting to a foodshedlike
model will require educating
the public about optimal food
choices under new constraints. It
will also require planning, including
plans for cross-foodshed exchange
when needed.
The box on the previous page
describes key public health roles,
based on the field’s 3 core functions:
(1) assessment (i.e., surveillance,
evaluation, consideration of
unintended consequences, research),
(2) policy development
(i.e., providing a public health voice
in policy discussions, engaging in
collaborative planning efforts, including
efforts to address equity),
and (3) assurance (i.e., health education,
communication about food
petroleum content, training the
public health workforce in agricultural
issues and other needed topic
areas, and working with others to
mobilize partnerships). Throughout,
it is critical to attend to equity,
account for complexity, and engage
multidisciplinary partners in planning,
to minimize unintended negative
consequences.
We recognize that many of the
needed approaches lie outside public
health’s traditional domains, in
fields such as agriculture, planning,
or community food security.93 In
some of these areas, public health
can be a partner and supporter; in
others, it can carve out public
health---relevant domains from
which to lead. Indeed, public health
professionals are increasingly developing
their own expertise in
these interdisciplinary domains,
responding to the field’s mission to
‘‘[fulfill] society’s interest in assuring
conditions in which people can be
healthy [emphasis added].’’94(p7)
The threat to such conditions, and
the public health cobenefits of action,
demand our field’s attention.
CONCLUSIONS
Although it is difficult to predict
the future, we can say that even
if plentiful oil lasts another 100
years, this resource is finite. Renewables
are unlikely to provide
enough fuel for today’s US lifestyles
in the foreseeable future. Of course,
food systems are systems; they can
adapt to challenges and use alternate
functions to withstand disruptions.
As we describe, presuming
our food system remains oil-dependent
when prices escalate, we can
expect significant short-term food
price increases, but agriculture and
food industries may face little disruption
or even be strengthened.
Systems can cross thresholds
that force deeper change. As prices
rise further, we describe 4
likely adaptations: reduced oil in
food production, increased food
system energy efficiency and renewable
energy, changed food
consumption patterns, and reduced
food transportation distances.
These adaptations can
PEAK PETROLEUM
Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011 | American Journal of Public Health Neff et al. | Peer Reviewed | Peak Petroleum | e9
come with substantial food insecurity
(caloric and nutritional),
concomitant social and individual
disruption, and health consequences.
We can ease the adjustment
with planning and efforts to
promote advance transitioning to
more sustainable and healthy food
production, plus heavy investment
in research and incentives.
Perhaps the largest challenge is
that few want to think about peak
oil and other ecological threats
such as climate change and soil
depletion––never mind committing
to precautionary change. Most
of us prefer to continue the status
quo, particularly if it has worked
previously, if we have invested in
it, and if it functions acceptably
well. Change carries cost and risk.
So, however, does inaction.
There are benefits of bringing
public health’s strengths to bear
in partnering with communities,
organizations, and governments.
Our efforts can not only mitigate
harms, but they can also facilitate
survival in the face of peak oil, and
bend society toward a more resilient
and food-secure future. j
About the Authors
Roni A. Neff and Robert S. Lawrence are
with the Center for a Livable Future and
Department of Environmental Health Sciences,
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health, Baltimore, MD. Cindy L.
Parker is with the Department of Environmental
Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences,
Johns Hopkins Zanvyl Krieger School
of Arts and Sciences, Baltimore. Frederick
L. Kirschenmann is with the Leopold Center
for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State
University, Ames, IA, and the Stone Barns
Center for Food and Agriculture, Pocantico
Hills, NY. At the time of the study Jennifer
Tinch was with the Occupational and
Environmental Medicine Residency, Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health.
Correspondence should be sent to Roni
A. Neff, Center for a Livable Future, Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health, 615 N Wolfe St, W7010,
Baltimore, MD 21205 (e-mail: rneff@
jhsph.edu). Reprints can be ordered at
http://www.ajph.org by clicking the
‘‘Reprints/Eprints’’ link.
This article was accepted December 29,
2010.
Contributors
R. A. Neff led the writing, analysis, and
revisions, and managed the project. C. L.
Parker initiated the project, contributed
to the writing, and provided expertise
in peak oil. F. L. Kirschenmann
contributed to the writing, and provided
expertise in agriculture and peak oil. J.
Tinch contributed to the writing. R. S.
Lawrence contributed to the writing, and
provided expertise and oversight. All
authors shared in interpretation, analysis,
and responses to reviews.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Desmond Flagg for
research assistance.
Human Participant Protection
Institutional review board approval was
not needed, as no human participants
research was performed.
References
1. Canning P, Ainsley C, Huang S,
Polenske KR, Waters A. Energy Use in
the U.S. Food System. Washington, DC:
US Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service; 2010.
ERR-94.
2. Energy use in agriculture: background
and issues. Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service. 2004.
Order no. RL32677.
3. Heller MC, Keoleian GA. Assessing
the sustainability of the US food system:
a life cycle perspective. Agric Syst. 2003;
76:1007---1041.
4. Kirschenmann F. Food as relationship.
J Hunger Environ Nutr. 2008;3(2 &
3):106---121.
5. Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter
SR, Kinzig A. Resilience, adaptability
and transformability in social---ecological
systems. Ecology Soc. 2004;
9(2):1---9.
6. Cribb J. The Coming Famine; The
Global Food Crisis and What We Can Do
About It. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press; 2010.
7. Toward a healthy, sustainable food
system. Washington, DC: American Public
Health Association; 2007. Policy no.
200712.
8. Sobal J, Khan LK, Bisogni C. A
conceptual model of the food and nutrition
system. Soc Sci Med. 1998;47(7):
853---863.
9. von Bertalanffy L. An outline of
general system theory. Br J Philos Sci.
1950;1:134---165.
10. Leischow SJ, Milstein B. Systems
thinking and modeling for public health
practice. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(3):
403---405.
11. Sterman JD. Learning from evidence
in a complex world. Am J Public Health.
2006;96(3):505---514.
12. US Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service. Food security in
the United States: key statistics and
graphics. 2009. Available at: http://www.
ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/stats_
graphs.htm. Accessed June 28, 2010.
13. Bartlett AA. An analysis of U.S. and
world oil production patterns using
Hubbert-style curves. Math Geol. 2000;
32(1):1---17.
14. Annual energy review 2008.
Washington, DC: Energy Information
Administration; 2009.
15. Frumkin H, Hess J, Vindigni S.
Energy and public health: the challenge of
peak petroleum. Public Health Rep. 2009;
124(1):5---19.
16. Maugeri L. Oil: never cry wolf: why
the petroleum age is far from over. Science.
2004;304:1114---1115.
17. Hirsch RL, Bezdek R, Wendling R.
Peaking of world oil production: impacts,
mitigation, and risk management. Washington,
DC: Department of Energy;
2005:1---91. Available at: http://www.
netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/
oil_peaking_netl.pdf. Accessed April 29,
2011.
18. Krauss C. There will be fuel. New
York Times. November 17, 2010;F1.
19. Hughes D. There will be fuel? An
open letter to the New York Times. November
22, 2010. Available at: http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/asher-miller/
there-will-be-fuel-an-ope_b_786807.
html#. Accessed December 1, 2010.
20. Pimentel D, Herz M, Glickstein M,
et al. Renewable energy: current and
potential issues. Bioscience. 2002;52:
1111---1120.
21. Hall CAS, Day JW. Revisiting the
limits to growth after peak oil. Am Sci.
2009;97(3):230---237.
22. Pimentel D, Pimentel MH. Food,
Energy and Society. 3rd ed. New York, NY:
Taylor and Francis; 2008.
23. Simmons M. Twilight in the Desert:
The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World
Economy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons; 2005.
24. Heinberg R. The Party’s Over: Oil,
War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies.
London, England: Clairview Books;
2007.
25. Dominguez-Faus R. The water footprint
of biofuels: a drink or drive issue.
Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43:3005---3010.
26. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky
S, Hawthorne P. Land clearing and the
biofuel carbon debt. Science. 2008;
319(5867):1235---1258.
27. Searchinger T, Heimlich R,
Houghton RA, et al. Use of U.S. croplands
for biofuels increases greenhouse gases
through emissions from land-use change.
Science. 2008;319(5867):1238---1240.
28. Demirbas A. Progress and recent
trends in biofuels. Pror Energy Combust
Sci. 2007;33:1---18.
29. Robertson GP, Dale VH, Doering
OC, et al. Agriculture: sustainable biofuels
redux. Science. 2008;322(5898):49---50.
30. Huang S, Huang K, Increased US.
imports of fresh fruit and vegetables.
Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service;
2007. Report no. FTS-328-01.
31. Pirog R, Benjamin A. Checking the
Food Odometer: Comparing Food Miles for
Local Versus Conventional Produce Sales to
Iowa Institutions. Ames, Iowa: Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa
State University; 2003.
32. Brooks N, Regmi A, Jerardo AUS.
Food import patterns, 1998---2007. US
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service; 2009. Report no. FAU-125.
33. Curtis F. Peak globalization: climate
change, oil depletion and global trade.
Ecol Econ. 2009;69(2):427---434.
34. Coley D, Howard M, Winter M.
Local food, food miles and carbon emissions:
a comparison of farm shop and
mass distribution approaches. Food Policy.
2009;34(2):150---155.
35. Weber CL, Matthews HS. Foodmiles
and the relative climate impacts of
food choices in the United States. Environ
Sci Technol. 2008;42(10):3508---3513.
36. Pretty JN, Ball AS, Lang T, Morison
JIL. Farm costs and food miles: an assessment
of the full cost of the UK weekly
food basket. Food Policy. 2005;1:1---19.
37. Collins A, Fairchild R. Sustainable
food consumption at a sub-national level:
an ecological footprint, nutritional and
economic analysis. J Environ Policy Plann.
2007;9:5---30.
38. Saunders C, Barber A, Taylor G.
Food Miles --- Comparative Energy/Emissions
Performance of New Zealand’s Agriculture
Industry. Lincoln, New Zealand:
Agribusiness and Economics Research
Unit, Lincoln University; 2006.
39. US Department of Agriculture.
Nutrient availability index. 2009. Available
at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/
foodconsumption/nutrientavailindex.
htm. Accessed December 3, 2010.
PEAK PETROLEUM
e10 | Peak Petroleum | Peer Reviewed | Neff et al. American Journal of Public Health | Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011
40. US Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service. Food CPI and
expenditures: Table 7. 2009. Available
at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/
CPIFoodAndExpenditures/data/
Expenditures_tables/table7.htm. Accessed
December 30, 2009.
41. Hanlen P, McCartney G. Peak oil: will
it be public health’s greatest challenge?
Public Health. 2008;122(7):647---652.
42. Squillace PJ, Scot JC, Moran MJ,
Nolan BT, Kolpin DW. VOCs, pesticides,
nitrate, and their mixtures in groundwater
used for drinking water in the United
States. Environ Sci Technol. 2002;36(9):
1923---1930.
43. Donham KJ, Wing S, Osterberg D,
et al. Community health and socioeconomic
issues surrounding concentrated
animal feeding operations. Environ Health
Perspect. 2007;115(2):317---320.
44. Horrigan L, Lawrence R, Walker P.
How sustainable agriculture can address
the environmental and human health
harms of industrial agriculture. Environ
Health Perspect. 2002;110(5):445---456.
45. Silbergeld EK, Graham J, Price LB.
Industrial food animal production, antimicrobial
resistance, and human health. Annu
Rev Public Health. 2008;29:151---169.
46. Sumaila UR, The L, Watson R,
Tyedmers P, Pauly D. Fuel price increase,
subsidies, overcapacity and resource sustainability.
ICES J Mar Sci. 2008;65:832---
840.
47. Hoeppner J, Hentz M, McConkey B,
Zentner R, Nagy C. Energy use and
efficiency in two Canadian organic and
conventional crop production systems.
Renewable Agriculture Food Syst. 2006;
21(1):60---67.
48. Gu¨ndogmus E, Bayramoglu Z. Energy
input use on organic farming: a
comparative analysis on organic versus
conventional farms in Turkey. J Agron.
2006;5:16---22.
49. Jianbo L. Energy balance and economic
benefits of two agroforestry systems
in northern and southern China. Ecosystems
Environ. 2006;116:255---263.
50. Pretty J, Noble AD, Bossio D, Dixon
J, Hine RE. Resource-conserving agriculture
increases yields in developing countries.
Environ Sci Technol. 2006;40:
1114---1119.
51. Badgley C, Moghtader J, Quintero E,
et al. Organic agriculture and the global
food supply. Renewable Agriculture Food
Syst. 2007;22(2):86---108.
52. Organic Agriculture and Food Security
in Africa. New York, NY, and Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations Environmental
Programme and United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development;
2008.
53. Erb K, Haberl H, Krausmann F, et al.
Eating the planet: feeding and fuelling the
world sustainably, fairly and humanely––
a scoping study. 2009. Social Ecology
Working Paper 116.
54. Chappell MJ, La Valle LA. Food
security and biodiversity: can we have
both? An agroecological analysis. Ag and
Human Values. 2009;28:3---26.
55. Committee on Twenty-First Century
Systems Agriculture, National Research
Council. Toward Sustainable Agricultural
Systems in the 21st Century. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press; 2010.
56. Avery A. The Truth About Organic
Foods. Chesterfield, MO: Hendersen
Communication; 2006.
57. International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science and Technology
for Development. Global report. 2008.
Available at: http://www.agassessment.org.
Accessed April 29, 2011.
58. Pimentel D, Giampietro M. Food,
Land, Population and the U.S. Economy.
Washington, DC: Carrying Capacity Network;
1994.
59. Pimentel D, Williamson S, Alexander
CE, Gonzalez-Pagan O, Kontak C,
Mulkey SE. Reducing energy inputs in the
U.S. food system. Hum Ecol. 2008;36(4):
459---471.
60. Carlsson-Kanyama A, Ekstro¨m MP,
Shanahan H. Food and life cycle energy
inputs: consequences of diet and ways to
increase efficiency. Ecol Econ.
2003;44(2---3):293---307.
61. Hall KD, Guo J, Dore M, Chow CC.
The progressive increase of food waste in
America and its environmental impact.
PLoS ONE. 2009;4(11):e7940.
62. Staniford S. Why peak oil actually
helps industrial agriculture. 2008. Available
at: http://www.theoildrum.com/
node/3481. Accessed January 22, 2010.
63. Naylor RL, Liska A, Burke M, et al.
The ripple effect: biofuels, food security,
and the environment. Environment. 2007;
49(9):30---43.
64. Read M. Oil sets new trading record
above $147 a barrel. USA Today. July 11,
2008. Available at: http://www.usatoday.
com/money/economy/2008-07-11-3815
204975_x.htm. Accessed April 28, 2011.
65. US Energy Information Agency.
Weekly all countries spot price FOB
weighted by estimated export volume
(dollars per barrel). 2010. Available
at: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/
LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WTOT
WORLD&f=W. Accessed December 1,
2010.
66. United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization. Background: More
people than ever are victims of hunger.
2009. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
fileadmin/user_upload/newsroom/docs/
Press%20release%20june-en.pdf. Accessed
January 22, 2010.
67. Piesse J, Thirtle C. Three bubbles
and a panic: an explanatory review of
recent food commodity price events. Food
Policy. 2009;34(2):119---129.
68. Banse M, Nowicki P, Meijl vH. Why
are current food prices so high? Wageningen,
Netherlands: LEI; 2008. Report
no. 2008-040.
69. Elliott KA. Biofuels and the food
price crisis: a survey of the issues. 2008.
Center for Global Development Working
Paper 151:1---20.
70. Leibtag E. Corn prices near record
high, but what about food costs? Amber
Waves. 2008;6(1):10---15.
71. Trostle R. Global agricultural supply
and demand: factors contributing to the
recent increase in food commodity prices.
Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
2008. ERS/USDA WRS-0801.
72. Lambert DK, Gong J. Dynamic adjustment
of U.S. agriculture to energy
price changes. J Agricultural Appl Econ.
2010;42(2):289---301.
73. United Nations World Food Program.
World hunger. 2009. Available at:
http://www.wfp.org/hunger. Accessed
December 30, 2009.
74. Nord M. Household food security in
the United States, 2008. Washington, DC:
US Department of Agriculture; 2009.
ERS/USDA ERR-83;66.
75. United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization. High level expert forum:
how to feed the world in 2050.
2009. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_
paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_
2050.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2011.
76. World Population Prospects, the
2008 Revision. New York, NY: United
Nations Division of Economic and Social
Affairs; 2008.
77. Tiwari S, Zaman H, The World
Bank. The impact of economic shocks on
global undernourishment. Washington,
DC: The World Bank; 2010. Policy research
working paper 5215.
78. Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA, et al.
Maternal and child undernutrition: global
and regional exposures and health consequences.
Lancet. 2008;371(9608):
243---260.
79. Victora CG, Adair L, Fall C, et al.
Maternal and child undernutrition: consequences
for adult health and human capital.
Lancet. 2008;371(9609):340---357.
80. Brinkman H, de Pee S, Sanogo I,
Subran L, Bloem MW. High food prices
and the global financial crisis have reduced
access to nutritious food and
worsened nutritional status and health.
J Nutr. 2009;140(1):1535---1615.
81. Shoemaker R, McGranahan D,
McBride W. Agricultural and rural communities
are resilient to high energy costs.
Amber Waves. 2006;4(2):16---21.
82. Andreyeva T, Long MW, Brownell
KD. The impact of food prices on consumption:
a systematic review of research on
the price elasticity of demand for food. Am J
Public Health. 2010;100(2):216---222.
83. Mancino L, Kinsey J. Is dietary
knowledge enough?: Hunger, stress, and
other roadblocks to healthy eating.
Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service;
2008. Report no. 62.
84. Adam TC, Epel ES. Stress, eating and
the reward system. Physiol Behav. 2007;
91(4):449---458.
85. Kloppenburg J, Hendrickson J, Stevenson
GW. Coming in to the foodshed.
Agric Human Values. 1996;13(3):33---42.
86. Peters CJ, Bills NL, Wilkins JL, Fick
GW. Foodshed analysis and its relevance
to sustainability. Renewable Agriculture
Food Syst. 2008;24(1):1---7.
87. Kirschenmann F. Alternative agriculture
in an energy- and resource-depleting
future. Renewable Agriculture Food
Syst. 2010;25:85---89.
88. Wilkins JL, Gussow JD. Regional
dietary guidance: is the Northeast nutritionally
complete? Presented at: Agricultural
Production and Nutrition: Proceedings
of an International Conference;
March 19---21, 1997; Boston, MA.
89. Flint A. This Land: The Battle Over
Sprawl and the Future of America. 1st ed.
Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press; 2006.
90. Clark HF, Hausladen DM,
Brabander DJ. Urban gardens: lead exposure,
recontamination mechanisms and
implications for remediation design. Environ
Res. 2008;107:312---319.
91. Traffic-related air pollution: a critical
review of the literature on emissions,
exposure, and health effects. Boston, MA:
Health Effects Institute; 2010. Special
Report 17.
92. US Department of Agriculture Farm
Bill Web page. Available at: http://www.
ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/PreviousFarmBills.
htm. Accessed April 29, 2011.
93. Muller M, Tagtow A, Roberts SL,
MacDougall E. Aligning food systems
policies to advance public health. J Hunger
Environ Nutr. 2009;4(3):225---240.
94. Institute of Medicine. The Future of
Public Health. Washington, DC: National
Academies of Science; 1988.
PEAK PETROLEUM
Published online ahead of print July 21, 2011 | American Journal of Public Health Neff et al. | Peer Reviewed | Peak Petroleum | e11
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire