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.

Hebinck, A., J. M. Vervoort, P. Hebinck, L. Rutting, and F. Galli. 2018. Imagining transformative futures: participatory foresight for food systems change. Ecology and Society 23(2):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10054-230216

Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites produced by some filamentous fungi, which can cause toxicity in animal species, including humans. Because of their high toxicological impacts, mycotoxins have received significant consideration, leading to the definition of strict legislative thresholds and limits in many areas of the world. Mycotoxins can reduce farm profits not only through reduced crop quality and product refusal, but also through a reduction in animal productivity and health. This paper briefly addresses the impacts of mycotoxin contamination of feed and food on animal and human health, and describes the main pre- and post-harvest systems to control their levels, including genetic, agronomic, biological, chemical, and physical methods. It so highlights (i) the lack of effective and straightforward solutions to control mycotoxin contamination in the field, at pre-harvest, as well as later post-harvest; and (ii) the increasing demand for novel methods to control mycotoxin infections, intoxications, and diseases, without leaving toxic chemical residues in the food and feed chain. Thus, the broad objective of the present study was to review the literature on the use of ozone for mycotoxin decontamination, proposing this gaseous air pollutant as a powerful tool to detoxify mycotoxins from feed and food.