Food Bytes: December 2024 Edition

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

I am here in Gotham City, writing my final blog post for 2024 in the quiet. This is one of my favorite times of the year. Not because it is Christmas and New Year’s, but more so because the whole world pauses. Less email, less bustle, less stress. The opportunity to not have to click on that Zoom link for a week or two is just pure bliss. My posts as of late have gone from reflection to angst to dread, but at this moment, dear reader, I am feeling “set” — like a voluminous beehive hairdo or a delightful buttery pound cake. I am ready to take on whatever 2025 brings, as I hope you are.

This is my last Food Bytes of 2024. I managed to publish 9 (not 12) this year. I learn a ton gathering up material for the monthly Food Bytes as it forces me to do some reading, listening, and watching to highlight the prolific content being put out in the world on food systems, climate, and nutrition. I feel incredibly fortunate to work in an area so rich and doused with science, politics, culture, and controversy. This area of chosen work would be dull without those elements all jumbled together and needing constant teasing apart. So here it goes…my last Food Bytes of 2024. Hang onto your hats, guys and gals, for a very interesting 2025…

Let’s start with obesity. There is so much coming out related to obesity prevalence and trends, as well as the new GLP-1 anti-obesity class of medications (formally known as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists). Earlier this year, the NCD Risk Factor Collaborators published a paper in the Lancet showing the obesity and undernutrition trends among adults and children. They showed that we have moved from a world paralyzed by undernutrition to a world of obesity, with some countries struggling with both forms. One in 8 people are obese - or 1 billion people suffer. Many of you know this story of the nutrition transition and the double and triple burdens of malnutrition, but the overall picture over the last 30 years is quite staggering. Check out the circular bar plots of the changes in the underweight burden (the blue bar's length shows prevalence) and obesity (pink/red bar) among women in 1990 and 2022.

View fullsize

Another paper just released, again in the Lancet, showed in the United States, between 1990 and 2021, the percentage change in the prevalence of obesity in adults was 123.6% in men and 99.% in women. They forecast that by 2050 if current trends continue, the total number of adults with overweight and obesity will reach 213 million. And I am not even reporting on teen prevalence. Wowsa. Yet, JAMA just published results that found that the prevalence of BMI and obesity in the United States decreased in 2023 for the first time in over a decade. Some pontificate it is because of the GLP1 inhibitors, others because of COVID-related deaths (obesity being a heightened risk factor for morbidity and mortality associated with COVID).

The difference could be that the Lancet paper by the Global Burden of Disease 2021 US Obesity Forecasting Collaborators didn’t investigate trends beyond 2021. In contrast, the JAMA authors showed a decline in 2023 specifically. Also, we don’t know the future of the GLP-1s. Currently, they are cost-prohibitive for many living in the United States and, moreover, the world. One report estimated that if half of U.S. adults with obesity took these drugs, it could cost the healthcare system $411 billion per year. The inequities in who has access to these drugs are staggering.

These medications certainly help people lose weight, with various studies showing reductions in body weight somewhere between 10-25%, as well as other benefits for those struggling with diabetes and cardiovascular disease, to name a few. I worry that we still know so little about obesity, its drivers, and the potential ramifications of medicalizing the challenge into one silver-bullet solution. I also fear that the scale-up of these drugs gets food systems and industry “off the hook.” Why stop making ultra-processed foods and ensuring food environments are healthy for people when they can easily take these drugs? But RFK Jr is going to solve all that, right? Don’t hold your breath. I appreciated this commentary by Francesca Celletti and colleagues in JAMA on where we are at in our understanding of obesity:

“The seriousness of the crisis is now widely recognized. Yet there are many challenges that continue to hinder a successful national and global response. Perceptions and attitudes toward obesity, including the debate about whether obesity represents a risk factor or a disease, are widely divergent. Efforts to address the stigma associated with obesity have, in some cases, evolved into a narrative that obscures the importance of obesity-related morbidity and mortality. Compared with other noncommunicable diseases, there remains a lack of knowledge on the associated biological and genetic factors, and there are inconsistencies in the appreciation of the effect of obesity on other noncommunicable diseases and the overall burden of disease. There is limited evidence on long-term management interventions and their effectiveness among populations most at risk and in low-income settings in relation to issues such as access and adherence.”

Speaking of nutrition trends, the Global Burden of Disease Group published their analysis on global, regional, and national progress towards achieving the six nutrition-related Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets by 2030. The picture ain’t so rosy. These are their high-level results: “In 2030, we project that 94 countries will meet one of the six targets, 21 countries will meet two targets, and 89 countries will not meet any targets. We project that seven countries will meet the target for exclusive breastfeeding, 28 for child stunting, and 101 for child wasting, and no countries will meet the targets for low birthweight, child overweight, and anaemia.” Looking at current trends, the authors show that in 2021, seven countries had already met two of six targets (Georgia, Mongolia, South Korea, Peru, Rwanda, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico). What are they doing right? Case studies, anyone?

Diets heavily weigh into dietary outcomes, and as the SDGs stand, there is no target or monitoring of a dietary indicator, such as dietary diversity. SDGs. One of the juggernauts of our diets is how much animal source foods we should or could consume that benefit our health and the planet. A PNAS special feature delves into this quandary in what I think is quite a balanced set of papers showing all the angles and issues. We contributed a piece laying out the biological nutritional vulnerabilities stemming from high micronutrient needs per calorie among infants and young children, women of reproductive age, pregnant and lactating women, and older adults, particularly older women, and the importance of nutrient-dense foods coming from both plant and animal-source foods. Speaking of nutrient-dense foods, some colleagues from the Blue Foods Assessment published a paper in the Environmental Research Letters that assessed nutrition-sensitive climate risk to five essential micronutrients across production systems. By mid-century (2041–2060), we estimate that 75% of calcium, 30% of folate, 39% of iron, 68% of vitamin A, and 79% of vitamin B12 produced in primary food products will face frequent climate extremes globally. Nearly 50 countries are projected to face high domestic climate risk for two or more micronutrients during this period. Check out the figure below.

Speaking of the climate crisis, I have written before about tipping points, but some scientists argue the framing is distracting and confusing. Regardless, people are fatigued and confused by all the terminology: diebacks, atmospheric rivers, bomb cyclones. Grist calls it “alert fatigue”. The question is, does the fatigue translate into inaction? The scientists in that Nature paper argue that urgency and the terms and definitions to illustrate that urgency do not always translate into political commitments. And sadly, people are being left behind. Did you hear about Cyclone Chido on the French island of Mayotte? Neither did I. People are dying from climate-related extreme events, and we aren’t even able to count the dead or notice. Unless you live in a rich country… We are really on the edge here, and leaders seem to be shrugging their shoulders. Look at this year’s various COP events - climate, biodiversity, and dry lands. Were any binding and bold commitments made? Nope. And science is under ever more scrutiny and openly ignored and disregarded by some. This title says it all: Good COP, Bad COP, science struggles under a year of environmental summits. As this editorial argues in the Lancet Planetary Health, somebody has to move first. As the editors wrote: “…The absence of consensus on the world stage should not hold back individual countries from moving rapidly away from fossil fuels and benefitting from this. Keeping warming below 2°C is still possible, and actions that limit warming to almost any degree will be beneficial, but some have to do the right thing and decisively move first.”  The question is, who will be brave enough?

But we scientists keep churning. The IPBES Nexus and Transformative Change assessment summary reports have been released (my hermano, Mario Herrero, one of the lead authors says the very long reports are coming soon). First, what is IPBES? It is the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. It is similar to the IPCC in that it sits at the interface between science and policy and is meant to spur evidence-based political action. The Nexus report argues that we need to holistically tackle biodiversity loss, water and food insecurity, health risks, and climate change because these five areas interact, cascade, and compound each other, and addressing them separately is counterproductive, redundant, and inefficient. The Transformative report focuses on the underlying causes of the biodiversity crisis, the drivers of change, and available options and argues for a “whole of society” approach. Overall, their analysis is not a chipper one. Half of the world lives in areas hit hard by food and water insecurity and biodiversity loss. Biodiversity is in massive decline. And delaying action will be catastrophic. Action in these areas could unlock trillions of dollars in economic growth and jobs. The figure below is worth a lot. It shows a wheel of interconnected challenges (different colors) and barriers (different 637 letters) to transformative change.

View fullsize

We continue to push out sound data to inform policymakers across food systems. The Food Systems Countdown to 2030 Initiative will publish its 3rd annual paper in January, so stay tuned for that. Meanwhile, a few of us at the Columbia Climate School wrote a piece for IFPRI’s Impact group on food system data gaps and the future potential to measure food systems data with new big data technology.

As you may know, I am a big fan of rivers. This poem, Rest, Like a River by Leena Danawala is a fitting way to close out 2024:

I like the idea of a river yawning:

its mouth a vast open width,

just a symptom of fatigue.

I think of how it wraps its length

around itself, serpentine and sure;

how its waves rock back and forth,

a cradle on an unsteady floor.

on days like today, when the

spring fog has melted into my bones,

or when time seems to stop or slow,

I think of my spine as that river

and curl into myself like the letter “c.”

breath floating downstream,

body swaying like the currents of the sea.

Food Bytes: Aug 2024 Edition

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

It’s been a while, well, the whole summer, since I have written a Food Bytes blog. This summer was full of guilt-free laziness, ice cream eating, and beach combing. Witness the delicious vanilla Mr. Softee cone. On those sticky, hot, humid dog days of summer in NYC when nothing seems to be going right, this will do me just fine. But ketchup-inspired ice cream? That’s a hard no for me. Oh, but there was plenty of consumption of this on those long summer nights and some earlier “draft”ernoons. Pizza always comes to mind when discussing NYC and food in the same breath. Did you know NYC has gone through 4 evolutions of pizza making? Forgeddaboudit. Call me crazy, but I am still focused on the first evolution, and I’m stickin’ to it.

We saw lots of good music over the summer including DIIV at the beautiful Brooklyn Paramount, Jessica Pratt, OFF! (with the legendary Keith Morris), and Horse Lords in central LA. I also found myself not reading many scientific articles over the summer. Why do that to oneself when days can be spent lollygagging on grassy knolls? Instead,…wait for it…I read books! What a concept. But this week, I did manage to catch up on some light reading, and here are some highlights.

The New York Times has a new series of op-eds, “What to Eat on a Burning Planet.” A real picker-upper on the title alone. David Wallace Wells started the series with an op-ed on how food supplies will change and how climate change threatens the ability to continue to generate the yields needed to feed a growing population. There are a host of other good op-eds worth the read.

The Economist, a British weekly news magazine, hasn’t always given nutrition and food much attention, but lately, they seem to have changed their tune. I am a big fan of the Economist — this idea that you don’t know who the writers are behind the stories, their bravery in calling things as they see them, and, of course, the fantastic writing. They have paid homage to food and nutrition in three great articles.

• They call for big food to contend with ultra-processed foods. They say, "If pressure from governments ratchets up, the food industry will have to do more than tweak its recipes or roll out new product lines. Companies would have to completely overhaul their manufacturing processes.”

• They also focused on the idea that small investments in early child nutrition can make the world smarter and that undernutrition across the world persists. This is not new to those working in international nutrition, but it is nice to see broader attention to the topic.

• At the same time, obesity is rising and seems unstoppable. The Economist argues that drugs (like the GLP-1 class) and taxes won’t be enough. The question is, why don’t we have more solutions that work, and why has no country been able to stop this trend? Don’t say it is willpower, please….

A lot is happening in the ongoing debates of livestock and meat production and consumption — one of the most juggernaut issues in food systems. Here are some highlights:

Source: Herzon et al 2024 Nature Food

• The Good Food Institute—a nonprofit organization that promotes plant- and cell-based alternatives to animal products, particularly meat, dairy, and eggs—released a report that argues if Americans replaced 50% of their animal consumption (meat and dairy) with plant-based foods, 47.3 million fewer acres of cropland would be needed to grow that plant protein. Let’s see how that goes down with the livestock sector.

• According to Vox, environmental NGOs help greenwash the livestock industry’s climate impact. They use the example of the World Wildlife Fund and their relationship with McDonalds who are part of a round table on sustainable beef (with WWF accepting millions from McDonalds to assist in the roundtable collaboration. Yikes.

• More and more studies are better articulating the impacts of red meat consumption on non-communicable disease outcomes. This meta-analysis further confirms that a higher intake of red meat and processed meat increases the risk of type 2 diabetes incidence. A microsimulation model estimated that a 30% reduction in both processed meat and unprocessed red meat intake could lead to 1,073,400 fewer occurrences of type 2 diabetes, 382,400 fewer occurrences of cardiovascular disease, 84,400 fewer occurrences of colorectal cancer, and 62,200 fewer all-cause deaths over a 10-year period among an adult US population.

• The evidence is building…maybe leading to more statements such as this. The question is, how? These authors suggest downsizing livestock herds and for those that remain in existence, ensuring they are sustainable and present a framework (see figure above) for how sustainable livestock systems fit into a safe operating space.

• And what we don’t talk about enough is animal and human welfare associated with our unlimited appetite for animal meats. Michael Holtz wrote an illuminating and devastating account about working in a Dodge City meatpacking plant during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. I also highlighted the issue of young immigrant teenagers working in dangerous conditions at slaughterhouses in a past Food Bytes post.

Food prices, cost, and affordability are hot topics these days. Kamala has made minimizing food price gouging part of her future economic plan if she were to become president-elect. Some disagree with her strategy. The FAO’s State of Food Insecurity Report released its latest data on food affordability. While the number has come down this year from 3.1 to 2.83 billion people who cannot afford a healthy diet, it is still shockingly high and inequitable across regions of the world. FAO says: “In 2022, the number of people unable to afford a healthy diet dropped below pre-pandemic levels in the group of upper-middle- and high-income countries as a whole, while the group of low-income countries had the highest levels since 2017.” But still, food prices continue to rise, pushing up the cost of a healthy diet year on year. In 2022, costs went up 11% in just one year. A group out of IFPRI suggests that the cost and affordability of healthy diets need more investigation into their accuracy and if assumptions of these metrics skew what is actually affordable. Their analysis argues that the EAT-Lancet diet is not affordable for 2.13 billion people, not the 3.02 originally reported. I am not an economist or a specialist in this topic, so I cannot agree or disagree with these findings. However, I am a scientist, and opening debates and discussions on metrics is a healthy pursuit to get to the truth. In another paper published in Nature Food, authors analyze per capita budget shares for food and an additional 12 raw food categories, including ultra-processed food and beverages, across 94 countries from the period 1990 to 2019. They found that food expenditures are not the same worldwide, and low-income food demand does not necessarily mirror high-income demand. Of course, budget allocations align with income levels, food trade and production, and culture. Check out this figure to see how much it diverges across low to high-income countries.

Source: Liang et al 2024 Nature Food

A few other Bytes: This paper on the climate-food-migration nexus by Megan Carney is a doozy but so important. Hulsen et al. published a paper on how local food environments impact children’s diets. They did this work in Malawi and found significant differences between rural and urban food environments, and that, of course, access to more variety of foods in these markets has positive impacts on children’s diets. The New York Times has highlighted a study on tipping points that may just put the fear of god in you. Die-offs! Collapses! Ghostly coral reefs! Seriously, these are scary outcomes if we do nothing about climate and the science on tipping points has momentum. Speaking of tipping points, has Italy’s marine ecosystem reached one, and the result is blue crab invasions and infestations? In the worst-case scenario, tipping points could lead to massive destruction of precious ecosystems, food insecurity for billions, and, in some cases, famines. The world has witnessed cataclysmic famines in the past. The question remains as to why Gaza and Sudan have not been declared as famine states. NPR explains. Declaring a famine is not so simple…but it doesn’t mean inaction and complacency.

And if you need some recommendations on keeping up with the latest food systems news, if you don’t read and support Civil Eats, do so. If you were a fan of The Counter and were devastated when they closed shop, have no fear. Grist has come to the rescue, and their food reporting is awesome.

And for those of you who tear up every time you hear Gillian Welch’s Time (the Revelator), she and her partner, David Rawlings, have a new album out. It may just help you laze away the last days of summer. Enjoy!

That banks the river for which it's named

View fullsize

Rivers are special. These ribbon-like bodies of water cut through topography, shaping and shifting the landscape around them.

rivers begin where they end
if 1 considers rain + jet stream winds
look deeper into grainy sands
the sublimation from the wind-swept lands ever reach sea — Jordan, Sound Furies

My partner and I have always been drawn to rivers and try to live or be near them. We currently reside quite close to the great Hudson River (~500 km long), where we can amble through Riverside Park and enjoy the views. We are so obsessed with rivers that we made a double album as the Sound Furies dedicated to rivers, entitled “Tributaries.” One of my favorite songs from the album is Columbia.

We are not alone in our obsession with all things river. There are many songs inspired by rivers in the archives of rock-n-roll. Al Green just wanted someone to take him to the river. Jimmy Cliff had many rivers to cross. Joni Mitchell longed to have a river to skate away on. Sam Cooke was born by a river. Tina fearlessly rolled on a river (thanks for the original CCR). I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Rivers mean something to many of us.

It is not just music. There are a plethora of movies about rivers. African Queen, A River Runs Through It, and one of the best movies ever made which spends most of its time on the river, Apocalypse Now. In the movie, the French woman living on the plantation says to Willard (played by Martin Sheen), “Do you know why you can never step into the same river twice?” Willard answers, “Yeah, 'cause it's always moving.” The best scene, though, is the conversation between Willard, who has come to assassinate the unhinged Colonel Kurtz (played by Brando). They converse about the Ohio river and a gardenia plantation.

What was up with all those movies in the 90s about dead bodies being found along river banks — Short Cuts, Stand By Me, A River’s Edge, and of course, David Lynch’s Twin Peaks? We Gen Xers were so demented.

Supposedly, there are 165 major rivers around the world, but no one really knows the real number. The five longest rivers in the world are the Nile, which starts in Uganda and moves north (odd, right?) to Egypt, the Amazon-Ucayali-Apurimac in South America, the Mississippi-Missouri-Red Rock in the U.S., the Yangtze in China, and the Yenisey-Baikal-Selenga in northern Asia. The Nile is the longest, topping out at 6,650 km. The Danube in Europe flows through 10 countries. The Congo River is the deepest. Rivers serve all sorts of purposes. They provide water, food, habitats, transportation, and recreation, to name just a few purposes. Rivers are really important for food. Fish and other aquatic creatures that live in rivers are consumed. Food is traded on and transported by rivers. Food is grown in or around river banks. Water from rivers irrigates crops.

We wrote a paper on the dynamism and multifaceted nature of rivers as food environments (i.e., the place within food systems where people obtain their food) and their role in securing food security, including improved diets and overall health. In the figure below, we showed the elements of multidimensional riverine food environments.

View fullsize

The paper nicely describes why river ecosystems are so critical. “Rivers can be described as nutrient highways across the earth’s surface, transporting sediment and water, sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, and connecting and storing immense biodiversity through aquatic life. The flow and transportation of sediment create environments for cultivation (e.g. rice farming), with river deltas being one of the world’s most agriculturally productive areas. Rivers support approximately 1/3 of all global food production, and an estimated 70% of freshwater from rivers is used for agriculture.”

There are so many challenges with rivers. The first issue is environmental: climate change, environmental degradation, and pollution are vastly changing these waterscapes - altering their composition and flow. The second issue is overfishing and overallocation, meaning the building of dams for electricity, are altering the riverine ecosystems and marine life and creating water shortages and river connectivity, respectively. As for rivers that cut across multiple countries, who governs these waters and decides who can build dams and where? We see those challenges in large rivers such as the Mekong — where China is building dams upstream impacting many Cambodian and Vietnamese living downstream. We also see this with the Nile, in which Ethiopia is building damns to electrify the nation, which could have massive impacts on irrigation systems for Egyptian agriculture. The third issue is that while rivers transport and contain food, they also bring other things, like diseases and unhealthy foods deep into river communities. This New York Times article discusses how the Amazong brought the COVID-19 pandemic into the far reaches of the Amazon forest.

View fullsize

The spread of covid in just a few months during the pandemic along the Amazon waterways. Source: NYT

“The Amazon River is South America’s essential life source, a glittering superhighway that cuts through the continent. It is the central artery in a vast network of tributaries that sustains some 30 million people across eight countries, moving supplies, people and industry deep into forested regions often untouched by road. But once again, in a painful echo of history, it is also bringing disease.”

The Amazon also carries highly processed foods. According to this article, multinational companies like Nestle had river barges that delivered junk foods to isolated communities in the Amazon basin.

There is also the issue of rivers flooding, damaging infrastructure and harming humans and animals in their way. And now, we are experiencing rivers above us — atomospheric rivers — corridors of concentrated water vapor in the atmosphere that wreak havoc. What the hell?!

View fullsize

World WildLife Fund’s solutions for sustainable rivers

I can’t recommend enough the documentary “A River’s Last Chance,” about the Eel River. It delves into the history of how this river has been managed, or lack thereof. The Eel River is in Northern California and has been vulnerable to overfishing of its salmon, logging, floods, droughts, and dams. While the wild salmon population is trying to recover, new cash crops—weed and wine — threaten the salmon once more. It is quite a story of a river struggling to survive.

World Wildlife Fund has a fantastic initiative, Rivers of Food, in which they propose a four-pronged solution towards a more sustainable future for rivers and food security.

Let’s hope rivers can be saved as they provide a vital lifeline for nature, animals, and humans. They are also just so romantic and atmospheric. We used to dwell right near the Tiber when we lived in Rome. It was so magical. The way the early morning light hit the surface of the water, the banks, and the bridges. During the late summer months of the year, the starlings would circle around the Tiber, before settling in for the night in the treetops along the river banks. In Paolo Sorrentino’s La Grande Belleza, the early morning light on the Tiber is captured so beautifully below.

I'll just stay here

I write this blog, having been recently infected with COVID. The first time was in May of 2022. This time around, I am a little worse for the wear, but it allows me, through a foggy haze, to contemplate this pesky and resilient virus on its almost fourth anniversary since hearing about its emergence in Wuhan.

I traveled on a plane five times since March 2020, when most of the world shut down from COVID-19. Three of the trips were to Italy — Bologna, Puglia, and Bellagio. The other two were to Seattle and Switzerland. To put this globetrotting footprint into perspective, I would travel on average about ten international flights a year before the pandemic. In those three and a half years, my average was 1.5 trips a year. Don’t get me wrong. The ability to travel and see the world is truly a privilege. We travel to find ourselves, to discover new places, and to understand humanity. I was fortunate to travel to some very faraway places before social media, iPhones, and Instagram, in which everywhere and everything is distilled down to a “been there down that” disposable, bragable moment. They were the best times of travel - conveniences but without the crowds.

From the paper by Ripple et al 2023

I share my travelogue history during the pandemic with you because the one thing COVID-19 forced upon many of us was to stay put. While I don’t think the world has deeply reflected enough about the impacts of the pandemic on our society (particularly the loss of life and suffering), the lessons learned, and the murky path forward, the world did pause (and was truly quieter), and this respite did wonders, at least temporarily, for Mother Earth. Just look at these figures of air transport and greenhouse gas emissions per capita in 2020 and the dip. A flight from London to New York is about 1,000 kg (1 ton) of carbon dioxide. There are crude and somewhat flawed comparisons to relate this footprint to other activities like household electricity consumption, driving a car, and eating hamburgers. Just know, this is a lot. To put the flight emissions into perspective, the U.S., on average, produces about 16 tons of carbon a year (the world average is 4). The world needs to move towards 2 tons per year by 2050. Travel is a significant component of the U.S.’s emissions.

As I see it, my time of heavy travel is over. It is now the next generation’s turn to see the world and for the world to see them while they can. It will get more complicated to travel. It already is. It will become less fun and full of hassle, and it will further exhibit inequities. There will be places that will be incredibly difficult to travel to — too hot, too dangerous, too constrained.

When I think about the limits of travel and time spent over these last four years, this spoken word song Nirvana, comes to mind. It is told by Tom Waits — a master singer-songwriter who croons conversational late-night stories through songs — on his Orphans: Brawlers, Bawlers & Bastards album. Waits poignantly, but always in keeping with his guttural delivery, recites a poem of the same name by Charles Bukowski about a young man who, for a moment, is lost in the magic of a cafe in a small town he is passing through. At one point, the man thinks: “I’ll just sit here, I’ll just stay here.” But he doesn’t. He boards the Greyhound bus once again and moves on, and no one, except him, even noticed the magic of that somewhere town.

In the Nirvana story, the weary traveler longs for a place to call home and hang his hat. He seems lost and is searching for the magic that life has not yet offered him. That is why we travel, yes? I sought after that magic when I journeyed — that place where one can say, “Everything was beautiful there, that it would always stay beautiful there.” And while through all of my travels, there have been many experiences, instances, and glimpses of beauty and enchantment, it gets harder for me to want more. Instead, I will embrace the magic I picked up along the way and “just stay here.”

Building Stronger Food Systems in the Face of Global Shocks

I recently wrote a report for the Farm Journal Foundation on the current global food system crisis and the U.S.'s role in supporting small-scale producers by ramping up agricultural development assistance. A summary is below, and the full report can be found here.

View fullsize

Over the past few years, the world has faced a series of unprecedented shocks that have pushed farmers and our global food system to the breaking point. The COVID-19 pandemic, international and regional conflicts, including the war between Russia and Ukraine, and extreme weather events caused by climate change have come together to create a true “polycrisis” – significantly impacting food, fertilizer, feed, fuel, and finance available to farmers. These challenges have been extremely difficult in their own right, but worst still, they have left humanity vulnerable to any future “black swan” moments that could have severe and far-reaching consequences for global food supplies.

Recent shocks have led to high food prices and worsening hunger and malnutrition around the world. This polycrisis has disproportionately negatively impacted small-scale producers and people living in low-income, food-deficit countries who spend most of their incomes on food. Smallholders generally have low levels of agricultural productivity, high exposure to climate change and other threats, scarce assets, and poor access to information, technology, markets, and services – increasing their vulnerability to shocks.

Because Russia and Ukraine are major crop producers and fertilizer suppliers, a key input to help smallholder farmers increase their crop yields, the war between the two countries has significantly impacted global food and nutrition security. Trade bottlenecks, initially caused by the COVID-19 pandemic but compounded by the Russia-Ukraine war, have further exacerbated the crisis. Structural challenges to food systems in developing countries, including farmers’ lack of access to markets and finance, poor storage and transportation infrastructure, which contribute to food loss and waste, and persistent disempowerment of women in agriculture, mean that countless farmers and food producers were already teetering on the edge of survival; additional burdens stemming from the polycrisis have pushed many into disaster. Consumers around the world have also faced enormous pressure, as disrupted agricultural supplies have led to rising food prices and lower availability and affordability of nutritious foods. New research has shown that even modest increases in the prices of staple foods leads rapidly to negative nutrition impacts from deteriorating diet quality as low-income families shift away from more nutritious and expensive foods, including vegetables, fish, and eggs, in order to afford the increased costs of rice, wheat, maize, or other dietary staples.

View fullsize

A global map of the number of people with acute food insecurity, mid-2022

Through its whole-of-government Feed the Future initiative, the U.S. has an important role in enabling farmers and food systems in developing countries to withstand shocks better. Supporting global food and nutrition security is in America’s best interest both from an economic and national security standpoint. Studies show that U.S. investment in international agricultural development, research, and innovation benefits both developing countries and U.S. producers and consumers, far exceeding its costs.

Key Recommendations

Agricultural research and development (R&D) can help developing countries address their own unique challenges and shore up local food systems to withstand shocks better. Unfortunately, there have been significant decreases in inflation-adjusted U.S. and multilateral investment in food systems R&D to countries and universities in recent years, and important institutions, including CGIAR have seen fluctuations in research funding.

The U.S. government is uniquely positioned to lead investments in international agricultural research by virtue of its unparalleled capacity from the federal, university, private sectors and to generate benefits that would simultaneously help smallholder farm families around the world and American farmers and ranchers. The U.S. can strengthen its portfolio by providing additional resources to initiatives such as CGIAR, U.S. Feed the Future Innovation Labs, and the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR), and by partnering with institutions with long histories of designing and delivering research for development overseas, such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Within this context, the U.S. should consider targeting additional research funding toward the following areas to increase impact:

1. Climate change adaptation and mitigation: The impact of climate change on agriculture is expected to intensify in coming years, and more investments are needed to improve smallholder resilience, productivity, and incomes. Areas that need increased research investment include drought-resistant crop varieties, better on-farm water management and improved irrigation, more precise fertilizer application, and additives to cattle feed to improve feed efficiency and/or reduce enteric methane emissions.

2. Soil health and nutrient management: More research is needed into solutions that can reduce global dependence on Russian fertilizer. The U.S. should consider investing in R&D and partnering with the private sector to develop and scale up green fertilizer, biofertilizers, fertilizer alternatives, and innovations that boost fertilizer efficiency and nutrient uptake.

3. Crop diversity and nutrition: Low productivity, high production risks, and insufficient diversification towards producing more nutritious foods are critical drivers of the elevated cost of healthy diets, especially in low-income countries. More research should focus on developing sustainable and scalable production methods for various crops, including fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, improved forages for climate-smart animal nutrition, and where appropriate, biofortification and fortification of crops and food. In addition, more research is needed to improve the affordability of animal-source foods, such as fish, eggs, and dairy, that would enhance both nutrition and livelihoods.

4. Access to markets and finance, especially for women: Research could focus on how to address barriers to smallholders’ access to credit and market information, ways to develop new market linkages, innovative financing models, and partnerships with development banks to expand lending to farmers, and how to improve farmer organizations’ capacity to negotiate with buyers.

5. Supply chain infrastructure: Inadequate food storage, poor road infrastructure, limited food preservation capacity, and the lack of physical access to food markets, especially for perishable foods, lead to significant food losses and inefficiencies along supply chains in many developing countries. Innovations focused on the infrastructure needs of small-scale producers and strategies developed to address those needs could help attract additional investment on-farm and across the entire food system.

6. Local capacity building: Giving voice and agency to local producers allows for their participation and leadership in R&D funding and prioritization decisions. Without their engagement from the start, adoption of technologies and other R&D tools produced could be futile. It is also critical to ensure that R&D investments do not cause unintended negative consequences, burdens, or harms, particularly for women who already face significant hurdles.

Grocery Delivery Services: A Mixed Bag

This is a cross-posted blog from the Berman Institute of Bioethics’s Global Food Policy and Ethics (GFEPP) blog. It was written by Leslie Engel, MPH, a Science Writer Consultant for the GFEPP.

Americans have more ways than ever to shop for the ingredients needed for their meals. This was not always the case. Prior to the first self-service grocery store opening over a century ago, shoppers had to rely on clerks to retrieve and package items for them. Since then—aside from the invention of scanners and self-checkout—the grocery shopping experience has remained largely unchanged. It’s an industry ripe for disruption, and tech companies have seized upon this.

Rowan Freeman, Unsplash License

Enter grocery delivery services. These companies make lofty promises—to eliminate the hassle of grocery shopping, meal planning, preparation, and even the act of cooking itself—while also being good for you and the environment. And more Americans than ever are now using them.

I worked as a recipe manager for a leading grocery delivery startup whose mission is to make healthy eating easy by using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to predict customer food preferences. As a professionally trained chef with a background in public health, I was fascinated with the ability of such services to seamlessly deliver top-quality, nourishing, and sustainable products and recipes to customers, potentially as another avenue to improve health and wellbeing through home cooking. However, as I developed yet another recipe involving ground beef, I began to question how healthy this industry really is, both for ourselves and for our food system.

Convenience, for a price
Convenience, safety, and accessibility are the main appeal of these delivery services. This was especially evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many consumers turned to delivery to avoid in-person shopping. In theory, this means that more people will have better access to food, especially those with health, mobility, or other constraints. However, convenience comes at a price, and grocery delivery services pass this cost onto consumers in the form of markups, service, and delivery fees. Additionally, increased food costs due to inflation likely render this convenience financially out of reach for those most in need.

Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?
There’s some evidence that grocery delivery could be more environmentally friendly than hopping into the car because it reduces greenhouse gas emissions. A study in Washington State demonstrated that it may be more efficient for a fully stocked truck to deliver to multiple households in the same neighborhood rather than individuals driving to the store themselves. But this is a best case scenario. The biggest emissions reductions would require households to cluster their orders together and forgo specific delivery times, thus reducing the convenience factor and the main selling point of such services.

Tim Mossholder, Unsplash License

Reliance on California’s Central Valley
Twenty-five percent of our nation’s food is produced in the Central Valley of California. The area is so integral to business that the company I worked for hired someone specifically from the region to oversee produce sourcing. But its agricultural future is in peril: water is scarcer than ever, severe droughts related to climate change have diminished groundwater stores and decimated crops, and intensive farming practices exacerbate the problem.

Crop failures or shortages were a huge sourcing and supply chain headache with trickle down effects. Customers often complained about receiving an inferior product, or one not as uniform as what they were accustomed to. Receiving a last minute vegetable “swap” presented a whole new set of customer challenges: I don’t like the cauliflower that replaced my broccoli! And how am I supposed to cook this?

The end result was often wasted food, as evidenced in the customer comments I analyzed. Food wasted at the household level is especially egregious because it squanders all the resources that went into growing, processing, packaging, and shipping it. In the U.S., between 73 and 152 metric tons of food is wasted somewhere along the supply chain annually. About half of that waste is happening at the household or food service level. And worldwide, food waste contributes 8% of human-generated greenhouse gas emissions, making it a significant contributor to climate change.

Technology
When customers rated a product or recipe, it became a data point used to further refine the AI, which then “decides” what product or recipe will go into their next delivery. You’ve no doubt seen the effectiveness of this technology in eerily relevant pop-up ads. Similar to how AI learns which ads you are most likely to click on, it can also learn which foods you’re going to enjoy or not. Like that hamburger? You shall receive more ground beef! It becomes a feedback loop designed to retain customers and increase profits, but not necessarily improve your health or the environment.

Looking Ahead
I still believe that grocery delivery services and the technology that drives them are the way of the future and can be a positive force within the food system. AI can potentially be used to improve diets, not just increase profits; researchers have harnessed this technology to help people grappling with obesity and diabetes to eat better.

To improve access for everyone, the U.S. government should make it easier for grocery delivery companies to accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).The USDA is currently piloting a program that enables SNAP recipients to purchase groceries online from select retailers. Incentives should also exist for companies to waive delivery and service fees for SNAP recipients.

In addition, produce should be sourced regionally when possible. Shorter transit distances from farm to fridge mean less greenhouse gas emissions and fresher, more nutritious produce with a longer shelf life that’s less likely to be tossed. Fresh Direct offers a selection of local produce and more services should follow suit. The increased demand could help boost struggling regional agriculture and decrease demand on the imperiled Central Valley. Finally, the biggest thing missing from this new grocery shopping experience are people. AI may be “filling” your cart, but humans still harvest, process, pack and deliver everything we eat for low wages in unsafe working conditions. The pandemic has revealed that the meatpacking industry will go to great lengths–at the expense of humans–to maintain production and profits. Most recently, dozens of children were found to be illegally working as sanitation workers in meatpacking plants. By further alienating ourselves from where our food comes from, we’re less likely to see the value in the people behind the scenes making sure your fridge is full.

Leslie Engel, MPH, is a Science Writer Consultant for the Global Food Ethics and Policy Program.

Food Bytes: October 2022 Edition

Food Bytes is a monthly blog post of “nibbles” of information on all things climate, food, and nutrition science, policy, and culture.

It’s been a long while since I posted a Food Bytes edition, and so much has happened in the food space in the past year. First, a UN Food Systems Summit happened, but I remain quite unclear on what was achieved or what will come of the year-long work leading up to the event. Second, a devastating conflict between two breadbasket countries trudges on, putting food security concerns back on the geopolitical agenda. Third, extreme weather events, many related to climate change, unrelentingly warn us that our ability to feed a world of 8 billion (yikes) is precarious and precious. But science is there to nudge us, generating new knowledge on why we and every other species are here, what accelerates us, what destroys us, and where we are heading. Charles Mann wrote in The Wizard and the Prophet (a stellar book about William Vogt and Norman Borlaug’s discordant visions to feed the world):

Another thing this book is not: a blueprint for tomorrow. The Wizard and the Prophet presents no plan, argues for no specific course of action. Part of this aversion reflects the opinion of the author: in our Internet era, there are entirely too many pundits shouting out advice. I believe I stand on firmer ground when I try to describe what I see around me than when I try to tell people what to do.

I resonate with these sentiments. Even though science is plagued by warts, hiccups, and flaws, catalyzing evidence and data to help describe the world matters because it helps us understand nature, people, and the planet. With that background in mind, this month’s Food Bytes is all about highlighting the science community’s observations and uncertainties of a changing world and what it means for food systems and climate change. I purposely do not highlight the work of my team and collaborators, but if you are curious about when we do, you can look here.

View fullsize

Source: McKay et al. SCIENCE 9 Sep 2022 Vol 377, Issue 661 DOI: 10.1126/science.abn7950

Let’s get the dark stuff out of the way. A paper by David Armstrong McKay and colleagues updated data showing that holding at 1.5°C will trigger multiple climate tipping points. What are these tipping points? Things like ice sheet “collapses,” forest “diebacks,” and permafrost “abrupt thaws” (see the figure to the right). These terms are downright scary but very plausible under different modeling scenarios. Okay, onto more uplifting news — KIDDING! Another study has shown that over the last 40 years, the Arctic has warmed four times faster than the rest of the world, also known as Arctic amplification. These are massive global shifts that will further warm the planet, creating all kinds of chaos. What does it mean for us wee creatures living in our humble abodes? Well, the news is not totally uplifting on that front either. We are and will be deeply impacted by climate — and no one is immune. Research by Sylvia Blom and colleagues showed that repeated, extreme heat shocks impact early child nutrition — both chronic and acute malnutrition. They show that in 5 West African countries, a 2 °C rise in temperature will increase the prevalence of stunting by 7%. As the two latest 2022 Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change Reports on adaptation and mitigation, also known as the IPCC, argue, we still have time to act, although when you read it, you may want to have a nice glass of scotch in hand. While the window remains open, it is closing, and fast. We need to make massive changes to the way we live, much of that involving our use of resources. A recent Nature Sustainability paper showed that no country meets basic needs—such as nutrition, sanitation, and access to electricity—for its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use. To meet needs, we need to use resources somewhere between 2-6 times more to meet everyone’s needs. Gulp. Just take a look at the difference between the United States (a) and Sri Lanka (b) in the figure below. Blue wedges show social performance relative to the social threshold (blue circle), whereas green wedges show resource use relative to the biophysical boundary (green circle). The blue wedges start at the center of the plot (which represents the worst score achieved by any country), whereas the green wedges start at the outer edge of the blue circle (which represents zero resource use). Wedges with a dashed edge extend beyond the chart area. Ideally, a country would have blue wedges that reach the social threshold and green wedges within the biophysical boundary. Look at the inequities comparing the two countries!

View fullsize

Source: O’Neill, D.W., Fanning, A.L., Lamb, W.F. et al. A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat Sustain 1, 88–95 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4

The research and science in understanding the impacts of climate change on food systems and vice versa are growing exponentially. It is hard to keep up with the literature and weed out the noise. One area that deserves more attention is the impact of food trade on global greenhouse gas emissions and the environment—particularly land-use change—a significant source of emissions coming from food and agriculture. A study showed that 27% of land-use emissions and 22% of agricultural land are related to international trade (2004-2017)—food products consumed in a different place from where they were produced. The largest land-use emission transfers come from Indonesia and Brazil to China, the U.S., and Europe. A PLoS paper examining the future of trade shows that if we keep managing and governing global trade as is, food systems will be misaligned with dietary health and sustainability outcomes.

Perhaps one solution is through changing agriculture subsidy policies. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published their annual SOFI report and highlighted the need to transform agriculture subsidy programs around the world towards those that generate and produce healthier food products. Marco Springmann at Oxford modeled the impacts of subsidy policies that focused on nutritious foods and found multiple benefits across both environment and health. I am really uncertain about the political appetite to change subsidies. Talk about vested interests… Speaking of priorities, Ben Davies and colleagues argue that making big transformative policy changes across food systems is wonderful, but don’t do it “on the backs of the rural poor.” Although there are 2.7 billion people engaged in small-scale food production and 1.1 billion people concomitantly living in extreme poverty while working in agriculture, they are often ignored in the “transformation” story.

View fullsize

Affordability of a healthy diet grouped by five different food system typologies, showing transition of food systems. Source: Ambikapathi, et al Nat Food 3, 764–779 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00588-7

Positive transformation of food systems is not easy as history suggests. As Ramya Ambikipathi shows in a recent Nature Food paper, food systems have shifted from predominantly rural to industrialized and consolidated systems. Historically, incomes have risen faster than food prices as countries have industrialized, enabling a simultaneous increase in the supply and affordability of many nutritious foods. Evolving rural economies, urbanization, and changes in food value chains have accompanied these transitions, leading to changes in land distribution, a smaller share of agri-food system workers in the economy, and changes in diets. While the affordability of a recommended healthy diet has improved over time, food systems overall are falling short of delivering optimal nutrition and health outcomes, environmental sustainability, and inclusion and equity for all. Another fantastic paper by Jeff Waage and colleagues in Lancet Planetary Health shows the complex and risky relationship between agriculture and infectious disease, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries that are undergoing rapid food system transitions. They remind us that lessons can be drawn from COVID-19 and the rise of zoonotic spillover events within food systems should be prioritized (and minimized) on the political agenda.

Ensuring that everybody gets access to and consumes a healthy diet will remain a global challenge. The metrics, indicators, and data in understanding what people eat and why are improving. Just check out the Global Diet Quality Project, which collects dietary quality data in the adult population across countries worldwide using the Gallup poll and provides tools to monitor diet quality within countries. Wow. I hear rumblings of a global report coming out soon, so stay tuned. There has been a whole range of papers coming out on diet quality. Victoria Miller at Tufts University is on a roll. In one recent Nature Food paper, she examines diets across 185 countries from 1990 to 2018 using the Global Dietary Database (estimates and modeled). Their assessment shows that diet quality is modest at best but varies significantly depending on where you live, how old you are, and how much education you have. No surprises, but good to see more data emerging from this database. Miller and colleagues also published a more specific paper examining the consumption of animal-sourced foods worldwide showing that meat consumption is lower or higher than optimal intakes depending on the population. Another Miller paper published in JAMA examines the association of specific dietary factors with coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes using a systematic review. The table below summarizes the relative risks of the associations of nutrients with heart disease and diabetes events. Bottomline? Eat your fiber.

View fullsize

Source: Miller et al JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2146705. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.46705

Another emerging area gaining significant traction with scientific consensus is ultra-processed foods (UPFs), a term loathed by the food industry and a handful of nutritionists. The majority of those working in nutrition epidemiology and public health largely agree that UPFs—food-like substances extracted from foods, such as fats, starches, added sugars, and hydrogenated fats that also contain additives like artificial colors and flavors or stabilizers—are detrimental to human health across a bolus of outcomes. Many people argue that these foods should be regulated, avoided, and minimized in the global food system. If you want to hear more about this ongoing debate, check out this BBC podcast and this online debate with some heavy hitters in the space like NIH’s Kevin Hall, Marion Nestle, and Mike Gibney. The next frontier for these foods is their environmental impact. While a handful of papers argue that these foods have a significant environmental and climate footprint, the evidence is scant, and much more needs to be done in this space.

The question is, are alt-meats in this category? The pace of science in this space is hard to keep up with as there is a lot coming out in the grey literature (see the IPES report and the OECD report as examples) along with peer-reviewed publications, but some of what is available often bends towards ideology and less science. Same with plastics. There is deep concern about microplastics showing up all over the place, including food, but the evidence and impact of these plastics on health outcomes need much more exploration. So while Mr. McGuire told Ben in The Graduate, that the future lay with one word, plastics, we may need to re-examine that advice in light of the fragility of our world.

Bringing back community agriculture services

With food insecurity rising worldwide and nutrition-related illnesses proliferating, countries want to encourage healthier eating. But how can they ensure people are able to buy and prepare diverse, nutritious foods when farmers produce so little of them? National agricultural policies are generally designed to support the cultivation of staple grains such as corn and rice, some oils, and sugar. A recent paper shows that 1/3 of global farms cultivated maize and 1/5 cultivated wheat alone! These foods feed the world amply, and cheaply, but some in the form of highly processed foods.

@FAO

Another issue is the significant loss and waste of perishable fruits and vegetables, meat and dairy products because of inadequate food storage, poor roads, and people’s lack of access to modes of preserving food for long-term storage. Such inefficiencies along the food supply chain drive up the cost and limit the supply of nutritious, fresh foods in rural and urban areas alike.  In Ethiopia for example, perishable foods such as eggs, dairy, and fish are 8-10 times more expensive than starchy staple calories due to supply constraints.

Turning around such entrenched food systems may seem daunting. But it can be done, beginning at the grass-roots level by improving community-based agriculture extension programs. Extension workers are “door-to-door” or farm-to-farm advisers who translate agriculture science into practical applications for farmers. They help solve problems and provide the training and technology farmers need to improve their operations profitably. Extensionists, as they are called, can also be critical mediators in times of natural disasters or outbreaks of disease among livestock.

A study done in 2014 by the Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services estimated there are 1,059,528 extension agents worldwide, but that could be an underestimate. The range of extension agents in each country varies, with some countries having very few—Barbados has 6—whereas other countries have more—China has 615,000. But, of course, that depends on the number of farmers in the country and how many people each extension agent serves.

Ideally, extensionists can steer farmers toward cultivating more nutritious foods and help them do so profitably. They can guide farmers to save heirloom seeds and improve agronomic practices to produce nutritious crops such as horticulture and raising poultry and goats. They can provide training to farmer families on food preparation and nutrition. They can help farmers adopt cultivation and fertilization practices that protect the environment, limit greenhouse-gas emissions, and help store carbon in the soil. And last, they can advise on post-harvest and storage technologies to minimize food loss on farms.

However, in many countries, they lack the training, tools, transportation, and communication tools to reach farmers. Nutrition training provided to extension agents at agricultural technical schools and universities is ineffective and inadequate, which impedes the ability of agents to identify nutritional needs and provide advice or solutions. They also do not have tools to share with communities nor the training to raise awareness of nutrition as a priority.

In many countries, extensionists also lack the tools that would help them work efficiently with more farmers. For example, in some parts of rural Africa, extension agents do not have mobile phones (or top-ups) to contact farmers about real-time issues like food prices in regional markets or motorbikes to reach far-flung communities. With COVID-19, many extensionists cannot get out to the field, so in places like China and Iran, extensionists are using smartphones and the radio to communicate market information and technical support along with public health safety. Farm Radio International is working with 1,000 stations in Africa to help get out information through extension agents.

It starts at the university level—improving extension curricula in universities or after high-school technical training schools. Investments in refresher certification programs for extension agents are needed in most places globally as technologies change and the latest science and technological know-how on agronomy, nutrition, and climate science tools become available. Continual updates to training modules of extension agents such as the New Extensionist Nutrition Learning Kit developed in Rwanda can strengthen training in nutrition within agriculture. Many local non-governmental organizations can provide this training along with the Food and Agriculture Organization in partnership with Ministries of Agriculture.

Techniques employed by extension agents such as peer-to-peer engagement through model farmers, community champions using a “train-the-trainer” approach, or the “walk-and-talk” methodology, wherein agents interact with client farmers through hands-on demonstrations. One example could be forest walks with farmers. Extension agents could teach farmers how to harvest wild, nutrient-dense foods, followed by demonstrations in preparing and incorporating the food into conventional dishes. The International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) has a program, The Last Mile, which is expected to engage 15,000 extension agents in 18 countries to provide business and market-oriented skills to over 1.5 million smallholder farmers over the next five years. 

Last, women extension agents should be promoted and empowered. Only 15% of extension agents are women, and only 5% of women farmers reap the benefits from extension services. Most extension services have traditionally targeted their resources and interventions towards male farmers. Women extensionists understand the needs and challenges of women farmers, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where 45% of the agriculture workforce is made up of women. They should be invested not only to jumpstart careers but also to support the many women working in food systems that ultimately feed us.

Investing in the people who best understand their communities' needs, be it health or agriculture community workers, is critical to address the challenges that farmers face. However, it won’t be enough to transform global agriculture. Governments, international organizations and the private sector must invest in infrastructure along the entire food supply chain to help farmers grow, store and deliver perishable, nutritious foods. In addition, there is a need to provide farmers the latest climate-smart technologies and tools that would allow them to be resilient when facing natural disasters and other shocks. Insurance and credit are also crucial as safety nets in these uncertain times. That said, face-to-face contact with people exchanging ideas, advice, and knowledge isn’t a bad place to start. So let’s reinvigorate and invest in extensionists.

Food Bytes: June 1st Edition

Food Bytes is a weekly blog post of “nibbles” of information on all things food and nutrition science, policy and culture.

Indeed, it has been a while. One would have thought that the COVID-19 pandemic would have made me more productive—there is so much to blog about! Alas, for some of us, we’re okay going “underground” so to speak.

Speaking of underground, cicadas have emerged—the Broods (X) are back after a 17-year slumber. What does that have to do with the pandemic? Well, everything and nothing. My guest blogger and better half went hunting to cook some up. And let me tell ya, they are scrumptious. Truly. I too spoke about them on NPR and CNN.

COVID-19 has us not only experimenting with grubs but has upended our entire lifestyle. This NY Times piece argues that as we emerge from a year ++ of inactivity and less than normal eating patterns, we do not have to give in to all the diet fads that companies want you so badly to believe and buy. The video is quite thoughtful.

So many podcasts on food…but I like Point of Origin. This one, on “food apartheid” as opposed to “food desert” is particularly interesting.

Speaking of podcasts, I am pretty excited about my book that is coming out on June 22: Can Fixing Dinner Fix the Planet? I spoke to Jeremy Cherfast of Eat This Podcast about the book and fixing our food systems.

The UN Food Systems Summit is gearing up for better and for worse. There is a lot of chatter, dialoguing, planning, and writing on the peripheries. Corinna Hawkes, my go-to on all things food systems, has been keeping up her blog sharing gems of thoughts on leadership, inclusion, and what it means to truly change food systems around the world.

Some other random media nuggets that caught my eye this past week or so:

• NYT questions the measurement of Body Mass Index. It’s about time…

• Inspiring article in Mother Jones about black farmers reclaiming land that is rightfully theirs.

• Mark Bittman has written another book and this one hits hard at the U.S. food system. Always provocative, here are some of his thoughts on what needs to change. Alice Waters weighs in too.

• Should we have a scientific body that weighs the evidence on food systems? Some say no. Why? Because it already exists. Yes, it does but it needs help…

We cannot end any Food Byte edition without highlighting some of the fantastic science being generated on all things food. Here are a few gems:

• Animal source foods reduced stunting in young children in Bangladesh and Nepal. Nature Food.

• A modeling exercise looked at the cost-effectiveness of food programs on saving children’s lives. Bottom line, they make an impact. Global Food Security.

• A call to action for a one-health approach to avoid future land use-induced spillover events. Lancet Planetary Health.

• Interesting perspective of pastoralists and another piece on their resilience. One Earth and Aeon.

• You say you want a food systems data revolution? Well, think again. Sustainability.

• While food systems could address disability-adjusted life years due to chronic hunger, population pressure and climate change will make it much worse, particularly for sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

And that’s all she wrote folks. See you soon.

Taking the long view

This post is my first after what was

“a year like no other”

“one for the records”

'‘unprecedented.”

If you think I am being snarky, I both am and am not. 2020 was the year of feeling overwhelmed and underwhelmed at the same time. Feeling interested and totally uninterested with each passing day. Existing in a time loop but sensing that time was running out. There has been so much analysis about how 2020 unfolded and many proclamations and celebrations of its end. I will not reopen those newly closed wounds. What worries me is 2021. The idea that the world will (have to) get better in the next 12 months is stunningly optimistic. With that in mind, here are my 2021 resolutions and they have absolutely nothing to do with food...

Managing expectations

2020 had some high moments and some incredibly low ones too. One of the high ones was the development of a coronavirus vaccine. Even with the vaccine(s), we need to manage our expectations of when the pandemic will end and if herd immunity is within our reach (imagine the challenge we face to vaccinate at least 5 billion people). We require a united global effort if we want to pull this off. So far, the response to the COVID-19 crisis has been splintered and now, the virus is doing what it is driven to do: it’s mutating, surviving, getting smarter. There has been an incredible amount of political polarization in handling the virus, and very few governments have embraced global cooperation and inclusion. Governments should not and cannot face inward. We will never get a handle on the pandemic.

We have been watching (too) many movies from the 1970s (the golden era of American cinema). It is so strange to see people drinking in crowded bars, having intimate dinner parties at people’s homes, taking bites and sips of shared food and drink, and kissing! It reminds me of a time when we were so alive. Will we ever go back? I don’t know. I plan to manage my expectations in thinking that this pandemic will be dusted and done by the end of 2021, or even 2022. We have a long way to go before this is over, and even when we get there, will we remember how we lived? We may need to watch the Godfather, Klute, Deer Hunter, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Network—to remind ourselves that we had a time. And we may never get back to it.

Focusing on the small things

The world often seems to be on its knees, particularly with the sensationalized news feed that inundates us 24/7. Sometimes it is better to step back and re-focus our energy on the small things. The things we can change. The things that are asking to be appreciated. Maybe, the things that matter. I love these lines from Mary Oliver’s poem, Invitation:

it is a serious thing

just to be alive

on this fresh morning

in this broken world.

Taking the long view

For those of us living in the United States, it is challenging not to get swept up in what is happening to our democracy and the unraveling of a nation. Indeed, the world is broken. Some would argue, we are on the verge of a collapse—all the signs of a very complex, stymied society are ever-present and when you throw a pandemic on top of the heap, it could all crumble. But we must remember that the president before (soon to be former) President Trump was President Obama. Talk about whiplash. And as Obama rightly said: “Two steps forward, one step back. The long sweep of America has been defined by forward motion.” Taking the long view allows us to see the ebbs and flows of democracy. Are we headed for a societal collapse? Maybe. But we still have a few solid years in us to undue made mistakes and chart a better path. We have it in us, much like the coronavirus does, to survive.

Enjoying the silence.

A group of scientists published a paper in Science calling 2020 the “great seismic quiet period.” Noise from transportation, industrialization and population movement and activity, in general, was significantly lower in 2020 than in previous years. Most of the seismic decreases were due to government responses to the pandemic – lockdowns, curfews and restricted movements. While these pandemic responses have been devastating economically, the world has become quieter. So, for now, as the pandemic rolls on, enjoy the silence.