Holiday Eye Candy

As the holiday season approaches, cities around the world come alive with dazzling lights and festive decorations.

One of my personal favorites is the iconic Bergdorf Goodman windows in New York City. The talented visual team of artisans creates breathtaking, narrative-driven displays that not only showcase high art but also embody a cherished NYC tradition that celebrates fashion, fantasy, and the vibrant spirit of the city.

I’m captivated by how the reflections of the city’s buildings and bustling life intertwine with the window displays, creating a stunning juxtaposition of grit and whimsy.

Here are some photos I've taken over the years while living in Gotham, capturing the magic of this festive spectacle.

From Roman Ruins to Bolognese Bliss

We’ve spent most of late October and November in Italy, preparing for our permanent move to Bologna. Being away from the United States has been refreshing — I catch up on the news less often and with far less emotion. From afar, everything seems a bit bonkers. For anyone feeling overwhelmed by it all, and who has the chance to travel outside the U.S., I highly recommend it. It offers a powerful perspective.

The CFS plenaries largely empty.

Our journey began in Rome with a meeting at the Food and Agriculture Organization, whose building now feels almost impenetrable. I attended the Committee on Food Security (CFS), which was eerily quiet. The current Director General of FAO seems to have shifted focus away from the CFS, scheduling World Food Day a week earlier—a move that, frankly, deflates the committee’s momentum. The sessions were muted, with scant government presence. Even the plenaries were only a quarter full.

Perhaps multilateral cooperation and globalism are truly fading, as Richard Horton recently suggested here and here. We’ll see how the world responds at COP30 in Brazil, tackling the urgent challenge of climate change. Sadly, I agree with a recent New York Times article arguing that governments—not just the U.S.—are turning their backs on climate commitments. There are isolated successes, but the overall climate data is grim. The UN’s annual emissions gap report, “Off Target,” warns that countries are unlikely to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the Paris Agreement’s main goal. Experts predict warming could reach between 2.3 and 2.5 degrees Celsius, or even higher if current pledges aren’t met.

Long lines at Da Enzo

Back to Bella Italia. My partner and I have spent nearly five cumulative years living in Rome. When we first arrived in 2010, those felt like golden years. Tourism was present but manageable, with many hidden gems for eating, drinking, and soaking in the vast cityscape. Today, forget it. Rome has turned into a theme park resembling a mockable Roman empire, swarming with tourists. Even secret spots are overrun by huge lines of people eager to replicate the Instagrammable moments. Our favorite place, Da Enzo, now has block-long lines. We used to pop in spontaneously for carbonara and puntarella. It’s sad—Rome and much of Italy have sold themselves cheaply, like a dollar store bonanza.

After Rome’s disappointment, we went to Napoli to visit friends. The city, too, is suffocating under endless tourists—around 5,000 daily from massive cruise ships—who come to eat pizza, drink spritzes (a drink actually invented in Veneto, northern Italy), and walk the “elephant walk” through Spaccanapoli buying cornicelli charms (little horn-shaped amulets for good luck), all because social media told them to. They don’t really experience the city or stay overnight, retreating to their ships for dinner and sleep. Locals believe tourism boosts the economy, and it probably does—but at what cultural cost? Is this growth sustainable? Naples, too, has given itself away. The New York Times article, “The Spritzes and Carbonaras That Ate Italy,” argues tourism has blanketed the country in a uniform food culture. Maybe not everywhere, but it’s heading that way. Nothing can take away the beauty of these places, but god damn, it is getting hard to see it.

Naples wasn’t all bad, once you are off the beaten path. Walks along and swims in the bay of Naples, insanely delicious pizza and vongole, and a lecture at the University of Naples Federico II Agriculture College were highlights. The College is in a beautiful old royal palace in another part of Naples, called Portici. The palace was built as a summer house for the Spanish viceroys on the slopes of Mount Vesuvius. The college curates a beautiful botanical garden on its grounds. The students and faculty were truly wonderful — they energized me to start teaching this spring in Bologna.

Typical aperitivo for two - and costing less than 8 euros…

From Naples, we took the train north to Bologna, and suddenly it felt dramatically calmer—fewer tourists, more progressive energy. The “Quadrilatero” district, a historic medieval market full of gourmet shops near the main piazza, was surprisingly uncrowded. Bologna is a beautiful city bathed in warm orange and yellow hues, with miles of elegant porticos offering sheltered promenades. The city pulses with the energy of its students—the University of Bologna is Europe’s oldest university. Street art decorates many corners, and the local “aperitivo” culture thrives. Bolognese gather around 6 p.m. for wine, cocktails, and small free snacks (why do potato chips taste so good with sparkling white wine - drats!), with weekends seeing aperitivo start even earlier.

There are downsides. The weather is more like NY, and the air quality ain’t good. But it feels like a progressive, productive city that has a certain gothy, young vibe. Will we be able to sit out on our terrace 365 days a year, ala Rome? No. But would I take this over the tourism hellscape? Hells yah.

Bolognese cuisine is delicious but hearty and meat-heavy. Classics like tortellini, lasagna, and ragù are all rich with meat. The pasta contains eggs—a nod to the north’s wealthier past where eggs were added to flour and water—resulting in specialties like tortellini, ravioli, and tagliatelle. The region is famous for its Parmesan cheese, Sangiovese red wine, and balsamic vinegar. Pork is beloved. There’s a dish called Cotoletta (or Petroniana), essentially veal fried in butter, topped with prosciutto, smothered in Parmesan and meat broth—a literal heart-stopper. Hopefully, we’ll find ways to stay more plant-based here, but dining out in typical Bolognese trattorias might make that a challenge. Mamma mia…

These pasta dishes were delicious but probably did not “meat” the criteria of the EAT-Lancet Commission (Mio Dio!).

When we arrived, Bologna was hosting the “Villaggio contadino Coldiretti,” a fair spread across the city’s piazzas. Farmers from across Italy gathered to celebrate “the centrality of the agricultural world, sustainability, and the value of Italian food.” Coldiretti represents over 1.6 million Italian farmers and agricultural entrepreneurs, advocating fiercely for “Made in Italy” products. They lobby against lab-grown meat, expose agromafia issues, and protest unfair trade price speculation. Some argue these “village” events misuse public spaces and they have ties to the conservative right in the country. I suspect their views on the EAT-Lancet Commission wouldn’t be glowing either…

 

The Archive Appetizer: Integrating nutrient dynamics into crop models

This blog post is cross-posted on the AgMIP site and written by Natalie Kozlowski.

More than 2 billion people worldwide face the risk of micronutrient deficiencies due to the limited availability or affordability of nutritious foods. A new paper in Nature Climate Change presents a novel framework for integrating nutrient dynamics into crop models, such as the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT), while also highlighting the urgent need for experimental datasets to support this nutritional modeling. This integration will offer key insights into how to strengthen nutrition interventions in a changing climate.

Climate change is expected to intensify challenges related to food security and dietary diversity through shifts in crop productivity, greater yield and price volatility, market disruptions, food safety concerns, and reductions in the nutritional quality of the global food supply. These challenges may be further exacerbated by the potential dilution of key nutrient concentrations in staple crops due to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Figure 1. Inputs, processes, and outputs to assess nutrient dynamics in crop models.

  • Nutrient uptake in roots throughout their lifecycle based on the initial pool of nutrients available in the soil

  • Nutrient accumulation in relation to daily plant mass growth and harvestable product

  • Soil factors affecting the solubility and movement of available nutrients in the soil

  • Impact of temperature, water stress, or other atmospheric factors on nutrient uptake per phenological stage

The paper marks an important advance in bringing nutrient dynamics into crop modeling and underscores the limited availability of comprehensive datasets beyond staple crops. The authors also call for urgent, collaborative research among climate scientists, farmers, crop modelers, plant biologists, and public health nutrition practitioners to safeguard nutrition under climate uncertainty. By integrating nutrient dynamics into crop models, we also improve our understanding of how climate-driven changes will affect and influence the ability for global populations to receive essential nutrients from the food they consume.

Carducci & Guarin et al. is now available to read in Nature Climate Change here.

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