Глобальный форум по продовольственной безопасности и питанию (Форум FSN)

The political outcome document of the ICN2 should refer explicitly to a few priority streams of work that should be guiding country efforts and those of the international community.

Evidence from countries that have been successful in reducing under-nutrition shows that insufficient calorie intake can be ended and under-five child and maternal under-nutrition greatly reduced within 10 to 15 years through strong, specific and immediate efforts. This requires a pragmatic combination of strategies built around at least two of the three following major streams of work: i) social protection for the poor; ii) raising net incomes from small scale agriculture; and iii) addressing under-five child and maternal nutritional deficiencies through specific interventions.

First, social protection, including cash transfers on a conditional or unconditional basis and school feeding programmes. When such programmes are well articulated with rural/agricultural development policies and nutrition initiatives, synergies produce strong multiplier effects.

Second, raising net incomes in the rural and agriculture sector, especially through support to small-scale agriculture. Boosting small-scale farm productivity and diversification, while promoting more sustainable practices, can play a significant role in reducing rural hunger and malnutrition by improving the local availability and nutritional quality of food  and by creating employment opportunities. This requires strong government investments in public goods including infrastructure. Actions supporting productivity enhancements by small producers “protect” them socially, economically and nutritionally, particularly when such support improves access to land, finance, productive assets, technology, and input and output markets.

Third, prioritizing under-five child and motherhood nutrition deficiencies. Action required to tackle stunting  improved sanitation and hygiene, nutrition information and education, access to health care, and appropriate specific nutrition enhancing interventions and programmes, some of which are – or can be - linked to small producer support or to social protection programmes.

These three streams of work offer strong potential for synergies. For example: i) School feeding programmes  may provide balanced diets and nutritious foods of local origin, hence contributing to enhanced income for local farmers while tackling macro- and micro nutrient deficiencies; ii) Additional purchasing power created by social protection mechanisms, such as food distribution schemes, rural employment programs, cash transfer programmes and school feeding, stimulate rural markets and can boost the solvable demand for food – hence multiplying the effects of small-holder support agricultural policies, and complementing specific nutrition interventions; iii) Agricultural policies providing support to family farming increase rural incomes and hence household members access to food, and when properly articulated with agricultural extension, nutritional education and social protection programmes, they may induce more balanced diets and nutritious foods of local origin - hence contributing to tackling micro- and macro-nutrient deficiencies, and to improving health and labour productivity; iv) Additional purchasing power created by social protection mechanisms, such as food distribution schemes, rural employment programs or cash transfer programmes, stimulate rural markets and can boost the solvable demand for food – hence multiplying the effects of small-holder support agricultural policies, and complementing specific nutrition interventions, etc.

What is needed is an “All-of Government” approach to nutrition. There is not, at country level, a “single ministry” addressing issues as diverse as income re-distribution measures, nutritional supplements, nutritional education, change of dietary habits, food preferences, misleading advertizing and rural poverty. Heads of government have to ensure themselves effective cross-ministerial coordination The three above streams of work require initiatives, rapid up-scaling  and coordination at the highest levels of government. This must be backed by strong political will and adequate budgetary support. Programmes supporting these priorities have to be kept as simple as possible in order to permit: i)the indispensible rapid scaling-up at the national level of these efforts; and ii) to contain costs.. Other crucial initiatives, such as recognition of the Right to Food in the national constitution, can help to mobilize and sustain broad national commitment.

There is a need to prioritize hunger eradication as an essential driver of national development strategy. Ending hunger and malnutrition requires a large-scale, comprehensive approach, linking macro-economic, social, health, sanitation, environmental and agricultural policies. It is crucial that hunger eradication is placed at the centre of a country’s overall development strategy. A variety of macro-economic and sectoral policy instruments must be deployed, with the entire machinery driven by major public investments and structural policy reforms. The scale of such investments is typically quite large—a social protection floor alone can reach 2 percent of GDP—but is essential to achieving hunger-fighting objectives and triggering developmental dynamics.

There is also a need for full social participation. In successful efforts to fight malnutrition, society as a whole becomes engaged. Broad participation sustains local and national efforts—even through changes of government and severe economic and climatic shocks. It also enhances accountability, and distributes the burden of implementation. Institutional mechanisms, such as a national council for food and nutrition, with representatives from civil society and the private sector who make recommendations directly to the highest authorities, can and should be key supports. Similar mechanisms can operate at provincial and local levels. In political society, the hungry are virtually synonymous with the voiceless. The hungry themselves must be empowered to exercise political clout.

The political document of ICN2 should make clear and concrete statements proposing a synthetic and pragmatic vision of the road map proposed above, based on these three streams of work. These should constitute the backbone of the Action plan.

Frédéric Dévé

¿Tiene algún comentario general sobre el borrador de la declaración política y su visión (párrafos 1 a 3 del borrador cero)?

El consumo de alimentos elaborados, azúcares y grasas, especialmente grasas saturadas y grasas trans, así como de sal, también ha aumentado en todo el mundo, lo que alimenta la epidemia mundial de enfermedades no transmisibles.

Comentario: El párrafo anterior es insuficiente porque no aborda la raíz del problema. La causa de este consumo es que no existe control sobre la las grandes corporaciones de la industria alimentaria, que velan únicamente por sus intereses financieros.  Hacen grandes inversiones en publicidad que superan a las capacidades de los gobiernos para educar a su población en el consumo saludable. Están llevando a la humanidad a su extinción lenta y progresiva al alentar la sustitución de alimentos naturales por productos ultraprocesados, con altos contenidos de aditivos muy tóxicos, promotores de las enfermedades crónicas no transmisibles.

¿No existe algún organismo que pueda prohibir la fabricación de grasas trans para el consumo humano? Si no se prohíbe a nivel planetario, las grasas trans se van a seguir consumiendo por el abuso de la industria alimentaria que no considera el tema de la salud humana.  Así como se hizo con la docena maldita de los pesticidas, debería tomarse medidas en contra de este tipo de grasas, que está omnipresente en la mayoría de los productos ultraprocesados de consumo masivo.

¿Por qué el gobierno de EE UU ha desoído la recomendación de sus científicos sobre dejar de subsidiar la producción de maíz transgénico y  su derivado el jarabe de maíz de alta fructosa, aditivo que sustituye a la sacarosa y es causa de hígado graso, entre otros daños a la salud humana? Porque si las grandes corporaciones continúan dirigiendo a la humanidad hacia el consumo de  los productos ultraprocesados, la declaración política de de la CIN 2 será de poca utilidad.

¿Tiene algún comentario sobre los antecedentes y el análisis proporcionados en la declaración política (párrafos 4 a 20 del borrador cero)?

Renovamos el compromiso de reducir el número de niños menores de 5 años que sufren retraso del crecimiento; reducir la anemia entre las mujeres en edad reproductiva; reducir la insuficiencia ponderal del recién nacido; detener el aumento de la prevalencia del sobrepeso entre los niños menores de 5 años; aumentar la tasa de lactancia materna exclusiva en los primeros seis meses; reducir y mantener la prevalencia de la emaciación entre los niños menores de 5años; así como invertir el aumento de la obesidad y la diabetes, como parte del esfuerzo para reducir la mortalidad global asociada a las enfermedades no transmisibles.

¨Reducir el número de niños menores de 5 años que sufren retraso del crecimiento y aumentar la tasa de lactancia materna exclusiva en los primeros seis meses¨ son las dos caras de la misma moneda porque las infecciones recurrentes en la primera infancia (efectos del uso del biberón), son debidas principalmente a la ausencia de una lactancia materna exitosa y a la sustitución de la leche materna por la alimentación con biberón. ¨Frenar y revertir el aumento de la obesidad y la diabetes¨, ambos son compromisos  imposibles de cumplir por los países económicamente dependientes y políticamente débiles. Sus gobiernos están incapacitados para interferir con los intereses de las grandes corporaciones de la industria de los sucedáneos de la leche materna y de los productos ultraprocesados (gaseosas entre otros). 

Desde su creación las corporaciones han violado sistemáticamente el Código Internacional de Comercialización de los Sucedáneos de la Leche Materna, no tiene carácter vinculante, es de aplicación voluntaria.  Las estrategias de publicidad abusiva que la industria está usando durante la última década es utilizar al personal de salud, tanto estatal como privado (específicamente a médicos y nutricionistas),  como impulsadores del consumo de  los sucedáneos de la leche materna, gratificándolos financieramente de múltiples formas. 

¿Qué puede hacer la CIN 2 para promover una adecuación a la realidad actual del Código Internacional de Comercialización de los Sucedáneos de la Leche Materna y que realmente cumpla su función de limitar la inversión en publicidad abusiva y comprometedora de los agentes de salud de parte de la industria??  ¿Qué puede hacer la CIN 2 para que la Nestlé y la Coca Cola dejen de financiar a los organismos que deben velar por la salud de la población a nivel mundial?

Recordamos el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales y las Directrices voluntarias en apoyo de la realización progresiva del derecho a una alimentación adecuada en el contexto de la seguridad alimentaria nacional; el Marco

estratégico mundial para la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición del Comité de Seguridad Alimentaria y los compromisos de la Declaración política de la Reunión de alto nivel de la Asamblea General sobre la prevención y el control de las enfermedades no transmisibles.

Los consumidores deseamos que en nombre de los Pactos, compromisos y declaraciones de la Asamblea General se apliquen medidas urgentes y realistas que ayuden a los gobiernos, naciones y ciudadanos a prevenir la malnutrición y las enfermedades no transmisibles.

Dear Moderators and the members,

It's really a great effort in making food systems more nutrition sensitive with the focus on improving the nutritional status of women and children. The food systems, traditionally, are more nutrition sensitive providing the subsistence to the families. Now, the efforts are in the direction of making agriculture and food system more profitable so that the system remains economically and financially viable so that it continues to provide nutritionally balance food supply to the whole population.

The priority effort , now, should focus on integrating nutritional aspects in the agri-food systems without distorting its major focus of creating more profit. Both the supply side and the demand side should be supported with the necessary knowledge of nutrition. The supply side should be supported in  developing  value chains of nutritionally important crops and livestock and the demand side , the consumers should be well informed with the importance of balanced diet and nutritional well being.

While talking of nutritional quality of diets, the aspects of safety and general quality of food is very important, which normally, is overlooked. This 'Accord' has mentioned the importance of safety but needs to improve a bit, with the importance of improving the quality and safety of food system, with  appropriate legal and institutional set up for inspection and certification at all levels.

The environmental aspect is important but it's more important to fulfil the nutritional demand of the population. The focus, therefore, should emphasize that the food systems become more nutrition aligned with environmental aspects considered as far as possible.

 Please find some specific comments as attached :

With best regards,

Purna Chandra Wasti

Senior Food Research Officer

Department of Food Technology and Quality Control

Kathmandu, Nepal.

I agree with Stuart and others that it is a very important document to have a better "food system" to deliver sensitive nutrition interventions, and the importance of related to under and over nutrition. However, it underestimates the role of the health sector (as it is also a WHO statement) that needs to deliver at scale most of the specific nutrition intervetions (please refer to the WHO Essential Nutrition Actions, 2013).

Strongly agree with Lawrence (below) and other commentators.  This is a very useful statement of the need for the food system to become more nutrition-sensitive, highlighting several general actions that need to be taken.  This is all important. But this is the International Conference on NUTRITION.  The Accord is too food-biased....there needs to be a better balance between the different drivers of malnutrition.  We know so much more now than we did 22 years ago -- both about what drives poor nutrition outcomes, and what can be done to turn things around.  In both cases (problems and solutions) the evidence is clear that a multisectoral approach that "presses all the buttons" of food, health and care-relevant actions is needed.  The non-food sectors and actions are mentioned in this statement, but it comes across as lip service. If this conference is to continue the trend of more harmonized action on nutrition that we have begun to witness in recent years, this imbalance needs to be corrected. There are many examples of this bias scattered throughout the statement.....the pivotal para 21 "Committing to Action" mentions the word "food" 9 times compared to once for "nutrition" and once for "health".  Other drivers such as poor sanitation, caring capacity/practice are not mentioned. 

A few other comments:

Para 6:  urges to "renew commitments" made in 1992.  Why?  Why were these commitments not fulfilled when they were made in 1992, why are they to be renewed?  Shouldn't they be changed, if they were not fulfulled, 22 years later?

Para 7" "renew commitment to reduce number of children who are stunted"....etc.   This is weak. No targets? Why have a statement that speaks in generalities, and at the same time call for better accountability?

Final para:  I assume the meaning of the "Decade of Action on Nutrition" will be clear to all signatories....again, interesting to know more about accountability and how it will be given teeth. 

Before making specific comments as requested we would certainly endorse Andrew Macmillan’s comments on producing the political outcome document at this stage, without any clear plan of action and means to ensure it is carried through. It was very clear to me (GT) as a consultant asked to help draft the declaration and plan of action for ICN 1992 that the sponsoring bodies were determined to avoid clear targets and detailed, specific actions that made it easy to hold governments to account for the generalities they signed up to.  We hope this is not repeated again.

1.      Do you have any general comments on the draft political declaration and its vision (paragraphs 1-3 of the zero draft)?  

Having just reread the 1992 declaration, we think this new declaration plays down the failure to live up to the commitments of 20 years ago, does not offer sufficient analysis or acknowledgement of why, and we fear that this new declaration will not fare any better in seeing its rhetorical aims realised, in the absence of some reasonable and clear targets, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, which were notable by their absence in the 1992 ICN. Note that the 1992 ICN Declaration stated (emphasis added)

“We also pledge to reduce substantially within this decade:

•  starvation and widespread chronic hunger;

•  social and other impediments to optimal breast-feeding;

•  undernutrition, especially among children, women and the aged;

•  other important micronutrient deficiencies, including iron;

•  diet-related communicable and non-communicable diseases;

• inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene, including unsafe drinking-water”

Specifically on point 2, first bullet point, this needs re-writing as it is misleading as it elides together prevalence of undernourishment, which may have gone down as a percentage of the total population, and numbers of undernourished which have gone up from the 780 million people mentioned in the 1992 declaration to at least 842 million in 2011-13.

Point 3 might also be the place to explicitly note, as in point 5 of the 1992 ICN declaration, which said “We recognize that poverty and the lack of education, which are often the effects of underdevelopment, are the primary causes of hunger and undernutrition”, that poverty and growing levels of inequality are key factors in continuing malnutrition. A further comment, either here or later, about the actors in the food system being driven by wider pressures from the current economic and financial regimes to practices inimical to achieving a well fed world are also important to address.

2.      Do you have any comments on the background and analysis provided in the political declaration (paragraphs 4-20 of the zero draft)?   

We welcome the focus on food systems. But food systems operate in a broader political economy which sets the framework for the actors, which in turn may induce practices that while beneficial to the narrow sectoral interest of one or more groups in the food system may not bring about the desired outcomes for the system and nutrition as a whole. Moreover, there is a need to note that sustainable food production and consumption is recognised as the priority use for land and sea, at a time when the financialisation of the food system may lead to other uses being more profitable in the short term, with land being diverted to other uses.  This is a point perhaps to mention the importance of power and control over the resources and in whose interests and to what ends they are directed.

In para 11, we do not think the relatively recent Climate Smart Agriculture jargon, which is not uncontentious, should be singled out and included in this. Talking about agro-ecological approaches, which recognise the need to share knowledge and best practices for farming in the face of climate change, would be better.

Para 12, needs to include economics, finance and banking sectors.

Para 13 might strengthen the text to talk of the need to ensure fair and equitable returns to farmers and farm workers so lifting them out of poverty and enabling them to diversify their diets and improve their living conditions

Para 14. This might better refer to citizens and consumers, so that policy making is open, transparent and balanced, and not open to capture by vested interests, to reflect the wellbeing of citizens as a whole. We would like to see the third sentence rewritten to something along the lines of “Thriving economies need well-functioning markets which require appropriate rules and regulations to ensure they are fair to all, and support nutritional well being and food safety.”

3.      Do you have any comments on the commitments proposed in the political declaration? In this connection, do you have any suggestions to contribute to a more technical elaboration to guide action and implementation on these commitments (paragraphs 21-23 of the zero draft)?

Please provide your comments in the appropriate fields relating to these commitments:         

21.

Commitment I: aligning our food systems (systems for food production, storage and distribution)to people’s health needs;    

There is some overlap between what is needed under each of these different commitments.

To achieve this one requires action beyond food systems to the broader socio-economic and political frameworks that shape them and influence what the actors within food systems do. It means having some clear policy on what land is for, where sustainable, healthy food production fits into that, having controls over building on the best quality farm land, controlling and stopping monopolistic and oligopolistic practices that squeeze suppliers, family farmers, workers or abuse consumers. Ensuring tax and incentive policies line up with food system’s sustainability and nutritional aims also matters.

Commitment II: making our food systems equitable, enabling all to access nutritious foods.     

This should address the demands from the food sovereignty movement. It may also require controls on the advertising and marketing activities of actors throughout the food system – not just the consumer facing ones. It also links into questions of land ownership and control, land reform, ensuring farming for healthy and nutritious food is an attractive prospect for young people to want to do, with fair returns.

Commitment III: making our food systems provide safe and nutritious food in a sustainable and resilient way;              

This is where farming systems, family farms, fair returns, support for agro-ecological approaches, framing R&D, having clear targets and policies for cutting pre and post harvest losses, mechanisms for sharing knowledge and best practices, need to be addressed.

Commitment IV: ensuring that nutritious food is accessible, affordable and acceptable through the coherent implementation of public policies throughout food value chains.            

As the first ICN noted, poverty lies at the heart of undernutrition, so the nature of income distribution is a key issue that goes beyond the food system. Within it, who makes what out of not just food, but their labour, with growing levels of inequality in recent decades in most countries, are key issues.

Commitment V: establishing governments’ leadership for shaping food systems.            

Food and farming are rarely the high profile, top job departments in governments yet the ability of a government to ensure its people are well fed is perhaps one of the key measures of its legitimacy. Thus high-level commitment is required to see that nutrition from fair and sustainable farming systems is a key measure of a government’s success. This also needs to be a bottom up approach with those most affected engaged in developing and monitoring the solutions. It also needs new measures of progress that replace GNP/GDP, some of which must be related to the nutritional well-being of the population and the nature of its food system.

Commitment VI: encouraging contributions from all actors in society;

Being open to critical and constructive engagement and facilitating dialogue and participation by those adversely affected has a major role to play.

Commitment VII: implementing a framework through which our progress with achieving the targets and implementing these commitments can be monitored, and through which we will be held accountable.

Have clear targets, means to monitor and evaluate progress in meeting them, and maintain the capacity to change policies to respond what is found if it shows things are not working. Independent academic and civil society organisation(s) should be involved in monitoring, publicising their findings and holding to public account, governments and businesses in how well they are meeting these policies and/or conducting their business.

22. Commit to launch a Decade of Action on Nutrition guided by a Framework for Action and to report biennially on its implementation to FAO, WHO and ECOSOC.     

Look at how other international agreements may need to be amended or interpreted to ensure this can be carried through. One example might be how to use article 8.1 in the TRIPS agreement of the WTO in relation to such goals.

Original contribution posted on IDS Blog

The ICN2: So far, too food focused

The ICN2 (the second International Conference on Nutrition--the first was in 1992) is currently holding a public web based consultation on the zero draft of the political outcome document that will emerge from the Conference.  

The ICN2 website says:

"The Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) is an inclusive high level inter-governmental meeting on nutrition. It is jointly organized by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), in cooperation with the High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis (HLTF), IFAD, IFPRI, UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank, WFP and the WTO. The ICN2 will be the first global intergovernmental conference to addressing the world’s nutrition problems in the 2lst century. Its overall goal is to improve diets and raise levels of nutrition through policies that more effectively address today’s major nutrition challenges. It also aims to enhance international cooperation on these challenges"

My comments:

1. The Zero Draft kicks off by saying "malnutrition poses one of the greatest threat to people’s health and well-being". 

This is true, but it also poses a severe threat to their livelihoods and their ability to escape poverty as well as the economic growth of their nations.  This should be stated very clearly up front.

2. Soon after the Draft says we: "recognize that the causes of malnutrition are complex and multidimensional, while food availability, affordability and accessibility remain key determinants."  

So this frames the Draft around food, which is puzzling given that food is just one of 3 sets of underlying factors and one of 2 sets of immediate factors driving bad nutrition.  If the focus is to be food (and there may be good reasons) tell us why.  

3. Then it says "Together with inadequate physical activity, dietary risk factors account for almost 10% of the global burden of disease and disability."  

This feels a bit underwhelming, and does it really tally with the data?  The table below is from the Lim et. al. GBD paper in the Lancet last year and suggests more than 10% (you can't just add up the risk factors because many of them are co-determined, but a diet low in fruits alone is over 4% of the burden of disease measured by DALYs).  (The colours relate to different diseases.)

4. This takes us to points 9-20 in the Draft, "Reshaping the Food System to Improve People's Nutrition."  

This section goes like this.  Food systems should focus on quality as well as quantity (paras 9 -11); Food and nutrition require multisectorality, but seen through a food perspective (paras 12-13); consumers need to be protected (para 14) as do people with special needs who are particularly vulnerable (the poorest, pre and antenatal maternal health, child health, school feeding, para 15); development assistance should support nutrition enhancing initiatives at national level (para 16); government leadership is key (paras 17 and 18), civil society, data and accountability are vital for holding governments to account on what they do as well as on outcomes (paras 19-20).

There are a few nods to nutrition outside of food systems, but not much.  

5. Committing to action.  Para 21 starts out by recognising the need for a framework for  "collective commitment, action and results is needed to reshape the global food system to improve people’s nutrition, particularly that of women and children" and then has 7 action points that are all food systems based. Para 22 says that there will be a Decade of Action on Nutrition guided by this framework and para 23 says it should be integrated into post 2015 global development efforts.

None of the action points relate to anything other than food systems.  

Conclusion?

Overall, this would be a superb manifesto for FAO, but as a International Conference on Nutrition it is unbalanced.  It is too food focused.  We do need to know how we can make the food system deliver more for nutrition, but we also need to know how to make family planning, social protection, health systems, water and sanitation provision, education, poverty reduction and governance more nutrition sensitive.  

If you feel the same (or not), please comment on the web forum, there is one week to go (March 21).

Hana provided edits on the draft Accord and proposed an additional commitment: 

Recognize that a framework for collective commitment, action and results is needed to improve people’s nutrition, particularly that of women and children, and agree to the following commitments:

1.  revise nutrition policies so that they comprehensively address the double burden of malnutrition;
2. establish effective intersectoral governance mechanisms for implementation of nutrition policies at national and local levels that contribute towards policy integration across sectors;
3. engage local governments and communities in the design of plans to expand nutrition actions and ensure their integration in existing community programmes;
4. ensure  the national nutrition priority programs are  developed based on evidence based interventions to improve infant, young child, adolescents and  maternal nutrition using the life cycle approach;
5.  etc……

1. ¿Tiene algún comentario general sobre el borrador de la declaración política y su visión (párrafos 1 a 3 del borrador cero)?

La malnutrición incrementa a largo plazo un incremento en el gastos destinado a atender los efectos en la salud y bienestar los de las personas, ya sea en la atención de las enfermedades provocadas o relacionadas con la malnutrición, como en la creación de programas sociales destinados a atender la dimensión socioeconómica de los afectados por las enfermedades provocadas por la malnutrición. Dicho gasto constituye una limitación para el desarrollo de los países al tener que orientar recursos escasos destinados a atender y contener los efectos de la malnutrición, en lugar de aquellos programas de desarrollo y promoción social.

Las estadísticas nacionales o regionales de malnutrición disfrazan la presencia de sectores de la sociedad en donde se disparan significativamente los índices de malnutrición, situación que lleva a crear programas generales destinados a promover y asegurar la nutrición  pero a la vez conlleva la necesidad de crear aquellas iniciativas focalizada s que atiendan grupos poblaciones específicos. 

2. ¿Tiene algún comentario sobre los antecedentes y el análisis proporcionados en la declaración política (párrafos 4 a 20 del borrador cero)?

En el ITEM 18. Los planes de inversión de los gobiernos, además, deben promover la creación de programas destinados  a la atención de grupos prioritarios o focales de forma que se erradiquen paulatinamente las peores condiciones de  malnutrición

3.      ¿Tiene algún comentario sobre los compromisos propuestos en la declaración política? En este sentido, ¿tiene alguna sugerencia para contribuir a una elaboración más técnica para orientar la acción y la implementación de estos compromisos (párrafos 21 a 23 del borrador cero)?

Adicionar un numeral más de la forma que se indica:

VIII. Promover la conservación y rescate de aquellas prácticas culturales y gastronómicas coherentes con el mejoramiento de la nutrición de las personas

Compromiso por la acción:

21.

I. armonizar nuestros sistemas alimentarios (sistemas de producción, almacenamiento y distribución de alimentos) con las necesidades sanitarias de las personas;

La alineación de los sistemas de alimentos supone la adopción de programas distributivos de alimentos en aquellos grupos carenciados; la asistencia y financiamiento de proyectos para la generación de alimentos en familias como forma de garantizar el acceso a los alimentos; la creación de líneas base que permitan determinar las necesidades de salud de las personas como marco referenciador de la alineación de los sistemas

VII. aplicar un marco que permita seguir nuestros progresos hacia el logro de las metas y en la aplicación de estos compromisos, y con arreglo al cual deberemos rendir cuentas.

Implica la construcción de indicadores que permitan determinar por medio de procesos longitudinales y sistemáticos el alcance de los propósitos.