This paper summarizes the main findings of the GLAMUR project which starts with an apparently simple question: is “local” more sustainable than “global”? Sustainability assessment is framed within a post-normal science perspective, advocating the integration of public deliberation and scientific research. The assessment spans 39 local, intermediate and global supply chain case studies across different commodities and countries. Assessment criteria cover environmental, economic, social, health and ethical sustainability dimensions. A closer view of the food system demonstrates a highly dynamic local–global continuum where actors, while adapting to a changing environment, establish multiple relations and animate several chain configurations. The evidence suggests caution when comparing “local” and “global” chains, especially when using the outcomes of the comparison in decision-making. Supply chains are analytical constructs that necessarily—and arbitrarily—are confined by system boundaries, isolating a set of elements from an interconnected whole. Even consolidated approaches, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), assess only a part of sustainability attributes, and the interpretation may be controversial. Many sustainability attributes are not yet measurable and “hard” methodologies need to be complemented by “soft” methodologies which are at least able to identify critical issues and trade-offs. Aware of these limitations, our research shows that comparing local and global chains, with the necessary caution, can help overcome a priori positions that so far have characterized the debate between “localists” and “globalists”. At firm level, comparison between “local” and “global” chains could be useful to identify best practices, benchmarks, critical points, and errors to avoid. As sustainability is not a status to achieve, but a never-ending process, comparison and deliberation can be the basis of a “reflexive governance” of food chains.

This article takes a future focus on the direction in which social forces develop the market for animal-friendly products in Europe. On the basis of qualitative data gathered in the context of the European EconWelfare project, the differences across eight European countries are studied. The findings suggest that, given international trade barriers that prevent an improvement of animal welfare through legislation, many stakeholders believe that the market is the most viable direction to improve farm animal welfare. Economic productivity of the chain remains, however, an issue that on a fundamental level conflicts with the objective to improve animal welfare. With the help of a deeper conceptual understanding of willingness to pay for animal welfare, the paper finds that the European market for animal-friendly products is still largely fragmented and that the differences between European countries are considerable. A more animal-friendly future that is achieved through the market will therefore need substantial policy attention from stakeholders in society.

The economic sustainability of agricultural production is a crucial concern for most farmers, especially for pig producers who face dynamic changes in the market. Approaches for economic sustainability assessment found in the literature are mainly focused on the short-term economic viability of the farm and rarely take a long-term perspective. In this paper, we propose and test a new, innovative assessment and aggregation method, which brings about a broader view on more long-term aspects of economic sustainability. This wider view on economic sustainability, in addition to classical concepts such as technical efficiency, labor productivity, and farm profitability, incorporates the assessment of the levels of entrepreneurship, risk management, and the resilience of the invested resources. All indicators were scaled and aggregated using scaling and weighting procedures proposed by experts into subthemes and themes. The methodology was tested on a sample of 131 pig farms located in 6 EU countries: Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland, and Austria. We hypothesized that closed-cycle farms might be economically more sustainable than those farms that are specialized in pig breeding or finishing. The results showed that closed-cycle farms do indeed have advantages in terms of raising healthy animals and having slightly better overall resilience of resources, however specialized breeding and finishing farms appeared to be more sustainable in the areas of profitability, risk management, and reproductive efficiency. Our approach supports evidence-based economic sustainability assessments of pig farms and provides a tool that can be used for economic sustainability improvement strategies for farms.

Priority setting between local versus global food chains continues to be subject of debate among food, rural and agricultural scholars with an interest in how to support more sustainable food provision and consumption patterns. Recently the FP7 European GLAMUR project targeted to assess and compare the performances of local versus global food chains in a systematic way covering multiple performance dimensions. Especially drawing on empirical research on the performances of three Italian and three Dutch pork chains, it will be argued that meaningful performance comparison needs to acknowledge the complex, multi-facetted and time and place specific interaction patterns between (more) global and (more) local pork chains. Therefore, as regards these pork chains, local–global performance comparison is thought to have hardly significance in isolation from complementary “horizontal” (place-based) and “circular” (waste or by-product valorization oriented) assessments. As will be concluded, this methodological complexity of food chain performance comparison doesn’t allow for simple statements regarding the pros and cons of (more) global versus (more) local pork chains. Hence, it is recommended to avoid such less fruitful local–global dichotomy and to concentrate on more policy relevant questions as: how to facilitate fundamentally different resource-use-efficiency strategies and how to optimize the place-specific interaction between more “local” versus more “global” food systems?

The control of the risk factors of animal diseases should be considered as the primary safeguard in livestock farms to prevent the introduction and circulation of pathogens, which can lead to severe productive and economic consequences.

Antimicrobial residues may pose harmful effects on the health of consumers. At the same time, an adequate quality of drinking water for animals is one of the important element to ensure animal welfare and food without antibacterials. The presented study is aimed at estimating the residue levels of antibacterial compounds, such as penicillins, cephalosporin, macrolides, tetracyclines, quinolones, sulphonamides, aminoglycosides, diaminopirymidines, pleuromutilines and lincosamides in meat and on-farm drinking water samples using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), as a part of a surveillance system on pig and broiler farms within the project Healthy Livestock. A total of 870 samples of muscle from pig and broiler, as well as 229 water samples were analysed for antibiotic residues. Samples were collected from farms in EU countries in two steps, before and after implementation of a tailor-made health plan. In muscle samples, the detected concentrations of doxycycline in the post-intervention step (15.9–70.8 µg/kg) were lower than concentrations in the pre-intervention step (20.6–100 µg/kg). In water samples, doxycycline in an average concentration of 119 µg/L in the pre- and 23.1 µg/L in the post-intervention step, as well as enrofloxacin at concentrations of 170 µg/L in the pre- and 1.72 µg/L in the post-intervention step were quantified. Amoxicillin was only present before intervention. The obtained results confirm the effectiveness of the intervention actions. The concentrations of antibiotics in muscles and water were lower after implementation of a health plan on the farms.