Food Bytes: January 2025 Edition

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

Here in NYC, we are settling into a deep freeze. I sort of like it. The air is a bit more electric and crisper. Clean. Silent. And when the sun shallowly crosses over the landscape and warms you up a tad, you feel so grateful. For those of you, dear readers, who know how this archiver spends her time, I eat a lot of clams (note the header change on the Food Archive). This time of the year has some of the best bivalve eating. This archiver also spends time with her better half making dark and sad music as part of the Sound Furies. It seems that with each passing year, we get less and less snow on the East Coast. It reminds me of this tune we recorded in 2019, but my better half wrote the lyrics when he was young, living in northern California., sleeping in his ‘67 mustang.

last night it snowed though it's almost summer
it hasn't snowed here for 6 yrs
maybe it was the silence, like a blanket in the night
we don't know why we had this dream

Enough pontifications about weather and clams. Let’s get into this month’s Food Bytes. I always like to start the monthly round-up with a few recommended books I have been reading. Here we go. An Immense World by Ed Yong is a fascinating view of how animals perceive the world through their specialized and adaptive senses. Douglas Brinkley’s whopping 600-page read, Silent Spring Revolution, provides a historical deep dive into the beginnings of the environmental movement in the United States in the 1960s. He articulates how presidents and scientists charted a course for protecting the environment (it is my background homework for a book I am working on that I allude to here). This was a time when presidents were presidential (yes, even Tricky Dick is looking good compared to what we are dealing with now…) and worked to preserve the planet instead of watching it all burn. Delano by John Dunne (Joan Didion’s husband) is about the California grape strike led by Cesar Chavez and his sacrifices to ensure that migrant laborers get a fair shake. Again, this book is incredibly timely with the present-day shifts in U.S. “policies” to deport immigrants—the very same people who are keeping us well fed and food secure. And last is Rachel Kurshner’s short story collection, The Hard Crowd. She just oozes cool.

Book reading by the food archiver

Food and cooking

There has been a deluge of articles and media attention on ultra-processed foods. Let’s start with that and then get into real food stories.

The change in attribution of sugar-sweetened beverages to diabetes (T2D) and heart disease (CVD) incidence across regions from 1990 to 2020.

  • Ah the lovely world of ultra-processed foods (UPFs). These foods are high in sugars, salts, or unhealthy fats and have additional ingredients such as additives, preservatives, and many other hard-to-pronounce ingredients that make them taste good and allow them to sit on shelves for decades. Many scientific articles are trying to attribute UPFs to various deleterious health outcomes, and the evidence, while varying in quality, is building. Enough so that policymakers are taking note. Research suggests that almost 60% of the American diet comprises these foods. Yum. The New Yorker put out an article trying to understand why that is. It is a good read that tries to unpack the evidence. One thing that comes up is that not all scientists agree on the impacts of UPFs on health.

  • A Nature Food article delves into how governments have responded to regulating UPFs. Most government action has been on consumer education, mainly labeling food products rather than eliminating or regulating the companies that make these foods.

  • It is not only foods we are talking about. There are also ultra-processed beverages. Using the Global Dietary Database, this Nature Medicine paper shows that in 2020, 2.2 million new diabetes cases and 1.2 million heart disease cases were attributable to sugar-sweetened beverages worldwide. Between 1990 and 2020, the most significant increased attribution of these drinks to diabetes and heart disease was in sub-Saharan Africa! However, sales of these beverages, particularly soda, are rising (see the figure to the right). Great…

  • Onto real foods. I highly recommend this New Yorker article on the secret history of risotto and the rules that govern how to make this delicious dish whose origins sit on the Po River (a river very constrained by climate change).

  • Speaking of iconic foods and their origins, those who have lived in NYC for decades likely remember this Indian restaurant enclave in the East Village. You know, the one with all the Christmas lights. Well, in typical warp-speed fashion and the brutal world of restaurant ownership in this city, the Indian restaurant hubs have moved to other parts of Manhattan and, more so, Queens. But still, this one restaurant in the village keeps shining on. Funny enough, my former college roommate lived above this place in the late ‘90s. It is (not)safe to say she had a roach problem.

  • Then we have tortillas. I wish we had a tortilleria in our hood, but alas, we have to buy the Mission brand tortillas, which taste like cardboard. As this article in the Atlantic suggests, they have lost their magic.

  • Last, but not squarely in food, the Lancet published a commission to find ways to measure obesity better. With all the kicked-up controversy regarding body mass index as a sufficient measurement tool to delineate overweight and obesity, it’s good timing. Here is a nice infographic that summarizes their recommended diagnostic.

Climate change

Let’s move on to a lighter topic: climate change! In all seriousness, we are in a scary time. This past year, 2024, was the warmest year on record, and the average global temperature was more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time, with 11 months of the year exceeding 1.5°C. To make matters worse, the current U.S. administration has pulled out of the climate accord and plans to “drill baby drill.” This trend and these political decisions fuel our motivation to fight the good fight and ensure the world moves towards mitigation and adaptation solutions, with or without the United States.

  • The Economist published a well-balanced article on the potential and limits of technology to mitigate climate change through the livestock sector. It is nice to see the International Livestock Research Institute’s work (based in Kenya and Ethiopia) highlighted—who partner with some of the poorest in the world who are tending to animals for their livelihoods.

  • One issue is to ensure that those countries and populations struggling with undernutrition still have options and choices to consume animal-source foods, particularly in places where access is incredibly and unfairly limited. The Netherlands Working Group on International Nutrition and Clim-Eat put out a brief on animal-source foods in low- and middle-income countries that nicely summarizes the broad evidence. My only gripe is that they should cite the original peer-reviewed publications and evidence toiled over by scientists as opposed to the reports that summarize the said evidence.

  • Grist, a fantastic climate/environment/food reporting outfit, wrote a worrisome article about how many farmers and farm workers now need to work at night due to extreme heat. conditions Farming is already hard enough, and now this.

  • Speaking of great journalism, Civil Eats has summarized a set of articles of their “best climate reporting” of 2024. Check it out.

  • I have lots of time and space for Kyle Davis’s work. In this paper in Science Advances, he and colleagues use high-resolution data on forest cover in Nigeria and find that 25 to 31% of annual forest loss is linked to climate variability. They also find that changes to forest cover have positive associations with dietary diversity, whereas cropland expansion does not. There is much to think about adaptation-wise regarding how the world manages land and forestscapes.

  • I always have to throw in a critique of the EAT-Lancet Commission. In this paper by Klapp and colleagues published in the Lancet Planetary Health, they articulate a justified framework of shortcomings (see figure below) that the Commission did not address in the first report in 2019 with the hope that these issues will be taken up by the Commission when the 2nd report comes out in the fall of 2025. What I can say at this stage, Anna-Lena, is that we cover some, but not all, of these crucial issues. It looks like a third Commission may be in order!

Current shortfalls of the planetary health diet from a plant-forward perspective by Klapp et al, LPH 2025

Food Systems and Farming

Alignment between food system transformation and degrowth

  • This paper in Nature Food by Matt Gibson and some of my favorite colleagues Constanza, Daniel, and Mario (yay, Cornell!) presents a fantastic notion that in the political momentum that we must “transform our food systems,” there is also this notion that we have also to consider downscaling of excess production and consumption among high-income countries and overconsuming individuals. The figure to the right shows the alignment (or misalignment) between the goals and objectives of degrowth and food systems transformation.

  • But some argue that big farms don’t need a lot of transformation and should stay the course of how they are being managed. This article ruffled a lot of feathers. The title, “Sorry, but this the future of farming,” is snarky and reeks of know-it-allism. Anyone who comes to the farming conversation as having THE solution is suspect. This article is the last in the NYT’s series on “What to Eat on a Burning Planet” — a mix of low and high-quality articles with some half-truths. Go to the bottom of this article to see the series.

  • Let’s get to some farming articles. This paper in Nature Communications argues for the importance of including genomics research and development of what are called underutilized crops, but also called neglected crops or opportunity crops—into breeding strategies, cutting-edge research, capacity building, and representation that some major crops like maize, rice and what get.

  • A slew of experts published this paper in Nature Food to highlight the importance of small-scale fisheries (SSF). In this mapping exercise, they estimate that SSF provides 40% of the global seafood catch worldwide. This 40% provides roughly 2 billion people with 20% of their dietary intake of six crucial micronutrients. Half of these SSF are women, and many are employed in Asia. Africa supplies the largest catch. This is a fantastic article for those interested in blue foods.

  • I love this Soil Atlas that comes out each year by the Heinrich Boil Stitlung/EU. This report is chock-full of great case studies and figures arguing for better care and management of soils worldwide to promote resilient agriculture and mitigation of climate change. Called the global silent crisis,” 1/3 of soils are degraded globally, and 40% of those soils reside in Africa.

Self-promotion (sorry!)

I always have to be a bit self-promotional. The Food Systems Countdown Initiative (FSCI) has published its third annual paper in Nature Food and Policy Report. The highlights?

The FSCI interactive tool on the Food Systems Dashboard

  • Over the past two decades, meaningful progress has been made in improving food systems. Of the 42 indicators examined, slightly fewer than half (20) changed in a desirable direction from 2000 to 2022.

  • Most of the FSCI tracked food system indicators interact with other indicators, either directly or indirectly, meaning that change in any one area of food systems is likely to affect others and that unlocking change may require coordinated action across multiple dimensions.

  • Certain indicators related to governance and resilience are key leverage points — and could be critical because of their influence and dependence on other aspects of food systems, and change in them can affect many other indicators.

One cool thing we did was put the indicators and their interactions on the Food Systems Dashboard. You can play with the FSCI data in all kinds of ways. To get yourself oriented, you can find the indicators here, all the data globally and by country, the country profiles of the FSCI data (for example, Kenya), and last, the interaction tool (which is pretty neat).

We’re screwed, but some more than others. And that is not fair…

  • The scary annual World Risk Report just came out and it just got a bit scarier this year. Gee, I wonder why…we are so screwed.

  • Reuters published a heartbreaking collection of journalism entitled “Starving World.” Just devastating but worth taking the time to read.

  • With avian flu sparking and spreading, this article in Nature Reviews Biodiversity is a warning call about pathogens and planetary change.

We THINK we have a choice

We saw the legendary Keith Morris play with his band OFF! (formerly the frontman of Black Flag and Circle Jerks) a few months ago, right before the 2024 U.S. election. In between songs, speaking to a mesmerized New York packed crowd, he ranted repeatedly, “We think we have a choice, we think we have a choice, we think we have a choice…”

This stuck with me. At the surface, we have tons of choices, but who is steering these choices, and are we siphoned into just a handful of 1-2 choices when it comes time to who we vote for, what social media platforms we participate in (bye bye TikTok), or what food choices we have on hand? We live in a monopolized, concentrated, and consolidated world order with massive power imbalances.

Now, dear reader, I am well aware that I live in a country with technically endless choices, and democracy is technically still standing (some would disagree with that!). Choice can be a beautiful thing. The choice to celebrate. The choice to act. The choice to revolt! The choice to check out. However, cracks are emerging across many countries and communities, beckoning questions like who has more choice? Who has less and why? Who is steering our choices? Who is interfering with them?

Yet, I wonder more and more about equity, freedoms, and diversity of choice, particularly in the context of food systems, and how these systems fundamentally are meant to ensure food security and optimal nutrition.

Equity of choice

The diversity and range of food choices depend on who you are, where you live, and the structures that support your life. The ability to choose a nutritious diet is conditioned by inequities in food access—which stem from broader social inequities. For example, physical, economic, and social access to food can provide many or limited choices. Consider these questions:

  • How close do you live to food sources?

  • Are you living in an area that lacks affordable, healthy food?

  • Do you have to take two buses and a subway to get to the market?

  • Do you need a car because there is no public transport?

  • Once you get to the market, can you afford the food?

  • Do you have enough money to buy food?

  • Are the markets even appropriate to your social norms and culture?

  • Do systems oppress your ability to choose?

And that's just for consumers! Think about farmers: Can small-scale farms and enterprises compete with large farms or transnational companies, or do they have to make harder, more limited choices to stay competitive?

Freedom of choice

Those who have the freedom of choice — in what kinds of foods they eat, how much they eat, and for farmers, what they grow and how they grow it — can make choices that benefit the world. For example, if countries with high meat consumption reduce their intake, they could help mitigate climate change, improve environmental sustainability, and promote animal welfare. It is often thought that one person can't change the world. Yet, we know that individual actions, when combined, can lead to collective impact. Individual choices can create change.

But people want autonomy. They don't want to be told what to eat. And they don't always want to make choices based on altruism. Many resonate with Federico Fellini, who once said...

"I became burdened…with useless baggage that I now want off my back. I want to uneducate myself of…worthless concepts, so that I may return to a virginal personality…to a rebirth of real intent and of real self. Then I won’t be lost in a collective whole that fits nobody because it’s made to fit everybody. Wherever I go, from the corner of my eye, I see…people moving in groups, like schools of fish… This is one of the things I fear more than anything else. I loathe collectivity."

That may be true. In the United States, for example, dietary choice is often driven by taste, price, and convenience and is less about solving “we are all in this together” problems such as climate change.

Diversity of choice

While some have more freedoms when it comes to choice, it begs the question as to how many choices we have within choice. Do we have a lot of variety, diversity, and range of choice? Some would argue no because the world has become more similar and homogeneous. We are converging. Technology has helped with process along. As Herbert Marcuse argued in his book One Dimensional Man, while technology provides endless information and choice, it would result in less variety of ideas and creative thinking. So, although people think they have more choices, the choices lack significant differences. This was written in the 1960s…

When considering the diversity of choice, it raises the question of who provides it. We know that our global food system is hyper-consolidated and concentrated — from the seeds to the inputs used on crops, to the varieties of crops grown and the agricultural subsidies that support only a handful of crops, to the retail markets that sell us our food. A handful of transnational companies control the majority of supplies, commodities, and foods we eat at every step of the supply chain.

Just knowing this makes me want to pull a Lloyd Dobler. If you don't know who Lloyd is, I encourage you to watch "Say Anything" — an '80s romantic comedy written and directed by Cameron Crowe. The lovable Lloyd Dobler, played by John Cusack, is asked about his plans for the future. He says:

I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed.

That sounds about right. You might want to avoid products made, processed, or sold by massive corporate food companies, but here's the harsh reality: we often don't have a real alternative. The scary part? Many of us can't simply opt-out. We can't all plant our own gardens, eat exclusively from what we grow, show local, and choose only foods that are good for us and the planet. The food system is like an invisible cage, constraining both farmers and consumers. Our choices are frequently predetermined by complex, interconnected systems that prioritize efficiency and profit over individual well-being and environmental sustainability. It's not just about willpower or desire. The barriers are systemic, making truly independent food choices incredibly challenging for most people. We're caught in a web of limited options, corporate control, and economic constraints that make genuine food autonomy feel like an impossible dream.

But I have hope on this holiday, Martin Luther King Day (yes, I am ignoring that other big event). He said, “There are a lot of things you can't choose for yourself, but you have to keep moving forward.” And we will do just that.

Bodies upon the gears

The years between 1965 and 1974, also known as the long sixties, were a decade in which the U.S. and the world were in great turmoil, witnessing a complete cultural shift led by the “baby boomer generation.” America had just emerged from a Great Depression and two devastating world wars that toppled and reorganized world order. As a result, it arose as the world's foremost economic, political, and military power with a resulting illusion of great prosperity and hope for the future. But things began to unravel slowly. Just a few years prior, the young, charismatic President John F. Kennedy was gunned down in broad daylight in Dallas, Texas. His assassination shocked the nation and ended the optimism and innocence many, especially the youth, felt for the country’s future.

By 1965, the U.S. entrenched itself in what was to be a senseless war in faraway Southeast Asia, where we had very little business engaging in, a commonly held view around the world. Then came more nonsensical assassinations. The first was in 1965, when Malcolm X, an American Muslim minister and human and civil rights activist, was killed while giving a speech in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York City (where Columbia University’s medical campus now sits). Just three years later, American Baptist minister, one of the most prominent civil rights leaders, Martin Luther King Jr., and a president’s brother and the former U.S. Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, were both gunned down in hotels in Memphis and Los Angeles, respectively. Then, from 1972 to 1974, the Watergate scandal plagued the country, leaving citizens wholly untrusting of its government and the lengths it would go to cover up crimes, no matter how inconsequential or considerable. The darkness fully engulfed the country when former president Nixon resigned from office before a certain impeachment because of the scandal.

Times were, to put it lightly, unhinged, and the country was fractured. Protests were an everyday occurrence. Students were being injured or killed on campuses for demonstrating, sometimes by the National Guard, the very institution meant to instill peace and protect citizens. On the other side of the world, young men were sacrificing their lives for a war without cause. Sound familiar? Indeed…

Many young people bucked convention by attempting to create a new future on their terms—an authentic counterculture movement. They took risks—running away from home to protest in the streets, joining a commune, or getting lost in the haze of the Haight. Even before the dark days of ‘68-69, students mobilized in incredible, organized, and purposeful ways. Check out Mario Savio, a student activist and leader of the Berkeley Free Speech movement in the video below making a speech in 1964 on the Berkeley campus named "Bodies Upon the Gears" (also known as the Operation of the Machine). His speech is highly relevant today.

“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels ... upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

Dark days can breed creativity, and these times sparked new ways of thinking and living on this shared planet. Young people fought for a different and new world. A big part of that new world was about food and the beginning of climate and environmental justice movements. Some within the counterculture movement were deeply concerned about the direction of U.S. agriculture, its impacts on health and nature, and how the industrialization of the food system was moving more and more towards unhealthy, processed foods controlled by transnational conglomerates. These large-scale industries also spouted environmental contaminants and pollutants into ecosystems, further damaging the environment. There were also deep concerns about the unfailing violation of civil rights and the systemic social injustices domestically and abroad, much of that revealed through the U.S. food system. Democratizing food was a way to potentially address these myriad challenges and find a new, equitable future better for humans and the planet.

The counterculture movement explicitly used food to ignite a social revolution. They returned to the land and started communes to grow their food in organic, wholesome ways. They opened neighborhood co-operatives to sell and provide these foods to their communities. They (the Black Panthers) started safety net programs to feed children living in impoverished neighborhoods.

Putting the long sixties in the context with our world today, we are once more living in a highly polarized, fractured country, with significant loss of life on the domestic front due to everyday gun violence and shootings, drug and alcohol addiction, and unhealthy lifestyles. Our political position in the world is also uncertain, with increasing animosity and frustration towards America’s tactics to ensure its power and relevancy in a globalized society. At the same time, climate change is barreling down on the world because of powerhouse countries’ inability to commit seriously to mitigating global warming over the last 40 years. Diet and diet-related risk factors are now the top killers of disease and death in the country and the world. The U.S. is in the middle of a public health crisis with obesity and non-communicable diseases. For the first time, Americans’ life expectancy is one of the worst among high-income countries. Our food systems are unsustainable and fraught with fragility. So are the environment and the natural resources that agriculture depends on. The rights of citizens, particularly food system workers, marginalized groups, and women, continue to be violated across food systems and every other system.

They say one should study the past to know the future. In the world of food policy, where I spend my professional days, we keep repeating the past, reinventing the wheel of history, and not learning from what came before. Every so often, debates surface on how to feed a growing world, particularly when extreme weather events or conflicts spur food shortages, food price increases, and famines. Questions arise as to why our global food system is so fragile, why we trust international trade, and why we depend on just a handful of crops to feed the world. In addition, there are questions about tipping points related to population growth and climate change. Whether technology and innovation can keep pace or whether we are headed for a collapse. But on we go, with quick fixes that never entirely repair the problem but instead put band-aids on wounds that never entirely heal. That is why the challenges we face today as a global community are even more difficult. Food systems and a raging, changing climate show how fragile our society is and how much we could lose.

The counterculturalists wanted to transform food systems 60 years ago. Maybe their attempts at a social revolution did not work out as they envisioned. Still, they tried to create the foundation for a new society built on sustainable food systems that benefit human and planetary health, community cohesion, and global citizenry. They gave us enough to learn from, adopt, and adapt about how to better govern food systems and the environment while looking out for each other. They tried. Maybe it’s time to pick up where they left off and move forward.

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.

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.

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.

We tell ourselves stories in order to live

This is the first prose from Joan Didion’s essay White Album. In the essay, Didion describes the moment she could feel the ‘60s “snapping” as she and her husband watched Robert F Kennedy’s funeral on TV from their veranda at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel in Honolulu.

It is uncanny how those times, the late 60s into the 70s, seemed calamitous but inspiring. The counterculture and protest movements were steadfast and resilient. Presidents were still presidential. There was hope for a better tomorrow with a dash of healthy resistance and revolution against “the system.” But Joan felt the tension of the snap. Comparing then to now, depending on what story you are telling yourself, many of us are feeling not only the snap but a full-blown break, and we seem to be sliding down the precipice of the break. The question is, how far down will we go…

In Didion’s essay, she goes further. She writes,

“We look for the sermon in the suicide, for the social or moral lesson in the murder of five. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple choices. We live entirely, especially if we are writers, by the imposition of a narrative line upon disparate images, by the "ideas" with which we have learned to freeze the shifting phantasmagoria which is our actual experience.”

We work with what we know, value, and believe within the constructs of our lives. These constructs are very different depending on who you are, where you come from, your skin color, your creed, caste, and gender. Your living and lived experience. Yet, we tell ourselves stories—fiction, non-fiction, fairytales, and horror. But many of the stories we hear and tell are informed by the pods, bubbles, and clusters where we associate and engage — for better or worse.

  • We tell ourselves stories in order to deceive: It won’t be that bad. We have systemic and institutional checks in place.

  • We tell ourselves stories in order to survive: We’ve seen this rodeo before. We just have to wait it out.

  • We tell ourselves stories in order to feel sane: But there is nothing sane about any of this. Something is deeply, deeply wrong.

Dear reader, you may be wondering why I shyly refer to storytelling and self-counseling. Let me enlighten you on The Food Archive’s current storyboard: She lives in the United States and is sensing the country’s political state unraveling. But it isn’t just that. It is world order overall, and the shifting winds towards isolationism. It is climate change and the many extreme events impacting so many people, particularly and disproportionately those least responsible for the warming of our earth. It is the lack of political will and wherewithal for industries to do the right thing beyond profit-mongering. It is the dizzying speed of AI, media, and technology—the mis-, dis-, and malformation that surrounds us and our robotic tendencies to let “it/they/them” manipulate and control our every move. And of course, I am profoundly concerned about people’s food security today, tomorrow, and in 2050.

We are leaving 2024 in a very complex, dizzying state of change. Even if you are gleefully happy about the turns happening in the United States, our planet and our place in it is precarious. This poem by Warsan Shire keeps running through my head:

“later that night
i held an atlas in my lap
ran my fingers across the whole world
and whispered
where does it hurt?

it answered
everywhere
everywhere
everywhere.”

Joan Didion felt the same way in 1968, but alas, we are still here, plodding along…So there is that. At least, that is the story I am sticking to.

It all feels wrong

Well, here we are. We could see this coming. We could say we predicted it. But now that it’s here, it stings a bit more, cuts deeper, and blankets everything with sadness. Where the United States, and for that matter, the world, goes from here is anyone's guess. Journalists pontificate, academics hypothesize, and political pundits postulate, but we have no idea what will come and where world order is headed.

This election and its results have been a slow burn for me - one that has been in play for a decade, following other societal trends that don’t totally align with my worldview. I think—and this may also be a consequence of age—I have officially lost the thread. The world seems to me like it has gone completely mad. I don’t get why people must take so many pictures of themselves and post them repeatedly on social media. I don’t resonate with people who remain staunchly optimistic when the world is so off-kilter with climate change, conflict, and inequity. I don’t understand why 733 million people going hungry, a 73% decline in wildlife populations since 1970, and a planet burning up, doesn’t make people infuriated and rise up!

In times like this, I turn to the arts—drowning myself in music and movies—the darker and more brooding, the better to complement my mood. The Cure’s new album, Songs of a Lost World, is one of their best albums in years. Like this song, entitled EndSong:

It's all gone, it's all gone

Nothing left of all I loved

It all feels wrong

It's all gone, it's all gone, it's all gone

No hopes, no dreams, no world

No, I don't belong

I don't belong here anymore

Don’t worry, my dear readers, I am fine. These lyrics are borderline suicidal, but that’s Robert Smith for ya— the king of goth is chronically depressed and despairing, but at least he stays true to his calling and self. While these lyrics are sullen, the world indeed does not feel all that right, and it is hard to find a place to fit neatly in it and remain, well, chipper (and by the way, he did write Friday I’m in Love - not my fav). At least for many, the feeling of belonging in the U.S. is getting harder (and scarier) to imagine.

So what to do? For one of the first times in my life, I don’t have a strategy, a plan, or a coping mechanism. And that doesn’t feel so great. In the immediate term, I will take each day as it comes and do my best to ensure that the people I care about are well, that we continue to do meaningful work that positively impacts the world, and that I enjoy every sandwich. In this crazy juncture, we can only control what is immediately before us and try to stay grounded and calm.

I was in Italy during the US election and woke up as the polls and results came in with Trump clearly in the lead. It was still dark and chilly, but I got up, put on my running clothes, and hiked up a mountain in time to see the sunrise as I got to the top. While the results weighed heavily on me, I saw that beautiful sun peeking up from the mountains onto the lake. I thought—this is a constant. The sun rises and sets every day. And it will continue to do so. At least, we have that.

'Coz I'm the tax man

I get asked a lot about whether taxing soda is effective. There has been a lot published on taxing food and beverages that are deemed bad for us. So what gives? Does taxing soda have any impact on our health? This is my take on the science, but first, let this jig run through your head….

Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman

I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit, sit) I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold, cold) I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk, walk) I'll tax your feet

TAXMAAAAAAAN!!!

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are nonalcoholic beverages containing added caloric sweeteners. In addition to carbonated soft drinks or sodas, SSBs include energy and sports drinks, less-than-100-percent fruit or vegetable juices, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, sweetened waters, and milk-based drinks. SSBs are widely consumed worldwide, and the retail sales of these beverages have been increasing over the last decade. Their consumption has been associated with obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other detrimental non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Because of their unhealthy nature, the World Health Organization has included a range of policy priorities, including SSB taxes, to help countries combat NCDs and improve the overall health of the global population.

Taxes on SSBs have been introduced in 118 countries, with 105 at the national level and 13 at the subnational level, covering 51% of the world’s population. Most SSB taxes are implemented using excise taxes (88%), with a handful of other countries implementing them through mechanisms such as import taxes, differential Value-Added Tax (VAT), Goods and Services Tax (GST), or regional sales tax (see the figure below). These excise taxes occur mainly as tax pass-throughs, in which the price increase of the taxed product falls on the consumer. In the U.S., for example, 70% of SSB taxes are passed onto consumers through higher-priced SSBs.

Types of SSB taxes being implemented around the world

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 62 empirical studies of SSB taxes across 45 countries, the majority of SSB taxes were implemented as a tax pass-through. While the impacts were heterogeneous across the countries, the demand for SSBs was sensitive to tax-induced price increases, with a mean reduction in sales of SSBs by 15%. The sales resulted in no substitution towards healthier, untaxed beverages (e.g., bottled water). Another review argued that SSB taxes provide no substantive changes to dietary or purchasing behavior due to the lack of substitution towards healthier alternatives. Another study found that while SSB taxes modestly reduced the purchases of some taxed beverages in the taxing jurisdiction, consumers respond to the taxes by increasing cross-border shopping, in which they go outside the taxing jurisdiction and buy those same taxed beverages at a lower cost. However, taxes may spur downstream effects on other industry responses and policies, including reformulating products to reduce sugar consumption in those beverages, as was seen with the graduated sugar tax implemented in the UK.

Of the tax policies around the world, 73% are implemented in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with the highest in South Asia. However, LMICs face many challenges in implementing SSB taxes, including a lack of political will and resources, weak national capacity to implement policies, large informal food sectors, and substantial influence of the food and drink industry on policy development.

The question remains whether SSB taxes can result in healthier dietary patterns and reduce the health implications accompanying excess consumption of these products – particularly NCDs. Most of the evidence — particularly from  Nakhimovsky et al., 2016; Niebylski et al., 2015; Teng et al., 2019; and Thow et al., 2014 — suggests that SSB taxes have impacted the purchases of taxed products to varying degrees, but not necessarily long-term and impactful behavior change towards healthier diets and improvements in health. One potential reason may be that the SSB taxes translate to only a 5 to 22-kilocalorie reduction per capita daily. This is insufficient to have a meaningful impact on disease outcomes. Some researchers suggest that one way to deal with this is to raise the current tax rates from the current approximate 5% to 20%. This would also be aligned with the WHO’s recommendation for at least a 20% tax on SSBs. Several countries, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have substantive (50-100%) excise taxes on SSBs, which are more in line with the taxation rates of tobacco.

The question is whether other foods, particularly red meat, should be taxed due to their significant implications on the environment and contributions to climate change. While consuming red meat in high amounts can contribute to NCDs, red meat is also a source of important nutrients. If a tax on red meat makes them prohibitively expensive for those who already struggle to afford these foods, it could put these nutrient-dense foods even further out of reach for the world’s poor. Thus, a “carbon tax” on red meat might be appropriate in wealthy countries with strong social protective measures and in countries with disproportionately high levels of red meat consumption.

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.

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.

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.

Too pure to be pink

For many of us who grew up in the 70s and 80s, the recent passing of Olivia Newton-John was sad. My sister and I watched her in one of our favorite movies, Grease, play the goodie-two-shoes Sandra Dee character. As much as I loved Sandra Dee, I related much more to black-clad Rizzo, the leader of the Pink Ladies gang, played by Stockard Channing. Rizzo was the badass who “didn’t take any crap from nobody.” She had a protective exterior but was also vulnerable and empathetic. She had street smarts and grit and wasn’t easily swayed, not even by the innocent Sandra Dee. “She looks too pure to be pink.” Was it Iggy Pop who said the most punk color is pink? Rizzo was very punk.

Why am I writing about Betty “Rizzo” on a food blog? I thought Rizzo was a liberated woman—a woman for the times when the women’s rights movement was underway in which women were fighting for equal rights and opportunities and greater personal freedom. Women are still fighting for their rights and freedoms. Now, more than ever. The overturning of Roe v Wade is downright heartbreaking, but I will not lose hope. I am surrounded by incredible women who continue to fight the good fight in my personal and work life. Our team consists of almost all women, and they are amazing beings. We have a lot of Rizzos on our team! They give me inspiration and perspective. They teach me new angles about how to see the world and our place in it. They are pushing for different rights in new contexts and situations in a more complex world.

Food system leader Corinna Hawkes authored a recent Lancet paper along with a smorgasbord of fantastic women leaders and indicated that we still have a long way to go in recognizing the importance of women in food systems leadership: “… in global food systems organisations, less than 34% of senior management positions are held by women and only 6% of chief executive officers and board chairs are women from low-income and middle-income countries.” Dismal.

The Next Gen(D)eration Leadership Collective is an initiative trying to change that. They are building on the experience of professional women working in the field of nutrition and food systems globally. Many women have signed up to be a part of the collective, and a 12-women task team shepherds the collective. Rizzo galore! In my view, they give voice and agency to the many young women working on food system issues, and I think the platform is “unleashing the power of women!” They may not be donning pink, but they are definitely punk.

And women are giving voice to women who may not have the opportunities that some of us do. For example, three stellar women scientists published an important piece of work in Nature advocating for funds directed towards international food assistance to prioritize women and girls. They wrote, “This food crisis is not the last crisis the world will face, but it should be the last one in which women and girls carry this grossly unequal burden. Now is the time to transform the food system to create more opportunities for women and girls, leading to greater gender equality.” Well said.

I am a middle-aged woman, and I am still learning what that means and how much it matters. I am consistently inspired by the women around me and all they are doing to make the world more equitable and meaningful for everyone. We have a long way to go, but we have come so far. So, let’s keep going. As Rizzo said, “Okay girls, let’s go get ‘em.

The World’s Food System Is Too Dependent on Wheat

This opinion piece was originally posted on the Bloomberg Opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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