Food Bytes: June 2026 Edition

Here we are. Smack dab in the middle of Europe’s second heat wave here in Bologna. My years of living in Tucson with a swamp cooler and in NY without any AC have trained my body well, but as the years go on, tolerating the heat gets a wee bit harder. According to Rothko, we are Orange, Red, Orange, 1961. I’ll take that and fester in it for a while. But in all seriousness, the world keeps signaling to us that something is off. This “Omega heat dome,” where Europe remains ill-prepared, is the latest example. The Po is drying up, which is bad for agriculture. A high-pressure system has trapped hot air over South Asia, creating a prolonged heatwave. Wildfires are poppin in America’s west and Europe’s east. Already, the heat is putting pressure on food supplies (good article on Bloomberg) along with Trump’s unnecessary war with Iran.

And now, we see the World Meteorological Organization has confirmed the rapid development of a new El Niño cycle in the Pacific Ocean. Meteorologists note it is already beginning to shift global moisture and temperature baselines, setting the stage for a highly volatile summer. The Grist has a timely article on the potential impacts the world is likely to see. Data suggest that in South Asia, and India in particular, El Niño weakens the seasonal monsoons, and because India is the world's largest rice exporter, a failed or weak monsoon could severely diminish rice yields and trigger global export restrictions or bans. In Southern Africa, the pattern typically brings hotter, much drier conditions, threatening staple crops like maize and risking a spike in regional malnutrition. While parts of South America (like Peru) face heavy rain and flooding that can wipe out infrastructure, the southern United States is projected to face a much wetter-than-normal year, risking crop-destroying floods from California to the East Coast.

As I always ask my students when discussing extreme events, is the world ready?

With all this heat, it does get hard to sit in front of one’s computer, plunk down on the couch, and read, but on the other hand, it is hard to do much else. So herein lies what I have been reading for the last month. Got through about 4 books so far (see picture on the left). My goal is to read 10 books over the summer months. I have provided reviews of these here, here, and here. All are good reads, with only one related to food. I haven’t had a chance to review Rebecca Solnit’s A Field Guide to Getting Lost, but she certainly captures me not only in her writing but also in how she positions herself in the world. Some say she is the modern Joan Didion. I say she is solely Rebecca Solnit.

Bored? Try this FoodGuesser which gives you a dish or food and you have to guess where it is from. Today’s was surf ‘n turf. Uhhhh…..who else would be so decadent to both steak and lobster on one plate…

Beyond books, I found some of these reports and papers worth some time digging into:

First up, the Global Nutrition Report. It was nice to see a full report again after several years of getting lost in goal tracking that didn’t seem to track all that much…The findings of the 2026 Global Nutrition Report land at a critical juncture, providing a necessary, evidence-based framework for navigating the intersection of climate change and malnutrition. It tells us plainly that our celebrated 'win-win' development narratives are often illusions on the ground. As we shift towards integrated, climate-resilient approaches, the report rightly emphasizes that our policy choices can no longer be treated as separate, single-sector decisions. The 2026 Global Nutrition Report lands not as a comfortable endorsement of ongoing efforts, but as an intellectual disruption to our collective “siloed complacency” and the seductive trap of "win-win" developmental narratives. For too long, the multilateral system has acknowledged the intersections of climate, health, and nutrition only implicitly—treating them as adjacent portfolios rather than as a single, co-dependent polycrisis.

The Global Justice Report (lots of “globals” here)…is a really important report led by the World Inequality Lab. The report outlines a roadmap spanning from 2026 to 2100 that aims to reconcile global economic prosperity with planetary boundaries. The report argues that climate survival and deep decarbonization are impossible without a drastic reduction in wealth inequality. It proposes radical systemic changes—such as a massive "Global Justice Fund" financed by heavy taxes on billionaires, a transition to a two-and-a-half-day work week (YES!!!!), and reduced material and red meat consumption—with the goal of capping global warming at 1.8°C while doubling the incomes of 89% of the world's population. Thomas Piketty, the world-renowned French economist and author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, brings his trademark expertise in wealth and income inequality to the project. It is dreamy and bold, and worth a read of a utopian world that seems very far off at the moment…

On reports, and this one doesn’t have “global” in the title, is the At the Crossroads: Food in an Age of Uncertainty by Systemiq. This is an interesting report that conducts a foresight analysis (see figure below) of how escalating geopolitical fractures, climate volatility, and artificial intelligence are converging to disrupt the global food system. The report is highly effective at diagnosing system vulnerabilities—notably exposing concentrated supply risks, such as the fact that just four crops occupy 50% of global cropland and that a staggering 30% of global fertilizer trade passes through a single chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz (a very timely notion indeed). Critically, however, the report functions more as an academic exercise in "futures thinking" than a concrete action plan. While it sharply rejects simple "system efficiency" in favor of holistic structural resilience and issues urgent warnings about ultra-processed food addiction, its conclusions call for "honest dialogue" and "step-changes in global coordination" rather than outlining enforceable regulatory mechanisms or specific corporate mandates. Ultimately, it serves as an excellent diagnostic tool for identifying systemic risk, but it soft-pedals the aggressive, legally binding political battles of food policy and systems.

Stylized scenarios and trends, Systemiq

Some other good peer review articles that I came across:

  • The long and winding road of stunting reduction since the 19th century (P.S. that is not the name of the article…). Some good lessons for LMICs still dealing with stubbornly high stunting prevalence, particularly from Japan.

  • Was the Lancet series on ultra-processed foods not sufficient? Well, AJPH has you covered with a whopper of a special issue on UPFs and public health. If you don’t have time to read the 18 articles, you can read Lindsay Smith Tallie and Ashley Gearheardt’s summary on their new Substack, Unjunked, to get the highlights, or this NYT article. If you want to see what to do about it, get involved with Fedup! movement.

  • The WHO has published its estimates on the hazards of foodborne illnesses. The results are scary, and I don’t think the global food system community talks enough about food safety. They show that as of 2021, foodborne transmission of the 42 hazards they studied caused 866 million illnesses and 1.52 million deaths. Of those hazards, inorganic arsenic, lead, and non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica caused the most damage, particularly among young children and in Africa and South-East Asia.

  • A review of countries worldwide shows that 64 have implemented sugar-sweetened beverage taxes, covering 3·. billion people, with Asia leading the way.

  • Love this paper, which links the lack of clean drinking water to food insecurity (and vice versa) and to food safety issues. Good read!

  • A timely paper understanding the impacts of trade on the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus. In the paper, they construct WEF networks to quantify trade-driven changes. High-income countries achieve stronger WEF synergies that promote gains across all three aspects, whereas low-income countries face many trade-offs, with food-centered competition over water and energy driving them. This is why I always argue for the “energy bros” out there to consider food…

  • While not food-related, an important read on how “commitments to stronger international cooperation are being strained by rising authoritarianism, weakening multilateralism, aid cuts, and growing misinformation” when it comes to infectious disease spread (with the recent cases of Hantavirus and Ebola). These same issues will hinder efforts to address food insecurity and malnutrition. 

  • The Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health–Lancet Commission on health, conflict, and forced displacement: health in a world of crises and impunity outlines a comprehensive strategy to reform the global humanitarian system amid escalating modern crises (see Figure below) by demanding an end to legal impunity, a total inversion of power toward localized decision-making, and a complete restructuring of how emergency health funding is distributed to affected populations. Boom.

Timeline of humanitarian health crises, reforms and milestones, 1863–2025 (Spiegel et al 2026)

Some other tidbits and interesting reads across media:

  • Who knew ranch dressing would be popular?

  • I was just visiting London and Brighton, and yes, I had fish and chips goddammit. But is England ready to move away from cod? Bloody hell!

  • A wonderfully philosophical long read in the Guardian about whether ecosystems can malfunction, in which the author argues that ecosystems only "malfunction" when humans co-opt them for specific goals.

  • Innovation on how to run a restaurant (don’t charge for food) in Minneapolis (we got your back, friends!).

  • The Economist argues that feeding the world will require new technology. Um, Duh! But is AI the game-changer? I remain skeptical.

  • What have we learned about GLP meds? It’s the wild, wild west, ya’ll! But clearly, this may prove to be a game-changer in tackling obesity.

Well, my hands are starting to sweat, making it hard to type. I will leave you an album that came to mind recently and that I had not listened to in a good long time: the self-titled Violent Femmes album that came out in ‘83 in my junior high days. The Violent Femmes are an American folk-punk band from Wisconsin. Such an original sound at the time. We were kind of obsessed with this album for a hot minute, and somehow, it fits with summer, the heat, frustration, etc. A funny side story: the group was busking in Milwaukee on a street corner, and the guitar player for the Pretenders happened to be walking by, heard them, and invited them to open for their show that night. Hot damn!

Archive Appetizer: The role of universities in global health, climate, and equity

This publication, Combating converging crises: The role of universities in global health, climate, and equity, stemmed from a Bellagio Rockefeller convening that we authors participated in—which, as it happened, took place right during the 2024 US election when Donald Trump won. Witnessing that massive political shift in real-time heavily underscored the urgent premise of our paper: universities are currently facing a perfect storm of intense political polarization, funding cuts, and escalating climate-driven health risks like extreme heat, infectious diseases, and widening social gaps. In a world increasingly crowded with misinformation and scientific denialism, academic institutions cannot afford to be passive observers. They must actively step up to defend objective truth and champion public solutions where climate, health, and equity collide.

To guide institutions through these turbulent times, our piece outlines four interlinked responsibilities for the modern university. First, they must fiercely safeguard scientific discovery and act as a public shield against misinformation. Second, to weather unpredictable political and financial shifts, they need to diversify their funding by building deeper, more resilient partnerships with local communities, industries, and governments. Third, they must practice what they preach by taking institutional responsibility for their own environmental footprints, actively cutting their own greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining rigorous ethical standards. Finally, they need to completely overhaul education, breaking down old academic silos to arm the next generation of leaders with the cross-disciplinary skills required to solve real-world crises.

Ultimately, these recommendations offer a practical survival guide and call to action for higher education during deeply fragile political moments. By shifting away from isolated ivory towers and transforming into dynamic, collaborative engines of change, universities can maintain their status as trusted, evidence-based spaces for global cooperation. For communities navigating the future of our health, environment, and food systems, this perspective serves as a timely reminder that tackling tomorrow's overlapping crises requires a bold, united, and socially responsible academic ecosystem.

Food Bytes: May 2026 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” Serving up the science, policy, and cultural facets across CLIMATE change, FOOD systems, & NUTRITION.

It’s been a while since I wrote a Food Bytes post. They take a lot out of me because so much comes across our desks via social media, traditional media, scientific papers, and reports. Sometimes, it is just too much to take in. Sifting through what may be worth highlighting can be a pretty random process, and developing a flow from one thing to another can often be challenging. Anyways, here it goes!

The most obvious place to start is with the war in Iran. What a costly and tragic mess the U.S. administration has made. Now, as many experts have described, the world may be facing a deepening food crisis due to fertilizer, feed, and food not moving through the Middle East, and lots of market speculation on fuel and food prices. If this conflict continues, the effects will be devastating for farmers around the world and the most food-insecure. Some peer-reviewed articles are already getting published that analyze and discuss the impacts on food security, such as here and here. Major media outlets are reporting on it too; here are two interesting reads from The Economist and The Financial Times. Bloomberg News is discussing how crude oil prices are affecting other oil products, particularly biofuels.

Extreme heat impacts on agriculture, FAO and WMO report (2026)

This also comes at a time when there is (again) much discussion about how food is being used as a weapon of war. I was particularly intrigued by this article from the Council on Foreign Relations, which includes embedded videos from experts around the globe. Speaking of geopolitical impacts on food security, Marc Bellemare, Bernhard Dalheimer, and Weston Loughmiller have an informative working paper out on this timely topic. In the Eat This Podcast with Jeremy Cherfas, they argue that agricultural economists have not paid enough attention to what they call “neglecting security externalities.” I am sure this will kick up some conversations. To make matters worse, the just-released 2026 Global Report on Food Crises reports that 266 million people experienced high levels of acute food insecurity in 2025 and Famine (IPC Phase 5) was confirmed in two countries/territories the same year – in parts of the Gaza Strip (Palestine) and the Sudan –a first since IPC reporting began. Now the world is closely watching South Sudan as well.

Things may not bode well for the many farmers who toil day in and day out to bring us the diverse foods traded around the world. The new FAO and WMO joint report, Extreme Heat and Agriculture, argues that extreme heat is driving massive losses in agricultural productivity. Already, maize and wheat yields have declined 7.5% and 6%, respectively, with 1 °C warming. They provide a clear framework of how this is happening across both direct and indirect pathways (see the figure to the right). And now, meteorologists are predicting a potentially strong El Niño (or as this author calls it, the fourth horseman of this foodpocalypse), which could leave some parts of the world hotter and drier.

On climate + food, some other reports and papers that may be worth a read:

  • A paper in Nature Food shows that in order to sustain yields of wheat, maize, rice, and barley production under 1.5 °C (current and unattainable climate target) and 3 °C warming (business as usual) scenarios, the world will need 13% (25 Mha) and 47% (94 Mha) global irrigation expansion, respectively. Yowza. Yes, we should be worried, but the question is, why aren’t we?

  • A review paper in Nature Reviews: Earth and Environment on the “Broad bidirectional effects of global food production on the environment” got some airtime. It is a nice summary, but nothing really new that the EAT-Lancet Commission and others have not extensively written about. And while they list a series of solutions, I always find them a bit vague…who, how, when, why, and for whom seem to be missing in these laundry lists of actions. Maybe I am just getting grumpy in my old age…

  • This paper in PLOS Climate claims meat and dairy companies spend a lotta time greenwashing. Gee, what a shocker! In all seriousness, this stuff is just infuriating, and papers calling out this behavior are super important. Keep it up guys!

  • On a more uplifting note, the World Resources Institute, in collaboration with the University of Maryland, reports that tropical primary forest loss decreased by 36% from 2024 to 2025, following a record-breaking year of extreme fires. Yay! Something positive in the world! Check out the tracking on the right, which shows we are back to where we were in 2023.

On diets + food security, we have some goodies that have been published in mainstream media and peer-reviewed. Here is a recap:

  • I am a big fan of Kibrom Sibhatu. He and others just published a paper examining the impacts of development projects on dietary diversity and food security in 24 low and middle-income countries. What did they find? Not much changed for dietary diversity, but food security improved (almost 8%). Unfortunate, as all eyes are on the future of, and the impact of, the decades of investment in international development…

  • The great Carlo Cafiero has spent decades at FAO, spearheading food security metrics such as the POU and the FIES. He is retiring soon (will the organization cease to exist thereafter?), and here are his insights, lessons, and reflections after many years spent toiling to measure food security. Worth a read.

  • Several of us published a review paper in Science describing how global food systems, along with rising incomes, urbanization, and the growth of ultra-processed foods, have driven dietary shifts that harm human health, the environment, and equity. We synthesize evidence across seven intervention domains to steer dietary transitions toward outcomes that are healthier, more sustainable, and more equitable. Key levers are highlighted, including R&D and product innovation to make plant-forward, sustainable foods tastier and cheaper; affordability and access measures, such as redesigned food assistance and supply-chain policies that internalize health and environmental costs; and food-as-medicine programs that embed nutrition into healthcare. There are also regulatory approaches — including reformulation targets, labeling, marketing restrictions, and public procurement standards — that are essential complements to voluntary actions, because nudges aimed only at individuals or producers are often overwhelmed by institutional food-environment influences.

  • The Atlantic put out a piece on how the “whole grain trend went wrong.” Did it ever go right?

  • Speaking of stellar food, the NYT published an article on how omakase sushi has become so popular in cities like New York, to its detriment. I particularly liked this passage: “In classic omakase, a chef has leeway to improvise in the moment, modulate, maybe even figure out what kind of person you are. These days in New York, the experience is more often one-size-fits-all: a fixed series of courses — essentially, a tasting menu — ranging from a dozen to 20 or more, with accommodations only for allergies or a particularly querulous diner, and often not even then. At the highest-end spots, everyone sits down at the same time and is fed in the same order, as if at the most elegant of mess halls.” And this: “With each bite, I had the nagging sense I was being spoon-fed, like a finicky child who couldn’t possibly know what’s really good or keep an open mind. There was nothing funky or chewy that might demand a pause to wonder: What am I eating?” Every time I go to omakase, I feel like an overstuffed cow eating at a trough waiting for my owner to shovel out a few measly morsels.

  • And just to rub some USDA-approved, low-sodium salt substitute into the festering wounds left behind by the latest release of the U.S. dietary guidelines (aka RFK Jr’s personal diet), welcome to the “crunchy” teens who serve as wellness influencers. Someone, please, just shoot me. Maybe you don’t even need to read the damn article. Just look at the photos/videos of these teens wolfing down red meat. I leave you with this quote, which just about says it all: “Ava Noe, a teenager based in the Boston area, has amassed more than 25,000 Instagram followers while criticizing ultra-processed foods and promoting colostrum supplements, mouth tape (WTF is this?), and beef tallow.” Yes, all you nutrition scientists out there, you are once again, totally irrelevant.

  • But maybe we don’t need to worry about beef-eating teens or IV-drip-fed sushi. Or, better yet, maybe we don’t even need to eat food at all anymore, because everyone seems to be getting their hands on GLP-1 inhibitors and self-experimenting with doses, how long they stay on them, and which symptoms and ailments they target. Has food and the food system become, shall I say, immaterial? As Tears for Fears sang, it’s a mad world. God damn right.

AI is not going anywhere soon. Some are for, some are against. In this paper in Nature Food, the authors argue that its impacts “depend on how institutions choose to design the infrastructures, competences and incentives that surround it.” Not really sure what that means to be honest… IPES published a report entitled "Head in the Cloud" that raises concerns (naturally!) about AI technology and other high-tech innovations to digitize farming, which they argue are largely controlled by a handful of major tech and agribusiness firms, creating farmer dependency and high production costs. It is an interesting read on the perils of technology that need to be governed and balanced with people-centered policies.

Speaking of technology, this group argues that ultra-processed foods are driving the plethora of plastic in our global food systems. Can’t wait to see some data around this claim, but I am sure Joe Yates and others are building a strong case! I guess the next thing we need to wonder is, how the hell are we going to extract ourselves from all this plastic? Good thing Dustin Hoffman’s character in The Graduate, Benjamin Braddock, shrugged at the prospects of working in “PLASTICS.” There is hope!

Well, that’s it for this month, folks. I will leave you with this little ditty by one of my favs, Jessica Pratt, called Mountain’r Lower. Seems like a song that is giving the spring season a chance. See you in June!

Archive Appetizer: Bridging Science and Food Policy

In our latest paper published in the Advances in Nutrition, we explore the complex challenge of translating scientific evidence into practical policies and practices at the intersection of climate, food, and health.

We present a conceptual framework that underscores the interconnectedness of these domains and propose five core principles essential for effective translation: (1) integration of diverse disciplinary evidence; (2) early and sustained collaboration with policymakers and impacted communities; (3) context-specific application of evidence; (4) systematic identification of tradeoffs and conflicts of interest; and (5) strategic communication to align knowledge with action. These principles serve as a guide for researchers and practitioners aiming to develop resilient, equitable, and sustainable food systems informed by scientific evidence.

The complex and dynamic food system

To illustrate these principles, we analyze five case studies that demonstrate successful applications within different contexts. We highlight the California school food policy case, which successfully eliminated sugar-sweetened beverages and energy-dense snacks, serving as a national model for addressing food system inequities and environmental impacts. The Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition represent a global collaborative effort that responds to local and national complexities, showcasing the need for stakeholder alignment in policy formulation. Additionally, we examine the State of Washington's initiative to establish metrics for assessing food system progress, which showcases effective collaboration between academia and government, while the dietary carbon footprint case emphasizes the role of individual dietary choices in influencing policy.

Our analysis also includes a New York City initiative, which integrates environmental sustainability into food procurement standards. This case demonstrates the importance of collaboration across different governmental administrations and public health departments. Together, these examples not only highlight the practical application of our proposed principles but also underline the importance of adaptive governance and innovative approaches in advancing food systems that are responsive to health and environmental challenges.

Overall, we advocate for a shift in how scientific translation is approached, encouraging a transdisciplinary approach to research that emphasizes collaborative effort, adaptability, and the recognition of various contextual factors that impact policy effectiveness at multiple scales.

Archive Appetizer: Nutrition-sensitive climate risk across food production systems

In 2025, we published a paper titled "Nutrition-Sensitive Climate Risks Across Food Production Systems" led by Michelle Tigchelaar. It presents an important analysis linking food security, micronutrient deficiency, and climate change. The objective of the paper was to assess nutrition-related climate risks across various food production systems. This is critical as both malnutrition and climate change pose significant threats to public health and food security, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where deficiencies are prevalent. We focused on five key micronutrients: calcium, folate, iron, vitamin A, and vitamin B12, selected for their vital roles in human health and the high rates of deficiencies associated with their lack.

We used data from the Global Nutrient Database. We categorized food items into six groups: aquatic products, fruits and vegetables, legumes and nuts, cereals and tubers, livestock products, and other crops. We then analyzed the availability of these micronutrients. We linked this supply data to various climate hazards using an integrated approach that considers the impacts of climate change on food systems.

The major findings highlight significant regional variations in climate risks associated with nutrient availability, with notable hazards for vitamin B12 and calcium predominantly found in animal-source foods. By 2041–2060, most countries will face medium or high climate risk to at least one critical micronutrient (calcium, folate, iron, vitamin A, B12).

This figure hows how often each nutrient’s domestic production will face extreme climate 2041-2060. For example, vitamin B12 and calcium face high climate risk due to heavy reliance on animal-source foods. Globally, 75% of calcium, 30% of folate, 39% of iron, 68% of vitamin A, 79% of vitamin B12, and 54% of energy production is projected to face climate extremes by the middle of the century.

Moreover, the analysis reveals that regions such as the Mediterranean and Central America are particularly vulnerable to high climate risks across all studied micronutrients, underscoring the urgent need for tailored resilience strategies to combat rising malnutrition amid the ongoing climate crisis. Countries like India, Nigeria, Tanzania, Mozambique, Madagascar, and Guatemala are projected to face high domestic climate risk across multiple micronutrients. Diverse Production Systems at Risk: Not just cereals, but livestock, aquatic systems, fruits & vegetables, and legumes & nuts are all vulnerable—particularly in tropical and low-income regions.

Why is the research important?

  • It goes beyond staples: Most climate-food modeling studies focus on crops like wheat or rice. This one looks at nutrients that actually matter for health — like iron and vitamin A — and includes diverse food groups, including fish and vegetables.

  • It links climate change directly to human nutrition, not just yields or calories.

  • It recognizes that countries differ in their vulnerabilities and offers tools and strategies tailored to different kinds of risk profiles.

  • It provides a new framework for integrating food, nutrition, and climate policy. Countries can use this to prioritize where to invest — whether in farming, aquaculture, trade policy, or nutrition programs.

  • It shows that climate change threatens global nutrition goals, not just in fragile states. Even high-income countries could be affected if their food systems are too narrow or reliant on specific sectors.

What are the major calls for action?

  1. Develop national commitments to nutrition in National FS Pathways, Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans.

  2. Support diversified, climate-resilient food production.

  3. Build food and nutrition security into market systems.

  4. Expand safety nets and food environment policies to protect the most vulnerable.

I presented this work at the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition back in April 2025. Here is the slide deck. Enjoy!

The Archive Appetizer: Integrating Climate Services for Nutrition Action

Recently, my team published a review exploring the intricate relationship among climate change, food security, and nutrition. Our study is rooted in the understanding that climate change significantly affects nutritional outcomes, particularly among vulnerable populations. We conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesize country-level programs that effectively integrate climate services into health systems and nutrition interventions. By doing so, we aimed to highlight the diverse strategies employed across settings, focusing on both direct and indirect interventions related to health and nutrition, while emphasizing the need for aligned actions across sectors.

Our findings revealed 67 country-level programs that demonstrate innovative approaches to addressing the challenges posed by climate extremes, such as floods and droughts. We categorized these interventions using a framework that considers direct health-care strategies and various other sectoral strategies that affect nutrition.

Climate information and national nutrition planning and response conceptual framework (Carducci et al 2025)

Of these 67 programs, 42 were single-component, while 25 were multi-component, showcasing a variety of approaches to address the interconnectedness of climate change, nutrition, and health. For example, several initiatives specifically targeting women and children were noted, although many programs were more generalized, addressing broader populations affected by climate-related hazards.

Number of programs, by intervention type and component (Carducci et al 2025)

Among the specific programs mentioned, strategies varied widely across regions. In Bangladesh, for instance, multi-hazard climate information services were implemented to prepare for floods and droughts, while in Uganda, the Global Flood Awareness System was used to prevent disease, particularly diarrhea and malaria. Notably, Burundi's programs focused on anticipatory actions for flood management, incorporating both national and regional climate prediction efforts. Meanwhile, Zambia's initiatives used climate information to enhance malaria control efforts, underscoring the importance of integrating local and international resources to address public health challenges.

Interestingly, many initiatives were found to be more indirect, operating outside of traditional health interventions. This underscores the critical need for collaboration across sectors to prepare for and respond to climate-related challenges while improving nutritional outcomes for affected communities.

In conclusion, we advocate for strong partnerships between climate information service providers and stakeholders in the health and nutrition sectors. Our synthesis emphasizes that integrating climate services into nutrition policy and programming is not only beneficial but also necessary for developing resilient strategies to protect public health from the impacts of climate change. Through effective cooperation, knowledge sharing, and a focus on data-driven approaches, we can enhance our preparedness and response to the intertwined challenges of climate change and nutrition.

Navigating Climate and Nutrition Challenges

In the ongoing discourse surrounding climate change, the world needs a deeper examination of the multifaceted effects climate change and extreme weather events exert on global nutrition and food security. Climate change will likely intensify food insecurity, malnutrition, and the prevalence of noncommunicable diseases worldwide, as shifting climatic conditions disrupt agricultural production and water availability. It is also recognized that enduring effects can be expected as warming converges multiple climate stressors, thereby aggravating pre-existing vulnerabilities in food systems, particularly in low-income and resource-challenged regions.

We published a paper in the Annual Reviews of Nutrition this past year that highlights the intricate connections between extreme climate events and nutrition outcomes. Overall, as the review suggests, current studies on the impacts of climate change on nutrition remain limited, particularly regarding overlapping crises such as conflict and economic instability, which compound the effects of climate stressors.

One of the critical findings of the review is that extreme weather events, particularly droughts and floods, are strongly associated with various forms of malnutrition. For example, a systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that climate-related precipitation events, such as excessive rainfall and drought, are positively correlated with malnutrition. However, the nature of these effects varies by location, age, gender, and timing. The analysis suggested that drought conditions are significantly associated with increased rates of childhood wasting—a condition in which children are acutely malnourished and exhibit a low weight-for-height ratio.

An analysis involving 580,000 observations of children across 53 countries further supports this assertion. By using a derived Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), researchers investigated how precipitation anomalies may be associated with increased malnutrition among children. This study emphasizes the critical impact of climate variability on the nutritional status of vulnerable populations, particularly children under 5 years of age. However, the findings regarding underweight prevalence were less conclusive, primarily because various factors influence underweight and do not capture the full spectrum of malnutrition as comprehensively as stunting or wasting.

The review also emphasizes the need to explore the compounding risks posed by extreme weather events in a more nuanced manner. Extreme weather and climate events often occur in complex combinations—referred to as compounded events—that can exacerbate consequences not just for food security but also for population health. However, research remains limited in understanding the temporal and spatial nature of these compounding events and their specific impacts on nutrition outcomes.

Consequently, we assert that there is a pressing need for more sophisticated research methodologies, including longitudinal studies, to understand better the causal relationships and dynamic interactions between climate variability and nutrition. We should pay special attention to the need to employ advanced data analysis to assess the intricate patterns within these phenomena, thereby equipping policymakers with better insights for effective responses.

In summary, our understanding of how extreme climate events influence nutrition outcomes reveals both the severity of the challenges we face and the gaps in existing research. We must address the urgency of obtaining comprehensive data, refining analytical methods, and fostering interdisciplinary partnerships to understand better and respond to the dynamic relationship between climate variability and nutritional outcomes. Only through these concerted efforts can our global community hope to develop effective policies to build resilience against the inevitable shifts that climate change will bring to food systems and human health.

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.

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.

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.