The Archive Appetizer: Making Farming Extension Work for Nutrition

There appears to be a resurgence in efforts to ensure that nutrition is integrated into farming practices. A decade ago, we undertook a global study to synthesize experiences on integrating nutrition into Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) — the networks of agents who work directly with farmers worldwide. I think the study remains relevant and sheds light on how to improve EAS for nutrition-sensitive agriculture. In the study we find:

  • Nutrition integration is mostly limited to food availability interventions.
    The most common way nutrition enters EAS is through efforts like home gardening, crop diversification, biofortification (e.g., orange-fleshed sweet potatoes), and reducing post-harvest losses. These focus on increasing the supply of nutritious food, but less attention is given to food access and utilization dimensions of nutrition.

  • Nutrition training for extension agents is inadequate.
    Extension agents typically lack sufficient technical nutrition knowledge and the “soft skills” (communication, gender sensitivity, facilitation) needed to deliver nutrition messages effectively. Training is often short, inconsistent, and without refresher courses or mentorship. Weak career incentives further discourage agents from prioritizing nutrition.

  • Significant challenges hinder integration.
    Barriers include poor or ineffective nutrition training, unclear organizational mandates that overload agents, lack of female representation in the workforce, reduced mobility due to poor resources, and systemic disconnects between agriculture and nutrition sectors (different “languages,” weak coordination, and inadequate resources). These create major constraints on scaling up nutrition-sensitive agriculture.

  • Opportunities exist but remain underutilized.
    Despite challenges, EAS hold promise because they already have reach, trust, and cultural familiarity with rural communities. Key opportunities lie in engaging communities through participatory approaches, creating demand for nutrition (so that households value and request nutrition services), and using innovative communications technologies (ICT, radio, mobile platforms) to reinforce nutrition messages.

This word cloud above is enlightening. It shows the most frequently mentioned keywords by respondents to an online survey question, “What would be considered the greatest challenges in integrating nutrition into EAS?” The font size of the words placed in the word cloud represents their frequency and usefulness. The more prominent (larger text size) the word is in the word cloud, the more frequently it appeared in the online provided. Transportation, task overload, funding, and quality training were considered the most frequent challenges listed in the survey responses.

The takeaway? EAS could be a powerful vehicle for “nutrition-sensitive agriculture,” but only with sustained investment, multisectoral collaboration, and attention to equity.

🔗 A must-read, 10 years standing, for anyone working at the intersection of food, farming, and nutrition! Check out the paper here.

The EAT-Lancet 2.0 Commission: A Roadmap for Healthy, Sustainable, and Just Food Systems

This blog is also cross-posted on Columbia University’s Climate School State of the Planet Blog.

By Jessica Fanzo and Bianca Carducci

The much-anticipated second EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy, Sustainable, and Just Food Systems has been released, building on the landmark 2019 report that first defined the “Planetary Health Diet.” I served as a Commissioner, while my postdoctoral fellow, Bianca Carducci, contributed as an author—helping shape one of the most significant scientific updates in global food systems research.

This new report, EAT-Lancet 2.0, arrives at a moment of heightened urgency. Since 2019, the world has endured pandemic disruptions, rising food prices, intensifying conflicts, accelerating climate impacts, and widening inequities in access to healthy food. The Commission offers an updated framework that integrates health, sustainability, and justice—arguing that food systems must be transformed by 2050 to nourish a projected 9.6 billion people within planetary boundaries.

From EAT-Lancet 1.0 to 2.0: What’s New?

The 2019 Commission was groundbreaking in articulating a recommended global dietary pattern—the Planetary Health Diet (PHD)—that promoted both human health and environmental sustainability. That report, cited over 10,000 times, influenced national policies, UN processes, and city-level actions.

Status of food system pressures across all nine planetary boundaries (indicated by the black dotted pattern) and the food system boundaries (red line)

The 2025 update strengthens the evidence base and significantly broadens the scope. While the first report only gestured toward equity, the second iteration places justice at the center—examining multiple dimensions of justice including distributive fairness, the recognition of marginalized communities, and their representation in governance. The Commission also introduces stronger modeling capacity, using a multi-model ensemble of ten leading agro-economic and environmental models to assess dietary shifts, productivity gains, and reductions in food loss and waste. For the first time, it proposes explicit food system boundaries for climate, biodiversity, land, water, and nutrient cycles, directly linking diets to the Earth’s safe operating space.

The Planetary Health Diet Reaffirmed

At the heart of the Commission is the reaffirmation of the Planetary Health Diet: a largely plant-based diet rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds; complemented by modest amounts of fish, poultry, dairy, and eggs; and low in red meat (one serving a week), added sugars, and saturated fats. Overall, the Diet allows two servings of animal-source foods per day—drawn from fish, yogurt, milk, cheese, or meat.

Updated evidence shows adherence to this diet reduces all-cause mortality by 28 percent in large cohort studies—equivalent to 15 million deaths averted annually—while lowering incidence of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and several cancers. It also appears to protect against cognitive decline and unhealthy aging.

Importantly, the PHD is not a universal prescription but a flexible framework adaptable to cultural traditions and local foodways. Many Indigenous, Asian, and Mediterranean diets already align closely, underscoring the importance of protecting traditional diets alongside innovating new ones. Safeguarding food heritage, the report argues, is as vital as advancing nutrition science.

Food Systems and Planetary Boundaries

The Commission confirms that food systems are the leading driver of planetary boundary transgression. Agriculture and food produce 16–17.7 gigatons of greenhouse gases annually—about 30 percent of the global total. Unsustainable land conversion, mainly deforestation, is the primary driver of biodiversity loss, while fertilizer overuse and poor nutrient management account for nearly all nitrogen and phosphorus boundary overshoots. Irrigation and soil degradation further stress freshwater systems.

To reverse these trends, the report calls for halting conversion of intact ecosystems, restoring tropical and temperate forests, and adopting ecological intensification that regenerates soils, sequesters carbon, and reduces reliance on chemical inputs. Modeling shows that widespread adoption of the Planetary Health Diet, coupled with ambitious climate policies, could slash greenhouse gases, land use, and water footprints—even while feeding a larger global population.

Justice as the Third Pillar

The global status of social foundations in food systems

The most distinctive advance of EAT-Lancet 2.0 is its centering of justice—largely absent in the first report. Food systems are not just failing the planet; they are failing billions of people. Nearly half the world cannot afford a healthy diet. Food system workers often face low wages, unsafe conditions, and little representation, while marginalized groups—women, children, Indigenous peoples, and low-income communities—bear disproportionate burdens.

The Commission defines a just food system as one that ensures: equitable access to affordable, healthy diets; supportive food environments; the right to a clean environment and stable climate; decent work with fair wages and safe conditions; and genuine representation in decision-making. Healthy diets, it concludes, are both a human right and a shared responsibility.

Eight Pathways for Change

The report outlines priority solutions to transform food systems by 2050. These include reshaping food environments so healthy diets are affordable and accessible, while protecting traditional diets that already support planetary health. On the production side, scaling up sustainable agriculture and aquaculture practices, halting deforestation, and restoring degraded ecosystems are essential. Equally critical is halving food loss and waste from farm to household.

The Commission also underscores the importance of social protection schemes: living wages and decent work for food system laborers, inclusive governance, and targeted support to marginalized groups. Together, these actions represent a roadmap for healthier diets, fairer societies, and a safer planet.

The Economics of Action vs. Inaction

Transforming food systems requires investment, but the cost of inaction is far greater. Food systems generate about $15 trillion annually, yet impose $12 trillion in hidden health and environmental costs. Redirecting subsidies from harmful practices—such as fertilizer overuse or overproduction of unhealthy foods—towards regenerative agriculture and nutritious diets could rapidly shift the balance toward net benefits. The Commission emphasizes that realigning financial incentives, backed by international cooperation, is essential to accelerate change.

Why This Report Matters

EAT-Lancet 2.0 is more than another scientific assessment—it is a blueprint for survival. It sets quantitative guardrails for diets and production, integrates justice into sustainability, and demonstrates that systemic transformation is both necessary and achievable. Humanity already produces enough calories to feed everyone, yet billions go hungry while others overconsume in ways that destabilize the planet. The Commission underscores that food is both a major driver of today’s crises and one of the most powerful levers for hope.

Conclusion: A Shared Responsibility

The Commission makes clear that healthy diets are a fundamental right and collective duty. Achieving them will require systemic transformation in how we produce, consume, govern, and value food. By mid-century, that means halting deforestation, halving food waste, scaling sustainable agriculture and aquaculture practices, and ensuring just labor systems.

The evidence shows this shift is possible and that the benefits—healthier lives, more resilient ecosystems, and fairer societies—will far outweigh the costs. The choice is stark: continue on the path of ecological overshoot, inequity, and ill health, or build food systems that nourish both people and planet. The EAT-Lancet 2.0 provides not just the science, but the moral imperative, to make bold changes.

Food Bytes: September 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

Food Bytes is back after taking August off (already practicing my ferragosta!). I think I say this every month, but it is hard to keep up with all the fantastic science and reports coming out. So let’s get to it.

The “Feeding Profit” report, published by UNICEF, argues that today’s food environments are systematically failing children by flooding markets and everyday spaces with cheap, ultra-processed foods that are aggressively marketed, thereby limiting access to nutritious choices. The data support this. Globally, 5% of children under the age of 5 and 20% of children and adolescents aged 5–19 live with overweight, and for the first time in 2025, obesity among 5–19-year-olds (9.4%) has overtaken underweight (9.2%). In many low- and middle-income countries, the prevalence of overweight individuals has more than doubled since 2000, and these countries now account for 81% of the global overweight burden (compared to 66% in 2000). The report finds that children’s diets are increasingly dominated by ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks, displacing more nutritious options, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, pulses, and animal-source foods (see the figure on the right). It highlights that for infants and children aged 6–23 months, only a minority meet minimum acceptable diet standards — e.g., globally, ~61% meet the minimum meal frequency standard, but only ~32% achieve the minimum dietary diversity (i.e., ≥ 5 food groups). It emphasizes that food environments—encompassing pricing, availability, marketing, and convenience—strongly shape diet quality, and that poor diets are not merely individual choices but are structurally driven by unhealthy food systems that food and beverage companies often interfere with and manipulate. Finally, it advocates for reforms such as reallocating agricultural and trade subsidies toward nutritious foods, regulating marketing and labeling, and enhancing social protection to make healthy diets more accessible and affordable.

Speaking of unhealthy foods, the Nature article, “Are ultra-processed foods really so unhealthy? What the science says,” scrutinizes whether the broadly used category of ultra-processed foods is scientifically justified, arguing that the classification may be overly heterogeneous to guide nutrition policy. While numerous observational studies link the consumption of ultra-processed foods to obesity, metabolic disease, and mortality, critics counter that many of these associations stem from confounding factors (e.g., overall diet quality, energy intake) rather than the definition of ultra-processed foods itself. The piece calls for improved definitions, mechanistic studies, and nuance in policy action, suggesting that a one-size-fits-all ban or tax on these foods may misfire without a clearer scientific basis. I think many working in this space disagree….

The study “Benchmarking progress in non-communicable diseases” analyzes changes in cause-specific mortality across 185 countries from 2010 to 2019, utilizing age-specific death rates and life-table methods to estimate the probability of dying from non-communicable diseases before the age of 80. During that period, non-communicable disease mortality declined in 82% of countries for females and 79% for males; however, the pace of decline slowed compared to 2001–2010, and in a minority of countries, the probability increased. Circulatory diseases contributed most to mortality reductions, while neuropsychiatric disorders, pancreatic and liver cancers, and diabetes offset gains in many settings.

Moving on to the area of sustainable diets, an interesting report , Meat vs EAT, was released last week, revealing a coordinated online backlash against the EAT Lancet Commission report. The backlash was driven by a network of 100 mis-influencers responsible for nearly 50% of posts and over 90% of engagement during the initial backlash. ​ Key hashtags, such as #Yes2Meat, reached 26 million people, surpassing the 25 million reached by pro-EAT-Lancet posts, with critical messages being shared six times more frequently than supportive ones (see Figure to the left). ​ Industry ties were evident, while mis-influencers monetized their advocacy through books, subscriptions, and events. None of this is shocking. With the second Commission report coming out this week, and the current global political turmoil, it will be interesting to see how they address the Commission's findings and its scientists. Their playbook? Attack the scientists, not the science. Boooo!

Let’s stay on this broad topic. A new study highlights the significant health impacts of anthropogenic climate change, including deaths, illnesses, and disabilities, with a focus on heat-related mortality, extreme weather events, and diseases like malaria and dengue. While most research has concentrated on high-income countries and temperature-related risks, recent studies have expanded to include air pollution, child health, and displacement, revealing substantial economic losses valued in billions annually. ​ The authors emphasize the need for more geographically diverse and equitable research, particularly in the global south, to better understand and address the health consequences of climate change.

Speaking of climate change, this study uses US household food purchase data (2004–2019) linked with meteorological records to quantify the effect of temperature on added sugar consumption. Results show that intake rises sharply between 12 °C and 30 °C (~0.7 g °C⁻¹), driven primarily by sugar-sweetened beverages and frozen desserts, with disproportionately larger effects among lower-income and less-educated groups. Projections under a 5 °C warming scenario suggest average daily added sugar intake will rise by ~3 g per person by 2095, exacerbating nutrition-related health risks and inequalities. Interesting study? Yes, we need to understand how climate extreme events impact dietary quality and nutrition outcomes. But are the findings significant? Probably not…3 grams of sugar ain’t much…

And to pivot a bit, the Lancet published "Getting back on track to meet global anaemia reduction targets: a Lancet Haematology Commission." The Commission assesses why the world is far off track to meet global anaemia reduction targets and provides a roadmap to get efforts back on course. As it stands, anaemia affects nearly 2 billion people worldwide, and most countries are far off track to meet reduction targets. Five takeaways:

  1. Anaemia has multiple drivers, from poverty, food insecurity, and poor WASH to infections, chronic diseases, and inherited blood disorders. Recognising this complexity is key to designing context-specific solutions.

  2. Reliable surveillance is patchy. Nearly half of the countries lack recent national anaemia data for women or children, and almost none collect comprehensive cause-specific information. Better integrated data platforms are urgently needed.

  3. Iron deficiency remains the leading cause, but infections, inflammation, micronutrient deficiencies, blood loss, and environmental stressors (like air pollution and climate change) all play major roles. Interventions must address this whole spectrum.

  4. Reducing anaemia requires strong governance across health, nutrition, and social sectors. Equity and human rights should be central, ensuring programmes reach the most vulnerable while being tailored to local contexts.

  5. The current WHO target of a 50% reduction by 2030 is unattainable with existing tools. A new evidence-based framework suggests a more realistic 12–22% global reduction, with country-specific goals that balance ambition and feasibility.

A companion article, “Anaemia in a time of climate crisis” published by your Food Archiver surveys how climate change — through effects like extreme heat, altered rainfall, and reduced agricultural yields — threatens to exacerbate global anaemia. It argues that vulnerable populations (especially women and children) in already high-burden settings will face worsening micronutrient deficits unless interventions integrate climate resilience into nutrition and health systems.

Gotta love Molly, oh how I miss the 80s!

A few interesting media pieces for your reading pleasure:

  • Sushi has become the grab-and-go, convenient food. Interesting how something raw has become so mainstream. (love the shoutout to Molly Ringwald in Breakfast Club)

  • An article on the beauty and craft of pizza.

  • I recently traveled to Mexico City and had a hard time finding good Mexican food. Why? Damn gringos are all moving there demanding, you guessed it, sushi and pizza.

  • Fantastic piece by Illana Schwartz, a Columbia University climate student, on the climate vulnerability of NY’s food supply, particularly the Hunts Point Cooperative Market, the point of distribution for 35 percent of the meat that enters the five boroughs. That’s more than 1 billion pounds of meat annually.

  • A Guardian article on why meat’s contribution to climate is often ignored by the media.

  • Breaking the trend of consolidation, Kraft Heinz, the makers of Kraft Mac and Cheese, Lunchables, and, you guessed it, Heinz ketchup, is breaking up:

  • Last, an important article on what happens to children when they become increasingly acutely malnourished. Recall that FEWS Net and others have declared that many parts of Gaza are now experiencing famine. Incredibly tragic.

And some final random thoughts. The great Italian actress Claudia Cardinale passed away this week. We were inspired to watch her in Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo. Such an insane movie. Even better is to watch the making of it in the documentary, “Burden of Dreams.” Herzog is at his finest when he discusses nature and the jungle…His words resonate on the fragility of our world and humans in it.

The Archive Appetizer: Nutrients on the Line When Trade Walls Rise

I have been going through old papers and this one from 2018 is a banger, and highly relevant to the current tariff wars. The paper examined how international food trade influences the global distribution of nutrients. Instead of focusing only on food quantity, we assessed whether trade helps countries meet macro- and micronutrient needs, and what happens under a no-trade scenario. Our central question was to determine whether trade improves nutritional equity across countries and what risks protectionist trade policies pose to food security.

Three Key Findings:

1. Global adequacy exists—but is unevenly distributed.

If nutrients were equitably distributed, current global food supply could meet average dietary needs for all major nutrients, with huge surpluses for protein and vitamin B12. However losses due to waste, conversion, and unequal distribution mean that many countries fall short, especially for micronutrients like folate and iron.

2. Trade improves nutrient equity, especially for poorer countries.

International trade reduces inequality in nutrient distribution. Without trade, disparities would be much higher, and between 146–934 million fewer people could be potentially nourished, depending on the nutrient. Low-income countries generally obtain access to nutrients through trade, except for iron and folate. The map below shows the change in the number of people who could be nourished without trade. For each country, the number of people (in millions) who could be nourished under current (average of 2007–2011) scenarios was subtracted from the number of people who could be potentially nourished under a no-trade scenario. Map breaks correspond to minimum, first quantile, medium, third quantile, and maximum for each nutrient.

3. Protectionist policies threaten nutrition security.

While trade is not perfect—since traded foods are often low in micronutrient content and not equally accessible to the poor—it still plays a critical role in helping countries meet nutrient needs. For some critical micronutrients—like iron and folate—trade does not consistently improve availability, and in some cases makes it worse. This highlights both the benefits and vulnerabilities of relying on global markets for nutrition but also, restricting trade would likely worsen global undernutrition and inequality in access to key nutrients.

Check out the paper here.

Other Worlds, Other Dreams

As we wind down our time in Gotham and prepare to move abroad yet again, I’ve been reflecting on just how much New York has shaped my life. Since May 2000, my partner and I have lived here on and off, always orbiting back after stints in Nairobi, Rome, DC, and Bologna—four returns in total. In twenty-five years, we’ve logged about fifteen in New York, scattered across nine different neighborhoods. We are not people of permanence.

When someone asked if I’ll miss New York, my answer was immediate: I’ve already missed it for a long time. Not the city I live in today, but the New York that once was. The New York of the late 1990s and early 2000s, right before 9/11. Even in the aftermath of that day, with all its upheaval, I carried on a love affair with the city for another ten years. But eventually the itch came—the yearning to leave. Part of it was exhaustion. New York is relentless: chaotic, loud, dirty, and unforgiving. It wears you down. Another part was the way it shapes you into someone who sees the city as the only place that matters, the one true capital of the world.

Those early 2000s—the “naughts”—in Gotham were formative for me. You could still afford to live here. Brooklyn was gritty and diverse, its edges not yet polished down. There was a music scene that felt electric, with bands like The Strokes, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and Interpol defining the soundtrack of the city. Hearing “Someday” by The Strokes pulls me straight into another era of New York—one that has, in large part, slipped away for good. You could eat well and cheap. You could stumble upon weirdness, originality, and true eccentricity across neighborhoods. That New York is gone, and I yearn for it daily.

The city didn’t change overnight. Gentrification and homogenization creep in slowly—minute by minute—until one day the skyline, the storefronts, even the people feel unrecognizable. Maybe it’s my age, but when I walk through the East Village or Williamsburg now, what once looked like a Saturday Night Live hipster parody has hardened into something even duller: tech bros and young influencers who talk, dress, and act in indistinguishable ways. Is everyone in this city from Ohio (apologies Devo, Chrissie Hynde and Eugene Lim!)? The former eccentricity of New Yorkers—the artists, the misfits, the characters—is gone. The mom-and-pop shops, diners, and dive bars have been swallowed by banks, chain stores, and pharmacies. Inventions like Dime Square and other fabricated micro-hoods, drenched in performative douchebaggery, have hollowed out the authentic, polyglot, diverse neighborhoods that once defined New York. Even the new green spaces look curated and glossy, like architectural renderings come to life. As LCD Soundsystem sang: “New York I love you, but you’re letting me down.”

Yes, New York has always struggled with decay and dysfunction—the litter, the scaffolding, the crumbling infrastructure. That’s not new. What’s changed are the people and the prices. Where the city once drew dreamers, hustlers, and artists, it now caters to a wealthy few who can pay $10,000 a month for rent or $200 for a couple of veggie burgers and beers in the Village (yes, these are indeed the real costs). The city feels hollowed out by inequity. Even walking—once the one free, joyful thing every New Yorker did—has become dangerous, with streets overtaken by e-bikes, delivery scooters, and battery-powered chaos.

This little video is a time capsule we made over 15 years ago at Pier 40 on the Hudson, back when the piers were abandoned. We liked it that way—wild, crumbling, full of possibility. Now it’s a manicured park, $100 million later, surrounded by the glass spires of Hudson Yards. In that old video, the soundtrack was The Chameleons’ “Less Than Human.” Looking back, the title feels prophetic.

And so, once again, it’s time to say goodbye. I doubt we’ll come back. Each return has carried the false hope of finding the New York we first knew twenty-five years ago, only to be confronted with its absence. As Arundhati Roy once recalled a friend telling her, “You’ve lived too long in New York… There are other worlds. Other kinds of dreams.”

Illuminating a climate-resilient future for pastoralists

Pastoralists—communities who raise livestock in arid and semi-arid lands—are central to food security in Kenya and much of Africa. They practice transhumance, moving herds seasonally between grazing areas to match forage availability, and employ extensive knowledge of variable landscapes to thrive where others struggle. Their mobility, social networks, and deep environmental understanding make them incredibly resilient. Pastoral communities supply large shares of milk and meat in regions where farming is nearly impossible.

Photo taken by Jess in northeastern Kenya, 2008

Pastoralism covers more than half of the Earth’s land surface, supporting hundreds of millions of people, especially across Africa and Asia, in areas where conventional farming doesn’t work. In Africa alone, the African Union estimates that pastoralism contributes between 10% and 44% of national GDP in pastoralist-reliant countries—underlining its economic significance and the structural risks of sidelining these communities.

But their way of life is under increasing threat. Worsening droughts, shrinking access to water and grazing land, and competition over scarce resources have made it harder to sustain herds. Many pastoralists, especially the younger generation, are leaving behind livestock herding for other livelihoods, but these alternatives are often limited, insecure, or inaccessible to the poorest. As one pastoralist put it starkly: “The future for pastoralists is dark unless something is done.”

A new study published in Ecology and Society, led by Elizabeth Fox (now at Cornell), who at the time was a postdoc in my group, in collaboration with colleagues in Kenya, worked with Borana and Turkana communities in Isiolo County, Kenya, using photos and interviews to capture pastoralists’ own perspectives on what’s happening. People described how climate change has eroded traditional coping strategies, such as moving with herds or relying on community networks. Land once shared is now fenced off for farming, conservation, or settlement. Traditional authority structures have weakened, and political representation remains limited. Many participants felt neglected by leaders and frustrated by top-down programs that provide mismatched support—like giving seeds when there’s no water. Some have turned to short-term survival strategies such as charcoal burning, which are environmentally destructive and unsustainable.

Below shows the story of pastoralists – through their eyes – using photo elicitation in which pastoralists were given cameras, asked to take pictures about the “story of pastoralism” and then select the photographs that were most salient to them. They chose the titles and descriptions of each photograph.

Yet, pastoralists also identified opportunities for a more hopeful future (see table below). They pointed to the need for practical interventions: better veterinary care and water infrastructure, land rights and grazing corridors, fair livestock markets, training for value-added businesses, and education that creates diverse job opportunities without abandoning pastoral traditions. Most importantly, they emphasized being included in decisions about their future. The takeaway is clear: pastoralists already know what they need. The challenge is for governments and development partners to listen, invest in equity, and support solutions that allow pastoralist communities to thrive while adapting to climate change. Without this, not only pastoralists but also the broader food systems they sustain stand to lose.

This pastoral way of life is vulnerable unless safeguarded. Policies that restrict mobility, privatize grazing lands, or ignore pastoral voices threaten not only their survival—but the broader ecological balance they help maintain. Supporting pastoralists with secure grazing corridors, recognition of communal rights, and adaptive governance isn’t charity—it’s an act of stewardship for resilient, sustainable futures.

This research was just published in Ecology and Society (2025) and is available here.

From Idea to Impact: Building Tools to Track Food Systems

When I reflect on the origins of the Food Systems Dashboard and the Food Systems Countdown Initiative, it really began back in 2017. At the time, I was the team lead in developing the High-Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) report on nutrition and food systems. During that process, my colleague, Lawrence Haddad, the head of Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) who also served on the report, kept coming back to the same idea: wouldn’t it be incredibly useful to have a tool, a dashboard, that could bring together key food system indicators to better assess how food systems are functioning? Specifically, we wanted to understand their performance in terms of improving diets, nutrition, health, and environmental outcomes.

There was already a wealth of food-related data out there, of course — FAOSTAT being the most prominent example. That platform, managed by the Food and Agriculture Organization, offers a vast array of agricultural production and trade indicators. But what was missing was an accessible, visually engaging tool that integrated indicators across the entire food system — not just agriculture — and focused explicitly on outcomes related to diet quality, nutrition, and sustainability.

So in 2019, Lawrence and I decided to move from idea to action. We began building the Food Systems Dashboard. We brought on students and staff from Johns Hopkins and GAIN. Together, we started to build a platform that was both data-rich and easy to navigate.

We grounded the dashboard in the HLPE food systems framework — now widely recognized — which spans food supply chains, food environments, and consumer behavior, with outcomes ranging from nutrition and health to environmental sustainability, social equity, and livelihoods. Our first version of the dashboard included a modest set of indicators mapped to that framework, but it laid the foundation for what would become a comprehensive tool for food systems monitoring and decision-making.

Over the years, the Food Systems Dashboard went through many iterations — from shifts in design to new web development partners — as we refined both its functionality and user experience. Today, we’re proud of what it’s become: a visually appealing, highly interactive platform that includes over 400 publicly available indicators spanning the breadth of food systems. The dashboard allows users to explore global trends and diagnostics, as well as dive into subnational data for a growing number of countries.

One of our core priorities throughout has been accessibility. You don’t need to be a data scientist to use the dashboard. We designed it to be intuitive and user-friendly, making it easier for policymakers, researchers, advocates, and even the general public to understand how food systems are performing across nutrition, health, equity, and sustainability dimensions. It’s taken us six or seven years of steady development to get here, and the work is ongoing.

Then, in 2021, the UN Food Systems Summit took place — a pivotal moment for the global food systems community. But as the summit unfolded, it became clear that something was missing: an accountability mechanism. There was no system in place to track whether countries were making meaningful investments in their food systems, implementing reforms, or strengthening governance. We realized there was an urgent need for a global monitoring and accountability framework.

Drawing on the lessons from the Dashboard, we launched the Food Systems Countdown Initiative (FSCI), bringing together more than 40 food systems experts from every region of the world. Our goal was to design a scientifically robust, policy-relevant framework that could monitor progress across five critical domains:

1.     Diets, nutrition, and health

2.     Environment, natural resources and production

3.     Livelihoods, poverty and equity

4.     Resilience

5.     Governance

We identified 50 core indicators and mapped them to these domains, creating a baseline for global food systems accountability. Since then, we’ve published a series of papers — starting with the architecture paper that outlined the rationale and framework, followed by a baseline assessment, and most recently, a trends analysis. Each peer-reviewed paper is accompanied by a more accessible policy brief to ensure broader reach and usability.

This year, we’re adding another key layer: benchmarks for each of the 50 indicators. These benchmarks help assess how far the world is from reaching key 2030 targets, highlighting areas of progress — and places where we’re falling behind. Keep an eye out for that paper when it is published later this year, early next year.

Together, the Food Systems Dashboard and the Food Systems Countdown Initiative offer two complementary tools for evidence generation and accountability. They help bring data to the center of food systems transformation — enabling better decisions, identifying where interventions are most needed, and holding governments and other actors accountable for action (or inaction). Ultimately, we aim to spotlight both the possibilities and the pitfalls — to show where food systems are delivering on their promise, and where deeper change is urgently required.

As food systems become more complex and interlinked, the tools used to measure and monitor them must evolve accordingly. In a new IFPRI publication—What do we know about the future of food systems—we call for a new generation of indicators and data systems that can capture the synergies, trade-offs, and dynamic interactions within food systems, while remaining transparent, interoperable, and policy-relevant. Our chapter highlights the role of initiatives like the FSCI to monitor global progress, and argues for integrating foresight modeling, historical data, and systems science into measurement efforts. Ultimately, we make the case for harmonized, forward-looking data infrastructure that enables smarter decision-making and accountability in food systems transformation.

Here are some resources where you can find lots of material on both tools:

Food Systems Dashboard website

FSD brief

Food Systems Countdown Initiative website

FSCI brief

Global Hunger Is Falling Slightly—But Food Remains Too Expensive for Billions

Every July, the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report drops — and for anyone tracking global hunger, diet affordability, or food policy, it’s essential reading. Produced by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and its partners, SOFI offers the most authoritative annual snapshot of where we stand on food security and nutrition.

This year’s report shows cautious progress: global hunger is down slightly, but the cost of a healthy diet remains out of reach for billions. Inflation, inequality, and fragility are reshaping who eats well — and who doesn’t.

HUNGER: Some Progress, But Too Many Still Go Hungry

Hunger, as measured by the Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU), dropped from 8.7% in 2022 to 8.2% in 2024 — a reduction of 15 million people since last year and 22 million since 2022. That means an estimated 673 million people still go to bed hungry. It’s progress, and progress is worth celebrating, especially after several years of worsening trends.

There have been gains in food security in Asia and Latin America, but hunger has worsened in Africa. In 2024, over 20% of Africa’s population — 307 million people — are estimated to be hungry.

Women and rural communities continue to be disproportionately affected by food insecurity.

If this trajectory continues, 511 million people are projected to be hungry by 2030 — 60% of them in Africa. Meanwhile, the global prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity — which captures people's experiences of constrained access to adequate food — dipped slightly from 28.4% in 2023 to 28.0% in 2024, affecting 2.3 billion people.

Prevalence of undernourishment from 2015 to 2024 across world, regions and sub-regions (FAO SOFI 2025)

FOOD AFFORDABILITY: Still Out of Reach for Billions

A healthy diet remains unaffordable for 2.6 billion people — though that’s down from 2.9 billion in 2020. Fruits, vegetables, and animal source foods (ASF) consistently cost the most per calorie, while ultra-processed foods are often the cheapest (a data point not in the report, but worth noting — nearly 60% of the American diet is made up of highly processed foods).

Affordability challenges are rising in many places, particularly in low-income countries. The inability to afford a healthy diet disproportionately affects the poor and is a major driver of food insecurity and malnutrition.

The millions who cannot afford a healthy diet from 2017 to 2024: low to high income countries (FAO SOFI 2025)

FOOD INFLATION: A Major Driver of Unaffordability

Global food prices surged in 2023 and 2024, pushing the average cost of a healthy diet to $4.46 PPP per person per day — up from $4.30 in 2023 and $4.01 in 2022. Food price inflation jumped from 2.3% in 2020 to 13.6% in 2023, far outpacing headline inflation (8.5%).

Unlike commodity price indices that track items like soybeans or sugar, this metric reflects the cost of what people actually eat. And those costs are going up — fast.

WHY FOOD INFLATION? It's Not Just the War and COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine triggered dramatic spikes in global food commodity prices in 2021 and 2022, amplified further by rising energy costs. In the U.S. and the euro area, these shocks explained 47% and 35% of peak food inflation, respectively. The rest came from other factors: higher labor costs, exchange rate shifts, increased profit margins along supply chains, and extreme weather events that hit major breadbasket regions.

Meanwhile, governments injected $17 trillion in fiscal support during the pandemic, while consumption rebounded sharply in 2022. The U.S. dollar appreciated by over 20% compared to low- and middle-income country currencies by 2022, and the U.S. Federal Reserve expanded the monetary supply by $2.2 trillion over four years. The result? Domestic food inflation has remained stubbornly high.

WHO IS MOST IMPACTED? The Poor, Women, and Rural Communities

Food inflation hits low-income households the hardest, since they spend a larger share of their income on food. In many countries, wages haven’t kept pace. Purchasing power for food continues to vary widely, especially in fragile and conflict-affected settings like Syria.

A 10% increase in food prices is associated with a 3.5% rise in food insecurity, a 5.5% rise in child wasting, and a 3.5% rise in stunting.

Food price inflation as compared to headline inflation and food the consumer price index (FAO SOFI 2025)

NUTRITION: Mixed News

There’s been slow but real progress on reducing childhood stunting — down from 26.4% in 2012 to 23.2% in 2024. Given how hard it is to shift chronic undernutrition, this is meaningful progress but still way too slow. Wasting is flatlined and anemia among women has worsened. But obesity is rising across all age groups. And globally, we’re not on track to meet any of the major nutrition targets.

What can be done?

There’s no silver bullet — but there are well-known, proven policy actions:

  • Subsidize healthy foods for low-income families

  • Expand climate insurance and risk protection for farmers

  • Reduce trade restrictions that limit food exports

  • Scale social protection programs to shield vulnerable households

  • Ensure transparent monetary policy to tame inflation

  • Invest in agri-food R&D, transport and storage infrastructure, and real-time market information systems to build long-term resilience and reduce volatility.

I spoke to CBS Evening News last night, summarizing the latest. Check out the video below.



Food Bytes: July 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

So much for the summer slowdown. This past month has seen a deluge of new reports, papers, and commentary on food systems, climate change, and health. It’s hard to keep up — maybe even overwhelming. As Dennis Hopper famously said in Apocalypse Now, “Zap ’em with your sirens!” We seem to be doing just that. Maybe we have to. With policymakers tuning out, turning inward, or dropping out (apologies to Timothy Leary), the push to break through the noise is relentless—and admirable. People are working tirelessly to get the message across.

But is it working? There’s so much noise now that it’s hard to know where the signal is.

Still, in the middle of the flurry, don’t forget to pause. Listen to some good music (here’s a summertime playlist I made a few years ago). Step into the sun. Enjoy every sandwich. We lost some legends this month—David Nabarro and Gretel Pelto in the food world, and Ozzy Osbourne, Chuck Mangione, and Sly Stone in the music world. A reminder: every day is something to behold, and none of us knows how long we’ve got. TOMORROW IS NOT GUARANTEED.

Now, on to Food Bytes. It’s the dog days of summer, and we’ve got a lot to cover—some good, some bad, and some downright ugly. Let’s get into it.

——-———————————————————————

Yes, experts are still debating how to feed the world, and Mike Grunwald’s recently published book, We Are Eating the Earth, has sparked some of the discourse. Hannah Ritchie, from Our World In Data, also with an amazing Substack, lays out some of the disagreements here. According to Climate Works, some actors perpetuate false narratives that distort the public's understanding of food systems, and the global community must actively dismantle these narratives to enable a shift toward truly sustainable, healthy, and equitable food systems. One solution that keeps coming up is “regenerative ag.” Speaking of powerful actors, the WBSCD argues that one way to feed the world is through regenerative agriculture. They seem to have the answers with their new global framework.

A slew of papers have been published in the last month on feeding the world under a changing climate. Here are a few highlights. This new paper in ERL shows that in 2024—the first year globally to exceed 1.5 °C warming—extreme heat directly triggered food price spikes for specific commodities, creating broader risks such as worsening economic inequality, societal instability, and pressure on health and monetary systems as climate extremes intensify. The figure to the right shows the climatological context of recent climate-induced food price spikes. Yikes. In this Nature paper, even when accounting for real‑world farmer adaptations across six major staple crops in 12,658 subnational regions, global warming of each additional 1 °C is estimated to reduce crop production by ≈120 kcal/person/day or 4.4% of recommended intake. Adaptation strategies and income growth only mitigate ~12% of those losses by century’s end under a moderate‑emissions scenario—leaving substantial residual yield declines across all staples except rice. Oh me, Oh my. What about key regions? This paper, published in PNAS, analyzed ten sub-Saharan African countries and found that cereal self-sufficiency increased from 84% to 92% between 2010 and 2020. This increase was attributed to yield improvements (44%), cropland expansion (34%), and a crop shift toward maize (22%). To sustain self-sufficiency by 2050 without further land expansion requires boosting annual yield growth rates from ~20 to 58 kg/hectare/year—implying a threefold increase in fertilizer use and substantial investments in agronomic, socioeconomic, and policy areas.

The United States seems to be in a mood of dismantling. Is that an understatement? 😳 Congress passed a bill to undo climate progress — a self-inflicted tragedy of planetary proportions. The “big, beautiful bill” will continue to roll out subsidies for big agriculture and reduce social protection policies to help feed the hungry. This new kind of American exceptionalism will trigger all kinds of problems, and Tracy Kidder chronicles the hunger one. Meanwhile, on the frontlines, immigrants are the backbone (visualized by the Guardian) of our food system — despite policies aimed at changing that. In the fields of California, as shown in this gripping documentary, toil and hope live side by side. The Food Security Leadership Council, launched with Carey Fowler at the helm, will explore how the US can re-engage in ensuring global food security. God speed Carey… god speed….

One of the most egregious parts of the so-called ‘big beautiful bullshit bill’ is how it undermines renewables to prop up coal and fossil fuels. Removing fossil fuels from the food system will necessitate a completely new vision for how food systems are operated and managed. Following the success of its fantastic limited series podcast, IPES has released a report that argues for breaking our addiction. The report reveals that global food systems are profoundly dependent on fossil fuels—accounting for roughly 15% of all fossil fuel use and 40% of petrochemicals—mainly through synthetic fertilizers, ultra‑processed foods, and plastic packaging, creating a critical yet overlooked climate blind spot. More on these foods and plastics in a bit.

Speaking of accelerating climate change, extreme events keep comin’ and are having deadly consequences. Droughts are hitting where you’d least expect — and your grocery bill knows it. The Mekong and Mexico are two such places. Speaking of droughts, this new report maps the drought hotspots around the world—the global south and Mediterranean face massive constraints. And with all these extreme events, it is critical to follow where the money is flowin’ and goin’. The new Climate Finance Vulnerability Index shows who’s left out of climate finance — and who isn’t and where vulnerabilities lie.

FAO 2025

A slew of reports have been published in the past few weeks on food systems - yo! they’re all the rage kiddos. First up is the door-stopper Global Food Policy Report by IFPRI. You will want to take your time getting through this one — all 584 pages. Next up? FAO published a report on what it means to take a food systems approach, led by the innovative Corinna Hawkes. The visual on the right illustrates the benefits of adopting a more systematic approach. GAIN also provided us with lessons and moments of change across food systems. And IFPRI’s new book wonders, what do we know about the future of food systems? Less than we should, but this IFPRI book is chock full of ideas about what the future might look like. In a new publication by the UN Food Systems Coordination Hub, they highlight successful strategies from over 20 countries—including Cameroon, Fiji, Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Zambia—for turning national food systems transformation plans into actionable reforms, offering practical guidance for peer learning, and informed by national reports, dialogues, and contributions from major UN task forces and coalitions.

As people gather this week in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for the UN Food Systems Summit Stocktake, governance and action will be at the forefront. In this paper, authors examined 124 UNFSS‑inspired national food system transformation plans. They found that the focus overwhelmingly remains on ramping up food production, while critical dimensions like distribution, processing, consumption, environmental sustainability, labor rights, and animal welfare receive minimal attention, indicating these pathways largely reinforce existing food system norms rather than enacting deeper systemic reform. Another paper shows that effective transformation of food systems hinges on whole‑of‑system governance informed by systems thinking—addressing competing interests, policy incoherence, and entrenched power imbalances by redefining who governs and how decisions are made. They also published a nice policy brief. Lastly, GAIN published a new toolkit to help diagnose food system policy coherence, accompanied by eight country case studies. Well done GAIN and the great Stella Nordhagen! Speaking of diagnosing, the Food Systems Dashboard got some botox injections - check out her new shiny self!

At this point, food systems are such a tangled mess that they read like dystopian satire. Ultra-processed foods appear to be on trial, with charges ranging from obesity to ecosystem collapse. Did you know you can get your morning sweet-ass coffee in a bucket? Civilization: peaking or declining? Talk about plastic use. Want to avoid microplastics in your diet? Maybe you should because plastics are highly complex…This author recommends starting with minimizing ultra-processed foods. Speaking of ultra-processed foods, the Maintenance Phase crew puts them through their ever-scrutinizing ringer. But some fast food companies don’t seem to give a shit. Here is a list of the most unhealthy fast food spots and their offerings in the U.S. Wendy’s “Triple Baconator” (W.T.F.) takes first prize. Speaking of burgers, I guess they are back. But they won’t be cheap this barbecue season. Back to junk food. This paper in PNAS shows that, despite overall higher daily energy expenditure in wealthier populations, size-adjusted basal and total energy expenditure decline modestly with economic development—and account for only ~10% of obesity increases—while elevated caloric intake, especially from ultraprocessed foods, is the dominant driver of rising obesity globally. Who peddles these delicious bombs of unhealthiness? In my opinion, Trader Joe’s is guilty as charged. However, they have quite a cult following. Are they worthy of the hype? This 3-part investigation by Fast Company doesn’t think so and argues that getting you food from the “hippie” leaning joint is detrimental for all kinds of wicked reasons.

One Health Lancet Commission (2025)

And it’s not just our waistlines or grocery carts that are at risk—our food choices are entangled with planetary health, antimicrobial resistance, and zoonotic spillovers, as the latest One Health Lancet Commission makes painfully clear. The Lancet One Health Commission identifies interconnected global threats—including emerging zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance, environmental pollution, biodiversity loss, non-communicable diseases, food insecurity, and climate change—that can no longer be managed in policy or research siloes, arguing these challenges require integrated approaches across human, animal, and environmental health sectors. Drawing on evidence synthesis and case studies across health systems, surveillance, food security, and ecosystem resilience, it proposes concrete strategies for operationalizing One Health—such as embedding intersectoral governance in national laws, establishing integrated early warning systems, and reorienting economic paradigms toward sustainability and equity, The overarching vision is a global One Health governance framework—akin to climate accords or food system transformation plans—anchored in principles of holism, epistemological pluralism, and shared stewardship, designed to foster equitable, sustainable socioecological systems and ensure health security for all.

In the monthly Food Bytes, I aim to highlight the science, evidence, and data—along with the remarkable scientists who generate it all. However, the scientific endeavor, along with the people behind it, is increasingly under threat. Funding is drying up or becoming politicized. Researchers face harassment, censorship, and disinformation campaigns. Public trust is eroding, often fueled by ideological attacks and misinformation ecosystems. And in many parts of the world, speaking evidence-based truth to power now comes with real professional or personal risk. The scientific publishing endeavor doesn’t help. Some argue it is broken, and it is time for urgent reform or a better backup plan. Maybe we need to de-Americanize global science. Speaking of critical data to inform decision-making, the future of Demographic Health Surveys (also known as DHS) is at risk — and with it, the data backbone of global health and food security. The Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates, published by UNICEF, WHO, and the World Bank Group, rely on DHS data, along with other data sources. They were able to put out this year’s data last week, but who knows what will happen in the future? What is the latest on malnutrition trends? Progress is mixed at best, but with the dismantling of USAID, as shown in this and this recent Lancet article and the tragic situation in Gaza (and Sudan), the trends don’t look good to say the least. Jose Andres pleads the case for why we cannot just stand by and watch the starvation unfolding. Devastating.

See ya’ll in Agosto.

Beef or Bear? On Ambition, Academia, and the Art of Letting Go

I’m sure many of you have been watching The Bear—the TV show that follows Carmen “Carmy” Berzatto, a brilliant young chef who returns home to Chicago to take over his late brother’s gritty sandwich shop, The Beef. Through the chaos of grief and grease, Carmy builds something new: The Bear, a sleek fine-dining restaurant born from heartbreak, hope, and the relentless pursuit of excellence. And yet, he keeps The Beef alive—its humble sandwich window still serving the neighborhood that built it. Amid gleaming, white-tiled walls and sky-high expectations, the crew fights to grow, grieve, and find meaning in their craft. They become a family, forged in heat and held together by love and purpose.

A recent New York Times piece reflecting on The Bear’s Season 4 captured the show’s central tension between the up-scale Bear restaurant and the no-frills Beef sandwich shop perfectly:

“It’s about ambition vs. accessibility, change vs. repetition, risk vs. consistency, complexity vs. simplicity.”

It got me thinking. Over the past 20+ years of my career, I’ve always wanted more Beef than Bear. I craved simplicity—not just in science, but in life. I used to joke that the measure of a person’s life could be found in their keychain. I aimed for two keys or fewer.

But somewhere along the way, the Bear crept in.

Ambition found me. Or maybe I chased it. I threw myself into research, publishing, pivoting. I moved countries several times in pursuit of new opportunities. I left the comforts of traditional academia to dive into international development and returned once more. I pursued sprawling, interdisciplinary projects with too many partners and not enough time. These complex, messy, often maddening endeavors shaped who I am.

That bearish ambition brought me accolades, big jobs, incredible collaborators, and students who have inspired me. But lately, I’ve begun to ask: can I keep going at this pace? Do I even want to? I know I’m not alone in this. An article by Arthur C. Brooks in The Atlantic hit hard:

“Call it the Principle of Psychoprofessional Gravitation: the idea that the agony of professional oblivion is directly related to the height of professional prestige previously achieved, and to one’s emotional attachment to that prestige.”

In academia, no one teaches you how to slow down. It’s always go, go, go. First, you need to raise money just to do your work—and often just to pay yourself and your team. That means writing exhaustive, often soul-sucking grant proposals for donors who want the world for pennies. The odds of success? Dismal. And feedback when you fail? Don’t hold your breath.

Then there’s publishing. To prove your worth and make your science visible, you need to land in the “top journals.” But the peer review process is increasingly dysfunctional—often driven by AI-generated reviewer selection, unpaid labor, and endless revision cycles. Want people to read it? You’ll need to pay for open access. In the end, who benefits? Journals. Not the people we claim to serve.

And that’s just the research. You also need to teach, sit on committees, engage with policymakers, serve the public, and perform the theater of relevance. Academia has become a hamster wheel powered by prestige, productivity, and fear. Don’t get me wrong—I love academia and the freedoms it affords. The opportunity to engage with students is unmatched, and the pursuit of new ideas, discoveries, and knowledge remains deeply fulfilling.

I know I sound old. Maybe I am. I’m 53, and as Jackson Browne once sang, I’ve been running on empty for a while now. The spark is still there, but the fire’s a little dimmer. I’m not interested in building anything new—no more centers, initiatives, or empires. I don’t need another publication, another invisible promotion, or a bigger team.

I want to work differently. Slower. With more intention. Less Bear, more Beef.

That means letting go—not of the science, but of the ego that comes with it. It means embracing the role of mentor, not builder. Teacher, not hustler. I’m ready to spend less time painting the canvas and more time showing others how to hold the brush.

So, as I step into this next chapter—joining the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Bologna, Italy—I’ll say goodbye to all that: the pace, the prestige, the panic. If I build or invest in anything now, it will be with intention—to ensure that those who come after me are prepared to navigate the complexities of this shifting world.

And maybe, just maybe, I’ll enjoy the art I’ve already made. Hang it up. Share it with others. Teach the next generation how to sketch something of their own.

Because sometimes, success is knowing when to stop chasing stars—and start passing the torch. So, enjoy every sandwich.