Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(13) Special 2015, Pages: 166-170

ISSN:1991-8178

Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences

Journal home page: www.ajbasweb.com

Ensuring Food Security: A Case for Short Supply Chains

1
Nazim Baluch, 2Shahimi Mohtar and 3Ahmad Shabudin Ariffin

1
Universiti Utara Malaysia, College of Business, School of Technology Management and Logistics, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia.
2
Universiti Utara Malaysia, College of Business, School of Technology Management and Logistics, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
3
Universiti Utara Malaysia, College of Business, School of Technology Management and Logistics, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: Industrial agriculture has led to the production of enormous amounts of food, using
Received 22 February 2015 minimal labour and significantly lowering operation costs. However, many of the true
Accepted 20 March 2015 costs of the industrial meat production industry, including poultry, are part of a flow on
Available online 23 April 2015 effect; meaning the price tag does not reflect the cost of the effects on the publics
health, rural communities, animal welfare and the environment. Despite Malaysias
Keywords: current self-sufficiency of 125 percent in poultry meat and eggs the industry is facing
Malaysian Poultry Industry challenges such as the soaring global prices of imported feed ingredients, consumers
Food Security concerns over the safety of poultry products, health and environmental issues, and
Short Food Supply Chains animal welfare concerns. The Malaysian poultry industry must re-orient itself to
Socio Economic Benefits address these pressing issues and to ensure that the industry is sustainable and continue
to contribute to the national food security. This paper presents a case for short food
supply chains (SFSCs) as a viable alternative to conventional long food supply chains
for food security and elaborates that SFSCs, while addressing the aforesaid issues, can
provide socio economic benefits via micro ventures to the communities deprived by the
traditional long supply chains.

2015 AENSI Publisher All rights reserved.

To Cite This Article: Nazim Baluch, Shahimi Mohtar and Ahmad Shabudin Ariffin ., Ensuring Food Security: A Case for Short Supply
Chains. Aust. J. Basic & Appl. Sci., 9(13): 166-170, 2015

Background: equivalent items locally grown in the Waterloo,

In the United States, the most frequently cited
statistic is that food travels 1,500 miles on average
from farm to consumer. That figure comes from
work led by Rich Pirog, the associate director of the
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa
State University. In 2001, in some of the country's
first food-miles research, Pirog and a group of
researchers analysed the transport of 28 fruits and
vegetables to Iowa markets via local, regional, and
conventional food distribution systems. The team
calculated that produce in the conventional system, a
national network using semitrailer trucks to haul food
to large grocery stores, travelled an average of 1,518
miles (about 2,400 kilometers). By contrast, locally
sourced food travelled an average of just 44.6 miles
(72 kilometers) to Iowa markets. In light of such
contrasts, the admonition to "eat local" just seems
like common sense. And indeed, at the most basic
level, fewer transport miles do mean fewer
emissions. Pirog's team found that the conventional
food distribution system used 4 to 17 times more fuel
and emitted 5 to 17 times more CO2 than the local
and regional (the latter of which roughly meant
Iowa-wide) systems. Similarly, a Canadian study
estimated that replacing imported food with
Ontario, region would save transport-related
emissions equivalent to nearly 50,000 metric tons of
CO2, or the equivalent of taking 16,191 cars off the
road (DeWeerdt, 2011).
Despite Malaysias current self-sufficiency of
125 percent in poultry meat and eggs the industry is
facing challenges such as the soaring global prices of
imported feed ingredients, consumers concerns over
the safety of poultry products, health and
environmental issues, and animal welfare concerns.
The Malaysian poultry industry must re-orient itself
to address these pressing issues and to ensure that the
industry is sustainable and continue to contribute to
the national food security.
It cannot be denied that industrial agriculture has
led to the production of enormous amounts of food,
using minimal labour and significantly lowering
operation costs. However, many of the true costs of
the industrial meat production industry, including
poultry, are part of a flow on effect; meaning the
price tag does not reflect the cost of the effects on the
publics health, rural communities, animal welfare
and the environment. These changes in the
production process have enabled producers to
process more animals and oversee more land with

Corresponding Author: Nazim Baluch, Universiti Utara Malaysia, College of Business, School of Technology
Management and Logistics, 06010 Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia.
Tel: +6012-460-2713; E-mail: nazimbaluch@gmail.com
167 Nazim Baluch, et al, 2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(13) Special 2015, Pages: 166-170
fewer people. Smaller farms tend to become
consolidated with larger ones, ultimately resulting in
bigger, more powerful meat production companies
upon which the market becomes dependent. Thus a
small number of stakeholders develop significant
influence over how food is produced and who
produces it (RESET, 2013). The environmental
movement encourages people to consider geographic
dimensions in their food choices. Long-distance
transport of food, a trait of conventional food supply
chains, is considered to contribute more towards
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to short
food supply chains that move food over short
distances. Transportation is the largest end-use
contributor toward global warming in the United
States and many other developed countries
(Wakeland et al., 2012). The local food movement
reflects an increasing interest by consumers in
supporting local farmers, and in better understanding
of the origin of their food (Martinez et al., 2010).
2. Food security:
Food Security means that all people at all times
have physical & economic access to adequate
amounts of nutritious, safe, and culturally
appropriate foods, which are produced in an
environmentally sustainable and socially just
manner, and that people are able to make informed
decisions about their food choices. At the core of
food security is access to healthy food and optimal
nutrition for all. Food access is closely linked to food
supply, so food security is dependent on a healthy
and sustainable food system. Food Security also
means that the people who produce our food are able
to earn a decent, living wage growing, catching,
producing, processing, transporting, retailing, and
serving food (Hirsch, 2013).
3. Short food supply chains (sfscs) & local food
system (lfs):
'Short Supply Chains' are where the number of
intermediaries is minimised, the ideal being a direct
contact between the producer and the consumer.
European Commission has adopted the following
definition of SFSC: "The foods involved are
identified by, and traceable to a farmer; the number
of intermediaries between farmer and consumer
should be 'minimal' or ideally nil" (NRNR, 2013).
Local Food System is one in which foods are
produced, processed and retailed within a defined
geographical area. Examples of local food systems
are: farmers markets, farm-gate sales, vegetable box
delivery schemes, community supported agriculture
and public procurement schemes which source food
from within a defined geographical radius. SFSCs
and LFS are commonly regarded as delivering social,
environmental and economic benefits, while
contributing significantly to food security (Kneafsey
et al., 2013).
4. The Socio-Economic Impacts Of Sfscs/Lfs:
There is a large and lively debate on the
environmental effect of SFSCs, where intuitively re-
localisation of production might be seen as a driver
of drastic GHG emissions reduction. The importance
of ethical values and the higher uptake of
environmentally sound practices are de facto
elements in favour of a positive impact of SFSCs in
the EU. So for instance, the UKs Soil Association
(2001), links local or regional control of physical
and economic activity with the ability to deliver a
range of benefits. As such, their definition of a
sustainable local food economy is: A system of
producing, processing and trading, primarily of
sustainable and organic forms of food production,
where the physical and economic activity is largely
contained and controlled within the locality or region
where it was produced, which delivers health,
economic, environmental and social benefits to the
communities in those areas. In this definition, the
local is not attributed with a specific spatial scale, but
the key point is that the control of economic activity
is retained locally, and that a range of benefits are
delivered. LFS are also often associated with co-
operative, fair and ethical behaviour. For example,
Slow Food International, whilst not campaigning
solely for LFS, calls for fair pay for small-scale
producers, and prioritizes the preservation of local
identities and associated ecological, cultural and
knowledge resources. The local is often understood
in terms of opposition to the global, as for example
in campaigns to resist the globalization of food
systems by preserving local food practices. Such
resistance, it is claimed, will help to defend local
economies, communities, knowledge, traditions and
environmental resources. Studies have shown that
consumers like to buy local foods for a range of
reasons, including environmental concerns, health
reasons, perception that local foods are high quality,
the enjoyment of shopping at local outlets, and in
order to support local farmers, economies and
communities (Kneafsey et al., 2013).
5. Social Interaction, Trust, Social Embeddedness
And Social Impact:
Ample research stresses that building
relationships of trust is a central component and an
important benefit of SFSCs and LFS that ensure
sustainable access to food a core element of food
security. Sinnreichs (2007) study of Polish Farmers
Markets found that the building of relationships
between consumer and producer is essential and
provides a unique experience. DeLind (2011) also
discusses the market in terms of community; as
place-building and improving of relationships around
neighbourhood-based, food-related activities
(Abatekassa and Peterson 2011). Chiffoleaus (2009)
study of farmers markets and box schemes in
southern France found that, alternative supply
chains can renew ties between producers by
168 Nazim Baluch, et al, 2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(13) Special 2015, Pages: 166-170
decoupling political relations and through the
embeddedness of sales activity in technical and
friendship relations, both of which favour co-
operation towards innovation. Lawson et al. (2008)
found that the continued reference to community
dimensions in relation to New Zealand farmers
markets can only arise because farmers are willing
to come together and recognise the potential benefits
that emerge from cooperative activity.
The main social impacts identified from the
literature review include the development of trusting
relationships between producers and consumers,
improvements in social capital and sense of
community, and increased consumer knowledge and
understanding of food, farming and environmental
issues, which in some cases can lead to behaviour
change. The EU database results and case studies
confirm these findings but also add weight to the
argument that SFSCs provide quality produce to
consumers; evidenced in the ambitions of many of
the examples present in the EU database as well as
the case studies. The products involved are regarded
as high quality and fresh by those involved and are
often based on traditional and artisan skills which are
locally distinctive. The social impact of neo-
traditional types of SFSCs is more likely to be in the
form of community-building, knowledge-exchange,
skills development and health and well-being. They
are more likely to situate themselves within a context
of promoting social change through educating people
about sustainability and ethical issues. They may also
connect with environmental movements and social
justice movements (Kneafsey et al., 2013).
6. Economic Benefits Of Sfscs/Lfs:
It is often claimed that SFSCs/LFS can generate
economic gains for producers, consumers and local
communities. For example, the SUS-CHAINS
project concluded that:
"One of the interesting findings in this respect is
that direct and regional marketing initiatives do
generate additional income and employment for rural
regions, although the degree to which they do so
differs. In addition they enable synergies with other
regional economic activities and often contribute to
an increase in job satisfaction and organisational
capacity within rural communities, greater consumer
trust in food systems, and reductions in food miles or
waste. In more marginal areas, these benefits can
help counter the abandonment of agriculture, out-
migration and greying populations (Roep and
Wiskerke, 2006, Foreward).
Various methodologies have been used to
demonstrate the economic impacts of SFSCs/LFS,
although it has been highlighted that not all the
methods applied are appropriate or transparent
(Henneberry et al., 2009). Data is often generated
through localised case studies (e.g. Alonso and
O'Neill, 2011, Broderick et al., 2011, Connelly et al.,
2011, Maxey et al., 2011). Case studies often utilize
questionnaires with farmers or other decision makers
and their perception of economic performance may
differ from measured performance through farm
accountancy networks; a review has identified case
studies from America (US, Canada), Australia, New
Zealand and Europe but few draw comparisons
between different countries or sectors (Mikkola,
2008).
Rural development stems from combining a
wide range of different and often refigured rural
resources in new ways. As a result these resources
flow into new activities, interactions, transactions
and networks. The effects of this become particularly
significant when activities and relationships start to
mutually reinforce each other. This is when synergy
is created; especially when new town-countryside
relations emerge that support the newly emerging
activities and networks (van der Ploeg & Marsden,
2008).
SFSCs/LFS contribute towards rural
development and economic regeneration and can be
seen as new sources of value added which can be
retained locally and can act as a catalyst for rural
economic regeneration and dynamism. SFSCs create
new economic spaces, can reverse the decline of
rural services and the depletion in food and farming
physical infrastructure; LFS offer opportunities for
tourism and further positive associated economic
impacts. An additional economic benefit of local
food systems is the potential from increased tourism
due to local branding and recreational shopping
opportunities. The revenue achieved in all of these
local businesses tends to remain in the local
economy, where it has a multiplier benefit through
adding to employment in other service industries in
the local community (Pearson et al., 2011). Farm
level economic impacts are one of the most
commonly reported economic benefits associated
with SFSCs/LFS; it is the increased income for the
producer. Producers are able to add a price premium
when selling through SFSCs (Pearson et al., 2011)
and the elimination of the middleman enables
farmers to receive a greater share of the profits.
SFSCs provide growers with an opportunity to
diversify and add value to their produce that would
not usually be marketed (Alonso, 2011).
Papworth (2011) quotes Leopold Kohrs
argument that there seems to be only one cause
behind all forms of social misery: Bigness. It appears
to be the one and only problem permeating all
creation. Whenever something is wrong, something
is too big. [...] And if the body of a people becomes
diseased with the fever of aggression, brutality,
collectivism, or massive idiocy, it is not because it
has fallen victim to bad leadership or mental
derangement. It is because human beings, so
charming as individuals or in small aggregations,
have been welded into over concentrated social units
(Max-Neef, 1992). That is why: The Fourth World;
the world of small nations, small communities and
169 Nazim Baluch, et al, 2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(13) Special 2015, Pages: 166-170
small enterprises is the only world that can be
democratic and reflect genuine human needs or
desires. The only way forward is to: promote
Microenterprise; in Short Supply Chain; using
Appropriate Technology; working towards Right
Livelihoods; incorporating Human Scale
Development; by giving due rights to the Invisibles;
and, in planning, populations are measured in terms
of Ecosons (Baluch, 2013).
Conclusion:
Food security is reliant on a sustainable food
system that ensures access to food which SFSCs/LFS
are capable of delivering. In both traditional and neo-
traditional types of SFSCs, social values are central
and people are motivated to participate not only
because they will receive produce in return but also,
and perhaps primarily, because they want to support
the initiative and its values. There is strong
commitment to these initiatives from the individuals
involved; it is not unusual to find that such SFSCs
have benefited from small-scale personal
investments, via micro enterprise, from individuals
either in monetary form or in kind. Traditional
supply chains need not be as long as they currently
are. There are too many middle men creating
vagaries in transparency, and providing opportunities
for the unconscionable. Keeping in line, it is
imperative that the Malaysian poultry sector takes
steps to become more sustainable in economic,
environmental and ethical terms by serving the
consumer through short food supply chains via micro
ventures.
REFERENCES
Abatekassa, G. and H.C. Peterson, 2011. Market
Access for Local Food through the Conventional
Food Supply Chain. International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, 14(1): 63-82.
Alonso, A., 2011. Farmers involvement in
Value-Added Produce: The Case of Alabama
Growers. British Food Journal, 113(2): 187-204.
Baluch, N., 2013. Coconut Biofuel and the role
of Maintenance Technology Management in
Sustaining Coastal Rural Communities:
Contextualising Exigency of Almond Beach
Community in Guyana, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Reconstructing
Caribbean Lives (AACS, 2013), 14-16. La Trobe
University, Melbourne, Australia.
Chiffoleau, Y., 2009. From Politics to Co-
Operation: The Dynamics of Embeddedness in
Alternative Food Supply Chains. Sociologia Ruralis,
49(3): 218-235.
DeLind, L.B., 2011. Are Local Food and the
Local Food Movement taking us where we want to
go? Or are we hitching our Wagons to the Wrong
Stars? Agriculture and Human Values, 28(2): 273-
283.
Henneberry, S.R., B. Whitacre and H.N.
Agustini, 2009. An Evaluation of the Economic
Impacts of Oklahoma Farmers Markets. Journal of
Food Distribution Research, 40(3): 64-78.
Alonso, A.D. and M.A. O'Neill, 2011. Interest in
Maximisation and Value-Added Produce: A
Preliminary Study from Chilton County, Alabama.
British Food Journal, 113(5): 637-655.
Hirsch, R., 2013. Aullak, sangilivallianginnatuk
(going off, growing strong): A community-led
enhancement of the community freezer program for
improved mental health, nutrition and
intergenerational skills transmission in Nain,
Nunatsiavut, FSN 2013, Annual Report, available
at
http://www.foodsecuritynews.com/Publications/FSN
_2013_Annual_Report.pdf
Kneafsey, M., L. Venn, U. Schmutz, B. Balzs,
L. Trenchard, T. Eyden-Wood, E. Bos, G. Sutton and
M. Blackett, 2013. Short Food Supply Chains and
Local Food Systems in the EU: A State of Play of
their Socio-Economic Characteristics. JRC Scientific
and Policy Report, Retrieved on 19 November2013
from:
http://agrilife.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/SFSChainF
inaleditedreport_001.pdf
Lawson, R., J. Guthrie, A. Cameron and W.C.
Fischer, 2008. Creating Value through Cooperation:
An Investigation of Farmers Markets in New
Zealand. British Food Journal, 110(1): 11-25.
Martinez, S., M. Hand, M. Da Pra, S. Pollack, K.
Ralston, T. Smith, S. Vogel, S. Clark, L. Lohr, S.
Low and C. Newman, 2010. Local Food Systems:
Concepts, Impacts, and Issues, ERR 97, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service. Retrieved on 19 November 2013from:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/122868/err97_1_.pdf
Max-Neef, M.A., 1992. From the Outside
Looking In: Experiences in Barefoot Economics
Dag Hammarskjld Foundation, pp: 208. ISBN 1-
85649-188-9.
NRNR, 2013. Facilitating and Encouraging
Short Food Supply Chains, A national rural network
report, retrieved on from: http://www.nrn.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/Final-Case-Study-Short-
Food-Supply-Chains-Jun-2013.pdf
Papworth, J., 2011. Editorial Fourth World
Review, 2011 retrieved on 19 November 2012 from:
http://ilcongresso.info/files/2011/12/4wrmag1.pdf
Pearson, D., J. Henryks, A. Trott, P. Jones, G.
Parker, D. Dumaresq and R. Dyball, 2011. Local
Food: Understanding Consumer Motivations in
Innovative Retail Formats. British Food Journal,
113(7): 886-899.
RESET editorial, 2013. Indias Pink
Revolution, retrieved on 11 November 2013 from:
http://in.reset.org/knowledge/india%E2%80%99s-
%E2%80%98pink-revolution%E2%80%99
Roep, D. and H. Wiskerke, (eds), 2006.
Nourishing Networks - Fourteen lessons about
170 Nazim Baluch, et al, 2015
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(13) Special 2015, Pages: 166-170

creating sustainable food supply chains, Rural
Sociology Group of Wageningen University and
Reed Business Information, Doetinchem.
Sinnreich, H., 2007. Baluty Market: A Study of
a Food Space. Food, Culture and Society, 10(1): 73-
84.
Van der Ploeg, J.D., T. Terry Marsden (eds.),
2008. Unfolding Webs: The Dynamics of Regional
Rural Development, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen.
Rural Sociology Group Wageningen University
Publications, retrieved on 12 February 2014 from:
http://ruralsociologywageningen.wordpress.com/publ
ications/
Wakeland, W., S. Cholette, K. Venkat, 2012,
Food transportation issues and reducing carbon
footprint (Chapter 9), retrieved on from:
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-
4614-1587-9_9