From Abundance to Nourishment: Food Security, Food Loss and the Philippine Food System
By Karl M. Garcia
A crate of perfectly edible mangoes sits unsold until the fruit softens.
Vegetables are harvested and left to deteriorate because their selling price no longer covers the cost of bringing them to market.
Fish spoils because there is no reliable cold chain.
A supermarket discards food that has lost its commercial appeal. A household forgets what is in the refrigerator until it becomes garbage.
And somewhere else, a family struggles to put dinner on the table.
It looks like a contradiction.
It is actually a systems problem.
The world has become remarkably capable of producing food. Yet hunger and food insecurity persist while food is lost at farms, in transit, in markets, in businesses and in homes.
The usual answer is that we need to distribute food better.
That is partly true. But the deeper problem is that food must be converted from biological production into reliable human nourishment.
It must be grown or caught, harvested, preserved, transported, processed, stored, traded, sold, purchased, prepared and safely consumed. Failure at any stage can separate food from the person who needs it.
Abundance does not automatically become food security.
For the Philippines, this distinction has consequences far beyond agriculture. It connects food prices to household income, farm profitability to rural development, cold storage to electricity, shipping to maritime security, and food waste to public health and environmental management.
The central question is no longer simply how much food the country can produce.
It is how much of what it produces becomes safe, affordable and nutritious food—and how reliably the system can deliver it when conditions deteriorate.
FOOD SECURITY IS A SYSTEM, NOT A HARVEST
Food policy traditionally asks a straightforward question: How much can we produce?
That remains important. Domestic production supports livelihoods, reduces exposure to external shocks and provides a foundation for national resilience.
But production alone cannot guarantee availability, affordability or nutritional adequacy.
A country can grow rice while depending on imported fertilizer. It can produce poultry while relying on imported feed ingredients. It can catch fish while depending on fuel, equipment and ice. It can grow vegetables while lacking the roads, packaging, storage and buyers needed to move them efficiently.
Self-sufficiency at one stage can conceal dependence at another.
The food system is therefore better understood as a connected network:
Production → inputs → preservation → processing → energy and water → logistics → markets → households.
Behind rice are seeds, fertilizer, irrigation, machinery, fuel and finance.
Behind poultry are feed, electricity, veterinary services and transport.
Behind fish are boats, fuel, ice, healthy fisheries and cold storage.
Behind vegetables are aggregation facilities, packaging, roads, market information and buyers.
Behind all of them are ports, power systems, financial institutions, warehouses and information networks.
A disruption in any of these supporting systems can eventually become a food problem.
A fertilizer shortage today may reduce a future harvest. A fuel-price spike can raise the cost of fishing, cultivation and transport. A power interruption can destroy refrigerated inventory. A port closure can delay food and the inputs required to produce more of it.
The effects are not always immediate. That is precisely what makes them dangerous.
By the time food prices reveal the consequences, the underlying disruption may already be difficult to reverse.
A serious food-security system monitors the conditions that produce food, not merely the inventory of food already available.
FOOD HAS A CLOCK
Food is not like steel.
Steel can remain in a warehouse for years. Fresh mangoes, fish, milk and many vegetables cannot.
Perishability creates a race against time. Every hour between harvest and consumption can affect quality, safety and economic value.
That makes roads, electricity, refrigeration, packaging, storage and processing part of food security.
A rural road that allows vegetables to reach market before they spoil is food infrastructure.
A cold-storage facility that extends the usable life of fish is food infrastructure.
A warehouse that allows farmers to avoid distress sales can be food infrastructure.
A processing facility that turns a seasonal surplus into a product that can be stored and sold later is food infrastructure.
But infrastructure does not create resilience merely by existing.
A cold-storage facility without reliable electricity, sufficient throughput, maintenance funding and paying customers can become an expensive stranded asset. A warehouse does not necessarily improve farmers’ bargaining power if they lack working capital and must sell immediately to repay debts.
The relevant question is not simply how many facilities have been built.
It is whether they operate reliably, remain financially sustainable and deliver measurable benefits to producers and consumers.
Resilience is measured by the losses avoided, the alternatives available and the time the system gains when disruption occurs.
This also explains an apparent paradox in food economics: farmers can receive too little while consumers pay too much.
The difference does not automatically prove exploitation. It may reflect transport, spoilage, storage, financing, processing, market concentration, timing and information failures.
Intermediaries can perform valuable functions, including aggregation, transport, credit and risk-bearing. Removing them without replacing those services may make the system less efficient.
The objective should be to make the value chain more competitive, transparent and productive—not merely to eliminate its middlemen.
THE SEASONAL PARADOX
A productive agricultural economy can experience too much food today and too little tomorrow.
A bumper harvest can depress farm-gate prices. Months later, inadequate stocks or disrupted production can contribute to higher consumer prices.
Without storage, processing and reliable market access, nature’s seasonal cycle becomes a source of economic instability.
The answer is not always to produce more.
Sometimes it is to preserve more of what has already been produced.
Drying, refrigeration, processing, warehouses, transport, market information and appropriate financing can help convert seasonal abundance into a more reliable supply.
Yet even these interventions require economic discipline.
Not every crop should be refrigerated. Not every surplus should be processed. Not every region needs a large warehouse. The appropriate investment depends on the commodity, production volume, distance to market, energy costs, expected demand and available alternatives.
Public spending should therefore be directed toward demonstrated bottlenecks rather than infrastructure for its own sake.
The measure of success is not the number of facilities inaugurated. It is whether avoidable losses decline, producers obtain better opportunities, consumers face lower unnecessary costs and supply becomes more reliable.
Agriculture does not end when the crop leaves the field. That is where the wider food system begins.
RICE IS IMPORTANT. RICE IS NOT EVERYTHING.
This distinction matters particularly in the Philippines.
Rice is a strategic commodity. It is a staple, a major agricultural livelihood and one of the country’s most politically sensitive food products.
But rice security is not synonymous with food security.
Rice policy asks whether the country can reliably obtain sufficient rice at reasonable prices. Food security asks the larger question: Can households consistently obtain sufficient, safe and nutritious food?
That includes rice, but also fish, eggs, poultry, meat, vegetables, fruits, legumes and other sources of protein and micronutrients.
A household may obtain enough calories while consuming too little protein or essential micronutrients. Aggregate food-supply figures can conceal this nutritional deprivation.
The objective should therefore not be complete economic isolation or the elimination of imports regardless of cost.
It should be strategic food resilience.
That means strong domestic production, diversified trade, adequate reserves, alternative suppliers, alternative transport routes and the capacity to substitute among foods and inputs when necessary.
Imports can supplement domestic production, stabilize supplies and give consumers access to food at competitive prices. But excessive dependence on a narrow group of suppliers, vulnerable shipping routes or imported inputs without alternatives can create significant exposure.
The same principle applies to domestic production. Dependence on one agricultural region, one major transport corridor or one distribution facility can create vulnerabilities even when the country produces substantial quantities of food.
The objective is interdependence with options: domestic capability without autarky, and international trade without dangerous dependence.
For an archipelagic country, those options must account for geography.
FOOD SECURITY IS ALSO MARITIME SECURITY
Food does not move only by road. In the Philippines, it moves between islands by sea.
So do fertilizer, animal feed, fuel, machinery and agricultural equipment.
A ship carrying rice is part of food infrastructure. A vessel carrying fertilizer is part of food infrastructure. A fuel tanker supporting fishing and agricultural logistics is part of food infrastructure.
The port receiving them is part of the same system.
A disruption to maritime transport can therefore affect both the food already available and the country’s capacity to produce future supplies.
Food security, energy security, logistics security and maritime security cannot be treated as entirely separate concerns when an archipelago depends on movement between islands.
The country needs reliable information about what is moving, where it is moving, which ports are functioning, which routes are vulnerable and what alternatives exist.
A shared maritime and logistics picture could connect information about vessels, cargo, ports, weather, fuel, agricultural inputs and critical transport corridors. Such a system would need reliable data, clear responsibilities and established procedures for acting on warnings.
Information alone, however, does not guarantee resilience.
A warning that a port may close has little value if alternative capacity cannot be activated, cargo cannot be redirected or the responsible agency lacks authority to act.
The purpose of information is not merely to describe a disruption. It is to enable a timely response.
DISTRIBUTE RESILIENCE, NOT JUST PRODUCTION
The Philippines benefits from productive agricultural regions, including Central Luzon, Cagayan Valley, Ilocos, Western Visayas and parts of Mindanao.
Their productivity is an advantage. But geographic concentration can become a vulnerability when too much national dependence rests on too few regions, roads, warehouses or distribution channels.
The answer is not to weaken productive areas or force every province to produce every commodity.
It is to develop complementary capacity.
Some regions may be particularly suited to rice. Others may have advantages in vegetables, fruit, livestock, aquaculture or fisheries. Some landscapes may be better protected for watersheds and ecological functions than converted to additional cultivation.
Agricultural planning should consider soil, water, climate, market access, transport costs, ecological limits and local livelihoods.
It should also recognize that diversification is not costless. Spreading production indiscriminately can sacrifice economies of scale, increase costs or damage unsuitable landscapes.
The objective is to balance efficiency with alternatives.
The same principle applies to storage, processing and distribution.
Multiple warehouses, processors, ports and transport corridors can reduce the consequences of localized failure. But duplication should be justified by the risks it reduces and the cost of maintaining spare capacity.
Efficiency should be designed with redundancy, not replaced by wasteful duplication.
THE FARMER AND THE CONSUMER NEED EACH OTHER
Food policy often presents the farmer as the producer and the consumer as the beneficiary.
The relationship is more complicated.
Consumers need affordable food. Farmers need prices that justify continuing to produce. Processors and distributors need enough margin to operate, invest and absorb risk.
These interests often align over the long term, but they can conflict in the short term.
Lower consumer prices benefit households, especially poorer ones. Persistently inadequate farm-gate prices can undermine the next planting cycle. Policies that support producer prices may raise consumer costs if productivity and logistics do not improve.
The solution is not to assume that one group can indefinitely subsidize the others.
It is to improve productivity, reduce avoidable costs, widen market access and provide targeted assistance where necessary.
Farmers also need more than seeds and fertilizer. They need reliable access to buyers, useful market information, working capital, appropriate technology and opportunities to participate in higher-value activities.
Cooperatives and producer organizations can help aggregate supply, improve bargaining power and share the costs of storage, transport and marketing. Their effectiveness, however, depends on sound governance, competent management and viable commercial arrangements.
Better price information can reduce uncertainty, but information alone cannot solve every problem. A farmer who knows the price in another city may still lack the vehicle, storage or financing needed to reach that market.
This is why interventions must address the entire value chain.
A good food policy makes adequate food more affordable without making domestic production progressively less viable.
FEED, FERTILIZER, WATER AND ENERGY ARE PART OF FOOD SECURITY
Food-security planning can focus so heavily on food inventories that it overlooks what produces food.
Feed is one example.
A poultry shortage may begin with a disruption in feed ingredients. A fish shortage may begin with feed, fuel or equipment. A fertilizer problem today may become a harvest problem months later.
Water and energy create similar dependencies.
Agriculture requires reliable water, healthy soils and appropriate irrigation. Food processing and preservation depend on electricity and fuel. Safe preparation and sanitation require adequate water and functioning infrastructure.
A drought can damage crops while reducing water availability for households and industry. A power interruption can spoil food even when the transport network remains operational. Higher fuel prices can raise costs throughout the system simultaneously.
These are interconnected risks.
The country should therefore monitor inventories, prices and availability of fertilizer, feed, seeds, fuel, water, electricity, machinery and animal-health inputs alongside food stocks.
It should also map the dependencies of critical facilities.
A cold-storage warehouse needs more than installed capacity. It needs reliable power, backup arrangements, safe operating temperatures, accessible roads, trained staff and a viable business model.
A facility is only as resilient as the critical dependencies required to keep it operating.
BUILD OPTIONS, NOT JUST STOCKPILES
Strategic reserves matter because they buy time.
But resilience is not simply a matter of accumulating inventory.
A reserve may be adequate nationally while remaining inaccessible to a community cut off by a damaged road or closed port. Stored food may be unsuitable for immediate distribution, or its release may be delayed by procurement and administrative procedures.
Resilience also depends on alternative suppliers, commercial inventories, domestic production capacity, substitute products and transport options.
Three measures can help governments assess whether the system can withstand disruption.
Time-to-Failure: How long before the disruption creates a serious shortage or loss of access?
Time-to-Response: How quickly can an alternative supply, route, facility or assistance program be activated?
Time-to-Recovery: How quickly can production, logistics and household access return to an acceptable level?
These measures should be evaluated by commodity, location and affected population. A national average can conceal severe local shortages.
They should also be stress-tested against combinations of shocks.
Imagine a typhoon damaging agricultural areas while fuel prices rise, a major port becomes unavailable and fertilizer deliveries are delayed. Each problem may be manageable independently. Together, they may overwhelm the system.
The purpose of such exercises is not to predict the exact crisis that will occur. It is to discover where the system breaks when several problems arrive together.
Resilience should be tested, not merely announced.
FOOD SECURITY ENDS AT THE HOUSEHOLD
Ultimately, food security depends on more than physical availability.
It depends on purchasing power.
A supermarket can be full while a family goes hungry. A market can offer vegetables, fish and eggs while their prices place them beyond a household’s budget.
Food insecurity is therefore connected to employment, wages, inflation, transport costs and social protection.
The relevant question is not simply how much food exists. It is whether a household can afford an adequate diet.
This requires measuring the cost of a nutritionally adequate basket relative to household income, not merely tracking the price of rice or the national volume of food supplies.
It also requires recognizing that households face different constraints. A family may live far from markets, lack refrigeration, have limited cooking facilities or be unable to purchase larger quantities even when doing so would reduce the price per unit.
School meals, targeted nutrition assistance, livelihood programs and other social-protection measures can help address these barriers.
Food assistance is especially important during emergencies, when income may disappear just as food prices and transport costs rise.
But emergency assistance should complement, not replace, policies that improve livelihoods and purchasing power.
A food-rescue program can help a family today. It cannot by itself solve why that family cannot reliably afford nutritious food tomorrow.
Food rescue is one instrument of food security, not a substitute for poverty reduction.
FROM SURPLUS TO PAGPAG
There is an uncomfortable image in the Philippine food system.
Food is being discarded.
Somewhere else, someone is hungry.
And between them is a garbage bag.
That is where pagpag enters the story.
The term is commonly associated with discarded food recovered from waste, cleaned or sorted, sometimes cooked again, and consumed or sold by people facing severe economic constraints.
The immediate reaction is understandable: this should not be happening.
But the deeper question is how food became garbage while it still appeared to have value to a hungry person.
The answer cannot be reduced to food waste alone.
Poverty, inadequate income, high food prices, limited access to assistance and weaknesses in food distribution all matter. Food can be discarded for legitimate safety reasons, while other food may be thrown away because of commercial practices, poor forecasting or inadequate logistics.
These are different problems and require different responses.
Pagpag should not be romanticized as resourcefulness or presented as successful food recycling. Food recovered from uncontrolled mixed waste may have been exposed to pathogens, chemicals or other contaminants. Washing and reheating cannot reliably make every contaminated product safe.
Nor should the people who depend on it be shamed.
The person searching through garbage did not design the supermarket’s inventory system, determine household wages or establish the city’s waste-collection arrangements.
That person is responding to circumstances.
The appropriate question is not why someone would eat discarded food.
It is why discarded food has become one of the available options.
Pagpag is not the circular economy we should aspire to. It is a warning that food access and waste prevention have failed to connect where they matter most.
THE LINE BETWEEN VALUE AND SAFETY
The debate over food recovery can become a false choice.
One position says that food nearing the end of its commercial life should simply be discarded.
The other says that any food that can be recovered should be reused.
Neither position is adequate.
Commercial value and food safety are not the same thing.
A cosmetically imperfect vegetable is not automatically waste. A surplus packaged product is not automatically unsafe. Food that no longer fits a retailer’s sales schedule may remain suitable for human consumption.
But food that has entered an uncontrolled mixed-waste stream is a different matter.
The Philippines recognized the importance of controlled food donation through Republic Act No. 9803, the Food Donation Act of 2009, which encourages the donation of apparently wholesome food for charitable purposes while seeking to reduce food wastage and alleviate poverty.
The distinction is important. Food does not become suitable for donation simply because someone is willing to accept it. Its condition, handling, storage, transport and applicable food-safety requirements still matter.
The goal is to establish a controlled pathway for surplus food that remains suitable for human consumption, not to declare everything recoverable.
That pathway should make it easier for businesses to donate safe surplus while maintaining appropriate safeguards and clear responsibilities.
The key is not whether food has lost its price. It is whether it remains safe to eat.
FOOD RESCUE BEGINS BEFORE THE GARBAGE TRUCK
Once food is mixed with garbage, safe recovery becomes much more difficult.
Before that happens, there are choices.
A supermarket can discount products approaching the end of their commercial sales window, where appropriate.
A bakery can redirect safe surplus.
A restaurant can improve purchasing and production forecasts.
A hotel can reduce overproduction.
A farm can seek buyers for produce that fails cosmetic standards.
A household can purchase and prepare food according to actual consumption.
Safe surplus can also be donated through appropriate channels.
This is food rescue.
Pagpag occurs much farther downstream, after opportunities for prevention, preservation and controlled redistribution have been lost.
The objective should not be to make pagpag safer as a substitute for adequate food access. It should be to prevent edible surplus from becoming pagpag in the first place.
A practical system could connect food businesses, markets, local governments, charitable organizations, community kitchens and beneficiaries through decentralized networks.
Not every community needs a large national food bank. Some may benefit more from local collection points, shared refrigeration, reliable transport and partnerships with existing organizations.
But good intentions cannot overcome logistics by themselves.
Surplus appears at unpredictable times. Food is perishable. Transport and refrigeration cost money. Inspection requires trained people. Recipients may lack the capacity to store or prepare large quantities.
A donation that arrives too late, in unsafe condition or in a quantity no recipient can use does not solve the problem.
Food-rescue programs should therefore measure not only the volume collected but also the amount delivered safely, the amount actually consumed, the costs incurred and the people reached.
They should also avoid creating incentives for chronic overproduction.
Prevention is generally preferable to rescue because preventing surplus can conserve the land, water, energy, labor and transport resources that would otherwise be used to produce and move food that is never consumed.
Food rescue is a logistics problem as much as a charitable one.
FOOD LOSS IS AN ECONOMIC PROBLEM
Food waste is an environmental issue. It is also an economic one.
When food is discarded, society loses more than the food itself.
It loses the land, water, fertilizer, electricity, labor, packaging, transport, refrigeration, retail space and capital used to produce and move it.
By the time a meal reaches the garbage, much of its economic and environmental cost has already been incurred.
Food-loss reduction is therefore a productivity strategy.
But different forms of waste require different interventions.
Farm losses may require improved harvesting practices, aggregation, storage or transport.
Retail waste may require better inventory management, purchasing practices and demand forecasting.
Restaurant waste may be reduced through menu planning, portion management and production controls.
Household waste may respond to better storage, smaller package sizes and more realistic purchasing.
Unavoidable organic residues may be appropriate for composting or other forms of recovery, depending on their characteristics and the available facilities.
The country needs better information about where losses occur, what causes them and which interventions produce the greatest benefits.
How much is lost at farms? How much during transport? How much is discarded by retailers, restaurants and households? How much remains suitable for human consumption? How much is donated, repurposed or sent to disposal?
Without reliable measurements, policy risks being driven by the most visible examples rather than the largest opportunities.
A national food-loss assessment could help identify where investment would produce the greatest return.
A vegetable-growing region may need aggregation and cooling. A fishing community may need ice and cold storage. A supermarket may need better inventory management. A restaurant may need improved forecasting.
The same label—food waste—can conceal entirely different failures.
The objective is to generate more useful nutrition and producer income from each unit of land, water, labor and capital.
THE INFORMAL FOOD ECONOMY MATTERS
Carinderias, market stalls, roadside eateries and small food businesses provide affordable meals and livelihoods across the Philippines.
The answer is neither to romanticize informality nor to treat it as a failure that must be eliminated.
The practical objective is to improve the conditions under which these businesses operate.
That means access to potable water, sanitation, waste collection, safe food preparation, appropriate temperature control, training and financing.
A cheap meal that makes a worker sick is not food security.
At the same time, food-safety requirements should be implemented in ways that improve public health without unnecessarily destroying viable small businesses or pushing them further outside the formal system.
The informal food economy should be upgraded, not erased.
There is also an opportunity to strengthen regional food economies.
Ilocano, Bicolano, Cebuano, Ilonggo, Kapampangan, Mindanaoan and countless other food traditions emerged from different landscapes, histories, ingredients and communities.
These traditions can support farmers, fishers, processors, restaurants, local tourism and small enterprises.
But culinary recognition or tourism growth is not a national food-security strategy by itself.
The larger opportunity is to develop sustainable value chains that allow regional producers and communities to benefit from the demand their food traditions create.
A dish can create demand. Demand can support producers. Producers can sustain the cuisine. Culinary tourism can generate local economic activity.
The challenge is to ensure that commercialization strengthens, rather than displaces, the communities that created these traditions.
Food is not merely a commodity. It is also a livelihood, a cultural asset and a source of regional economic value.
NATURE IS FOOD INFRASTRUCTURE
The food system ultimately depends on ecological systems.
Soil is productive infrastructure.
Watersheds support water security.
Mangroves help protect coastlines and provide important nursery habitats for marine life.
Healthy fisheries sustain livelihoods and protein supplies.
Forests, rivers and coastal ecosystems contribute to the ecological conditions on which food production depends.
Climate resilience cannot therefore be separated from food resilience.
Drought, flooding, heat and storms can damage farms, fisheries, roads, power systems and ports simultaneously.
A resilient food system needs engineered and natural infrastructure: irrigation, drainage, storage, resilient crops, healthy soils, watershed protection, fisheries management and coastal ecosystem conservation.
Not every ecological benefit can be reduced to an immediate financial return. Nevertheless, neglecting these systems creates risks that eventually appear in agricultural productivity, food prices and household livelihoods.
No logistics network can compensate indefinitely for the destruction of the productive ecological base.
Food security begins long before food reaches the market. It begins with the condition of the land and water that sustain it.
FROM DATA TO DECISION
A resilient food system needs more than forecasts.
It needs the ability to act.
Weather forecasts, crop assessments, inventories, commodity prices, port conditions and reports of input shortages can help identify emerging problems. Artificial intelligence may help detect patterns across these sources, estimate risks and compare possible responses.
But technology cannot compensate for poor data, unclear authority or an absence of operational capacity.
A sophisticated algorithm connected to unreliable information can produce sophisticated uncertainty.
A perfect warning without an empowered decision-maker produces nothing.
The necessary sequence is:
Data → analysis → warning → threshold → decision → procurement → logistics → distribution → recovery.
Each stage needs a responsible institution, clear procedures and measurable performance.
For example, a projected shortage should trigger a defined assessment of available stocks, alternative suppliers, transport capacity, expected demand and the needs of vulnerable households. Any decision to release reserves, redirect supplies or activate assistance should follow established legal authority and transparent operating rules.
The country does not necessarily need another super-agency. It needs effective coordination among institutions that already have relevant responsibilities.
That requires a shared operating picture, compatible information systems, clear decision rights and accountability for implementation.
It also requires exercises that test whether the arrangements work under pressure.
Resilience depends not merely on knowing what is happening, but on having the authority and capacity to do something about it.
WHO PAYS FOR RESILIENCE?
Resilience has a price.
Maintaining spare capacity, alternative suppliers, backup power, emergency inventories and redundant transport routes may increase costs during normal conditions.
The objective cannot be to eliminate every vulnerability regardless of expense.
It must be to determine which risks justify investment, which alternatives are economically viable and where public intervention produces benefits that private markets are unlikely to provide on their own.
Some investments can be commercially sustainable. Others may require public financing because they serve remote communities, provide emergency capacity or deliver broader benefits that individual businesses cannot capture.
Cooperatives, shared facilities, private operators and public investment can all have roles.
The appropriate model depends on local conditions, expected demand, operating costs and the distribution of benefits.
Projects should be evaluated not merely by construction costs but by their full life-cycle costs, maintenance requirements, utilization and contribution to resilience.
A warehouse that remains unused is not a successful resilience investment simply because it exists. A food-rescue program that collects large quantities but delivers little usable food is not successful simply because its collection figures look impressive.
The same principle applies to strategic reserves, transport facilities and digital systems.
The objective is resilience per peso invested.
MEASURE WHAT MATTERS
A credible national food-security framework should evaluate outcomes rather than announcements.
It should ask:
- How much food is available, and where?
- How many days of usable supply remain under plausible disruption scenarios?
- Can essential commodities reach affected communities through alternative routes?
- How much does a nutritionally adequate diet cost relative to household income?
- Are farmers earning enough to sustain production?
- How much food is lost at each stage of the value chain?
- How much safe surplus is recovered and actually consumed?
- How quickly can critical supplies and services be restored after a disruption?
These measures should be disaggregated by commodity, region and vulnerable population where appropriate.
A national average can conceal a local shortage. A large inventory can conceal a distribution problem. A high donation volume can conceal spoilage after collection. Lower retail prices can conceal worsening producer viability.
Performance measures should therefore connect availability, affordability, nutritional adequacy, safety, producer livelihoods and recovery capacity.
The goal is not to maximize every indicator independently. Some objectives compete, and trade-offs must be made explicit.
The goal is to identify policies that improve the overall performance of the system while protecting those most exposed to failure.
THE FOOD SYSTEM THE PHILIPPINES SHOULD BUILD
The country needs an integrated approach built around ten functions.
PRODUCE: Sustain productive farms, fisheries, livestock and aquaculture.
PRESERVE: Reduce avoidable losses through appropriate cold chains, drying, storage and processing.
MOVE: Maintain reliable roads, ports, shipping and distribution networks.
DIVERSIFY: Develop alternative suppliers, production regions, transport routes and suitable food sources.
BUFFER: Maintain appropriately designed strategic and commercial reserves.
AFFORD: Protect purchasing power and provide targeted assistance when households cannot obtain adequate food.
PROTECT: Sustain soil, water, fisheries and ecosystems.
RESCUE: Redirect safe surplus before it enters the waste stream.
ANTICIPATE: Monitor leading indicators and test the system against combined disruptions.
RECOVER: Restore production, logistics and household access as quickly as possible.
These functions should reinforce one another.
Cold storage is more useful when transport works. Strategic reserves are more useful when release procedures are clear. Food donations are more effective when safe collection and distribution systems exist. Domestic production is more resilient when farmers can earn viable incomes and essential inputs remain accessible.
And every intervention must ultimately be judged against the household’s ability to obtain safe, nutritious food.
FROM PAGPAG TO PREVENTION
We should preserve the Filipino instinct of walang sayang.
Nothing should be wasted unnecessarily.
But walang sayang should not mean that everything discarded must eventually be eaten.
It should mean that resources are managed intelligently enough that as little as possible becomes waste.
Leftover rice becoming sinangag is walang sayang.
Sharing excess food with a neighbor is walang sayang.
Donating safe surplus is walang sayang.
Buying only what a household can reasonably consume is walang sayang.
Composting appropriate organic material is walang sayang.
Recovering value from unavoidable food residues through suitable processes can also be walang sayang.
But a hungry person searching through mixed garbage for something edible is not the circular economy we should aspire to.
The appropriate hierarchy is clear:
Prevent avoidable surplus. Preserve what can still be used. Rescue what remains safely edible. Donate what can legitimately be donated. Recover what can no longer be eaten through appropriate channels. Dispose safely of what remains.
This hierarchy must operate alongside poverty reduction, decent livelihoods, nutrition assistance and affordable access to food.
Food rescue cannot replace income. A community kitchen cannot replace a livelihood. A food bank cannot replace social protection.
The purpose is to prevent avoidable waste while ensuring that people have safer, more dignified alternatives.
THE FINAL MEASURE
The old question was:
How much food can we produce?
The better question is:
How much of what we produce becomes safe, affordable and nutritious food—and how much remains available when the system is disrupted?
A rotten mango is not merely wasted fruit. It may represent missing cold storage, poor roads, inadequate market information or insufficient processing capacity.
A farmer receiving too little is not merely an agricultural problem. It may signal a broken value chain.
An expensive vegetable is not necessarily evidence of insufficient farm production. It may reflect logistics, seasonal conditions, market structure or transport costs.
A hungry household surrounded by food is not necessarily facing a physical shortage. It may be facing an income problem.
A closed port is not merely a transportation problem. For an archipelago, it can become a food-security problem.
And a person searching through garbage for food is not evidence of a successful circular economy.
It is a warning that the system failed to connect food with safe and affordable human consumption.
The solution is neither to romanticize pagpag nor to shame those who depend on it.
It is to move intervention upstream, strengthen the institutions and infrastructure that connect production to consumption, and address the economic conditions that make adequate food inaccessible.
For the Philippines, that means rice security without confusing rice with the entire food system.
It means domestic production without autarky, and imports without dangerous dependence.
It means maritime security that recognizes the movement of food, fertilizer, feed and fuel.
It means agricultural infrastructure that works economically, not merely infrastructure that gets built.
It means food rescue without romanticizing poverty, and food safety without unnecessarily destroying the livelihoods of small food businesses.
It means protecting the ecological systems that sustain production, preserving the viability of farmers, and ensuring that consumers can afford an adequate diet.
Most importantly, it means recognizing that production, preservation, logistics, markets, household income and nutrition are parts of one system.
The real measure of abundance is not how much food exists.
It is how much becomes nourishment.
And the real measure of food security is not whether the system works on a good day.
It is whether a family can still eat on a bad one.
Comments
36 Responses to “From Abundance to Nourishment: Food Security, Food Loss and the Philippine Food System”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...-
[…] Garcia made the larger point in From Abundance to Nourishment: abundance is not food security until it is preserved, stored, moved and affordable. Canning a glut […]
sa amin po, supermarkets here sell fresh food at saka mga de lata close to their use by date very cheaply. they are marked downs. same in the food court at the malls, good food that cannot be sold are sold very cheaply at day’s end. they got severely marked down too. sometimes, I can see line of people buying them, though we have been told to be aware of food poisoning. that maybe food that have been left in the counter standing for too long may contain unwanted something. I thought, that might have been because the food carriage were not cleaned properly, kulang ng hygiene.
sometimes, I buy dozens of very ripe mangoes for next to nothing! mangoes freeze very well, stays frozen for up to 3months. mangoes even taste better when frozen. I put slices of overripe mangoes in little plastic bags and freeze the lot. no need to add sugar. apparently frozen mangoes can keep their nutritional value. I also freeze bread and fresh milk. same with cheddar cheese, fish and meat. when the weather is bad and I cannot go out shopping and there is flood, I raid the freezer and make lasagne and also make sorbetes from frozen mangoes.
Thanks for your insights. The one about mangoes are interesting, tried that on langka once.(frozen)
oh, yeah, peeled mango slices (no seeds) same with overly ripe strawberries, they both freeze very well. just cut off the stem of the overly ripe strawberries and off to the freezer. and if you can make guava jelly with overripe guavas, same can be done with mangoes.
As I understand it here in the US, a lot of farmers receive subsidies from the government so that they can produce food at competitive prices compared to imports and continue to farm. It is part of the national security strategy so that the country cannot be held hostage by a threat to food supply. Though I know that is not the only reason for farm subsidies.
The rich countries can afford agri subsidies.
Related to food security in the Philippines is the problem of malnutrition, especially among children. Here is one of many articles written about it by people in the Philippines:
Breaking the curse: How do we address chronic malnutrition in the Philippines? – Valerie Ulep, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Dec. 2021
Excerpt: “A large number of Filipino children have inadequate nutrition and are constantly exposed to preventable illnesses. One in every three children is stunted, an indication of chronic malnutrition (FNRI 2019). Stunting rates in the country have barely improved in the last three decades.”
heto, update po about latest failed feeding program in philippines public schools, 2026.
https://politiko.com.ph/angara-nganga-depeds-p681m-feeding-activities-hit-by-delays-of-up-to-304-days/
“Regional offices agreed with” the report. This shows that educators are not supply chain administrators more than anything. They are left to their own ways in sourcing food to get to 120 days of meals. It makes all the more impressive the way food markets are able to source, display, and sell such a wide range of goods to the general public. I think even space programs blow up rockets now and then so I have a hard time being critical of DepEd.
could have done better if food is sourced locally, but if food cartel takes over, that is another story.
Thanks CV
A Sharper Philippine Policy Agenda: From Nutrition Programs to Public Accountability
The Philippines already has a national framework for addressing malnutrition: the Philippine Plan of Action for Nutrition (PPAN) 2023–2028. The central policy question is whether its commitments translate into sustained improvements in the lives of vulnerable families. The 2023 National Nutrition Survey found that 23.6% of children under five were stunted and 5.6% were wasted, while 31.4% of households experienced moderate to severe food insecurity. These figures demonstrate why nutrition policy must address both inadequate diets and the conditions that make nutritious food inaccessible. .
A sharper policy agenda should focus on five priorities.
First, make nutrition funding transparent and results-based. The National Nutrition Council (NNC) should coordinate a public nutrition scorecard that tracks national and local government spending alongside measurable outcomes. Local government units should report progress on child stunting, wasting, maternal anemia, dietary diversity, and access to essential nutrition services. Funding decisions should consider the severity of local malnutrition and the quality of implementation, with safeguards to prevent already disadvantaged communities from losing essential services because of weak administrative capacity. .
Second, guarantee a nutrition package during the first 1,000 days of life. The Department of Health, local health offices, and barangay health workers should coordinate maternal nutrition support, prenatal care, breastfeeding assistance, appropriate complementary feeding, micronutrient interventions, growth monitoring, and timely treatment of acute malnutrition. The Philippine Multisectoral Nutrition Project provides a platform for expanding services in high-burden municipalities. Its implementation should be assessed not only by the number of beneficiaries reached but also by improvements in nutritional outcomes and continuity of care. .
Third, make healthy food affordable, not merely available. The Department of Agriculture, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Education, and local governments should align agricultural support, social protection, and public procurement with nutritional needs. Targeted food assistance and school feeding should prioritize nutritious, diverse meals, while local procurement from farmers and fisherfolk can strengthen food supply chains where feasible. Existing social assistance should be evaluated for its capacity to improve household food security and dietary quality, rather than measured solely by the number of recipients. This agenda should also address food price volatility and barriers to market access in geographically isolated communities.
Fourth, confront obesity and micronutrient deficiencies alongside hunger. The Department of Health, Department of Education, and relevant regulatory agencies should strengthen nutrition standards in schools and public institutions, improve nutrition literacy, support access to fruits and vegetables, and enforce existing food fortification and consumer-protection measures. Policies addressing sugary drinks and unhealthy food environments should complement—not replace—efforts to reduce undernutrition. The objective is to improve diet quality across the population without treating calorie intake as the sole measure of nutritional well-being.
Fifth, target regional inequality through differentiated local plans. National averages can conceal severe deprivation in conflict-affected, remote, and low-income communities. The NNC and local governments should use updated, geographically disaggregated data to identify priority municipalities and tailor interventions to local needs. Areas with high stunting may require stronger maternal and infant nutrition services, while communities facing acute wasting need rapid identification, treatment, and follow-up. Programs should also account for the distinct challenges facing farming and fishing households, including seasonal income and unreliable access to markets.
These priorities require a clear division of responsibility, sustained domestic financing, reliable data, and independent scrutiny of results. The national government must establish standards and monitor progress; local governments must deliver services and publish results; and communities must have meaningful opportunities to identify gaps and hold implementing agencies accountable.
The Philippines should therefore judge its nutrition strategy by a straightforward standard: Are fewer children stunted or wasted, are mothers and children receiving the nutrients they need, and can vulnerable families consistently afford a healthy diet? By connecting public spending to these outcomes, the government can move beyond fragmented interventions toward a nutrition system that is measurable, equitable, and accountable. The success of the PPAN 2023–2028 should ultimately be reflected not in the number of programs announced, but in the number of Filipino children who can grow, learn, and thrive without preventable nutritional disadvantage.
Per the World Bank, childhood malnutrition costs the Philippines ₱534.1 billion per year (USD $8.5 billion) — 3% of 2026 GDP.
I looked up some figures and the Philippines, though the School-Based Feeding Program (SBFP) and Supplementary Feeding Program (SFP), spends ₱35.3 billion per year (USD $616 million) on childhood nutrition programs — 0.12% of 2026 GDP. Both programs’ funding were substantially increased in FY2026. The two programs are principally funded from DepEd and DSWD general funds (General Appropriations Act), with richer LGUs choosing to contribute about 5% of funding on top of that within their own jurisdiction.
I am a big believer in free national school breakfast and/or lunch for school-age children. An early model on how this can be done is the Oslo Breakfast implemented by Norway in the 1920s at a time when Norwegian children were regularly stunted and faced other developmental-related health problems due to malnutrition.
Here’s an AI summary on the Oslo Breakfast mapped onto the Philippines:
Thanks for that, Joey!
The Philippines’ Triple Burden of Malnutrition
By Karl M. Garcia
The Philippines faces a nutrition crisis that is often misunderstood as a problem of poverty alone. Undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and overweight or obesity coexist in the same country—and sometimes within the same household. This triple burden affects children’s development, maternal health, productivity, and the country’s long-term economic potential.
The most alarming consequence is childhood malnutrition. National nutrition surveys have consistently found that roughly one in four Filipino children under five is stunted, meaning chronic undernutrition has impaired their growth. Others suffer from wasting, or dangerously low weight relative to height, while many more lack essential vitamins and minerals. At the opposite end, overweight and obesity are also increasing among children and adults.
These are not separate problems. They reflect a food system that can deliver calories without consistently delivering adequate nutrition.
Hunger is not the only problem
Many low-income families rely on affordable, filling staples while consuming insufficient amounts of protein, fruits, vegetables, and other nutrient-rich foods. Rising food prices and unstable incomes make dietary diversity difficult to sustain. A child may eat every day yet still experience hidden hunger—a deficiency of essential nutrients.
The consequences begin even before birth. Maternal undernutrition and anemia can increase the risk of poor birth outcomes, while inadequate feeding, recurrent infections, and limited access to health services can compound nutritional disadvantages during the first 1,000 days of life. Once stunting develops, its effects on physical growth and cognitive development can be difficult to reverse fully.
The burden is also unevenly distributed. Children in conflict-affected, geographically isolated, and economically disadvantaged communities face greater risks. Bangsamoro and other vulnerable regions have recorded particularly high levels of childhood stunting. Farming and fishing households can also struggle to provide consistent diets despite producing food themselves, because seasonal earnings, market access, and food prices determine what families can actually afford.
The paradox is stark: a country rich in agricultural land and marine resources can still have children who lack nutritious food.
Why existing interventions are not enough
The Philippines already has nutrition policies, feeding programs, maternal and child health services, food fortification measures, and initiatives such as the Philippine Multisectoral Nutrition Project. The challenge is not simply the absence of programs. It is whether they reach the right households consistently, deliver the appropriate interventions, and produce measurable improvements.
School feeding can help, but it cannot compensate for inadequate nutrition during pregnancy and infancy. Cash assistance can ease food insecurity, but its nutritional impact depends partly on the availability and affordability of healthy food. Agricultural production can increase, yet children may remain malnourished if nutritious products are inaccessible or household incomes are insufficient.
Nutrition policy therefore has to connect health care, social protection, agriculture, education, water and sanitation, and local government delivery. Pregnant women need appropriate nutritional support and prenatal care. Infants need support for breastfeeding and adequate complementary feeding. Young children need diverse diets, immunization, safe water, sanitation, and timely treatment of infections. Families need reliable access to affordable nutritious food.
At the same time, the response to obesity must not undermine efforts to address undernutrition. Excessive consumption of sugary drinks and highly processed foods can contribute to unhealthy weight gain without providing adequate nutrition. Prevention requires better food environments, nutrition education, and healthier choices—not merely telling individuals to eat less.
From programs to measurable results
The government should treat nutrition as a long-term investment in human capital rather than a collection of short-term projects.
First, interventions should prioritize the first 1,000 days, when nutritional support can have especially lasting benefits. Second, funding and implementation should focus on municipalities with persistently high malnutrition rates, while allowing interventions to reflect local conditions. Third, national and local agencies should track results using comparable indicators, including stunting, wasting, anemia, dietary diversity, and maternal nutrition—not simply the number of meals served or beneficiaries enrolled.
Local governments should also connect feeding programs with farmers, fisherfolk, cooperatives, and local food suppliers where practical. This can improve access to fresh food while creating more dependable markets for local producers. But local procurement must remain competitive, transparent, nutritionally appropriate, and accountable.
Finally, nutrition programs need continuity. Children cannot wait for the next administration’s priorities, a new funding cycle, or another round of reorganized committees. Progress must be measured over years, with clear responsibility for results and sustained support for communities that continue to fall behind.
The real measure of development
The Philippines does not face a choice between fighting hunger and fighting obesity. It must do both, while addressing micronutrient deficiencies and the economic conditions that sustain them.
A country cannot realize its potential when millions of children begin life at a disadvantage that could have been prevented. Nor can it build a healthier workforce by allowing cheap, calorie-dense food to become more accessible than nutritious alternatives.
The goal is not merely to feed more people. It is to ensure that Filipino families can afford and obtain food that supports healthy growth throughout life.
Malnutrition is not only a health problem. It is a failure of coordination, access, and sustained implementation. The Philippines has many of the necessary programs and institutions. What matters now is whether they work together, reach the most vulnerable consistently, and demonstrate results.
A nation’s development ultimately depends not only on what it produces, but also on whether its children receive the nutrition they need to learn, grow, and contribute. On that measure, the fight against malnutrition is inseparable from the country’s future.
rich country like france ay walang yatang pangontra sa rogue AI hacking their frozen foods section. france lately suffered the consequences of not updating their codes resulting in rogue AI interfering and mocking up with the freezer’s temperature and raising it to up to 50 degrees hotter that all frozen foods thawed and become uselesss. same with the food in the giant fridge where fresh milk and other delicatessen like soft cheeses are kept. all become unfit for human consumption and had to be thrown away.
apparently, it is not only the climate that is mocking up with food supply, AI is doing it on the sly too.
in france daw kasi, most of the freezers and fridges in the big food supermarket chains are connected to the internet where wholesalers can easily inventory. unfortunately, these days, anything connected to the internet is fair game to AI. AI has no morals.
we have to be careful too here in philippines that the same thing will not happen to us. my home freezer and fridge are not connected to the internet, I have to manually open them to see what I have got left, whether I need to re-stock.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-13/french-supermarkets-hacked-causing-fires-and-food-loss/107258724
por bida, pati food is not safe from hackers. I hope hackers are affected and left with no food to eat, nakarma.
US Ag subsidiaries are mainly to stabilize market prices in the event of natural disaster or overproduction crashing the food supply. The subsidies are about 1/5 of farmer income, for those farmers who participate in subsidized crop categories. As for cheap imports, those countries who are able to dump crops on the international market are also providing their own subsidies, thus encouraging overproduction, which then gets dumped. So the taxpayers of those countries are also paying for it, somehow.
what’s this I heard! that our vegies kuno are not as nutritious as they were 50yrs ago. apparently soil these days are tired and eroded if not depleted of nutrients being farmed year in and year out. or maybe not so. our farmers use fertilizers to enrich soil and we see all these healthy plants laden with fruits etc. soil could not be that depleted. fertilizers restores nutrients to the soil for plants to use, di ba? also, we now have gm (genetically modified) plants that can survive almost all kinds of weather, canola is example, soy beans too. livestock are also apparently induced with growth hormones that make them ready for the market sooner, stronger fatter with more meat, and less prone to disease.
I haven’t heard anything from an agriculturalist friend with regard to the nutritional value of crops. Though I imagine that compared to 50 years ago crop density was quite a bit less as to allow the land to “rest” a bit. There is also less usage of the traditional method of kaingin (slash and burn) which reduces portions of the forest to ash but the same ash acts as fertilizer for common Philippine crops. In certain areas of Mindanao they still practice kaingin though.
Rather what my agriculturalist friend has told me in long frustrated talks whenever I visit Koronadal (nearby General Santos) is that farmers expect the government-provided fertilizer to dramatically increase crop yields and so sometimes overuse fertilizers, wasting it in run-off or “burning” the crops. So there needs to be more farmer education.
The main problem though is still farm-to-market, which is chiefly a transport issue. A lot of produce and farm products are wasted through spoilage or stays localized where some regions may have too much and others too little. Increased transportation infrastructure would also lay the groundwork for other stuff, like industrialization.
thanks, though in my province, our local market has no problem: fresh produce comes in at 3am before market opens, sourced locally. at the end of the day, fresh produce like vegies are considerably marked down. smart shoppers shop later in the day for tomorrow’s meal. wilted vegies can be revived when dunked in water. meat and fish can be washed, prep and then salted to preserve them, aside from salt, sometimes, we use sugar. sugar can be a bit expensive so we use the rawest form of sugar, they come in blocks and hard as rocks.
Metro Cebu is close enough to agricultural provinces that produce can get there reliably, though there is a lot of spoilage due to unrefrigerated transport even for Cebu province’s smaller geographical area (as I witnessed a number of times riding in the back of a truck going back to Cebu City from Boljoon, Dumanjug, Dalaguete, and similar). Cebu City is also blessed with plenty of seafoods. It’s not uncommon for me to wake up early (3-4AM) when I visit to buy produce from the local taboan (palengke) or from fisherfolk’s landing their fresh catch. I typically avoid Carbon Market as it had become a tourist trap years ago.
So your experience in the city is similar to mine. And our experiences doesn’t change the fact that markets, especially for perishables, are quite regionalized in the Philippines. In terms of fresh food supply each region of the Philippines is more or less needs to be self-sufficient in what they produce, and that’s the problem I’m arguing to be solved. Need to develop better transport so the surplus of certain foodstuffs in one region can be sold to other regions in exchange for what cannot easily be produced in the first region.
When I have worked with farmers on projects in the past, I was just astounded by the amount of loss they face due to wastage during harvesting and post-harvest (including transport phase) spoilage. Production waste = loss profits and a harder path out of poverty = more expensive and less food for non-farming population while decreasing health incomes due to unvaried diets.
I dont know what happened to my 1st comment, so I’ll try to recreate it:
when I was little, we are summat free range and we get our calcium from green leafy vegies like talbos, kangkong that grew wild and also from alogbate (spinach). it is so easy to grow alogbate that almost everyone looked down on poor alogbate as obnoxious weeds.
we get our calcium from dilis and from bagoong, those fermented tiny fishes a bit salty though. we could not afford to buy sardines like ligo from the supermarkets, ligo is like delicacy to us and eaten only on special occasions. our food were not fortified. sometimes, we are given a carton of powdered milk (a kilo) donated from america for us to take home. to be mixed with water but we dont really drink them, most of us are lactose intolerant and powdered milk give us diarrhea.
we get our vit d straight from the sun, we walk to school with no umbrella as we could no afford them, plus we play under the sun, run errands for our parents, fetch water from the well, walis our yard, etc.
it was hard for us to understand why richer kids in our neighborhood didnt get to play much outside, and they are feed daily dose of cod liver oil, the thing smell bad.
we poorer folks were made to believe it is better to eat canned foods, they last much longer and dont spoil easily. farmers dont need to break their backs on labor intensive farmwork when they can just go over to the supermarket and buy food. then entrepreneurs come over, buy farmlands and build houses.
In America as the child of SEA refugees I had a similar childhood to yours, eating the same veggies. Ampalaya, sayote, kalabasa, kamote, and of course the talbos (leafy greens) from those veggies. Also talong, kamatis, upo, kangkong, alogbate (Malabar spinach), watercress. We even “borrowed” (squatted) the empty lot nearby the place we rented to grow our veggies. Protein was mainly canned chicken donated by the US government, which we cooked down with soy sauce similarly to pork floss (rousong). We would sometimes save up to buy a whole baboy from the farm and use every part of the pig, including the blood similar to betamax. Our remaining protein was from fish we caught ourselves at the pier or along the breakwater, or the chickens we raised. In those days the government programs for feeding the poor were not that robust. In any case poor Americans were very ashamed to use food stamps back then.
In addition to delata being associated with “better” as you said, based on my observations, I have a different theory about why poor Filipinos prefer delata over buying fresh foods at the supermarket, taboan, or wet market:
It’s the lack of widespread refrigeration and affordable electricity.
Sometimes we can be myopic in only thinking about our own lived context, but in any other country prior to household refrigeration housewives were also forced to go to the market everyday to purchase fresh food which they would cook within the day. Children would be sent to the corner store (like a predecessor of a convenience store like 7-11) to buy missing ingredients. What was cooked needed to be eaten within the day; at most by the next morning (e.g. English Breakfast, which is usually made using dinner leftovers). So refrigeration, farm mechanization, and the agricultural supply chains that enabled movement from farm-to-market are a time saver in addition to creating access to more fresh, healthier food.
So it’s not a surprise that after WWII the Japanese institutionalized and made policy the “Three Sacred Treasures” (appliances) needed for modern life: Refrigerators, a TV set, washing machines.
The Japanese Three Sacred Treasures were modeled after the Japanese observance of what made American middle class life great. Later Taiwan, South Korea, China, post-Soviet states except those still following Russia also followed this same template.
https://iht.nstm.gov.tw/english/letter/index-1.asp?m=13&m1=11&m2=65&gp=46&gp1=&id=23
In my first comment, I wrote:
While something like the “Three Treasures” symbolize the desired outcomes, there are whole systems that need to be created underneath in order to create that outcome.
thanks, joey. in our village we lived without refrigeration for decades! did not bother us not one bit, though when we go to poblacion (town center) the stores there have fridges and cold pepsi are sold, ice cream too and popsicles. we poor people dont need to drink cold water from the fridge, lukewarm water from the well is just as good. sometimes, when our neighbor butcher a pig, meat is sold and we got the offals, free. we got our own chickens and eggs and sometimes, in exchange for the offal, we give eggs. life was simpler then and less complicated.
still today, people in the villages are neighborly, some are tenured tenants, and share food when harvest is plentiful, though produce that meet the eye test (presentable) are sold in the local market. mushrooms are collected in the lansangan, the runts are shared among neighbors and the better looking ones got sold in the market. everybody knows everybody.
anyhow, our farmers need not follow trends like planting crops that are currently trending where most farmers have the same idea and also planted the same crop (to the exclusion of other crops) thus flooding or saturating the market with much of the same. competition for transport is fierce and 1st to reach the market got sold before all others. farmers may have to diversify crops and not just follow trends blindly.
Yes, I’m not arguing against the rustic life — I find bukid life to be one of the most charming things (for me) about the Philippines, and clearly a lot of people are still “fine” living that way. For myself that is the life I immerse in when I’m in the Philippines. I’m not maarte.
I think it would be fair to say though that given the choice, a Filipino would want to have reliable electricity, a (small) refrigerator, and a form of cooking food that doesn’t involve changing butane (canisters) or manually gathering kahoy.
It might also be fair to say most Filipino farmers and fisherfolk I’ve met want to be able to sell their goods (produce, meat, seafoods) at a fair price without being paid a pittance by middlemen who own the transport, or lose goods to spoilage when they attempt to move product themselves to market.
For these things to happen, better transportation infrastructure needs to exist. Even on relatively compact Cebu Island going from the agricultural area in the highlands like Dalaguete or coastal farm areas like Boljoon and Dumanjug has produce withering under the heat on the coastal highways that ring Cebu Island. Yes, there are some farming areas nearby Cebu City such as in Busay, but the land there is much too small and mountainous for extensive cultivation.
learned about the Chinese treasures from watching a lot of Chinese vertical dramas:
radio
sewing machine
bike
wrist watch
haven’t had time to read up on this
opps, beg your forgiveness, my comments are hay wiring and getting all over the place! I trust you can find them, if you care to look, pls do.
some farmers in our area learned to harvest even before produce are ready to be harvested like tomatoes, bananas, etc. they are harvested green, mature but certainly not ripe. that way, farmers more or less ensure them produce reach their destination just about ripe. the packing crates are also pack with bubbles? sawdust? so produce dont arrive badly bruised, squashed and misshapened.
Of yes, I have seen these packaging improvements as well KB. Certain fruits can continue ripening after being picked. Also, stuff like tomatoes, bananas, talong, kalabasa are still quite tasty even if overripe or squished. They just need to be cooked in a different way… like frying saging, which I really like eating when I have a sweet tooth. I’m referring to leafy greens though which would require refrigerated transport or they will wilt beyond the level that can be revived by placing them in water.
Like you were saying in your other comment, in the past leafy greens weren’t really a problem since one just picked what was growing wide outside one’s doorstep (I did this too as a kid). Unsurprisingly, Americans used to do this too even into the late 1960s. But as population centers urbanize there isn’t any space for veggies to grow wild, or even be planted. All of my properties have big lots since the oldest property was originally built back in the 1950s and the youngest in the 1970s, but current new build homes in the US usually have very tiny lots that only have enough space to pass a trash bin through the side of the house. No space to grow anything.
yeah, now we have frozen vegies in the frozen section of the supermarket, frozen corn, peas, potatoes, etc. frozen meat, fish and poultry too. even frozen meal like pizza!
In the Philippines thinking tends to occur in an encapsulated way that looks to the eventual outcomes rather than the systems which enable the outcomes.
Here we are back to preconditions: “What needs to come first within a sequence?”
When I think about Food Security at a systems level, transport and mechanization comes to mind. Transport gets the farm goods to market or export, while mechanization increases efficiencies. Transport needs to occur before mechanization.
What if we expand out our view to systems-of-systems, where multiple systems mutually complement each other into a self-reinforcing economic loop?
For example: In the 19th-early 20th century US, Transport Infrastructure, Farm Mechanization, and Industrialization are three such systems that increased the other two’s efficiencies in a circular fashion.
But which came first? The answer may be surprising to those who haven’t studied the subject of the Industrial Age, but the foundational precondition was Transport Infrastructure.
The sequence that starts the self-reinforcing economic loop is thus:
Transport -> Light Industrialization -> Farm Mechanization -> Heavy Industrialization -> Heavy Transport.
Each additional step in the sequence reinforces and increases the efficiencies of the prior step, which then loops back around to the pre-conditionality of Transport Infrastructure.
P.S. I originally wrote a much more expansive reply outlining each step, but decided to cut it down.
god bless you, joey! you have spared from excessive reading, my brain usually disconnect from too much reading, and my attention span is shorter than that of a gnat!
😅
have an idea post that tries to do this but on a much simpler and smaller scale. think I need to broaden horizons and travel more to get bolder ideas.
Bukidnon ube farmers secure P35-M deal for export market | Daily Tribune
I heard that ube is now the new craze in israel! the israelis cannot seem to get enough of ube, some ube are used in sweets. it wont be long before other nations clone ube and have their own ube plantation to rival ours. I am thinking of china, though the climate in china may not be ube friendly.