America stress-tested its food system, and it mostly held – Arizona State University

Analysis of U.S. Food Supply Chain Resilience Amid Multiple Crises (2018–2022)

Introduction

In the spring of 2020, widespread images of empty grocery store shelves led to the perception that the United States’ food production system was failing. However, recent research conducted by Arizona State University’s School of Computing and Augmented Intelligence reveals a more nuanced reality. This study emphasizes the importance of strengthening food system resilience in alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

Context and Research Objective

Between 2018 and 2022, the U.S. food system faced a convergence of crises including a trade war with China, catastrophic Midwest floods, the COVID-19 pandemic, and widespread drought. These events created a natural experiment to assess the vulnerabilities and strengths of the national food supply chain. The primary objective was to identify which components of the system were most fragile or resilient, with the goal of informing policies to prevent future disruptions and promote sustainable food security (SDG 2).

Structure of the U.S. Food Supply Chain

Four Key Steps

1. Agricultural Production: Cultivation and harvesting of crops and livestock.
2. Processing: Packaging and transformation of raw agricultural products.
3. Distribution: Transportation infrastructure connecting producers, processors, and consumers.
4. Consumption: Delivery to grocery stores, restaurants, and end consumers.

Regional Specialization and Vulnerabilities

• Florida specializes in orange production.
• California is a major producer of nuts.
• The Midwest dominates corn and soybean production.
• Different regions are susceptible to distinct shocks such as floods (impacting production), trade wars (affecting trade hubs), and pandemics (disrupting processing and service industries).

Findings on Food System Resilience

Distribution System Stability During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Contrary to public perception, the transportation and distribution networks remained operational during the pandemic, supporting SDG 9 by maintaining critical infrastructure. The actual breakdowns occurred in labor availability and processing capacity due to illness and safety measures, causing bottlenecks in harvesting, washing, and packaging. Panic buying further stressed consumption patterns, highlighting the need for responsible consumption practices aligned with SDG 12.

Urban vs. Rural Impact

• Urban areas experienced more severe and prolonged disruptions due to the concentration of food processing and service industries, which were vulnerable to COVID-19 outbreaks.
• Rural areas, with smaller farms and direct access to produce, demonstrated greater adaptability and continuity.
• This contrast underscores the fragility introduced by highly centralized, just-in-time urban food systems and the importance of decentralization for resilience (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Impact of the U.S.–China Trade War on Soybean Markets

Despite stable production volumes, U.S. soybean farmers faced significant revenue losses due to collapsed demand from China and a lack of diversified export markets. This situation revealed a systemic vulnerability related to market concentration and the absence of contingency plans, emphasizing the need for economic diversification and sustainable trade practices (SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth).

System Recovery and Policy Implications

The food system demonstrated resilience by absorbing short-term shocks and recovering within approximately one year. However, focusing solely on visible disruptions risks misdiagnosing systemic weaknesses. Policymakers are encouraged to address structural vulnerabilities, such as over-centralization and reliance on single points of failure, to enhance long-term sustainability and food security (SDG 2, SDG 9).

Critical Risks and Recommendations

“Too Big to Fail” Nodes

• Rail Infrastructure: Centralized grain transportation is vulnerable to labor strikes, threatening supply continuity.
• Meat Processing Plants: Shutdowns of a few large facilities during COVID-19 caused significant protein shortages, disproportionately affecting low-income populations.

Recommendations for Enhancing Food System Resilience

1. Decentralize critical nodes to reduce systemic risk.
2. Identify and monitor key points in the supply chain using existing federal data to inform proactive policy measures.
3. Promote diversified markets and supply sources to mitigate economic vulnerabilities.
4. Encourage responsible consumer behavior to prevent demand shocks.
5. Support infrastructure improvements that align with SDG 9 and SDG 11 to ensure sustainable, resilient food distribution.

Conclusion

This research highlights the complexity and resilience of the U.S. food supply chain amid unprecedented challenges. Aligning food system policies with the Sustainable Development Goals is essential to build a more robust, equitable, and sustainable food future. Understanding the flow of food from farm to fork enables targeted interventions that can safeguard food security, promote sustainable economic growth, and foster resilient communities.

Additional Information

Research at Arizona State University continues to contribute to innovations that support sustainable development and economic leadership. For more information on ASU’s research initiatives, visit researchmatters.asu.edu.

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article focuses on food production, supply chains, and distribution resilience, directly relating to ending hunger and ensuring food security.
2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
   • Discussion on transportation infrastructure, supply chain resilience, and decentralization of critical nodes relates to building resilient infrastructure and fostering innovation.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The article highlights issues such as panic buying and inefficiencies in food processing and distribution, which relate to sustainable consumption and production patterns.
4. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • References to floods, droughts, and other climate-related shocks impacting food production connect to climate action and adaptation.
5. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Labor shortages and impacts on workers in processing plants during the pandemic relate to decent work conditions and economic resilience.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production.
   • Target 2.1: End hunger and ensure access by all people to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food all year round.
2. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
   • Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure.
   • Target 9.4: Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.3: Halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains.
4. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
5. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.8: Protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied to Measure Progress

1. Food Supply Chain Resilience Indicators
   • Volume of food commodities moved between regions (measured via federal freight database).
   • Number of trade partners and volume of food flow between regions (network connectivity and resilience metrics).
   • Recovery time of food supply chains after shocks (e.g., pandemic, trade war, floods).
2. Food Waste and Loss Indicators
   • Quantity of produce left unharvested or rotting in fields.
   • Food availability at retail and consumption points (e.g., grocery store shelf stock levels during crises).
3. Labor and Processing Capacity Indicators
   • Labor shortages in harvesting and processing sectors.
   • Operational status of processing plants during crises.
4. Market Diversification Indicators
   • Number and diversity of buyers for key commodities (e.g., soybean export markets).
   • Price fluctuations and revenue changes for producers during trade disruptions.
5. Infrastructure Vulnerability Indicators
   • Dependency on critical infrastructure nodes (e.g., rail for grain distribution).
   • Impact of infrastructure disruptions on food supply continuity.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.asu.edu