Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Thanks for the opportunity to make comments on the V0 draft. Please find our comments and inputs attached.

Anne-Katrine Lundebye and Marian Kjellevold

We are not marketing the power of brain but the hunger 

Dear Scientists

I just wanted to focus your attention to the following points that I wanted to highlight at this moment.

Today we are marketing, not the brainpower of the humans but the hunger the feeling of the belly or the gut. Please develop technologies to have foods at affordable prices for needy people and provide education to them to use their brainpower to be used for the coming fourth industrial revolution.

A few years back I just search the nutrient values of most of the grasses which we feed for cattle and the nutritive value of those grasses is very much higher than we thank. But unfortunately, we are unable to develop at least an energy drink for needy people to maintain their basic health status. Their hunger and diseases are marketed globally. This is very pathetic and a shame for the entire humanity.

Thanks for the opportunity to make comments on the V0 draft of this very interesting document.  The proposal to add extra dimensions to Food Security and Nutrtion is well founded.  However, I also argue that nutrition should not be left simply as a part of the dimension relating to use and utilisation.  Nutrtion requires much more attention and should be elevated to the forefront of our thinking for the future.  Only in this way will be have a complete basis for dealing with malnutrtion, including overwieight and obesity and micro-nitrtient deficiences.

Please see some additional comments attached.

Iean Russell, FAO Cambodia

Commenting FAO’s HLPE 15 (en français plus bas)

Thank you for your invitation to comment Food Security and Nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030 — a High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) report of the Committee on World Food Security. I attended the FAO Global Symposium on Soil Organic Carbon in Rome, March 2017. Since FAO’s HLPEs is a pleasant discovery, including Mr Patrick Caron’s conferences on the web. I am glad to comment. Coming from the business of biochar, let me talk about soils; their power to solve the food and climate crisis.

I welcome the recognition of food security and nutrition enhancement potential of agro-ecological and other innovative approches in the HLPE 14, about the roles of livestock in HLPE 10. Yet HLPE 15 draft misses important points in my opinion. Big changes are occurring in agriculture. They question the status quo. For example, the Natural Ressources Conservation Service, a branch of the USDA created to fight the dust bowl a century ago, now admits in videos and documents that what USDA’s promoted for years — heavy ploughing, use of chemical fertilizers to feed plants, chemicals to fight pest, GMOs — were inappropriate. Representative Ray Achuleta admits what he used to diffuse himself, was misinformed and misleading. From feeding plants, NRCS has completely shifting to feeding and building soils, turning towards soils’ life web. It is a 180° turn around. No-till with cover crops, covering soils at all time (armor the soil), having roots in soils all year around, high biodiversity, and, putting animals back to feed the land, are the new five principals. Achuleta’s soils test on youtube should be seen by anyone interested in food security, erosion control, water absorption and retention or other agriculture related topics as soils’ health. Carbon levels is now the criteria of a healthy and productive soil, as it should be.

Principals applied by farmers Gabe Brown and David Brandt. Brown has written a book, Dirt to Soil — One Family’s Journey into Regenerative Agriculture. It explains these very successful practices. Building healthy soils for healthy nutrition for healthy people, are principles now defended by Farmers’ Footprint — an NGO animated by Dr. Zach Bush MD, among others. Brown’s book should be in your references. It is a revolution in human’s thinking regarding how to produce food and make agriculture profitable. It shows farmers can learn by observation, by incremental experiences. It shows agriculture can be a sink not a source of GHG, that it can be a ‘nature-based climate solutions’, be part of ‘regenerative development’ — we prefer the broader more inclusive term ‘geotherapy’ that we hope to publicize in international arenas. Brown Ranch site says: « We believe in and practice Holistic Management, a part of which is farming and ranching in nature’s image. We strive to solve problems in a natural and sustainable way. Improving soil health is a priority and no-till farming has been practiced since 1993. A diverse cropping strategy, which includes cover and companion crops are used. We have now eliminated the use of synthetic fertilizers, fungicides, and pesticides. We use minimal herbicide and are striving to eliminate it. We do not use GMOs or glyphosate. Our ever evolving grazing strategy allows most of our pastures a recovery period of over 360 days. These strategies have allowed the health of the soil, the mineral and water cycles to greatly improve. In other words, the natural resources have benefited. This results in increased production, profit and a higher quality of life for us. We are moving towards sustainability for not only ours but future generations as well. »

Another reference missing is geomorphologist Dr. David Montgomery, in particular Growing a Revolution. The book gives numerous experiences of feeding soils, on big farms as on tiny farms in developing countries. One passage of the book says: « Despite the huge differences in soils, climate, and farming practices, the same guiding principles worked in both South Dakota and Ghana. Dwayne Beck patterns his practices on nutrient cycling through semiarid grasslands. Kofi Boa patterns his on nutrient cycling through tropical forest. Though specific practices differ depending on the situation of the farmer, I was starting to think that soil-building farming could be done around the world. » Montgomery, David R.. Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life (p. 141). W. W. Norton & Company. Édition du Kindle. 

Best practices of no-till and feeding the land for healthy soils, regenerative agriculture, come from all over the world. These are intellectual and agriculture revolutions not underlined enough in HLPE15 draft report. They are major shift in the way humans understand soils, insects and animals interactions. On animals Ms Angeline Munzara of World Vision International South Africa, brought to your attention Alan Savory’s Holistic Grazing Management in her comment of HLPE 14. The intimate and powerful co-evolution and benefits of soils and animals, big herds that still exist in Africa, should be included in HLPEs for conservation, but also to promote natural trophic chains as a foundation for new agriculture. 

To treat them well, farmers must understand how soils were built, how they work. That is the key to their own prosperity, food security and nutrition to build a global narrative towards 2030. Humanity has new knowledge: we know how to built soils, in some cases from dirt as terra preta built by First Nations in the Amazon centuries ago. This innovative and new knowledge of homo-sapiens sapiens regarding living soils, should be put to light and championed by HLPEs on food security and nutrition to reach SDG2 goals for zero hunger. All nations of the world will benefit from building healthy soils for an agriculture producing more food, with less negative externalities.  

I cannot list all references in favor of negative emissions technologies, food security and global warming reversal, many can be found at the end of my bilingual blog on wordpress entitled Geotherapy/Biogeotherapy chronicle — for food security & global warming reversal / Chronique d’une géothérapie/biogéothérapie — pour la sécurité alimentaire & l’inversion du réchauffement planétaire, © Dr. Benoit Lambert.  

Best regards, Benoit Lambert, 

Biochar Generation Inc., Canada

Commentaires du HLPE 15 de la FAO

Merci de votre invitation à commenter Food Security and Nutrition: Building a global narrative towards 2030 - dans le cadre du High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) du Comité pour la sécurité mondiale. J’ai participé au Global Symposium on Soil Organic Carbon à Rome, en mars 2017. Le HLPE est une découverte d’un grand intérêt, incluant les conférences de M. Patrick Caron sur la toile. Il me fait plaisir de commenter le brouillon du HLPE 15. Provenant du commerce du biochar, permettez-moi de parler des sols; de leur capacité à résoudre les crises alimentaire et climatique.

Je salue la reconnaissance du renforcement potentiel de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition par l’agro-écologie avec d’autres approches innovantes dans le rapport précédent HLPE 14, et du rôle des animaux dans HLPE 10. Permettez-moi de relever certaines lacunes du HLPE 15. De grands changements ont débutés en agriculture. Ils interpellent le statu quo. Par exemple le Natural Ressources Conservation Servie, une branche du Département américain des États-Unis (USDA) créé pour combattre le dust bowl il y a un siècle, admet aujourd’hui dans des vidéos et des documents, que les promotions du USDA pendant des années — le labour intensif, l’utilisation d’engrais chimiques pour nourrir les plantes, des produits chimiques pour combattre les ravageurs, les OGMs — était inapproprié. Son représentant Ray Achuleta admet que ce qu’il diffusait lui-même, était mal informé et même fallacieux. De nourrir les plantes, le NRCS a complètement tourné vers nourrir les sols, vers le réseau vivant des sols. Il a opéré un retournement à 180°. L’agriculture sans labour avec plantes de couverture, garder les sols couverts en tout temps (‘blinder’ les sols), avoir des racines dans les sols toute l’année, entretenir la biodiversité, et, réintroduire des animaux pour nourrir les sols sont les nouveaux cinq principes. Le test des sols d’Achulete sur youtube devrait être vu pas quiconque intéressé par la sécurité alimentaire, le contrôle de l’érosion, l’absorption et la rétention de l’eau, et, d’autres enjeux liés à l’agriculture comme la santé des sols. Le niveau de carbone est dorénavant le critère pour un sol productif et en santé, comme cela doit être le cas. 

Des principes pratiqués par des agriculteurs comme Gabe Brown et David Brandt. Brown est l’auteur d’un livre Dirt to Soil — One Family’s Journey into Regenerative Agriculture. L’ouvrage explique ces pratiques à succès. La construction de sols en santé pour une nutrition santé pour des gens en santé, sont des principes maintenant défendus par Farmer’s Footprint — une ONG portée par Dr. Zach Bush MD, parmi d’autres. Le livre de Brown devrait être parmi vos références. Il s’agit d’une révolution dans la pensée humaine favorisant la production alimentaire et la profitabilité agricole. Le livre montre que les fermiers peuvent apprendre par l’observation, par l’application graduelle d’expériences. Il montre que l’agriculture peut être un puits plutôt qu’une source de GES, qu’elle peut être une ‘solution naturelle à la crise climatique’, promouvoir le ‘développement de régénération’ — nous préférons l’utilisation plus large et inclusive du terme ‘géothérapie’ dont nous espérons promouvoir l’usage dans les instances gouvernementales. Sur le site du ranch de Brown on peut lire: « Nous croyons et pratiquons la Gestion Holistique, dont l’agriculture et l’élevage à l’image de la nature fait partie. Nous aspirons à résoudre les problèmes de manière naturelle et soutenable. L’amélioration de la santé des sols est une priorité et nous pratiquons l’agriculture sans labour depuis 1993. Nous avons adopté une stratégie de culture diverse, incluant des plantes de couverture et d’accompagnement. Nous avons maintenant éliminé l’utilisation d’engrais, de fongicides et de pesticides synthétiques. Nous ne faisons pas usage d’OGMs et de glyphosate. Notre stratégie de pâturage en constante évolution permet à la majorité de nos pâturages une période de récupération au-delà de 360 jours. Ces stratégies ont permises la santé des sols, l’amélioration importante des cycles de l’eau et des minéraux. En d’autres mots, nos ressources naturelles se sont améliorées. Cette productivité et ces profits accrus se sont traduits par une plus grande qualité de vie pour nous. Nous progressons vers la durabilité non seulement pour nos générations mais aussi pour celles à venir. »

Autre référence manquante, celle du géomorphologie Dr. David Montgomery dans son livre Growing a Revolution. Le livre présente diverses expériences d’enrichissement des sols, sur de grandes fermes et sur de toutes petites fermes dans des pays en développement. Un passage du livre affirme: « Malgré les énormes différences de sols, climat, et pratiques agricoles, les mêmes principes directeurs ont fonctionné dans le Dakota du Sud et au Ghana. Dwayne Beck fonde ses pratiques sur le recyclage de nutriments dans des prairies semi-arides. Kofi Boa les siens dans une forêt tropicale. Bien que les différentes pratiques diffèrent selon la situation de l’agriculteur, je commençais à penser que l’agriculture fondée sur la construction des sols pourrait se faire de part le monde entier. » Montgomery, David R.. Growing a Revolution: Bringing Our Soil Back to Life (p. 141). W. W. Norton & Company. Édition du Kindle.

Les meilleures pratiques du sans labour et pour nourrir la terre permettant des sols en santé, l’agriculture de régénération, viennent de partout dans le monde. Ce sont des révolutions intellectuelles et agricoles qui doivent être plus visibles dans le rapport temporaire HLPE 15. Il s’agit de changements importants de la manière dont les sols sont compris, leur interaction avec les insectes et les animaux. Concernant les animaux de ferme, dans son commentaire sur le HLPE 14, Ms Angeline Munzara de World Vision International en Afrique du Sud, avait attiré votre attention sur la Gestion Holistique des Pâturages promue par Alan Savory. Les bénéfices de la co-évolution intime entre les animaux et les sols, en particulier avec les grands troupeaux toujours existants en Afrique, devraient se refléter dans les aspects de conservation des HLPEs, mais aussi pour la promotion des chaines naturelles trophiques pour une agriculture nouvelle. 

Pour bien les traiter, les fermiers doivent comprendre comment les sols se sont construits, comment ils fonctionnent. C’est là la clé de leur propre prospérité, de leur sécurité alimentaire et de leur nutrition afin de construire un récit vers 2030, et, pour les SDG2 visant à terminer la faim. L’humanité a de nouveaux savoirs: comment construire des sols, dans certains cas à partir de sols très pauvres comme la terra prêta fabriquée par les Premières Nations en Amazonie il y a plusieurs siècles. Les innovations et les nouvelles connaissances d’homo-sapiens sapiens concernant les sols vivants, devraient être mises en lumières et défendues par les HLPE dans leur promotion de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition. Tous les pays du monde bénéficieront de la construction de sols en santé pour une agriculture produisant davantage de nourriture, avec moins d’externalités négatives.

Je ne peux donner la liste de toutes nos références en faveur de technologies à émissions négatives pour la sécurité alimentaire et l’inversion du réchauffement planétaire, mais plusieurs se trouvent à la fin d’un de mes blogs bilingues sur wordpress intitulés Geotherapy/Biogeotherapy chronicle — for food security & global warming reversal / Chronique d’une géothérapie/biogéothérapie — pour la sécurité alimentaire & l’inversion du réchauffement planétaire, © Dr. Benoit Lambert.

Salutations cordiales, Benoit Lambert, 

Biochar Generation Inc., Canada

As long as Human fundamental right as right food, it is every country reponsibility to make ue and exercise it. The emphassis to be included in this report.

2. As food security a regional policy developed along with the traditional storages by the individual farmers. Farmers of more than 60% of national population countries to exercise it, as it makes sense for right food, besides stop migrating population towards urban areas, and imporve the poverty abet. what kind of storage... as besides regular storage, farmers encouraged their required food to store specifically of food grains, to enable to meet their demands. This is inaddition to the social security-food passes, or free distribution food or public distribution under ration etc.- this reduce the logistics, carbonfoot prints besides climate smart.

While talking about the current trends we have enoughf discussions on trends but is not on field or farm on practicle. 

3. Therefore it is necessary to adopt the sustainability in Agriculture, and allied farming and farmers to enable good returns.

Thi is because ... mostly in Developing countries small farmers contribution is higher rate and their labor efficancy more in indexing farm output. although unequal economy persists in farming, a sustainable farming carry value added agriculture which compensate the farmer. Secondly for example in case of even Fisheries added as adition one since they opt for variety operations including dry fish, processed one etc, which results sustainability.

4. promoting economy under fragile economy in the developing countries can make use of circular economy as a matrix. For exmple India is one success in Transition a firt phase, which I made as innovation slogan with R&D., Agroeconomy is super economy under sustainable economy, at second way it is true that there is no imbalance evern demonitized the currency in India,  but no immediate impact on Rural public, as rural economy or green economy or micro economy ass what ever call it circulated in the market , which sustained agriculture and public of India with Cycle/ Circular economy.

5. Investments can be represented with corpus fund and also by imposing a seperate fund for farming, which will save the farming. Most of the countries live with market, but although developed nations do like equal industry and Agriculture economy, but in logistics being perishable products impact on price factor and results low price to farmer and high price to consumer. This is to be addressed keeping in mind of investments.

6. Refering to focussed initiatives added in Draft 4.1 - as ZBNF , is a kind of political game run by a specific state of AP, by the local /regional party of TDP, which is failed. Keeping aside of it let us proceed Organic farming and /or integrated farming - which endorsess to the Sutainable Agriculture, which not only improves the soil health but also maximize the food production for raising population. This keeps balance of nature, min .use of resources and adopting regional climate and crop system, with value added production.

Other narratives are only good for reading not in practicle and to be practiced even kitchen gardens, since matrix did not work out.

This way decreasse the chemical use of fertilizers and pesticides with better nutritive produce and farming, besides balanced pricing both in farmers and consumer point of view. 

with referenc to the food waste, a leavy imposed on food wasting family to firms(incuding restarents/etc.,), to enable to stop wast of process food. However post harvesst technology losses to be addressed it can be used with advanced techniques with sustaianble farming.

At an end point food is regional factor with nutritive initiate, and by genetic screening can be developed, however use existing medical properties foods, herbs, vegetables and fruits to reduce health risk and improve the health. This is fixed based on local available foods, and its quantity and quality factor.

By

Prof. Dr. K B Na Rayana

professor of Jaipur national Univeerssity &

Chair of IAMMA--  

We like to comment mainly on the conceptual framework and respond to the question “Do you think that this framework addresses the key issues of FSN?”.

The answer is: yes and no.

Yes, the two dimensions of ‘agency’ and ‘sustainability’ are important and needed additions to the conceptual framework. No, the way these two dimensions are introduced and explained in Section 2.1 is not mature and requires further thinking.

Sustainability: this dimension is needed to express the danger of entering into pathways that undermine availability, accessibility, or utilization objectives of food in the long term. This includes climate change impact, resource depletion, environmental degradation, but also other sustainability dimensions such as unsustainable economic settings, or socio-political circumstances which could lead to a turnover and endanger FSN for some or many. As for climate change, sustainable food systems need to be aware of such developments and invest in mitigation or adaptation. Sustainability is thus the concept of ensuring a healthy diet on the long term - such as stability is the capacity to buffer short term shocks and crises. The report should not make the mistake in associating the ‘sustainability’ aspect solely with ‘environmental’ sustainability. This means reworking the text considerably and adapting the definition. Specific comments to current definition: food system practices can often not influence the relevant trends to a degree that can prevent the risks at hand. Therefore sustainability means in most cases the capacity of detecting those trends and the ability to react (adaptation) rather than to influence (mitigation). The term ‘interrelationships between ecological systems and food systems’ is vague and does not really add to other dimensions.

Agency: Agency is very important as it introduces a food system element into the FSN concept. We have to remind ourselves that the FSN framework serves SDG2, while a food system approach serves several SDGs. What in a food system can be problematic and counteract to achieving healthy diets that is not yet captured in the other FSN dimensions? It is a fact that some people don’t choose the healthy options (and in a food system framework one would say: healthy and sustainable options) even though these are available, accessible, good utilization is guaranteed, and there is no short or long-term problem. The reasons are manifold and rooted in uneven distribution of power and information within a food system or food value chains. People might lack information what is healthy, the available accessible food does not correspond to personal preferences, or people are ‘nudged’ into food choices that are not good for them and satisfy hedonistic needs or demands induced out of interests from other food system actors, thus replacing healthier food choices or food choices that correspond better to their un-influenced preferences. The examples on historically disadvantaged individuals and communities are very important, but they are not the only ones. Under-priviledged people being mal-nourished because of accessibility problems, but also because of food-illiteracy or predominant un-conscious / un-reflected food choices exist in all societies. Vulnerable populations (e.g., children, parents) in particular are to be protected from undue marketing and  misinformation. The agency dimension needs therefore to point towards the unequal distribution of power and influence, and the lack of information on the consequences of food choices.

In particular, we see a danger of narrowing the agency dimension to the ‘all’ in the FSN definition, as the ‘all’ was already included in the other dimensions: food should be available and accessible for all, and good utilization guaranteed. So what is the difference? The agency dimension goes deeper. Food availability means food as commodities. Food accessibility means food products. Food utilization addresses meals and diets. Food agency adds the aspect of heteronomy, for example through marketing strategies or suggestive publicity or provision of biased information - against which the individual has no means to withstand.

In essence, this is not very different from what i read in the report, but in the context of FSN, it is NOT about the capacity of shaping the food system, but the the ability to eat the food that is sufficient, safe, nutritious and respects the self-determined and informed preferences of the consumer. Yes, agency is needed also for all other food system actors, the farmers, the supermarket clerk etc. But for FSN the focus is and should remain on what people eat. We are not in favor of the expression of ‘free choices’ which has a (neo)liberal connotation that hides that being well-informed and free of manipulations is the precondition of real ‘free choice’.

As summary, we propose the following definitions:

Availability: Having a quantity and quality of food sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture, supplied through domestic production or imports.

Access (economic, social, and physical): Having personal or household financial means to acquire food for an adequate diet at a level to ensure that satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised; and that adequate food is accessible to everyone, including vulnerable individuals and groups.

Utilization Having the ingredients for an adequate diet, clean water, sanitation, and the information how to use it, as well as health care to reach a state of nutritional well-being where all personal physiological needs are met.

Agency: Having the capacity to make food choices that respect the personal self-determined and well-informed preferences on what they eat and how that food is produced, processed, distributed and prepared.

[Replacing: Individuals or groups having the capacity to act independently and make free choices about what they eat and how that food is produced, processed, and distributed.]

Stability: Having the ability to ensure food security and nutrition in the event of sudden shocks (e.g. an economic, conflict, or climatic crisis) or cyclical events (e.g. seasonal food insecurity).

Sustainability: Having the ability to detect, mitigate and adapt long term (environmental, economic, socio-political) trends that could risk the food needs of present and future generations and ensure long-term food security and nutrition.

[Replaces: Food system practices that contribute to the quality of the natural environment on a long-term basis, ensuring the food needs of the present generations are met without depleting natural resources faster than they can be regenerated, and that the interrelationships between ecological systems and food systems remain viable.]

Figure 1:

Proposed modification to Figure 1 and FSN definition

Figure 2:

We disagree that the six dimensions are ‘interconnected in a complex way’, and it is difficult to understand what interrelations are meant in Figure 2.

We agree that the term ‘dimensions’ fits better. But dimensions should rather be clear-cut (orthogonal) and span a (six dimensional) space that contain all possible situations. This space has a region where at least one of the dimensions is sub-optimal and thus prevents FSN. Only when all six dimensions are above a threshold (which could be dynamic, thus depending on the values of the other dimensions), FSN is achieved (now) and able to cope with short and long-term developments. If all dimensions are above their threshold, focus and importance can be put into different dimensions, depending on the socio-cultural settings. 

When FSN is not achieved, it is important to identify which dimension(s) need(s) to be improved first. 

The associations of challenges and vulnerabilities to the six dimensions in Box 2 is very useful and shows that the six dimensions address clearly different challenges, even though not always the assignment is unambiguous (and in some cases i would have done differently).

In addition to the above, and pertaining to section 4 of the report, we would like to flag the following resources for the promotion of healthy and sustainable food environments and diets, produced by the JRC and relating largely to the EU context. In various regards these documents may help inform discussions and shape environments to promote health and the environment through optimised matching food policy and provision.

Toolkits to promote water intake and fruit in vegetable consumption in schools

http://dx.doi.org/10.2788/33817 (toolkit to promote fruit and vegetable intake in schools)

http://dx.doi.org/10.2788/95048 (toolkit to promote water intake in schools)

Caldeira et al. (2018) Public Procurement of Food for Health: technical report on the school setting. http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/269508

Costa Leite et al. (2020) Healthy, low nitrogen footprint diets. Global Food Security 24:100342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100342

Bock et al. (2016) Tomorrow's healthy society - Research priorities for foods and diets. 10.2788/1395 (online)

Adrian Leip, Stefan Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann, Jan Wollgast

European Commission - Joint Research Centre

Australian comments on the V0 draft of the Report "Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030"

• Australia appreciates the efforts of the CFS HLPE to develop a consolidated global narrative on food security and nutrition towards 2030 and the efforts in compiling the vast array of perspectives of both governments and the private sector on this topic. Australia has some broad overarching comments to make on version zero of this document and looks forward to reviewing future iterations.
• Australia supports the reference to the need for context-specific approaches to addressing various food systems challenges (chapter 2.2, point iv).
• We question the value of altering the broadly accepted and comprehensive definition of food security and its four dimensions, particularly when the proposed additional elements of ‘agency’ and ‘sustainability’ could arguably be considered via the application of a holistic food systems perspective (chapter 2.1).
  • Limited evidence has been provided for the value of adding an ‘agency’ dimension to the definition of food security, and we believe this has been well covered off under the dimension of ‘access’ to food. However, if ‘agency’ were to be incorporated in the definition, we suggest that an increased focus on empowering consumers to make informed food choices would be useful.
• Regarding the reference to agrochemicals in chapter 3.3, p 20, we suggest that this be amended to reflect support for the considered and appropriate and well-regulated use of pesticides and chemical fertilisers.
• Throughout the document there are a number of references to agro-ecological farming practices, while there are few references to other approaches to sustainable agriculture, such as climate smart agriculture. This narrative should highlight the diversity of approaches that may be employed to improve agricultural sustainability in different contexts, and always be clear that agroecology is just one of these.
• Finally, we suggest that it would be useful to expand on the analysis of factors behind the lack of implementation of various international obligations and guidelines related to food systems and nutrition (chapter 2.3) especially as we move into preparations for the Food Security Summit in 2021.

Dear Madam/Sir, 

on behalf of the International Dairy Federation please find in the attached document our comments to V0 draft report. 

Kind regards, 

Laurence Rycken 

Comment on the phrase, which is limited, given the importance of the topic: 

Companies, industry and legal frameworks often shape food systems and eating habits which are major drivers of poor health and environmental degradation (through the promotion of diets characterized by high calories, added sugars, saturated fats, processed foods, and red meats). P13.

The following is only an idea. If accepted, I would hope your editors  can draft their own version.

I believe that the issue relates to agency - is the consumer free to select or captured by cultural peer group preferences reinforced by industry promotion?

The report only briefly mentions on page 13 one of several key causes of obesity, industries’ promotion of poor diets. It fails to mention:  1) the preference for family vehicles with less walking to and from public transit, and the lack of facilities for pedestrians, 2) the preference for sedentary entertainment. The promotion of these anti-public health industries has had significant effects while public health promotion has declined. 

There are many studies on the causes of poor diets that should be reported. Not only should advertising favoring poor diets decline, the promotion of healthy foods and exercise is limited as compared to the anti-health industries’ advertising.

What was the last time that US audiences heard from their Surgeon General on this topic. Its citizens used to think he was an important man whose advice should be trusted. Now U.S. efforts to promote good health is limited to a “national” plan with no US government funding, available to the states if they want it. This is probably true in most of the world. 

Changing food preferences is also a struggle, given cultural incentives for all of group behaviors, but especially for the young. Unlearning may be a tough job.

Joseph S. Weiss, Ph. D., Cornell, 1971

Health and Nutrition Economist 

Answers to your  questions:

1. Do you think that this framework addresses the key issues of FSN? YES
2. Do you think that the analysis of the evolution of conceptual approaches and thinking on FSN clearly addresses its current adequacy to meet the SDG2 targets? NO
3. Do you think that trends identified are the key ones in affecting FSN outcomes today that might help explain stalled progress on meeting SDG2 targets? NO Do you have additional data or information that could help refine the analysis of the interplay between these trends and FSN outcomes? AVAILABLE IN OTHER LITERATURE, CERTAINLY MANY STUDIES OF OBESITY DRIVERS AND THEIR IMPACTS.
4. Drawing on HLPE reports and analysis in the wider literature, the report outlines several examples of potential policy pathways to address current challenges in ways that build more resilient and sustainable food systems and engage all stakeholders. Throughout the V0 draft there has been an attempt to indicate, sometimes with placeholders, specific case studies that would illustrate pathways to achieving FSN with concrete examples and experience, focusing on the six dimensions of availability, access, stability, utilization, agency and sustainability. The HLPE recognizes that the range of case studies could be more complete. Are the set of case studies appropriate in terms of the dimension chosen and regional balance? Can you suggest further case studies that could help to enrich and strengthen the report? Do you agree that the selected examples are among the most promising potential pathways to achieve FSN targets toward 2030? Do you have other good practices and examples of policy and interventions that could accelerate progress towards SDG2 along the six identified dimensions?
5. INSUFFICIENT TREATMENT OF OBESITY – OTHER FOOD-NUTRITION – HEALTH CONDITION elements.
6. Are there any major omissions or gaps in the V0 draft? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance? YES ABOVE.
7. Are there any redundant facts or statements that could be eliminated from the V0 draft (especially considering the CFS request for a concise report)? Are any facts or conclusions refuted, questionable or assertions with no evidence-base? NO

Dear Sir/Madam,

On behalf of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, I attach our submission in response to the ' Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030 V0 DRAFT REPORT'

Do not hesitate to contact me if you would like any further information or would like to discuss this further

Kindest regards

Mark