New Commentary Urges Policy to Combat Rising Food Weaponization

Because of the interconnected food systems of today’s globalized world, the use of food as a weapon of war is more dangerous than ever, and few tools exist for governments to deter the deadly practice, according to a recent commentary in Foreign Affairs, one of the country’s most celebrated and influential foreign policy magazines.

The piece calls for the creation of a new global ban on food weaponization to curb the deliberate disruption, destruction, and manipulation of critical food supplies as a method of warfare.

Zachary Helder, who just graduated from the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs with a Master in Public Affairs, is one of the five co-authors of the article, “Food Weaponization Makes a Deadly Comeback.” The others are former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture Mike Espy, Dan Glickman, and Mike Johanns, and the former global head of corporate affairs at Cargill, Devry Boughner Vorwerk.

The commentary argues that since its invasion of Ukraine, Russia has taken the longstanding and widespread weaponization of food to “a new level” by making one of its military objectives the disruption of the global food supply. Moscow’s actions include bombing granaries in Ukraine, imposing export restrictions, and blockading the Black Sea.

“In an interdependent global economy, food weaponization in one region could affect the food security of all,” the authors write.

Helder, who previously served as a senior adviser for food and agriculture policy in the U.S. House of Representatives, hopes the piece will spark a conversation that results in real action.

“Food weaponization is a resurgent but ancient problem that has become much more dangerous in a globalized world, a reality which I think has been slow to set in,” he said. “For my co-authors, who are widely known and respected voices in food and agriculture, to offer this big idea — a novel treaty framework — means that the piece could make a real difference.”

The authors argue a new framework is necessary because the West currently does not possess an effective means to deter food weaponization on a global scale. In their opinion, international humanitarian law, maritime law, existing trade agreements — and even the Geneva Conventions — all fall short. To remedy the situation, they envision a treaty that would specify in clear terms that no legitimate military purpose exists for attacks on the means of production or distribution of food.

While the authors recognize the challenges of establishing a global treaty, they note that banning food weaponization speaks to the interests of all countries. Food security is, after all, a universal human aspiration, and people everywhere can feel the effects of food weaponization originating in distant places. The war in Ukraine, for example, has helped drive a global food crisis that has left as many as 333 million people at risk of starvation, according to the Foreign Affairs piece.

“This shock to the global food system represents an opportunity to rally the world to ban one of humanity's most shameful and enduring weapons of war,” the authors state.

The commentary summarizes a working paper the co-authors wrote as part of a project in Princeton SPIA’s Center for International Security Studies (CISS) calling for international agreement against food weaponization. That paper arose out of a panel discussion Helder organized last fall at SPIA featuring his future co-authors and Ertharin Cousin, the former executive director of the World Food Program.

SPIA faculty members G. John Ikenberry, CISS’s co-director and the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs, and Miguel A. Centeno, the Musgrave Professor of Sociology and a professor of sociology and international affairs, also became part of the working group that produced the original paper.

"The work of the group also never would have been possible without the incredible resources, minds, and community here at SPIA and Princeton University more broadly,” Helder said. “Faculty and administrators have been extremely generous with their time, providing substantive feedback on our study of this problem and making the logistics of the effort feasible."