Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

• At the end of introduction (p.10, l.48), I would summarize the intended objective of the report.
• Sustainability should be clearly defined, also under consideration of some historical aspects (e.g. von Carlowitz 1713) and the discussion of the “Club of Roma” about the condition of global equilibrium (Meadows et al. 1972). Later, you may come to Brundtland (1987) and other authors.
• For my understanding, a sustainable agriculture including a sustainable production of food or protein of animal origin should be characterized by an efficient use of limited resources (such as land, water, fuel etc.), an optimal use of unlimited resources (such as sun energy, nitrogen and carbon dioxide from the air, the genetic pool etc.), an improvement of farm animal productivity and low emissions, a socio-economical and ethical responsible production and the earth should be considered as the base for existence of future generations (see also Wu et al. 2014a,b).
• Figure 1 should be better explained (p. 20-22). Instead of social – economical and environmental aspects, the authors may explain the so-called 3P-concept (IUNC 2005; Boonen et al. 2012). This concept considers a balance between Planet (global resources and emissions) – People (social aspects of population all over the world) and Profit (economic aspects. money making) as an important prerequisite for a sustainable life and development on the earth. Profit should not and cannot be the only one objective of s sustainable production.
• The problems and consequences of land grabbing (mainly in Africa, Asia, South America and East Europe) for sustainable agricultural development in many regions and countries are not mentioned in the Draft. International food trade may also contribute to inhibit local food production and should be considered.
• Personally, I would recommend some critical remarks concerning imbalances in the 3P-concept and long term consequences of land grabbing and import of low cost food for developing countries and food security and nutrition in many countries (esp. for smallholders and landless farmers).
• I miss some substantial remarks about the importance of plant breeding as the starting point for the whole food chain. Recently, we (Flachowsky et al. 2013; see Annex 1). analysed the significance of plant and animal breeding (see Annex 2) for a sustainable agriculture. Plant breeding my substantial contribute to high and stable plant yields, but may also be able to reduce the need for natural limited resources, such as land, water, fuel etc.for plant growth and may help for a better/more efficient use of unlimited resources, such as N2 and CO2 from the air, sun light/sun energy or the available genetic pool from plants, animals, microorganism etc.(for example see SCAR 2008; The Royal Society 2009).
• Under consideration of the remarks above, I am surprised about your assessment of green biotechnology (p. 47/48). Personally. I think that we have to use the potentials of green biotechnology to use limited natural resources (such as water etc.; see above) more efficient and to improve the using of unlimited resources (e.g. protein syntheses on N from the air by microbes similar to legumes; more efficient photosynthesis with more CO2 in the air). The present results of genetic modifications of plants (resistant against herbicides etc.) or the changes in plant composition and to increase the content of some nutrients etc. should be considered as a starting point of green biotechnology driven by some companies. But the objectives mentioned above should be sponsored by public research, not only by companies and some private foundation (see also one of my previous books; Flachowsky 2013).
• What means meat (see p. 24 and 27/28 etc) in your paper and in your calculations? Meat is very difficult to define (e.g. body weight of animals for slaughtering with or without content in the digestive tract; empty body weight (warm or cold), empty body weight without bones; considering of edible inner organs etc.). Some years ago, we tried to calculate carbon footprints for meat and came to the conclusion, that edible protein would be the bets parameter to compare animal yields (milk, meat, eggs etc.). Attached, you will find the paper dealing with this topic (Flachowsky and Kamphues 2012; see Annex 3).
• Ruminants and grassland are for my understanding in your work in some cases under evaluated. Grassland is available in large areas and ruminants are the only animals, which are able to use grassland to produce edible protein without any competition to human nutrition. Agricultural (e.g. straw) and industrial by- or co-products of food and biofuel industry (e.g. Makkar 2012) should be also considered as valuable feeds (mainly for ruminants, but also as important protein sources for non-ruminants. We should find effective ways to use such feeds rich in fibre, but not in competition to humans in animal nutrition and to reduce negative consequences on environment (e.g. methane emission etc.; see contributions in Malik et al. 2015)).

• Development and perspectives of aquaculture
• Insects as food and feed (see Makkar et al. 2014; van Huis et al. 2014; EFSA 2015)
• Valuable plant protein sources to produce similar animal products, cultured muscle cells (e.g. Post 2014)
• Reduction of feed and food losses on the field, during harvesting, storing, in the food industry, trade, household and kitchen left overs 
• Changing of eating behaviour/eating patterns (e.g. Guyomard et al 2012)

Some minor comments:

• List of references should be checked (e.g, I missed Havlik et al. 2015; p.55, l.21; Perry et al. ; p. 56, l. 35)
• Necessity of food of animal origin in human nutrition should be better explained (e.g. more examples; why is a need?)
• Some figures need reference(s); (e.g. global meat etc. consumption; p. 8)
• Repetitions should be avoided (e.g. p. 8, l. 31 ff. and p. 17; l. 38 ff)