Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

Профиль участника
Просмотреть всех участников

Г-жа Anna Rosales

Член с
Организация: Institute of Food Technologists
Страна: Соединенные Штаты Америки
Область (области) знаний:

Этот участник внес свой вклад в:

  • Science and Innovation

    Какoвы барьеры и возможности для ученых и других обладателей знаниями при внесении вклада в формирование политики для повышения уровня эффективности, инклюзивности, невосприимчивости к внешним воздействиям и устойчивости агропродовольственных систем?

    Консультации
    -

    • Г-жа Anna Rosales

      Institute of Food Technologists
      Соединенные Штаты Америки

      Dear FSN Moderators, 

      On behalf of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) and our over 12,000 individual members, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Please see the attachment for IFTs input on barriers and opportunities for scientists and other knowledge holders to engage in policy. 

      Sincerely, 

      Anna Rosales, RD, Senior Director Government Affairs & Nutrition, IFT  

      Dear Office of the Chief Scientist of FAO,

      The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the consultation, “What are the barriers and opportunities for scientists and other knowledge holders to contribute to informing policy for more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrifood systems?” As a global organization of approximately 12,000 science of food professionals, we believe science is critical for establishing evidence-based policies to ensure a global food system that is sustainable, safe, nutritious, and accessible to all. We are encouraged to see FAO’s desire to address barriers and increase opportunities for scientists to inform policy and provide the following feedback and perspectives.

      Section 1: Analysis of the complexities and practical problems associated with science-policy interfaces.

      While some scientists are aware of how policies are enacted and opportunities to contribute science to policy, there are still many barriers that often limit the ability of scientists to inform agrifood policies.

      • Lack of awareness of the science-policy process – Some researchers, particularly those early in their career, often lack awareness of how to contribute to the science-policy process. Opportunities to train and help investigators engage in the interface of science and policy would be beneficial.
      • Misalignment of priorities between the policy environment and other sectors, like academia– For scientists in academia, publications, and income generation (e.g., grants, start-ups, royalties) are typically rewarded and recognized over policy involvement. Thus, scientific experts may lack motivation for voluntary involvement in policy-making processes. Additionally, scientists who have received industry funding are often not considered eligible to sit on scientific expert committees, yet academic/industry collaborations are encouraged at most universities. It would be beneficial to find a mechanism to enable scientists, even those with industry funding, to serve on expert committees.
      • Lack of understanding or motivation to navigate political environments – Many scientists are not familiar with political environments. While Government agencies are often looking for scientific and technical insights, at times sometimes political priorities may overrule the scientific evidence. Providing greater training for scientists to understand how to have their science message heard in complex political environments would be helpful.
      • Increased scrutiny on scientists publishing and participating in policy related research – Many scientists, particularly when researching areas that are controversial or might create a paradigm shift from the prevailing scientific perspective, often are hesitant to advance their message beyond a scientific publication. Several scientists have experienced personal and professional attacks from organizations and even other researchers in response to their research (Flegal, Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 2021; Prakash, GM Crops & Food, 2015). These are not attacks meant to debate the science, but personal attacks to discredit and harm reputation and person. There is a need to protect scientific discourse and ensure the science is the center of discussions and not attacks on character.

      Section 2: Knowledge production for policy

      Question 3 in this section asks if research and policy-making communities are united in their understanding of the challenges facing agrifood systems. While it seems that both research and policy-making communities understand the challenges, it is the priorities that are often not aligned. Sometimes there are higher priorities in the policy area than agrifood, and when scientists do not understand these competing priorities, it can be frustrating to see evidencebased policies not move forward or take a long time to develop. Alternatively, researchers can also minimize the policy impact of their research by making it too narrowly focused to be applicable. This requires the scientist to understand how to step back and assess their research for its policy impact.

      Section 3: Knowledge translation for policy-making

      As a scientific organization, IFT does engage in processes to build evidence into agrifood policy processes including government consultations, requests for information and requests for comments on proposed rule-making. We also engage our membership in these activities by making them aware of comment opportunities and requesting feedback from our membership to help inform any comments we develop. For some ongoing policy involvement, we also create committees made up of IFT members to help inform the development of feedback to policy-making organizations. For example, as Codex observers, we have IFT member volunteers engaging and providing scientific input into Codex committees. In 2021, we created the Food and Nutrition Security Steering Committee within IFT that is involved in identifying and communicating food science and technology solutions to major challenges in food and nutrition security.

      Within the US university setting, the extension model is an excellent example of a dedicated knowledge translation resource to get science into the hands of those who need it, such as farmers and producers, to improve their livelihoods and lifestyles. A similar mechanism to translate knowledge to policy may be useful for developing evidence-based policies.

      Section 4: Assessing evidence

      The credibility and relevance of evidence should be determined by the rigor of the scientific methods used to develop the evidence. Assessing science in this way is the best way to prevent biases and opinions from influencing the evidence. The authors, institutions or funding source of scientific research should not immediately discredit or lower the applicability of the research, rather the evidence should be evaluated based on rigorous scientific standards. There are many risk-of-bias tools that have been established for this very purpose. If there is bias in the design of the trials or in how the results were collected and reported – this could be objectively evaluated through a risk-of-bias assessment. Bias should not be assumed, but carefully evaluated through scientific evaluation.

      There are several factors which can help ensure that evidence is assessed in a rigorous, transparent, and neutral manner.

      • Interdisciplinary group of researchers to evaluate the evidence – A broad group of scientists from across the entirety of the food system should be included in assessments of evidence that will impact policy. This is the best way to ensure that the evidence is considered from every perspective of key players in the food system. This is particularly true for the middle segment of the food supply chain that is often not included in evidence evaluation. For example, when recommendations are made on food and nutrition, food scientists are typically not included in the evidence analysis, even though recommendations are being made about food. As a result, many recommendations are difficult to achieve because the evidence assessors do not consider the feasibility of the recommendations within the current food system.
      • Balanced perspectives of evidence reviewers – It is also critical to ensure that there is a balance of scientific perspectives during evidence review and in all levels of policy making that involve science. Many times, the consideration of bias and conflict of interest in developing scientific review committees is based solely on funding sources. However, this does not consider other forms of bias. Scientists can have biases, particularly when their entire career and research program is built on advancing a certain research direction. It is not possible to eliminate bias and potential conflicts of interest, therefore, the best alternative is to ensure that different perspectives are included and balanced. The exclusion of good scientists based solely on funding sources is a form of bias and does not lead to an inclusive and cooperative environment, thus it should be reconsidered. Accurate and understandable communications of evidence, particularly to policy makers, is critical to ensure evidence-based policies are pursued. Communication to the public is also critical as there are many sources of misinformation, particularly in the agrifood environment. It is also critical to be transparent in evidence assessments. Any assessment of scientific evidence for policy making should be published and include methodology of how the science was assessed. A report from a group of experts is insufficiently transparent because it is not clear which of the recommendations are based on scientific review and which are based on scientific opinion of the expert panel. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans follows a system such as this, where all the questions that will be evaluated are established in the beginning of the process. Systematic reviews are conducted for each question and the results of those reviews are published. Mechanisms such as this increase transparency and eliminate the potential for expert opinion to influence the outcomes of expert panels.

      IFT believes quality science and objective scientific evaluation is critical to establishing evidence-based policies to transform the food system to ensure food and nutrition security for all. Science of food professionals play a critical role in generating this science and evaluating science for policy development and stand ready to serve in these capacities.

      See the attachments:

    • Г-жа Anna Rosales

      Institute of Food Technologists
      Соединенные Штаты Америки

      Dear HLPE-FSN,

      The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report on “Reducing Inequalities for Food Security and Nutrition.” IFT is a global organization of approximately 12,000 individual members, in 95 countries, who are committed to advancing the science of food. We believe that science is essential to ensuring that our global food system is sustainable, safe, nutritious, and accessible to all. For this reason, we are encouraged to see this report addressing inequalities and inequities in global food security and nutrition. Our feedback and inputs to the report can be found in the attached document.

      The Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) appreciates the opportunity to provide input to the V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report on “Reducing Inequalities for Food Security and Nutrition.” IFT is a global organization of approximately 12,000 individual members, in 95 countries, who are committed to advancing the science of food. We believe that science is essential to ensuring that our global food system is sustainable, safe, nutritious, and accessible to all. For this reason, we are encouraged to see this report addressing inequalities and inequities in global food security and nutrition.

      IFT applauds the HLPE for examining inequalities within the agri-food system and we recommend a deeper look at the middle-segment of the food supply chain and how food science & technology can be part of the solution in achieving greater equity in food and nutrition security. As an example, food science and technology has made significant contributions in reducing the cost of food through packaging and processing technologies that allow foods to be safe and stable for longer periods of time. It is acknowledged multiple times in the report that food processing has improved the affordability and safety of food, yet this is positioned as a disadvantage for healthy diets as it is assumed all processed foods are of poorer nutritional quality than fresh foods. However, this is not always the case as there are many processed foods that provide important nutrition and as mentioned in the report, households that lack a stable energy supply for cooking, have poor sanitation and water access, or are juggling multiple familial care burdens, often depend on these foods. IFT encourages the HLPE to take a more balanced view of the role of processed foods in enabling food and nutrition security and suggests in addition to boosting agricultural research (p 101), there should also be a boost in food science and technology research that is focused on providing more nutritious processed foods that are safe and affordable for disadvantaged groups. These technologies could include innovations that minimize spoilage of fresh fruits and vegetables to reduce cost and food waste as well as technologies that can increase nutrient density of foods and reduce food components/nutrients to limit (e.g., saturated fat, added sugars, sodium) while achieving consumer acceptable sensory qualities.

      IFT would also caution including “innovation and technology” as a section in “the systemic drivers and root causes of FSN inequalities”. As already noted above and in the report, innovations, such as those in the Green Revolution have led to incredible improvements in food and nutrition security. While there may be unforeseen consequences that should be addressed, positioning these innovative solutions as causes of FSN inequalities is not warranted. In fact, the most recent FAO Science and Innovation Forum in October 2022 highlighted the “centrality of science, technology and innovation for agrifood systems transformation.” Further, in chapter 5 of the HLPE report, digital technologies are recommended to help reduce inequalities across the food system. IFT would recommend that innovations and technology be positioned as solutions but with a greater emphasis on utilizing a lens of equity in the development and expansion of innovations and technologies. Using a lens of equity may help prevent future unforeseen consequences to inequalities as well as build greater trust in science and technology. Lack of trust in science is one of the major drivers preventing uptake of new innovations and technologies.

      IFT believes the science of food and application of technology are important for transforming the food system to ensure food and nutrition security for all. Food scientists and technologists share a commitment with the HLPE-FSN and the CFS to improve nutrition and food security globally. We hope the HLPE will consider our comments to continue to support advances in food science & technology research and development with a lens to equity. Please contact Anna Rosales, Senior Director Government Affairs and Nutrition ([email protected]) if IFT may be of further assistance.

      Sincerely,

      Anna Rosales, Senior Director Nutrition and Government Affairs, Institute of Food Technologists (IFT)

      See the attachments:

    • Г-жа Anna Rosales

      Institute of Food Technologists
      Соединенные Штаты Америки

      Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the Critical Emerging & Enduring Issues draft. We agree with the seven issues affecting FSN and would recommend integrating the following topics:

      1. Resiliency | What does a successful resilient food system look like? Review successes in resiliency that have happened over the past few years and acknowledge the areas where the food system has been resilient during crisis and understand what made those pieces more resilient than others.
      2. Consumer Behavior | Understand the impact of consumer behavior and retailers on supply chain resiliency. Impacts of hording and demand can wreak havoc on traditional supply and demand estimates creating greater disparities.
      3. Efficiency | Often viewed in opposition to resiliency, in many instances, efficiencies may also contribute to resiliency (e.g., automation can improve efficiency and reduce the need for human labor during a pandemic). It would be valuable to further explore efficiencies that may enhance resiliency.
      4. Digitization | What info needs to be captured and shared with trading partners?

      Kind regards,

      Anna