Foro Global sobre Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (Foro FSN)

Dear colleagues,

First of all I would like to thank HLPE and authors for this interesting and informative report that fills in an important knowledge gap regarding the multifaceted relations between nutrition (cf. diets) and food systems. A better understanding of these linkages is of paramount importance to foster transition towards sustainable food systems in the framework of sustainable food consumption. In fact, the report provides interesting insights on how food systems shape dietary outcomes including nutritional ones and vice-versa. The categorization of food systems, although challenging, is original in this sense.

The major objectives of the report are clearly reflected in the V0 draft. Moreover, the report is balanced (neither too technical nor too simplistic) and structure of the draft is comprehensive enough. However, more attention can be paid to the other dimensions of sustainability as in many parts of the report the focus is on health outcomes. Having said that, I think that no relevant aspects are missing.

However, I think that there is still room for improvement, which is quite normal as it is matter about a V0 version. You will find hereafter some comments and suggestions, that I hope will be helpful for this purpose.

As a representative of a Mediterranean organization, I think that the report can better valorize the work that has been done so far on the Mediterranean diet. In fact, CIHEAM and FAO started since 2010 a multifaceted cooperation program on sustainable food consumption and production with a particular reference to food systems sustainability and sustainable diets in the Mediterranean area. The Mediterranean diet is currently studied by CIHEAM and FAO as a case study for the assessment of the sustainability of dietary patterns in the Mediterranean area ([1])([2]). The Mediterranean diet is considered not only as a healthy dietary pattern but also as a sustainable lifestyle and cultural model. The perception of the Mediterranean diet solely as a “healthy” dietary pattern has until recently overshadowed other important socio-cultural, economic and environmental benefits. Therefore, I suggest to integrate box 12 (page 77) considering the above-mentioned elements.

Moreover, in table 3 (page 34), I do believe that the Mediterranean diet has positive health benefits not only in terms of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. As a matter of fact, since the pioneer Seven Countries study, much scientific evidence has highlighted the health benefits provided by adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern to prevent chronic and degenerative diseases ([3]) and various types of cancers ([4]). The Mediterranean diet appears to have numerous other health advantages that are under current study such as: less peripheral artery disease ([5]), decreased inflammation and improved endothelial function ([6]), improved respiratory fitness ([7]), less allergic diseases ([8])and improved immunity ([9]), decreased mental disorders such as depression ([10]), as well as improved quality of life ([11]). Surveys have repeatedly shown that adherence to a Mediterranean diet pattern is also associated with a reduced obesity ([12]), and a lower incidence of the metabolic syndrome ([13]), and of type 2 diabetes ([14]). The Mediterranean diet may also positively influence the aging process ([15])and delay the evolution of cognitive decline linked to Alzheimer’s disease ([16])and vascular dementia ([17]). Moreover, the Mediterranean diet has also nutritional benefits. Subjects who adhere closely to a Mediterranean diet pattern fulfill most minerals and vitamins requirements much better than persons on a typical western diet ([18]).

Last but not least, and as the conceptual framework is concerned, it is clear that it provides an original schematic view regarding the different factors that determine the nutrition outcomes in relation to the food systems with a particular focus on food environment(s). I think that all drivers can be put in one rectangle and then connected through arrows to food environments, consumer behaviors and diets. In fact, sometimes the impacts are directly on diets without passing through consumer behavior and all types of drivers have impacts on all components of the conceptual framework. Moreover, there should be an arrow that shows feedback loop from diets to value chain actors choices since consumer behavior, so their effective diets, have also impact on the value chain decision making and choices. It seems a bit reductive to connect social impacts only to social equity as it is much broader. In addition, stability pillar of food security should be added. Governance should be as well considered alongside political institutions and institutional actions.

I would like to thank again all scientists and experts that were involved in drafting this outstanding report and I look forward to its upcoming publication in order to use it in research, education and cooperation activities of CIHEAM-Bari related to food and nutrition security.

Regards

Roberto Capone

GENERAL

There is loose usage of the terms ‘fish’ and ‘seafood’. It is not clear whether when these terms are used (e.g. in the recommended food guidelines, Table 1) they are meant to apply only to fish and seafood (which means shellfish and sea fish, according to one dictionary definition) or not. Or does ‘fish’ include shellfish and aquatic plants (including seaweeds) and does ‘seafood’ include freshwater fish are included (freshwater fish actually makes up the greater component of farmed fish production).

Good definitions are thus essential. We would suggest defining fish very early on, maybe as a footnote the first time it is used, and to have it include all fish species, and include shellfish (mussels, oysters, etc.), crustacea (shrimps, lobsters, etc.) and cephalopods (squids, octopus, etc.) whether caught (hunting wild or enhanced stocks) or farmed (aquaculture). Seaweeds and other aquatic plants should be kept separate …and should be mentioned also in the document, as they can be good sources of important micro-nutrients.

Fish is viewed primarily as a source of protein (e.g. l. 5, p. 18). It is also a source of highly bioavailable micronutrients and essential fatty acids (EPA and DHA), which is often more important. Fish is actually one of the few natural sources of iodine and DHA, both essential for an optimal neurodevelopment in children.

There is a sense in some places that the phrases food systems and value chains are used interchangeably. These two are not the same, as is well defined in the document. Care must be taken in the use of these phrases by the various authors.

Sources of tables and figures are important, and not always provided.

We note that the food safety section (p18) is yet to be developed.

Also, a spell check is needed. Some typos spotted.

QUESTIONS

1. The purpose of this report is to analyse the ways in which food systems influence dietary patterns and hence nutritional outcomes. The objective is to focus on consumers and consider sustainability issues. The report aims to be solution oriented and to highlight efficient policies and programs. Are those major objective(s) clearly reflected in the V0 draft? No … not as far as fish production systems is concerned. There are no descriptions of major fisheries or aquaculture systems which identify those parts of the world that are heavily dependent on fish (including shellfish) as a major source of food security and nutrition. There are no examples, which exist occur in Pacific SIDS, for example, of what happens to dietary health and nutrition outcomes, when these food production systems (i.e. tuna fisheries) become export oriented.

1. Do you think that the overall structure of the draft is comprehensive enough, and adequately considered and articulated? Does the draft strike the right balance of coverage across the various chapters? Are there important aspects that are missing? Does the report correctly focus on the links between nutrition and food systems without straying beyond that?

1. Does the conceptual framework need to be edited? Simplified? Should “the food environment” as defined in the draft be central to the framework? Yes, it should be central, although it’s not sufficiently comprehensive. What’s missing to me are the cultural norms within households that determines who gets what food. For example, male heads of household often get to satisfy their hunger first, the rest of the family often dividing up what’s left according to who can eat fastest. Such norms often condemn the youngest/smallest family members, especially if female, to very poor diets.

1. Are production systems and their role in shaping diets and nutritional outcomes adequately addressed? In addition to 1 above, there is little here about the growing role of aquaculture as a provider of fish and shellfish. See, for example, Beveridge, M C M et al. 2013. Meeting the food and nutrition needs of the poor: the role of fish and the opportunities and challenges emerging from the rise of aquaculture. Journal of Fish Biology 83, 1067-1084. doi:10.1111/jfb.12187; Troell, M, et al. 2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 13,257-13,263. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1404067111 and Little, D C et al. 2016. Aquaculture: a rapidly growing and significant source of sustainable food? Status, transitions and potential. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 75, 274-286.

1. Does this draft cover adequately the main controversies in the field of Nutrition and food systems? Are there any remaining gaps? I think so. However, something needs said about the impact of aquaculture, now the main source of fish that is consumed, and changes in aquaculture production methods on nutrient content and intake. It’s implied in Fig. 14, p. 40, but no

1. The project team is working on a categorization of food systems. Are you aware of specific approaches of use in that perspective, and particularly of quantitative indicators that could be used? No.

1. Does this draft adequately show the multiplicity and complexity of diets and nutrition issues across different food systems and specific contexts with a good regional balance? It strikes me that the SIDS are somewhat ignored. Also, are the contrasts between urban and rural diets sufficiently explored?

1. What areas of the document are in need of strengthening or shortening?

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.1 contains case studies/examples of effective policies and actions in different contexts/countries across the food system for diets and nutrition. Could you offer other practical, well-documented and significant examples to enrich the report and provide better balance to the variety of cases and the lessons learned, including the trade-offs or win-win outcomes in terms of addressing the different dimensions of diets for FSN? Consider work of Thilsted et al. in South and Southeast Asia on small fish and nutrition (e.g. Thilsted, S H Sustaining healthy diets: The role of capture fisheries and aquaculture for improving nutrition in the post-2015 era. Food Policy 61, 126-131; Belton, B., van Asseldonk, I.J.M., Thilsted, S.H., 2014. Faltering fisheries and ascendant aquaculture: Implications for food and nutrition security in Bangladesh. Food Policy 44, 77–87.

1. Section 4.2.2 on “Institutional Changes and Governance Across the Food System Movements for Nutrition” requires more work, and more inclusion of evidence and of the various players. Any inputs on this section are most welcome.

1. Is the report too technical or too simplistic? Are all the concepts clearly defined? There is loose usage of the terms ‘fish’ and ‘seafood’. See above comments on this.

1. Are there any major omissions or gaps in the report? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance? Antimicrobial resistance is mentioned once in reference to livestock, but AMR needs to be better reflected in the document. We recognise that the document focuses on food systems and nutrition, but AMR is a major public health issue, and has some of its roots in food production (wider than livestock) with implications for food systems and nutrition.

SPECIFIC

p. 14, Fig. 1.  I don’t think the health element is strongly enough mentioned here, especially the links between Diets and Nutrition and Health outcomes. A child living in a house with no water supply or adequate sanitation, for example, will likely have diarrhoea and be unable to properly absorb dietary nutrients.

p.15, l. 12.  ‘fisheries and aquaculture systems’ ..

p.16, l.37    …into raw food materials, namely crop, livestock and fish commodities…..

p.16, l.38   …include growing crops and fish, animal husbandry ….

p.20, l.15-17 This sentence infers that processed foods are nutrient poor and high energy. They aren’t in many cases. Needs to be rewritten to be more specific on those processed foods that are nutrient poor and high energy.

p. 22, Table 2. The focus in the table is on dietary energy; what about micronutrients?

p.39, l.18 Consumption of seafood omega-3 fatty acids, present in fatty fish……

p. 40, Fig, 13. I find the change in Omega-3 fatty acid intake interesting – this despite the doubling of global per capita fish intake over the past five decades. This may be attributable to the rise of aquaculture and the increasing proportion of freshwater fish in our diets (see Beveridge et al. 2013, referred to in 4 above).

p. 42, Fig. 15. What does the y-axis refer to?

p. 45, l. 3. Delete ‘.. in various parts of the globe.’

p. 47, l. 13 & 28. You could cite Hall et al. (2011) re methane evolution from cattle versus fish (Hall et al. 2011. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. WorldFish, Penang, Malaysia. pp. 93).

Also, we would not agree that fish is lower down the food chain than cattle, if you talking about who eats who.

p.48, l.26-29. A repetition of l.10-13.

p. 49, Fig. 19.  Need more explanation as to whether ‘fish’ means fish (or fish and shellfish) and whether they are farmed or wild caught. This table also is unclear as to what each column refers to. Why are there 4 fish columns, 5 F&V columns, 3 livestock columns, etc. Define each column. Are “fish” coming from capture or farmed production systems?

Section 3.2.2. Nothing here about increasing productivity in aquaculture.

p. 49, l. 10. Fish have a high ecological footprint – high relative to what? If to plants, it’s obvious. If ‘fish’ includes mussels and oysters and non-fed carps, then the statement is wrong and misleading.

p. 79, Box 17.  ‘WorldFish’ not ‘World Fish’. (Also Box 24).

p.81, l. 16-17.  Box 24 should be Box 22, and Box 25 should be Box 23. The whole document should be checked in this regard.

p. 81, l. 23. ‘24’ not ‘26’.

p. 82, Box 24. Interesting example on how fish could contribute with micronutrients. Fish powder could also be made of bigger fish, or even processing byproducts from bigger fish which represent about 50% of the fish and most of the micronutrients in the fish.

p.102, l.14  “……production activities that have been overlooked before, such as gathering, hunting and fishing.” It is not often that fishing is overlooked, hence the status of fish stocks globally. It might be better to qualify this statement.

p. 107, 4.2.4.  For future research and data needs, data on food/nutrient composition should be included. In order to combat micronutrient deficiencies, there is a particular need to improve the knowledge on levels of micronutrients, and which foods (at local level) have significant levels of the nutrients needed.

Dear Committee,

I have done a very quick read-through of the document. 

The first question is, who is the main audience for the document? I could not find it described. 

While it is clearly one of the most comprehensive documents  in terms of describing issues and research needs going forward, a thorough assessment of why each one of these issues has not been addressed successfully to date beyond a well-financed pilot here and there  is missing. I have been involved with agriculture-nutrition linkages since 1976 and have come face to face with most of these issues running field programmes and I ask myself why are we still discussing basically the same issues some 40 years later?  Lessons learned on why things don't work would enrich the final product.

Paul Sommers

Institute for Food and Agriculture

California State University, Fresno

Observations/suggestions to “Nutrition and Food System Vo Draft eConsultation” by Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

In the past also I provide my observations and suggestions, I don’t know what happened to them? However, here are some of my observations and suggestions to Draft “Nutrition and Food system”

1.         UN role: Firstly, as long as UN sub-serving the interests of Multinational Western Companies [MNCs], primarily who were/are involved in fertilizer, pesticides, GMO seeds business, reports of this nature have little practical use;

2.         Report writers on ground practical experience: Secondly, Chapter 1 clearly shows that the whole exercise is “theoretical” with little “practical” real world scenarios.  Definitions don’t matter much but they should have taken factual information existing on ground over different parts of the globe – countries and regions within the country.  It appears the members preparing this document were not trained in this direction. Thus, this report has little practical utility.

For example, in Chapter 2, even with availability of all vitamins, if the food is adulterated or produced under polluted atmosphere the inferences are quite different. This needs practical scenario. Musi River passes through the city Hyderabad, Telangana State in India. The river carries a cesspool of poison – with domestic and industrial pollution [treated and untreated] and using this water farmers in the downstream of the river grow crops-vegetables and feed the fodder to animal that give milk and meat. Eating such food introduced innumerable diseases/health hazards. Even groundwater is contaminated with this water.

3.         Role of climate change: In Chapter 3 under 3.2.1 Climate change [& 3.2.2] the statements on Page 45, lines 26-28 are inaccurate.

If we look in to Indian agriculture practices over different parts of the country before green revolution technology, known as chemical input technology, farmers developed farming systems practices for different regions of the country based on their hundreds of year experiences for soil and climate conditions.  The farming system was a crop/cropping pattern linked to animal husbandry system. This system provided economic and nutrition security.  This is a healthy diet.  This was modified with green revolution technology after 1960s.  This is a mono crop system. In the traditional system crop residue was used as fodder to animal but the mono-crop system has disastrous effect on animal husbandry with poor quality fodder. 

Let me give an example of recent air pollution levels in Indian Capital City Delhi.  The neighbouring states grow paddy and wheat.  Farmers burn the paddy stubbles/fodder in the fields causing pollution, as this fodder is not useful for animal consumption.

4.         IPCC’s role: IPCC’s climate change argument runs around temperature.  In fact this runs around green fund – billions of dollars – to divert from multinational companies ineffective technologies in environment point of view.

I myself presented a study on how the climate factors, particularly temperature, influence the crop development of new high yielding crop varieties with reference to Sorghum [Reddy, 1984a]. This analysis showed a range of temperature tolerance for different varieties of the same crop. However, this varied with relative humidity and soil humidity [Reddy, 1993]. Crop growth and yield [biomass and rain] are primarily related to soil moisture condition. Texam A.M. group developed a crop-weather model, known as SORGF. This model was brought to ICRISAT [one of the 13 institutions of CGIAR] to test whether this model works for tropical semi-arid regions or not. This model was tested with the data collected over several locations [23 data sets] during 1979 and 1980 kharif and rabi seasons.  It presented very poor correlation coefficient [Reddy, 1984b] – the authors tried to modify energy term but did not show any improvement.   By replacing soil water balance model [Reddy, 1983] that works under diverse soil, crop & climate conditions, the correlation coefficients improved drastically.  That means crop-soil-weather interaction play interactive role but temperature alone has little role.

5.         Deficiency in Technology: In agriculture technology involves seed, fertilizers, Soil, irrigation & rainfall.  The technology innovations were Western Multinational Companies profit driven. Here the major casualty is the environment – air, water, soil and food pollution and thus health hazards. While calculating the food production gains we rarely account this loss. Reddy (2003a) analyzed this aspect in terms of production.

With reference to paddy in the state of Andhra Pradesh – The Rice Bowl of India – the traditional paddy under irrigation yielded 1300 kg/ha; with the high yielding seed the yield increased by 500 kg/ha; and by adding chemical inputs the yield level rose by 2000 kg/ha. That mean the new technology raised the yield by 2500 kg/ha over the traditional 1300 kg/ha.  

To achieve this raise in yield, government invested huge sum towards development of irrigation and fertilizer. The fertilizer subsidy has increased from Rs. 4,389 crore in 1990-91 to Rs. 75,849 crores in 2008-09. The yield reached a plateau around 1983-84 within a span of around 20 years of introduction of this technology. Under this technology, the high yielding seed is replaced by genetically modified seed showed its life is still shorter. For example, even though Bt-Cotton was not superior in any way with non-Bt-Cotton in terms of yield, in 13 years starting from 2002-03, even after changing the seed three times – Bt1 to Bt2 to Bt3 – in India the last five years the yield reached a plateau.

6.         Drought Types: The mono-crop with chemical inputs technology introduced technological drought in addition to weather related three droughts, namely meteorological drought, hydrological drought and agriculture drought.

The meteorological drought is associated with rainfed agriculture and hydrological drought is associated with irrigated agriculture, which rarely coincides.  On an average around 60% of the cultivated area is rainfed varying between 35% and 85% over individual countries and regions within a country.

Due to excess use of groundwater indiscriminately with water intensive crops, ground water dried out in several countries/regions within a country affecting crop production and availability of potable water [Reddy, 2003b]. With the population growth, the area under the traditional tanks gradually decreasing with the time – due to silting, due to encroachment, etc --.. In practical sense all these affect crop production and food quality.

7.        UN Manipulation: The 70s environmental movement related pollution aspects were sidelined by MNCs through UN, Rio Summit.  Here global warming versus carbon dioxide was brought in. Since then this tirade is going on in full speed. Now with the Republican President-elect in USA there appears to be some change in global warming; to thwart this now MNCs are directly entered the arena under the disguise of “Climate Smart Agriculture”.

The major initiatives for the agriculture sector that were discussed frequently at COP so far are Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA) and Adaptation of African Agriculture (AAA). While GACSA was launched at COP 21 in Paris, AAA has been launched at COP 22 with much fanfare.

Both of these initiatives are being promoted by Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) along with various governments, especially African countries. The founding membership and steering committee of GACSA include fertilizer companies, their front groups and partner organizations. Of the alliance’s 29 non-governmental founding members, there are three fertilizer industry lobby groups, two of the world’s largest fertilizer companies and a handful of organizations working directly with fertilizer companies on climate change programmes. This leaves a lot of ambiguity and raise serious concerns. For example, CGIAR, a FAO partner in GACSA, promotes climate smart “success stories”, which promote the use of fertilizers and genetically-modified organisms (GMO), and make no mention of traditional agriculture system. There is a fear that seeds, fertilizers, pesticides promoted by big corporations multinationals will be pushed in the guise of climate smart agriculture. This will make farmers more and more dependent on market forces and hence increase their vulnerability and reduce their adaptive capacity.

8.         Food waste: Globally, FAO itself reports that around 30% of the food produced is going as waste.  With this, the natural resources used to produce that much is going as waste. Therefore there is a need to identify those location-region specific issues responsible for that waste. This is more important over the more production.

9.         General points: Food availability is different from nutritious food availability; food production is different from nutritious food production; sea-water food is polluted, on farm-aqua-farms food produced is also polluted with chemical fertilizer use; irrigated agriculture effect food quality with salt & water-logging. Farmers need a technology that does not depends on government subsidy and western MNCs technology. This only improves the quantity and quality of food produced. India government introduced Food Security bill in which nutrition security is also part. Government is not looking at the bill in its totality to achieve the goal of food and nutrition security to vulnerable groups.  No agency is bothered on it. They forgot the content of the bill while FAO trying to write reports after reports.

Reddy, S.J., 1983: A simple method of estimating the soil water balance,, Agric.  Meteorol., 28:1-17 – later red it as Agric. For. Meteorol.

Reddy, S.J., 1984a: An iterative regression approach for prediction of sorghum (sorghum bicolor) phenology, in the semi-arid tropics, Agric. For. Meteorol., 32:323-338.

Reddy, S.J., 1984b: Agroclimatic classification of the semi-arid tropics III: Characteristics of variables relavent to crop production potential, Agric. For. Meteorol., 30:269-292.

Reddy, S.J., 1993: Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As applicable to dry-land agriculture in developing countries, www.scribd.com/Google books, 205p [book Review appeared in Agric. For. Meteorol., 67:325-327 [1994].

Reddy, S.J., 2003a: Evolution of seed technology, biotechnology!, Current Environmental Issues, Edited by B.B.S. Kapoor, et al, Madhu Publications, Bikener, India, pp. 139-158.

Reddy, S.J., 2003b: Rainfall deficit and drought intensity, Drought Management – Present & Future [With special reference to Andhra Pradesh], Edited by A. P. Rao, Sundarayya Vignanakendram, pp.29-44 & 163-167.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Formerly Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN

Fellow, Andhra Pradesh/Telangana Akademy of Sciences

Convenor, Forum for a Sustainable Environment

Hyderabad, Telangana, India

[email protected]

With reference to the questions posed for response:

• 1. Purpose and Objectives: These are to focus on how food systems influence dietary patterns and hence nutritional outcomes. The paper's emphasis is on consumers but this should not be to the exclusion of production as part of food systems.
• 2. Structure and balance: The report is very comprehensive but probably too diffuse and needs tightening in later drafts to zero down on key factors. It is a bit like a long review of the literature at present. I agree with other suggestions to have appendices.
• 3. Conceptual framework: it is a good start with its definitions and lead-in to the development of a typology. The typology will provide the skeleton on which later versions and the impact of the report will depend for structure and support. However, “food environment” needs to be re-thought. As per the definition, environment is a part of the food system, not outside it. The systems approach needs strengthening. A system incorporates composition (or components), environment, structure, and mechanisms. For a given entity we want to know what it consists of, what the features are of the environment within which it functions, how it is arranged internally, and how it works. (Bunge, Mario, Emergence and Convergence. University of Toronto Press Inc. 2003). No entity, organism or system can exist independent of environment.
• 4. Production systems (sic.) adequately addressed? No, see Q.1&3. Production is part of the food system and not a separate system. This component of the food system has a major role in shaping diets and nutritional outcomes.
• 5. Controversies: There is a central controversy that the report does not adequately confront, but rather falls on one side of in its selection of sources. There should be more substance in the report on the food sovereignty debate as well as on systems that are based on small farmers. This is a core weakness of the report; small farm-based food systems that provide 80% of food in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (as referenced) are reduced to allusions to “vulnerable groups” (4.2.2). I support other comments made along these lines. The report as it stands contains bias.
• 6. Categorization of food systems: Farming systems thinking should be included. It is hardly touched on in the report, if at all, consistent with the gap I identify on the diversity of production systems. As per Figure 1, the overwhelming bias of the report this far is towards the industrial food system model. This is influenced by most of the early writing on food systems, which was grounded in industrial, market-oriented and consumption-based thinking about food. To be up-to-date, useful in the long term and analytically correct, climate and agro-ecosystem-based food production, and small farm-based food systems, must be part of the analytical framework, and thus the emergent typology. I treat measurement in my concluding comment below.
• 7. Balance in food systems: There is a lack of this as per responses 4. and 6. Also, the constraints faced by poor populations in trying to meet their nutritional needs should be highlighted more. I support other comments in the on-line debate along these lines. Further, the urban poor must be better included. Now they are lumped in as “consumers” in an under-developed classification of “urban”.
• 8. Strengthening / shortening: The typology will be the key to the success and impact of the report. Most other sections can be tightened, shortened, moved to appendices as suggested and bias removed as above (5).
• 9. Cases: I cannot provide cases which give evidence of policy impact on nutritional status. However, section 4 is generally weak and leaves no room for treatment of contingent factors that affect nutritional status. I can cite studies that demonstrate the impact of urban agriculture on food security and nutrition, including urban livestock, for example. Urban and peri-urban agriculture needs to be addressed somewhere.
• 10. Institutional changes and governance: Yes section. 4.2.2 is particularly weak and also biased, as noted above, item 5. Perhaps here is the place to introduce the strides that have been made on urban food governance, internationally (CFS-CSM, Milan Urban Food Policy Pact), nationally and at city level in both North and South (urban food policy councils, urban agriculture legislation and administration). While nutritional impacts have not been measured as yet, the policy intention is clear (Brazil, several African countries/cities). But the urban nutritional deficits and lack of access must be treated in earlier sections of the report as well, in order for this to cohere.
• 11. Balance in communication: The report is balanced regarding technicality, accuracy and communication. However, while some concepts are clearly defined, more conceptual development is needed, as above. While the initial boxed definitions are good, and grounded in previous work, the definition of diet (4) could be improved by including the concept of dietary diversity, perhaps in the second sentence, before moving to environmental impact?
• 12. Omissions and gaps: As above, production processes, agro-ecology and climate-based food systems incorporating small farmers must permeate the whole analysis which is slanted towards industrial value chains, including and especially Figure 1 and other later figures on food system interventions. The urban poor dimension of food and nutrition insecurity including urban and peri-urban agriculture is omitted as item 10 above. I have separately made a submission on critical and emerging issues in this respect. Finally, the treatment of soil quality and food production needs more depth and emphasis. This could be expanded upon in 3.2.1 which is very good on natural resource degradation and ecosystems, but needs to permeate other aspects of the paper as well (and should not be consigned to an appendix). In particular, the food system diagrams do not encompass waste in the ecological cycle “…production-processing-consumption-waste-production..” and so on. Nutrient cycling is an essential part of the food system, whether planned or unplanned (i.e. malfunctioning). The Milan urban food pact is likewise weak on this, only addressing food waste and not the cycling of waste and nutrients in the food system.

Overall comment and suggestion on developing the typology:

Starting from the excellent (and brief) treatment in Section 3.2.1 on Natural Resource Degradation and Ecosystems, which includes analysis of the homogeneity of world food supply (Fig. 16), I would like to suggest that this give direction to the search for a typology. What will be needed as an outcome of this work is a way of measuring and comparing food systems, specifically with regard to their impact on nutrition levels. After naming types that can form a nominal scale as a basis for comparison, it should be possible to interrogate these with quantitative data on variables that are amenable to measurement.

As included in Table 2, “percent imported foods / total food supply” could be a key variable to describe different food system types (not just countries and not just the production element as per Table 2). The types must include small scale peasant, regional market oriented, peri-urban and urban farming systems, in order for comparisons to be first made and subsequently measured in terms of nutritional impact. Necessarily, these will vary by agro-ecological zone. See the CFS-CSM typology of farming groups for example. Once the types are named and defined, a multiplicity of variables could be developed, measured and analysed now and in future.

This next step in developing the paper is central to its purpose and long term usefulness. The task is to establish the groundwork on food systems and nutrition. It must break free from analyses based in other discourses and become a benchmark for describing and analysing food systems.

• There is general recognition of the importance of sound natural resource policy to ensure long-term sustainable food production.
• Most stakeholders recognize that farmers play an important role in producing food while at the same time managing a significant portion of natural resources and contributing to a range of public goods.
• Sound soil and water management is critical for ongoing agricultural production. Improvement in soil management is seen as a key factor for improving productivity. At the same time, greater efficiency in water use is primarily seen as the best way to manage trade-offs between environmental and food production objectives.
• Some stakeholders view environmental regulations as a major inhibitor to farmers’ and fishers’ abilities to produce food. There is, thus, need for continuous improvements in food production to minimize effects on the environment.
• The merits and shortfalls of different food production systems are a major point of interest in relation to farming and fishing industries.
• Many stakeholders perceive an opportunity to minimize unnecessary food waste and redirect surplus food to members of society facing food insecurity. Organizations that donate surplus food to those in need are seen as a positive example of how food waste could be reduced.
• Reducing food waste is seen as an easy way to save money, reduce pressures to produce more food globally, reduce the impact on the environment, and help others in need. Creating functional products from food waste, such as compost, is seen as having dual benefits of reducing food waste in landfill while also reducing reliance on synthetic fertilizers for further food production.

Hello,

My main concern with the report is the lack of clear propositions regarding food processing which is essential. Indeed, populations adhering the most to ultra-processed foods exhibit the highest risks of chronic diseases, especially in Western countries and big cities of emerging countries.

Therefore I propose that the concept of ultra-processed foods be more present in the report, as devlopped by Monteiro and collaborators with the international NOVA food classification according to degree of processing.

Besides, fractionating and recombining ingredients to create these ultra-processed foods is energy-consuming for no real health benefit: there is therefore a link with sustainibility.

Therefore I think this issue is essential and should adressed and developped in the report.

Available I remain,

Good, effective and useful for specialists and policy-Food Policy and Nutrition report, as well as policy-makers.

Notes

1- Must focus on feeding the poor and the poorest, and this will contribute to the development of effective policies and programs.

2 Very important food environment and the sustainability of nutrition.

3 Of economic and social point of view, the production is set the most important in the field of nutrition and food systems.

4 There are relative gap between the food and nutrition for the quality of the people from the economic perspective.

5 Should be classified as dietary quality of people's specific and clear manner.

6 Feeding systems vary from state to state, and the quality of the people, by the people's income.