We may not have a choice but to consume alternative proteins

Climate change is having profound impacts on the ability to grow both foods for humans and feed for livestock. Growing food and feeding livestock, in turn, exacerbates climate change. Livestock raised for beef is responsible for 6 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions largely in the form of methane. Livestock is also the number one driver of deforestation around the world, reducing the chances for large forest biomes to serve as carbon sinks.

While these stresses continue to rise if no significant action is taken to mitigate climate change, demand for meat is rising all over the world. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, beef consumption has been steadily rising over the last few decades, and as people become wealthier, the more meat they consume. And people, well, like meat!

Some tech companies have come up with a solution—alternative proteins—which include lab-grown meat, plant-based meat, single-cell proteins from yeast or algae, and edible insects. The lab- and plant-based alternative innovations mimic the taste, smell, and texture of meat and could be significant disruptors, eliminating the need for people to raise or consume animals.

As of now, the products available for consumers are mainly plant-based proteins like Impossible Burger and Beyond Beef. Data suggests that these foods are tasty to most consumers and have lower environmental footprints and greenhouse gas emissions than beef. They also have benefits for those who care about animal welfare.

They are however under scrutiny about their health properties and cost. Some argue these foods are overly processed, with a lot of artificial ingredients to get them to a state of palatability. Beyond Burger has approximately 25 ingredients whereas beef has just one ingredient – muscle tissue. They are also costly. One Impossible burger in Washington DC’s Founding Farmer restaurant costs $17.50 as compared to the all-beef cheeseburger at $14.50.

The products in the R&D pipeline – such as lab-grown meats – will have to undergo significant regulation by governments and there is the issue of scale. In the film, Meat the Future, the company Upside Foods (formerly known as Memphis Meats), which is using cells taken from an animal to grow meat, is challenged in making enough products at scale to feed the world’s growing population. While these are hurdles, there are some glimpses of promise. Those that have tried these products are pleasantly surprised at how similar they taste to the real thing and issues of scale are just temporary roadblocks.

Yet, will consumers accept and embrace these foods? The backlash against genetically modified foods shows early signs of what may come as companies begin to get lab-grown meats to market. Many consumers may argue these foods are fake and may be hesitant about their food being “grown” in Petri dishes. 

The big issue is, that we may not have a choice but to eat lab-grown meats. It will be very difficult to raise livestock in a hotter world. Not only will feed and water be scarce, but hotter climates wreak havoc on the health of the animals. These projected adverse effects will put premiums on the price of meat in the grocery store.

So while the world can be picky for the time being, these new foods may become our mainstay survival foods because they may be the only option. To ensure these foods are affordable, accessible, and acceptable to consumers all over the world, and not just curious rich people, several things need to happen.

First, companies producing these foods need to ensure transparency in how these foods are produced, and their impacts across a broad range of outcomes, particularly health and nutrition. There is a need for transparency regarding their nutritional content that is easy for consumers to understand and find. Companies should take lessons from how genetically modified foods were communicated and the fears and doubts they have raised among consumers.

Second, for those products that have unhealthy ingredients with losing palatability, the companies should work hard to reformulate the products to decrease the content of sodium and unhealthy fats. They should also work to fortify these foods with adequate micronutrients.

Third, these foods should be low cost, or real meat should be more expensive, keeping with the true costs to produce beef. As the demand for these alternatives increases and more companies come on board with new products, as with any economies of scale, the price will come down.

Last, while the innovation for these new foods is tempting, there are many traditional foods such as legumes, insects, and algae that have important nutritional value, particularly protein, have low environmental footprints, and do not require raising animals. These traditional foods, while traditional, may offer low-cost, low-resources alternatives to shiny and new future foods.

The World’s Food System Is Too Dependent on Wheat

This opinion piece was originally posted on the Bloomberg Opinion.

The Ukraine war highlights how reliance on a few big staple crops threatens food security and global nutrition.

Stunned by Russia’s assault on Ukraine, Europe is scrambling to diversify its energy supply — from piped Russian gas to liquified natural gas, more renewable power and nuclear power. In the same way, and for much the same reason, the ongoing war should push countries to shift and diversify their food supply — to make it more secure and, at the same time, improve nutrition worldwide.

Russia and Ukraine together supply 30% of the world’s wheat. This is why the war has caused wheat prices to skyrocket, along with the prices of many other food commodities. From February to March, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Association’s Food Price Index leapt 12.6% to an all-time high. This threatens people around the world with unprecedented food insecurity.

It also highlights the need to reform the global food system, which now leaves too many people dependent for nourishment on just a handful of mass-produced grains, including wheat, rice and corn.

To deal with the immediate shortages, farmers in the U.S., India, Canada and elsewhere will have to plant more wheat. And people worldwide will have to replace wheat with rice and other available grains. In the long term, though, this crisis provides an opportunity to change the face of agriculture and reduce the world’s dependency on wheat and other big staple crops.

Accomplishing this shift will be politically challenging. Many countries have entrenched agriculture subsidies that support big commodities including corn, rice, wheat, oils, sugar and soy, and ensure that they are grown at massive scale using uniform farm production practices. In the countries that grow two-thirds of the world’s crops, governments provide $540 billion a year in agricultural support. The U.S. alone spends $16 billion annually on farm subsidies, 80% of which goes to the largest 10% of farms.

This paradigm has many flaws. After all, there will always be risks in relying too heavily on one grain or just a few. It makes it difficult to address disruptions in supply caused by conflicts, protracted crises and fragile states — as the conflict in Ukraine makes clear. And in addition to geopolitical problems, there is the age-old but now growing threat of bad weather.

Heat waves, droughts, floods and cold spells can devastate wheat, corn, soy and rice crops. Because of climate change, extreme weather has already reduced harvests enough to push food prices up to their highest levels in 40 years. Climate change also increases the risk that such extreme weather events might occur at various locations in the same season. This phenomenon of “multiple breadbasket failures” stands to compromise billions of people’s access to food.

Subsidies for the big crops also neglect the need to promote healthy diets. Take wheat, for example. Whole unrefined wheat is a major source of starch and energy, as well as protein, vitamins (notably B vitamins), dietary fiber and phytochemicals. But demand for wheat has been rising globally because of its unique gluten properties, which make it also an ideal component of bread, noodles, pasta, cookies, crackers and many other baked foods and snacks. These highly processed foods, which now constitute a significant share of the world’s diet, are depleted of healthy nutrients and contribute to poor health.

Over the past 50 years, farm subsidies, supported by complementary research and development efforts in agriculture-dependent countries, have made rice, corn and wheat the world’s most dominant crops, accounting for two-thirds of global food-energy intake. Alternative staples such as sorghum, millet, rye, cassavas, sweet potatoes and yams haven’t disappeared — at least not yet — but they have become steadily less important.

To encourage a more diverse and resilient food supply, countries should begin reorienting agriculture subsidies toward fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes and other nutritious foods. A recent study suggests that if half of all agriculture subsidies worldwide were repurposed to support the growing of foods that benefit human health as well as the environment, it could increase the cultivation of fruits and vegetables by as much as 20% and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture by 2%.

Shifting agriculture subsidies is no easy lift. Many farmers depend on them to support their livelihoods, and many would consider it incredibly risky to make major changes in what they grow. But with climate change increasing and geopolitics unstable, change is becoming more and more necessary. And if people are to avoid chronic health problems such as diabetes and heart disease, they need assistance from the food system to adopt more nutritious diets. The global disruption caused by the war in Ukraine should prompt governments to reconsider their efforts to influence the crops farmers grow and move toward encouraging a more diverse food supply.

The Ukraine-Russia Crisis fuels deficits of fertilizers for sub-Saharan Africa

While there is a significant concern about the availability and world prices of wheat, safflower oil, and corn commodities produced by Russia and Ukraine, Russia is also the largest global exporter of fertilizers and fertilizer ingredients such as potash, ammonia, urea, and natural gas for making nitrogen-based fertilizers. Belarus, Russia’s closest ally, is the leading producer of potash-based fertilizer, and combined, Russia and Belarus provide 42% of potash fertilizer globally. With the ongoing Ukraine-Russia crisis, Russia has now suspended its fertilizer exports, and additional sanctions against Russia and Belarus are further disrupting the movement of fertilizer supplies around the world. Already, prices of fertilizers have surged – tripling price.

The worry is that food-producing countries of sub-Saharan Africa, where almost half of their potassium chloride comes from Russia and Belarus, will struggle to meet major crop yields that rely on fertilizers. This could further exacerbate food deficits in some countries with significant food insecurity on the continent. Already, sub-Saharan Africa is 21% food insecure according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and with compromised food production, this could make matters worse for some populations and some countries this coming season and into next year. Hunger and food insecurity have already been rising on the continent due to the COVID19 pandemic and climate change with 46 million more hungry in 2020 compared to 2019.

While governments are scrambling to reduce their dependence on fertilizers imports coming from Russia and Belarus, it will be difficult to ensure fertilizer is available, affordable, and distributed to the most vulnerable farmers in the near term. One solution could be for development donors and investment banks to create a mechanism to provide emergency funds to countries within sub-Saharan Africa who need assistance, or perhaps a fund specific to fertilizer that involves contributions from industry and development agencies, through the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program. However, both could be too slow and bureaucratic to fill the immediate needs of farmers.

While food aid is not the most sustainable solution, putting in place safety nets is critical. Governments in food-deficit countries of sub-Saharan Africa must introduce and step-up social protection programs that provide cash and food to vulnerable households to cushion the short-term impacts of high food prices and to protect smallholder farmers from taking on the brunt of fertilizer costs. Donor countries should support agencies such as the UN World Food Programme to provide food assistance to countries that want and need support.

In the long-term, there is a solid argument for sub-Saharan Africa, and the world, in fact, to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizers. The problem is, organic fertilizer is not readily available to be distributed globally. While this will not solve immediate needs, governments should invest in research and development that examines the scaling up of organic and biofertilizers, increasing efficiency of chemical fertilizers (less drop per crop), and producing more nutritious, less environmentally intensive crops and animals in environmentally sustainable ways. 

If history has taught us anything, the Ukraine-Russia crisis will not be the last one we see in the next decade. Protecting the most vulnerable and re-orienting the world’s agriculture system towards one that is producing a different food basket with less environmentally intensive inputs makes sense. Let’s start with Africa.

The Future of Food

Growing, producing, and shipping food are big contributors to climate change. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, about one-third of the global greenhouse gas emissions come from the world's food systems. Food is "an instigator of climate change and it's a victim of climate change," said Jessica Fanzo, director of the Johns Hopkins Global Food Ethics and Policy Program and author of Can Fixing Dinner Fix the Planet?, in an interview with Mike Walter of CGTN.

One of the solutions is changing individuals' diets, what Fanzo and fellow food researchers from the EAT-Lancet Commission call a "planetary health diet." The diet is high in fruits and vegetables, as well as beans, legumes, nuts, and seeds, while food from animal sources, including meat, fish, and dairy, are low. Not only is this sustainable for the planet, "it's a very plant-based diet that meets nutritional needs, decreases your risk for non-communicable diseases like cardiovascular disease and diabetes and stroke, all these long-term, chronic, quite costly diseases," Fanzo said.

Inextricably bound together by food

This blog was originally posted on the OECD’s Forum.

Three of the biggest problems we face in the twenty-first century are (1) the burden of chronic, costly diseases such as diabetes and hypertension; (2) the consequences of climate change and natural resource degradation; and (3) the massive economic and social inequities that exist within and among nations. All three are directly related to the food we eat.

Our food systems are a wonder of the modern world. They efficiently supply almost eight billion people with enough food to survive. However, the foods we eat also contribute to increasingly common and burdensome health problems worldwide. Although hunger rates have been decreasing over the past 25 years, many people remain food insecure—not knowing when and from where their next meal will come. Many women and children still struggle with undernutrition, and at the same time, obesity and diet-related chronic diseases are rising everywhere. Concurrently, food systems are placing a growing burden on the health of our planet’s environment. They’re responsible for roughly 10 to 24 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which are increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and acidifying the oceans. At the same time, agricultural production is susceptible to a changing climate, which is becoming increasingly challenging to produce enough food for a growing population. In choosing what to eat, we’re making decisions that have both short- and long-term equity implications for our global citizenry. Decisions on the efficiency and direction of food systems inevitably mean that moral and ethical trade-offs will have to be made. For example, can we sustain both human and planetary health? And, if not, what trade-offs are we willing to live with, who gets priority, and who will be left behind?    

Every society is impacted by food—it’s the lifeblood that ever shapes individual health and vast cultures daily. But without the right amount or quality of foods to eat, things can go very wrong very quickly, especially when climate disruption and pandemics devastate the planet. And the decisions about these foods—from how they’re grown or raised, how much packaging surrounds them, and whether or not they are thrown out—impact our planet in profound ways, from its physical environment to what it supports: the millions of plants, insects, and animals, including us.

In my book, Can Fixing Dinner Fix the Planet? I articulate some of the larger social and political systems that need to change to support human and planetary needs. No simple solution exists to create healthy, sustainable, and equitable diets. A constellation of different approaches and strategies—operating from the local level to global supply chains, targeting different people and organizations—will be necessary. Many solutions are available now and are ready to scale. Implementing these solutions will require individual awareness and advocacy, governments’ political will, and private sector investment. Having spent a lot of time in communities living in Eastern Africa and countries of Asia such as Timor-Leste, Nepal, and Myanmar, I am left with a lot of hope for what is possible in the face of immense risks. The actions the global “we” take in the next few years will set the stage for the future of food systems and the future of life on this planet. If we don’t address the planet's needs, this shared ecosystem made up of humans, and a vast array of other animal and plant species will struggle to survive.

This book was written while the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 spread across the globe like wildfire, giving few clues to where we still stand within the pandemic. Are we at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of its wrath? What’s become apparent is that the pandemic has shaken the global health system to its core and is having ramifications in every other sector, too, including the worldwide food and financial systems. As COVID-19 continues to survive, mutate, and spread from person to person, community to community, and nation to nation, it illustrates just how interconnected we all are—how what happens to one person can impact thousands, even millions. It also sheds light on how ultimately fragile a massive engine like the international food supply can be.

What I’ve learned over the years, and what the COVID-19 pandemic has shown me, is that we’re inextricably bound together by food. We spend a good portion of our days considering, shopping for, cooking, eating food, and cleaning up what remains. In some parts of the world, eating involves walking some distance to get water and growing or raising what’s eaten. All our collective actions and decisions have ripple effects across countries and, often, around the world. Because food is something every person interacts with every day, why is it not a higher priority for world leaders to ensure that this food nourishes citizens and is produced in sustainable ways? It baffles me.

When COVID-19 is in the rearview mirror, what will we look like as a human society? Will we be better informed, ready, and more resilient before the next pandemic or climate shock strikes?

The food security challenges we face are not trivial. As global citizens, we are at a critical world juncture amid the perils of climate change, pandemics, and political upheaval. Within the swirling chaos, the opportunities for equitable, healthy, and sustainable food systems are substantial but will require that high-quality science be translated into policy faster than ever before. I’m optimistic considering the many scientists and inventors around the world who are helping course correct the problems we face and put us on the right track. Research can bring wholesale changes to action and politics. Right this minute, many researchers are working tirelessly in field stations, farms, labs, conference rooms, and classrooms to establish clear understandings of factors that feed the problems of global food systems and institute solutions to be taken up by individuals, organizations, and private organizations companies, and nations. Politicians, business owners, and citizens of the world must then do their parts to help. This is our chance to design and construct the observable ending and move toward a more sustainable world, coexisting in accord with the planet. I’m hopeful, and I trust that human perseverance, creativity, and ingenuity will pull us through to the other side.

Can Fixing Dinner Fix the Planet? Is available at Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

 

 

Public Broadcasting Services has done a service for food history

I love the U.S.’s Public Broadcasting Services. It is a bit under-appreciated, as compared to BBC, but they produce quality series like the iconic Ken Burns documentaries as one example. One of my favorite shows is American Experience. They have done some fantastic documentaries on individuals relevant to the Food Archive. Let’s take the environment. They had a wonderful series on Rachel Carson, who wrote the seminal book Silent Spring in 1962 that sparked the environmental movement. The documentary gives a fair portrait of her complexity and how her writings revolutionized our relationship to the natural world. There was also a thoughtful documentary on chef, advocate, and restaurant owner, Alice Waters. While her vision of the global food system may be out of reach for many, she has been highly influential on the local and organic food movement originating in the groovy hippie days of yesteryears. The scene where she intimately discusses a small garden tomato in her hand is priceless. And last, and just released, is the Norman Borlaug doc on “The Man Who Tried to Feed the World.” It highlights the positive and negative consequences of one man’s single-minded vision to start the Green Revolution and conquer hunger once and for all. I wish I would have had this documentary last year when I taught my class on rural development. And if you have any bandwidth left in you, I highly recommend this great documentary “A Full Bowl” (not PBS) on Alan Berg, World Banker, who influenced the international undernutrition agenda. He was not only a great thinker and writer, but shaped the nutrition agenda in the 1970s and 80s, and his work and issues are still relevant today. He sort of reminds me, at least in his motivation, of Borlaug. Now, you might say, I can’t access the PBS series unless I support my local station. They need your support, particularly with the lack of finances from our current, shitty US government. So go out and support PBS and be entertained for hours…

The NOT Best of 2021 Best Book List

I am often asked for recommendations for mainstream (less academic) books about food politics and systems. There are so many out there, but here are some that I really enjoyed. As some of you know, I am a bit insane about books (my better half is a book publisher). I also like non-food books and spoke about that on The Reading Lists. I also wrote two of my own books last year: Can Fixing Dinner Fix the Planet? has been published by Johns Hopkins University Press. Global Food Systems, Diets, and Nutrition: Linking Science, Economics and Policy has been published by Palgrave MacMillan. Anyways, here it goes…

Classic food politics books by well-known writers:

Book addict…

Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Soda Politics by Marion Nestle

Unsavory Truth by Marion Nestle

The Omnivore’s Dilemma - Michael Pollan

Niche food books:

Salt by Mark Kurlansky

Cod by Mark Kurlansky

Four Fish by Paul Greenberg

Hippie Food by John Kauffman

Untold History of Ramen by George Solt

The Story of Sushi by Trevor Corson

The Secret Life of Lobsters by Trevor Corson

Sweetness and Power by Sidney Mintz

America’s food system books:

Salt Sugar Fat by Michael Moss

Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser

Drive-Thru Dreams: A Journey Through the Heart of America’s Fast-Food Kingdom by Adam Chandler

Perilous Bounty: The Looming Collapse of American Farming and How Can Prevent It by Tom Philpott

The Secret Life of Groceries by Benjamin Lorr

Diets, health, and ethics-related books:

The Way We Eat Now by Bee Wilson

Weighing in by Julie Guthman

How to Eat by David Katz and Mark Bittman

Eat, Drink and Be Healthy by Walter Willett

In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan

Vitamania by Catherine Price

Gulp by Mary Roach

Food justice books:

You and I Eat The Same by Chris Ying

We Fed an Island: The True Story of Rebuilding Puerto Rico, One Meal at a Time by Jose Andres

Black Food Matters by Hanna Garth

Food Justice Now! By Joshua Sbicca

The Ethics of What We Eat by Peter Singer

Food and climate change books:

Food 5.0: How We Feed the Future by Robert Saik

Future Foods by David McClements

Politics of Food by Dani Burrows and Aaron

Full Planet, Empty Plates by Lester Brown

The Fate of Food by Amanda Little

Slow Catastrophes by Rebecca Jones

International food politics books:

The End of Food by Paul Roberts

Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine by Alex De Waal

Will Africa Feed China by Deborah Brautigam

Food Politics by Robert Paarlberg

The Wizard and the Prophet by Charles Mann

The Last Hunger Season by Roger Thurow

Eating NAFTA by Alyshia Galvez

Just Food by James McWilliams

Classic food politics books by well-known writers:

Book addict…

Food Politics by Marion Nestle

Soda Politics by Marion Nestle

Unsavory Truth by Marion Nestle

The Omnivore’s Dilemma - Michael Pollan

Niche food books:

Salt by Mark Kurlansky

Cod by Mark Kurlansky

Four Fish by Paul Greenberg

Hippie Food by John Kauffman

Untold History of Ramen by George Solt

The Story of Sushi by Trevor Corson

The Secret Life of Lobsters by Trevor Corson

Sweetness and Power by Sidney Mintz

America’s food system books:

Salt Sugar Fat by Michael Moss

Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser

Drive-Thru Dreams: A Journey Through the Heart of America’s Fast-Food Kingdom by Adam Chandler

Perilous Bounty: The Looming Collapse of American Farming and How Can Prevent It by Tom Philpott

The Secret Life of Groceries by Benjamin Lorr

Diets, health, and ethics-related books:

The Way We Eat Now by Bee Wilson

Weighing in by Julie Guthman

How to Eat by David Katz and Mark Bittman

Eat, Drink and Be Healthy by Walter Willett

In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan

Vitamania by Catherine Price

Gulp by Mary Roach

Food justice books:

You and I Eat The Same by Chris Ying

We Fed an Island: The True Story of Rebuilding Puerto Rico, One Meal at a Time by Jose Andres

Black Food Matters by Hanna Garth

Food Justice Now! By Joshua Sbicca

The Ethics of What We Eat by Peter Singer

Food and climate change books:

Food 5.0: How We Feed the Future by Robert Saik

Future Foods by David McClements

Politics of Food by Dani Burrows and Aaron

Full Planet, Empty Plates by Lester Brown

The Fate of Food by Amanda Little

Slow Catastrophes by Rebecca Jones

International food politics books:

The End of Food by Paul Roberts

Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine by Alex De Waal

Will Africa Feed China by Deborah Brautigam

Food Politics by Robert Paarlberg

The Wizard and the Prophet by Charles Mann

The Last Hunger Season by Roger Thurow

Eating NAFTA by Alyshia Galvez

Just Food by James McWilliams

Kick around in the wreck

20 years. What do 20 years do to one’s memory? Why are some things so crystal clear and other things, fuzzy? As Julien Baker said: “Sometimes I think I needed to do that, to really just kick around in the wreck and the gross stuff and really see what was there instead of trying to ignore that it existed.”

So let’s kick around in the wreck. September 11, 2001 (aka 911) is as clear to me as that beautiful, early September morning filled with clear blue skies in Gotham. We lived there then.

We heard about “it” on the radio at work but thought the DJs were pulling our leg. Typical prankster stuff. Then, we looked directly south, out of our building from the 30th floor. Straight down that wee island to see the due torri smoking. Then, their tumbling, tumbling 10-second fall. There were tears mixed with fear and just a quiet stagger. Are we at war we asked ourselves? It turns out, we were, and it was only the beginning.

After “it” happened, we walked 12 miles from work to get home through a surreal and stunned city.  It was devastating. It was shocking. It was a wake-up call. Yes, we were not liked by our neighbors. Yes, we were vulnerable. Yes, we were turning a corner.

Many perished with over 1,000 who still remain unidentified. Many were named heroes. Those bagpipes...Many families were devastated. Many remembered our united compassion in everyday gestures among those sticky city streets. But we, our city, somewhat recovered, albeit with scars and scratches all over. Our country, on the other hand, did not and has not. In an attempt to “never forget,” our nation created catastrophic missteps in what our then-president called, “the freedom agenda” resulting in disastrous outcomes for Iraq and Afghanistan.

But I won’t dwell on that. I will focus on that day, and the weeks after, when time truly stood still for some of us living in the big apple. It changed our worldview forever. Immediately after, there was shock. We were shocked that someone could take an everyday thing—something that transports you to other places—and turn it into a bomb essentially. We were shocked that those iconic buildings could crumble so easily. We were shocked that more people didn’t die—maybe the hijackers miscalculated New Yorkers in that most don’t get to work before 9 am and that day, was a primary election in the city. We were shocked that the city that never sleeps went ghostly dormant for months.

Weeks, months and now years after, there was change. “It” changed everything. We invented a new heightened security across every sector of society. New York redesigned itself and many looked to neighboring boroughs to spread towards like Queens, Brooklyn, and Jersey. Right at that time, and for a few years after, the music coming out of NY was the soundtrack of our lives, and seeing bands like Interpol, the Strokes, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs in small clubs helped us forget. The Yanks made it to the World Series but just couldn’t pull off that win that we so desperately needed.

But time moves on and we promised we would “never forget.” But never forget exactly what? I never totally understood when my parents talked about how they knew exactly where they were when they heard about JFK’s assassination. On that morning, September 11, 2001, at 8:52, I will forever remember where I was when those DJs said, “we are getting information that a commercial airline has just hit the north tower about 5 minutes ago.” By 9:03 a second plane hit the south tower. One hour and 45 minutes later, those forbidding towers and all the souls in it, around it, and staring it at were a memory that we can’t forget—playing back in our mind as a series of images with William Basinski’s Disintegration Loops running in the background. 20 years later.

The mavens

Food is everywhere. You can find it in almost every store and street corner (whether someone can afford it is for another blog entry). There are food blogs, food podcasts, food documentaries, food travel shows, food cooking shows, food apps, food zines, food mags, food porn…I could go on and on. People tweet, post, and hyperbolize about food, and are watching more cooking than actually doing cooking. Go figure.  Food in and of itself has become entertainment. It is less about people eating healthy and spending quality time on preparing and sharing food, and more about bragging rights. It has become a vehicle for snobbery and status but also, social aggression and competition. In a New York Times piece alluding to food as high art, “Nobody cares if you know about Mozart or Leonardo anymore, but you had better be able to discuss the difference between ganache and couverture.”

Much of the mainstream food system writing and pontificating is from authors who do not have traditional training in science and instead are journalists or writers, some coming from the cooking/restaurant sector. Many chefs are now TV stars in their own right and authors of famous books—and not just cookbooks. Many of these writers act as advocates and have developed celebrity status personalities. They often write about nutrition issues in a more ideological sense, taking parcels of select data to tell their story. The debates on the health of organic foods, GMOs, and industrialization have all been written about: less on the science, more on a belief system of what the food system should ideally look like, but usually only does so for the few elite. They have become the mavens of the food world.

Nutritionism”— a reductive understanding of nutrients as the key indicators of healthy food—has created much confusion for consumers, leaving journalists, such as Michael Pollan—author of the infamous Ominovores Dilemma—to feed the public digestible answers to the most vexing global food system problems. Pollan along with many other writers (think Bittman, Waters, Petrini, Andres) have effectively opened a new dialogue about food systems, how we (un)consciously eat food, and how the individual can not only eat healthier, nutritious foods but within a healthier food system as well. It took someone like Michael Pollan to distill the complexity of nutrition science into one, simple message that resonated with the public: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Many of these food journalists argue that the nutrition field and nutrition scientists have largely failed the global population, leaving people utterly confused and lost in the swampy, ultra-processed junk food abyss.

Pollan, who has now moved onto the world of psychedelics, further explained:

“In the case of nutritionism, the widely shared but unexamined assumption is that the key to understanding food is indeed the nutrient. From this basic premise flow several others. Since nutrients, as compared with foods, are invisible and therefore slightly mysterious, it falls to the scientists (and to the journalists through whom the scientists speak) to explain the hidden reality of foods to us. To enter a world in which you dine on unseen nutrients, you need lots of expert help. But expert help to do what, exactly? This brings us to another unexamined assumption: that the whole point of eating is to maintain and promote bodily health. Hippocrates’s famous injunction to ”let food be thy medicine” is ritually invoked to support this notion.”

Gary Taubes, a science writer/journalist, and low carb diet advocate argues:

“The 600,000 articles — along with several tens of thousands of diet books — are the noise generated by a dysfunctional research establishment. Because the nutrition research community has failed to establish reliable, unambiguous knowledge about the environmental triggers of obesity and diabetes, it has opened the door to a diversity of opinions on the subject, of hypotheses about cause, cure, and prevention, many of which cannot be refuted by the existing evidence. Everyone has a theory. The evidence doesn’t exist to say unequivocally who’s wrong.”

Tit for tat, scientists also poo poo on these journalists and find their prose problematic. First, some scientists argue that the Pollans of the world interpretation of science is filled with individual dietary purity. Their idea is to bring food systems back into one’s control, into one’s environment. This is such a difficult prospect for so many people around the world, particularly for those who are suffering from hunger or are struggling to make ends meet and have no voice, no agency. Second, some scientists call these food journalists “agri-intellectuals” who boast more about what should be considered healthy and sustainable production systems without a lot of thought about how farms really operate, and farmer families’ daily struggles, inequities, and the difficulties in earning a living growing food. And last, some find their writing just disconnected from reality and instead, drowning in Americana-centric, navel-gazing arguments with a lack of focus on the perverse political and structural systems that underpin how our globalized food supply is governed that can’t be unraveled by growing your own herb garden.

Norman Borlaug, the agronomist who was largely responsible for the Green Revolution in Asia and Latin America said:

“Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.”

Yikes. I wouldn’t go that far Norman…but I see your point. I think…While Norman wasn’t referring to journalists per se, he was referring to lobbyists/advocates/policy wonks that also take the “I know what’s best” high road. The point is, while we scientists can complain all we want about who is shaping decisions and the psyche of the general public, we too need to get better at messaging. We need to be savvier at influencing. We need to use the evidence in ways that convince others to take action and make a change.

I wish I could write as convincingly as Pollan does. I truly do. Wouldn’t it be cool if journalists and scientists got together, shared science, ideas, and information, and wrote joint articles and books? The incentive structures would need to change, but the output could be powerful. Now that would be mavenizing!

Food Systems Dashboard: A Place to Navigate Food Data

By Jess Fanzo and Ty Beal

The world will need to increase its food production by more than 50% and reduce food loss and waste to meet the nutritional needs of the world’s population by 2050. In the context of the broad global trends of population growth, climate, and malnutrition including undernutrition and obesity, this is and will continue to be a massive feat. This transformation will require smarter technology and more sustainable and regenerative food production practices that make efficient use of natural resources, waste less, and provide access to healthier diets. The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed an additional level of pressure on food systems. It has highlighted the strong interconnections between food and health systems, exacerbated economic inequities, and revealed inequities in who has access to healthy foods and healthcare.

copyright: MIT

copyright: MIT

There is a lot being asked of food systems to transform. They must provide healthy diets. They must be environmentally sustainable. They must ensure sufficient livelihoods for those working in the food system. They must support societal traditions. They must be equitable. But how do we ensure that food systems are addressing these multiple goals? Without strong data to track their progress, it’s often difficult for governments and businesses to make improvements, respond to problems, and examine trade-offs depending on what priorities are invested in. Decision-makers need reliable information to be able to make evidence-based, informed decisions. Understanding how all the vast components of food systems link up and interact makes for a complex web to navigate.

There have been various efforts undertaken to improve the quality, access, and sophistication of food systems data. Several global databases and indices have been created that provide food-related data each with its own strengths, such as the Food Sustainability Index, Food and Agriculture (FAO) Hand in Hand, FAOSTAT, International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI) Global Food Security Portal, among others.

A new addition to the data revolution on food systems is the Food Systems Dashboard. It describes food systems by bringing together extant data across more than 200 indicators drawn from more than 40 sources for nearly every country and territory in a visually appealing, user-friendly platform. These sources, which are both public and private, include United Nations agencies, the World Bank, Consultative Group for International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), Euromonitor, and cross-country project-based datasets. The data provide insights into different aspects of food systems that are not commonly included together in other food systems data visualization tools, thus allowing users to understand them in a more comprehensive, democratized way. The Dashboard includes indicators across a wide range of sectors—agriculture, food prices, retail, marketing, diets, nutrition, health, climate change, urbanization, poverty, literacy, and others—that operate within, connect to, and interact with dynamics and complexity of food systems.

With all of these fantastic indices, portals, and dashboards out there to make food data more accessible, there are still limitations.

  • First, many indicators, including those on consumer behavior and food safety, lack data for the majority of countries globally. And the data that is available often lacks innovation. Crowdsourcing, real-time monitoring, big data are all underutilized or not accessible in food systems research.

  • Second, along with data gaps, the data typically exist only at the national level. There is a clear need for more detailed, subnational food systems data that are reconciled and harmonized with national statistics. Food systems are incredibly diverse within a country and require nuanced assessments using local data to adequately characterize their dynamics and local characteristics.

  • Third, very few databases provide an assessment of the performance of national or subnational food systems across a range of outcomes nor do they provide any policy recommendations on how to transform food systems to achieve a set of outcomes.

  • Fourth, dashboards and indices don’t necessarily show how the data interact or the dynamic relationships—what are the trade-offs if one part of the system is prioritized over another?

Despite the burden we’re placing on food systems to deliver across many goals of sustainable development, we still know relatively little about them. This is ironic being that the UN is calling for a “Food Systems Summit” in about two months. The Food Systems Dashboard and the many other tools out there aim to change that by improving the ability to understand food systems, diagnose where they are strong or weak, and help decide which policies are feasible to transform food systems toward better dietary, health, environmental, and economic outcomes in the near term and for the future.