Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

I welcome the opportunity to comment on this draft.

As the team leader for the HLPE report #10 on livestock (2016) I note that several of the areas covered in the draft report were also dealt with in the livestock report, including discussion of agroecology, sustainable intensification, and food sovereignty, as well as definitions and principles related to sustainable development. References are made to the livestock report and I would strongly advise that continues, with the rechecking of material where relevant.

The draft contains a wealth of useful information and analysis, with a very extensive list of references, and has the potential to become the definitive study on agroecology.

I am attaching some detailed comments, but would highlight here a number of concerns that I feel need to be addressed in the next stage of the work:

The draft Recommendations (which are in a constant state of revision until the final stages) are rather general and not specific to agroecology - they could well be relevant for many systems that can contribute to sustainable agricultural development. It would be helful to draw attention to those that are unique to agroecology.

In the Recommendations (drawing on the main report) some discussion of the dynamics involved is necessary: in the past there has been continual transformation of agricultural systems, scale, and resource implications. Some sense of scenarios or options for the future is warranted as at present I felt that there is a bias towards maintaining the structures of farming, and simply taking actions to ensure that continues (the status quo).

I felt that the report is weak on the economic dimensions, including the role of changing consumer food demand as it feeds back into production. For example, reducing food waste is noted but it should be recognized that - should waste be reduced - will lead to lower incentives to produce at current levels, with effects on prices and so on.

Another, key area where the economic dimension is important is in the discussion about whether agro-ecology can feed the world. That is not really the right question to ask: with enough resources of course any system (including agroecology) could "feed the world" so the relevant question is - at what cost?

I appreciate the suggestion to extend the 3 principles to 4 for sustainable agricultural development for FSN but I do not think that the 4th "enhance the ecological footprint" is the correct descriptor or is just an add on to the other three: it would be better, in my view, to cite the first three and then say something along the lines of ".....while maintaining the ecological basis on which agriculture depends" (incidentally, I'm not sure that the "ecological footprint" can be "enhanced" as increasing activity and population is surely going to put strains on the ecological base and risk reaching a number of critical tipping points?

In several places in the text assertions are made and empirical evidence is scarce. It is difficult to get comparative data but providing some sense of the extent of agroecological systems would be helpful - to complement case studies. That being said, there is a broad spectrum of systems both across and within countries, which are continually evolving.

I hope these comments are useful and I look forward to reading subsequent drafts.     

FiBL- Research Institute of Organic Agriculture

The FiBL research team submits hereby its contribution to the V.0 draft.

FiBL welcomes this consultation process on agroecology and food and nutrition security, as the further clarification of the related terms, concepts and processes provides a unique opportunity to better understand the current agrarian and food crises and better find strategies to overcome them. We believe that the current world society, hence both the global South and global North are united by this process, and that farmers, rural and urban dwellers, researchers, activists and policy influencers will need to find a common language as far as possible. We all need a better understanding of the way to transform the current unsustainable systems in both agriculture and food.

The V0 provides an impressive collection of updated literature on the issue and interesting thoughts. However, already the title suggests inconsistencies, which we discuss in more detail below in the attached document. We expect the term “agroecology” to serve as an umbrella for different concepts and hence including as well organic agriculture, permaculture, and agroforestry to name. This report shall not be used to further divide and confuse but rather serve for finding approaches, strategies and principles to overcome industrial agriculture in its destructive forms. For example in Africa, FiBL works since six year with the approach of “Ecological Organic Agriculture”.

We propose to restructure the report, by starting with a more rigid historic narrative on the current problems we are in (food and agrarian crises, environmental stress, inequality etc), in which the drivers and barriers, but as well social structures are better analyzed using the large knowledge from social sciences including political economy and sociology. The key terms need a proper definition in order to prevent confusion. For example, the distinction between food and agriculture is not always consistent, leading to comparisons of unrelated issues or systems (like agroecology and nutrition). The urban dimension incl. urban farming needs more recognition as well as urban-rural linkages.

The term “innovation” is overstretched. Why should agroecology be an approach and organic farming an innovation? Generally, the chapters on organic agriculture need revision and we focus here on more general comments, as they seem at this stage more pertinent to address. However, we consider organic as based in ancient practices or paradigm based on regenerative agriculture, reemerging in its science-based form as a reaction against industrial agriculture and unsustainable socio-cultural patterns.

In case you require any clarifications related to our input, or if you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate in contacting us.

Yours faithfully,

Gian Nicolay and Miguel DePorras, FiBL

Congratulations on an excellent first draft that does an admirable job reviewing existing literature and providing novel frameworks.

It was great to see an emerging and pressing issue like Fall Army Worm addressed so prominently at the beginning of the document. This helps to ameliorate the perception among some that agroecology is not especially relevant to farmers' concerns.

Some comments/ suggestions:

The design of Figure 1 can make it seem like the boxes are supposed to match up at certain points, which I don’t think was the intention.

Agroecology in a wider context:

• The lack of discussion of conventional agriculture in the first third of the paper, and not including it as an approach to be compared and contrasted with the others seems like an oversight. Table 5 on page 63 and Box 10 start to get at this kind of comparison, but it feels like it should come earlier or first, before getting into the sub-approaches in order to pull in a more general audience.
• Box 4 could benefit from a principle on valuing heterogeneity and context and not looking for silver bullets or recipes. I was surprised that the idea of conventional/ green revolution agriculture being based on homogenization while agroecology was based more on a principle of embracing heterogeneity wasn’t explored.
• The history of agroecology and green revolution type agriculture could be better summarized. It is mentioned, I think, that agroecology has been the norm for most of the 10,000 years of agriculture, and that most of the world’s farmers probably are fairly agroecological, but some of the graphics could reflect these ideas better like Figure 2 and Table 5. 

The classifications in Table 1 seem too arbitrary to be insightful. For each classification I could think of many examples of it working at different scales and having the opposite impact on food security.

The first mention of traditional vs. scientific knowledge (lines 10-20 on pg. 29) seems like a missed opportunity to discuss the interplay of the local and the global and the idea that traditional knowledge is often good at defining the “what” (local practice that works) and scientific, at its best, is good at explaining the why (global principles, like nitrogen fixation). This could easily segue into the section about farmer research networks/ citizen science and how that helps with both local adaptation and identify larger patterns (lines 1-9 on page 32). Section 3.2.3 is great, but should be foreshadowed more in the first section. Lines 36-38 on page 80: “The bridging of the knowledge gap between informal indigenous knowledge and practices and the more formal science that underpins industrial agriculture will be required”  seems like an unfortunate phrasing, there is a lot more to “science”, which of course is not just agronomy but includes transdisciplinary work spanning anthropology, archeology, history, geography, economics, sociology, biology, ecology, chemistry etc than what was done in the name of industrial agriculture.

Including “Nutrition sensitive agriculture” as one of the approaches could be stretching the definition of an agriculture approach, however I do think it expands our thinking in a good way. I cannot say the same for Agroforestry, which clearly seems like a practice to me, one that is part of many/ all of the other approaches. Using sustainable food value chains instead of Local Food Systems also seems odd, it is my perception that there is much more literature and energy behind the latter. A chain is basically the opposite of a system and runs counter to the AE ethos.

Table 3: organic agriculture mentions meat consumption? And is the only one?

In 3.1.2 I think urban migration needs to be mentioned specifically.

Table 6: I find this really interesting and thought-provoking.

I was very impressed with an article based on a book by Charles Mann (link below) that used C4 breeding and perennials as two promising but fundamentally different types of research pathways to providing food in the future. I wonder if these two research areas might be illustrative to touch on in this paper.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/charles-mann-can-planet-earth-feed-10-billion-people/550928/

I also thought the IDDRI paper (link below) did a great job of messaging some very important levers of an AE transition, which your paper mentions but does not highlight: increasing non-crop landscape features and some diet modification:

https://www.iddri.org/en/publications-and-events/issue-brief/agro-ecological-europe-desirable-credible-option-address-food

General comments

- The sustainable diets definition made by FAO in 2010 should be cited too somewhere as a key reference (FAO 2010)

- As an actor in the field of agriculture, nutrition and health, I would like to underline that HEALTH (one health ie of eco-systems as a whole and for all theirs different elements including humans) should more appear as a key objective for agroecology and SFS: with eco-system and climate protection, it is the other outstanding matter to handle : this is clear from reports from WHO (double or triple burden of malnutrition) due to the present unsatisfactory world situation (linked to both under-nutrition and malnutrition all over the world) and projections for obesity and major NC disease trends. It is key for the coming generation. In numerous parts of the report , I suggest that most emphasis is put on various Health aspects. For general public (at least in economically rich countries), the vast majority of people asking for agroecolgy are willing more environment and climate protection as well as heath protection.

- On organic food system. Based on my 30 years experience and expertise in that field, and present activities (one over 7 coordinators of the Organic Food System Programme (see below), I would like to share my views.

The strength of organics is a clearly defined basis and principles (ecology, health, ethics and care), regulations in most countries in the world, continental regulation in European Union, and control for production, processing and distribution of foods, a well identified market and consumer growing movement. indeed, all ecological/sustainbale aspects related to the 4 IFOAM 3.0 pillars as above are not obviously within. The future should be to reinforce these dimensions in the doctrine, regulations and practices … to move towards a broader « agroecological" approach.

The strength of agroecology is its broad approach and covering of most sustainable aspects, facility of understanding the wording and goals but its weaknesses are the unprecision of every item, the lack of any common rules, regulations, standards, labels and so on, as it could be for « sustainable »: all methods used in conventional methods and banned in organics could find some place in present agroecology in fact ! As an example, we learned form the past Minister of Agriculture in France that one can speak frequently about agroecology as a positive view, take some decision in favour of that direction and take more decisions in the opposite direction in favour of industrial agriculture ! Thus, If agroecology actors and institutions collaboratively better clarify what it means and what is sounded or not, … we can guess that they will integrate organics as a reliable basis for agroecology principles and actions. If not, lots of people feel that it will stay as a fine but weak concept, to be used essentially in reports and politics, or as a scientific approach for some researchers. When reading several high level-reports on food and nutrition security, sustainability, food security, etc, I red more and more frequently the term « agroecology », indeed it is an impressive progress during last yers at that level, but it is essential to give it a clear meaning, and very unfrequently only the term « organic ».

The present Minister ofAgriculture in France has clearly stated that organic agriculture is an irreversible development and should be markedly supported and developed (from 6.5% of agricultural land now to 15% in 2022, with 1.1 billion Euros to support transition). Clearly, in pratical terms for production, processing, consumption and market, the basis of agroecology and SFS is organic almost everywhere in the world. In addition most knowledge on such agroecological systems is coming from studies on organic agriculture or consumption. This should be considered in revising the draft to better account of its importance as a key part of agroecology approach.

At present in the V0 draft, organics, agroforestry, conservation, etc are put outside agroecology as other innovative approaches. Clearly, organics is the practical and comprehensive basis of agroecology while other approaches (agroforestry, conservation, etc) that do not exclude chemical fertilisers, herbicides or pesticides and have no defined regulations can indeed be considered as other approaches and methods to make progress towards SFS. - Organic should be associated with agro-ecological spelling in order to be clear on the general direction of change, to stress priorities and long-term objectivesfor changes in agricultural practices, consumers behaviours and politic decisions.

Specific comments

vs e) L1 p10

it is the case of the OFSP (Organic Food System Programme (see www. organicfoodsystem.net), has already 70 partners (few academics, most local centers), net in 5 continents : it is one of the first 6 core initiative selected and included in the UN 10Y SFS programme in 2015.

vs f) L3 p10

: it is one of the main goals of the OFSP

on b) to add after a) L21 p11

urban nutrition is an increasing problem that needs to more largely tackled . Cities sustainable food systems should be raised and developed to ensure sustainable and appropriate feeding and nutrition of urban people with more local and agro-ecologically/organically grown foods, for better autonomy, security and health.

vs L8-20P14

to add a Point (better) or to put into Point 3 Utiization, on food safety in agreement with the sustainable diets definition made by FAO in 2010 : this is a crucial point in relation to health, that takes part to the SFS concept : reducing at most all risks linked to food production and storage (toxic chemical products) and food consumption (fungus and derived toxic moieties, toxic chemical pesticides residues, endocrine disruptors, water pollution) based on available scientific knowledge and reports. Refers to healthy and safe diet.

The sustainable diets definition made by FAO in 2010 should be cited somewhere as a key reference ()

p20 : surprising that organic agriculture methods (since the 40’s are not cited here are as a practical, defined, well-known, certified and worldwide approach to develop such agroecological principles and tools.

P36 table 3. Regarding some items and also organic agriculture, some revision should be made due to present biais and unsuitable marks

p46 L 5-13 :

More recent and key publications have markedly extended knowledge on health- or resources/environment-related aspects associated to organic food consumption. These are the following :

- vs L8-9 : "that children and adults who consume organically produced foods have lower levels of organophosphate and pyrethynoïd pesticide metabolites in their urine (Reganold and Wachter, 2016). (2 refs: Oates et al, Environ Res 2014 ; Baudry et al, JESEE 2018)

p45-46 Organic agriculture : Important data and references to add

- Three meta-analyses of comparative scientific studies on nutrient contents in plant-foods, dairies and meats have shown that organic foods generally contain more antioxidants et beneficial fatty acids (Baransky et al, Br J Nutr 2014; Średnicka-Tober et al, Br J Nutr 2016 and 2016).

- 13 original publications in international reputed journals have been published since 2013 from the data of a unique very large adult cohort (more than 100 000) comparing regular organic food consumers with non-organic consumers (I am one of the senior scientists involved and co-author). The most important results are as follows: organic consumers vs non have ( based on multivariate analyses and adjustments on confoundings) :

- a healthier lifestyle (Kesse-Guyot et al, PLosOne 2013 and others)

- a healthier dietary pattern (more plant-foods, less refined foods, less animal foods, less fat/sugared foods), better fitting recommendations (Kesse-Guyot et al, PLosOne 2013 and others)

- a better awareness for sustainability and long-term matters (Baudry et al, Nutrients 2017, Benard et al, Nutr J 2018)

- better daily nutrients intakes for numerous nutrients and fibres (PLosOne 2013, Baudry et al, Public Health Nutr 2016)

- a reduced urine contamination by pesticides residues (Baudry et al, JESSE 2017)

- a markedly reduced probability (- 31 & - 50% to be overweight or obese, 2 studies: Kesse-Guyot et al, Plosone 2013 and Br J Nutr 2017)

- a markedly reduced probability of having a metabolic syndrome, an important cardio-vascular risk factor (Baudry et al , Eur J Nutr, 2017)

- a significantly reduced probability of having a cancer (overall - 25%), with - 34% for breast cancer in menopausal women and 76% for lymphomas ( Baudry et al, JAMA int Med 2018, confirming a - 21% reduction in another epidemiological study)

- a combined effect with plant-based dietary pattern on reducing resources uses and GHGEs (Lacour et al, Front Nutr2018, Seconda et al , Climatic Change 2018 and J Cleaner Prod 2018).

Unfortunately, due to family problems, I have been unable to go forwards in commenting this V0 Draft in due time . I apologize for that.

I can be contacted for further exchanges if useful upon revision of this v0 draft.

We the SHARECITY research team would hereby like to submit a contribution to the V.0 draft.

We acknowledge and commend the present sections on the right to food and food sovereignty in the V.0 draft. However, with half of the population currently living in cities and this figure expected to increase to 68% in 2050 (UN 2018), we would like to suggest that more attention to the urban food system is paid in the document; in particular to the potential role of using ICT to mediate urban food sharing activities and aid cities to move onto more sustainable pathways (Davies et al 2017a; Davies et al., 2017b; Davies and Legg, 2018). As of now, there is a key gap in the coverage of collaborative activities and diversity of practices and innovations around food (food sharing for brevity) in cities worldwide and its impact on the sustainability of urban food systems.

Attached are our comments to the proposed questions as well as evidence-based material and references that we would kindly like to suggest to be included into the draft.

Kind regards,

Vivien Franck on behalf of the SHARECITY team

Thank you for the opportunity to review this report. Below are comments on Chapters 1 and 2.

Chapter 1.

The broader flow of the chapter is quite good, and the framing around movement, science, and practice is excellent.

Small points:

Page 18, line 41; it is questionable that the whole food system is increasingly becoming the “ultimate focus for agroecology.” It might be helpful to specify in which contexts, or for whom this is the case.

Page 19: Figure 2; the agroecology as a social movement section should include territorial development, and depeasantization/repeasantization; the agroecology as a set of practices section (and or the as science section) should include feedback loops.

Broader omissions:

1.1.2 Agroecology as a set of practices (page 20); one larger omission from this section (although it is slightly mentioned on lines 37-8), is that agroecology has been the dominant mode of production in many indigenous and other traditional cultures historically. This section could use greater acknowledgement and attention to traditional knowledge systems, and how these serve as the basis for agroecological practices throughout the world. It should be mentioned that much of the historical discovery of agroecological practices, particular starting in the 1970s was a process of re-valuing traditional approaches to agriculture, and peasant knowledge systems. Altieri’s early work would be one starting point, i.e. Altieri, M. and K. Anderson (1986). "An ecological basis for the development of alternative agricultural systems for small farmers in the Third World." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture1: 30-38. Chambers is frequently also considered a touchstone in this regard:

Chambers, R. and B. P. Ghildyal (1985). "Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers: The farmer-first-and-last model." Agricultural Administration20(1): 1-30Section 2.3.1 Rights-based approaches. Lines 15-19 (approximately). The introduction to the Food Sovereignty section at present is very good, and does a fine job articulating the concept. However, the chronology should be updated to include Edelman’s intervention concerning earlier articulation of the food sovereignty concept in Mexico, and elsewhere in Central America, during the 1980’s. The inclusion of these historical points could be a sentence or two, or a footnote. It should be underscored that this revision does not discredit the dominant narrative, which is presented in the document.

A major gap in the present document is a contextual discussion of the linkages between agroecology and health. There have been emerging discussions in various academic disciplines surrounding sustainable agriculture and health. Given the reports focus on food security and nutrition, it is essential to have a section in Chapter 1 that explores the relationships between agroecology and health--construed broadly to include infectious and chronic disease as well as mental health. 

Dear colleagues,

Many thanks for your kind invitation to provide our comments which you will find below.

Best regards

Audun

Audun Lem, PhD

Deputy Director

Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy and Resources Division

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla

2. If there are key gaps in coverage of approaches, what are these and how would they be appropriately incorporated in the draft?

The following “salient dimensions” could particularly help characterize and compare these different approaches: human-rights base, local or global markets and food systems (short or long supply chain), specialization or diversification, ownership and use of modern knowledge and technology, and use of local and traditional knowledge and practices.

3. Are there any key aspects of agroecology that are not reflected in this set of 17 principles? Could the set of principles be more concise, and if so, which principles could be combined or reformulated to achieve this?

Principles 5-7 should specify small scale fisherfolk, as well as aquatic foods.

Principle 9, consider "producer" instead of "farmer" or "small scale farmer and fisher"

Principle 15-16 could be combined, or rephrased to encompass the role of "right to food" or food sovereignty

4. Along with the four agreed dimensions of FSN (availability, access, stability, utilization), the V0 draft also discusses a fifth dimension: agency. Do you think that this framework addresses the key issues? Is it applied appropriately and consistently across the different chapters of the draft to structure its overall narrative and main findings?

Where "Agency" is discussed and included in the framework, it is referenced to in majority from rights-based approach literature. This follows logically, but could be strengthened and better understood in the agroecological context by supporting with indicators of subjective awareness and consumer behavior and decision making. This could include items from literacy rates, to public polling on consumer satisfaction with products, origins, tenure, etc.

6. Chapter 2 suggests a typology of innovations. Do you think this typology is useful in structuring the exploration of what innovations are required to support FSN, identifying key drivers of, and barriers to, innovation (in Chapter 3) and the enabling conditions required to foster innovation (in Chapter 4)? Are there significant drivers, barriers or enabling conditions that are not adequately considered in the draft?

Chapter 2 typology of innovations is thorough, though possibly missing key fisheries and aquaculture approaches to SFS. Also, it is not readily clear how the innovations encompass the existing broad scope of food systems- where are the fish? Why is "Organic Ag" specified, but not other certification schemes?

8 Do you think that key recommendations or priorities for action are missing or inadequately covered in the draft?

Consider strengthening text on forging new alliances across disconnected domains/ key actors- building off IPES Food Oct 2018 report: https://ia601506.us.archive.org/7/items/CS2ExecutiveSummary/CS2_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

9 Throughout the V0 draft there has been an attempt to indicate, sometimes with placeholders, specific case studies that would illustrate the main narrative with concrete examples and experience. Are the set of case studies appropriate in terms of subject and regional balance? Can you suggest further case studies that could help to enrich and strengthen the report?

Case studies within IPES Food, Oct 2018: https://ia601506.us.archive.org/7/items/CS2ExecutiveSummary/CS2_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

10 Are there any major omissions or gaps in the V0 draft? Are topics under-or overrepresented in relation to their importance? Are any facts or conclusions refuted, questionable or assertions with no evidence-base?

Consider addition for climate change considerations, the recent study from Harvard U, findings of rising CO2 from human activity creating less nutrition staple crops (rice, wheat) in Asia. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3.epdf?referrer_access_token=U9I9ylghWQszPPMsbuOs5tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0O5J0oP_LhVUOgym62AyF5ghuOS5aOCa4g0Agd33biHRPVvzshteII8s6f0432vmaDtwx28IbA_1rUF6bUFrcpPQmlkW8yIrssI3hK9jpJ8kZzTEIuIQmPgiyqj0FPn0ncunCPKX2u6ikr5IkKTJfRKB6Nk_AJt0lw9Z701SZMl9BwrSre6lOjBS9yodCaoCZb27oS0b16hW-aotQByRPF9Q5WAUeDWZwmZqFd6sg34DavohtVDVExWGF3wNLJFM0pqwjzXG9ULrw7uEV5geLZT&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

Dear All

Thank you for making the draft report available; if not always an easy read, it is excellent in co-ordinating current thinking and providing much food for thought. As a farmer with over 45 years of both small and large scale farming experience, I applaud the direction the report is taking and the importance it attaches to Agroecology for the future.

The report provides a few examples of current projects, but makes no real reference to how the resulting policies and directions might be implemented and in particular how to attract the young. Agriculture worldwide is an old people’s profession with few examples of keen young entrants. The draw to the cities is not going to be halted by the opportunity of taking on smallholdings with backbreaking work and the lowest returns in the food chain. It requires local examples of excellence, developed with the right infrastructure and market  opportunities and making money - seeing is believing. Rural development will only work, if it is more attractive than the city - in short, providing a better living, so you can afford to visit the city and spend money.

Thought should be given to how sufficient pump priming finance can be secured to develop local model enterprises (minuscule, small or large; making use of local and outside knowledge, customs and experience, and having a little outside helping hand to provide structure and supervision). Call them 'centres of excellence’, providing working and learning vocational ‘life and farming’ apprenticeship type training opportunities. These should lead to qualifications that are recognised by insurers and banks as collateral for raising cash-flow finance for growing crops and renting land. Alongside, partnerships with other players further up the food chain (storage, processing, marketing) could be developed. 

This could be called a NEW DEAL for the Young - their engagement and commitment in return for knowledge and capital to develop enterprise.

Sincerely,

Christoph Graf Grote

Nuffield Scholar 

Dear HLPE,

Many thanks for allowing the comment of the draft at such an early stage. Attached you will find some comments to the social and political aspects related to agroecology and other innovations. I think it is a delicate subject and it is quite difficult to avoid it. I am looking forward to reading the next version of your work.

With kind regards,

Stephanie Domptail

Additional Comments on the V0 draft on Agro-ecology etc.

As a supplementary suggestion, I would like to invite the drafters to propose a briefer and a clearer purpose the report intends to achieve. Would one be mistaken in assuming that its aim is to ascertain the suitability of agro-ecology and other methods as a means of achieving an adequate FSN with a view to form policies and implementation mechanisms to achieve that objective?

Should my assumption be correct, then one would proceed to identify the significant methods of food production/harvesting currently in use, including agro-ecology in its various guises. Here, one would take extra-ordinary care not to lump together all of them as one distinct category as their proponents do not seem to think so. Next, similar care should be taken not to conflate genome modification/alteration, and its use, and the quantitative aspects of its application, i.e., the size of area such plants are grown or animal raised, etc.

Then, one needs to present scientifically sound and up-to-date data on the following attibutes of those methods. After all, innovation is merely a fancy way of saying, use of a new method.

1. Its safety for environment and humans.
2. Its drain on eco-systems services.
3. The quality of its yield which certainly includes not only its mechanical nutritive value, but also taste, colour, flavor and texture and not just the size and colouration. Do please recall that most of eat not just to fill our bellies and get the right dose of nutrients, but also the total experience the pleasure we all associate with meal times. This is a common good of civilization that we should not deny to the coming generations.
4. The quantitative attributes of the yield from various methods applied to comparable crops. These include total quantity as well as individual quantities of the relevant nutrients and the eating experience enhancing elements. This should not be confused with various additives.
5. Ease of acquiring the knowledge and skill needed to apply the method involved.
6. Ease and cost of using the chosen method with respect to the abilities and resources actually available to its potential users, i.e., farmers, fishermen, dairymen, etc.

The above list is not exhaustive, but, it points at the line of enquiry to be persued when one evaluates various means of food production with a view to enhancing an adequate FSN.

Now, the structure of a ‘food system’ remains a moot point even though understanding what may justifiably constitute a food system presents no intrinsic difficulty whatsoever. This becomes self-evident when one considers the very obvious truth, that since we are not automatically fed by some putative super-natural agency, we have to find, prepare and consume what we need to satisfy our our need for nutrition. A food system constitutes the structure we use for this end.

It is here we often make a serious category error of mixing two or more unrelated sub-systems as in the V0 draft. When the subject under discussion is the evaluation of modes of food production including agro-ecological ones with a view to enhanced FSN by embodying the most appropriate ones in agricultural policy and means of its implementation, it includes its exchange sub-system at the wholesale and retailor level (recursively used selling sub-system) as though they are an integral part of a food production.

It should be obvious by now the ‘value chain’ it mentions has nothing to do with agro-ecology anymore than discredited slash and burn agriculture. Let us make it clear in our minds what we wish to do rather than groping around for inspiration. Please note that even the primitive man of the stone age had all the basic sub-systems of a food system that are in use today. The only ‘new’ sub-system, i.e., the selling or exchange system came into being after the introduction of the barter system, the much lamented father of modern economy. True, all the components of our food systems have been modernized, but we would commit a grave mistake if we should fail to distinguish between the technical changes in them and their original purposes that remain unchanged as they did thousands of years ago.

Best wishes!

Lal Manavado.