Food Bytes: September 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

Food Bytes is back after taking August off (already practicing my ferragosta!). I think I say this every month, but it is hard to keep up with all the fantastic science and reports coming out. So let’s get to it.

The “Feeding Profit” report, published by UNICEF, argues that today’s food environments are systematically failing children by flooding markets and everyday spaces with cheap, ultra-processed foods that are aggressively marketed, thereby limiting access to nutritious choices. The data support this. Globally, 5% of children under the age of 5 and 20% of children and adolescents aged 5–19 live with overweight, and for the first time in 2025, obesity among 5–19-year-olds (9.4%) has overtaken underweight (9.2%). In many low- and middle-income countries, the prevalence of overweight individuals has more than doubled since 2000, and these countries now account for 81% of the global overweight burden (compared to 66% in 2000). The report finds that children’s diets are increasingly dominated by ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks, displacing more nutritious options, such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, pulses, and animal-source foods (see the figure on the right). It highlights that for infants and children aged 6–23 months, only a minority meet minimum acceptable diet standards — e.g., globally, ~61% meet the minimum meal frequency standard, but only ~32% achieve the minimum dietary diversity (i.e., ≥ 5 food groups). It emphasizes that food environments—encompassing pricing, availability, marketing, and convenience—strongly shape diet quality, and that poor diets are not merely individual choices but are structurally driven by unhealthy food systems that food and beverage companies often interfere with and manipulate. Finally, it advocates for reforms such as reallocating agricultural and trade subsidies toward nutritious foods, regulating marketing and labeling, and enhancing social protection to make healthy diets more accessible and affordable.

Speaking of unhealthy foods, the Nature article, “Are ultra-processed foods really so unhealthy? What the science says,” scrutinizes whether the broadly used category of ultra-processed foods is scientifically justified, arguing that the classification may be overly heterogeneous to guide nutrition policy. While numerous observational studies link the consumption of ultra-processed foods to obesity, metabolic disease, and mortality, critics counter that many of these associations stem from confounding factors (e.g., overall diet quality, energy intake) rather than the definition of ultra-processed foods itself. The piece calls for improved definitions, mechanistic studies, and nuance in policy action, suggesting that a one-size-fits-all ban or tax on these foods may misfire without a clearer scientific basis. I think many working in this space disagree….

The study “Benchmarking progress in non-communicable diseases” analyzes changes in cause-specific mortality across 185 countries from 2010 to 2019, utilizing age-specific death rates and life-table methods to estimate the probability of dying from non-communicable diseases before the age of 80. During that period, non-communicable disease mortality declined in 82% of countries for females and 79% for males; however, the pace of decline slowed compared to 2001–2010, and in a minority of countries, the probability increased. Circulatory diseases contributed most to mortality reductions, while neuropsychiatric disorders, pancreatic and liver cancers, and diabetes offset gains in many settings.

Moving on to the area of sustainable diets, an interesting report , Meat vs EAT, was released last week, revealing a coordinated online backlash against the EAT Lancet Commission report. The backlash was driven by a network of 100 mis-influencers responsible for nearly 50% of posts and over 90% of engagement during the initial backlash. ​ Key hashtags, such as #Yes2Meat, reached 26 million people, surpassing the 25 million reached by pro-EAT-Lancet posts, with critical messages being shared six times more frequently than supportive ones (see Figure to the left). ​ Industry ties were evident, while mis-influencers monetized their advocacy through books, subscriptions, and events. None of this is shocking. With the second Commission report coming out this week, and the current global political turmoil, it will be interesting to see how they address the Commission's findings and its scientists. Their playbook? Attack the scientists, not the science. Boooo!

Let’s stay on this broad topic. A new study highlights the significant health impacts of anthropogenic climate change, including deaths, illnesses, and disabilities, with a focus on heat-related mortality, extreme weather events, and diseases like malaria and dengue. While most research has concentrated on high-income countries and temperature-related risks, recent studies have expanded to include air pollution, child health, and displacement, revealing substantial economic losses valued in billions annually. ​ The authors emphasize the need for more geographically diverse and equitable research, particularly in the global south, to better understand and address the health consequences of climate change.

Speaking of climate change, this study uses US household food purchase data (2004–2019) linked with meteorological records to quantify the effect of temperature on added sugar consumption. Results show that intake rises sharply between 12 °C and 30 °C (~0.7 g °C⁻¹), driven primarily by sugar-sweetened beverages and frozen desserts, with disproportionately larger effects among lower-income and less-educated groups. Projections under a 5 °C warming scenario suggest average daily added sugar intake will rise by ~3 g per person by 2095, exacerbating nutrition-related health risks and inequalities. Interesting study? Yes, we need to understand how climate extreme events impact dietary quality and nutrition outcomes. But are the findings significant? Probably not…3 grams of sugar ain’t much…

And to pivot a bit, the Lancet published "Getting back on track to meet global anaemia reduction targets: a Lancet Haematology Commission." The Commission assesses why the world is far off track to meet global anaemia reduction targets and provides a roadmap to get efforts back on course. As it stands, anaemia affects nearly 2 billion people worldwide, and most countries are far off track to meet reduction targets. Five takeaways:

  1. Anaemia has multiple drivers, from poverty, food insecurity, and poor WASH to infections, chronic diseases, and inherited blood disorders. Recognising this complexity is key to designing context-specific solutions.

  2. Reliable surveillance is patchy. Nearly half of the countries lack recent national anaemia data for women or children, and almost none collect comprehensive cause-specific information. Better integrated data platforms are urgently needed.

  3. Iron deficiency remains the leading cause, but infections, inflammation, micronutrient deficiencies, blood loss, and environmental stressors (like air pollution and climate change) all play major roles. Interventions must address this whole spectrum.

  4. Reducing anaemia requires strong governance across health, nutrition, and social sectors. Equity and human rights should be central, ensuring programmes reach the most vulnerable while being tailored to local contexts.

  5. The current WHO target of a 50% reduction by 2030 is unattainable with existing tools. A new evidence-based framework suggests a more realistic 12–22% global reduction, with country-specific goals that balance ambition and feasibility.

A companion article, “Anaemia in a time of climate crisis” published by your Food Archiver surveys how climate change — through effects like extreme heat, altered rainfall, and reduced agricultural yields — threatens to exacerbate global anaemia. It argues that vulnerable populations (especially women and children) in already high-burden settings will face worsening micronutrient deficits unless interventions integrate climate resilience into nutrition and health systems.

Gotta love Molly, oh how I miss the 80s!

A few interesting media pieces for your reading pleasure:

  • Sushi has become the grab-and-go, convenient food. Interesting how something raw has become so mainstream. (love the shoutout to Molly Ringwald in Breakfast Club)

  • An article on the beauty and craft of pizza.

  • I recently traveled to Mexico City and had a hard time finding good Mexican food. Why? Damn gringos are all moving there demanding, you guessed it, sushi and pizza.

  • Fantastic piece by Illana Schwartz, a Columbia University climate student, on the climate vulnerability of NY’s food supply, particularly the Hunts Point Cooperative Market, the point of distribution for 35 percent of the meat that enters the five boroughs. That’s more than 1 billion pounds of meat annually.

  • A Guardian article on why meat’s contribution to climate is often ignored by the media.

  • Breaking the trend of consolidation, Kraft Heinz, the makers of Kraft Mac and Cheese, Lunchables, and, you guessed it, Heinz ketchup, is breaking up:

  • Last, an important article on what happens to children when they become increasingly acutely malnourished. Recall that FEWS Net and others have declared that many parts of Gaza are now experiencing famine. Incredibly tragic.

And some final random thoughts. The great Italian actress Claudia Cardinale passed away this week. We were inspired to watch her in Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo. Such an insane movie. Even better is to watch the making of it in the documentary, “Burden of Dreams.” Herzog is at his finest when he discusses nature and the jungle…His words resonate on the fragility of our world and humans in it.

Other Worlds, Other Dreams

As we wind down our time in Gotham and prepare to move abroad yet again, I’ve been reflecting on just how much New York has shaped my life. Since May 2000, my partner and I have lived here on and off, always orbiting back after stints in Nairobi, Rome, DC, and Bologna—four returns in total. In twenty-five years, we’ve logged about fifteen in New York, scattered across nine different neighborhoods. We are not people of permanence.

When someone asked if I’ll miss New York, my answer was immediate: I’ve already missed it for a long time. Not the city I live in today, but the New York that once was. The New York of the late 1990s and early 2000s, right before 9/11. Even in the aftermath of that day, with all its upheaval, I carried on a love affair with the city for another ten years. But eventually the itch came—the yearning to leave. Part of it was exhaustion. New York is relentless: chaotic, loud, dirty, and unforgiving. It wears you down. Another part was the way it shapes you into someone who sees the city as the only place that matters, the one true capital of the world.

Those early 2000s—the “naughts”—in Gotham were formative for me. You could still afford to live here. Brooklyn was gritty and diverse, its edges not yet polished down. There was a music scene that felt electric, with bands like The Strokes, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, and Interpol defining the soundtrack of the city. Hearing “Someday” by The Strokes pulls me straight into another era of New York—one that has, in large part, slipped away for good. You could eat well and cheap. You could stumble upon weirdness, originality, and true eccentricity across neighborhoods. That New York is gone, and I yearn for it daily.

The city didn’t change overnight. Gentrification and homogenization creep in slowly—minute by minute—until one day the skyline, the storefronts, even the people feel unrecognizable. Maybe it’s my age, but when I walk through the East Village or Williamsburg now, what once looked like a Saturday Night Live hipster parody has hardened into something even duller: tech bros and young influencers who talk, dress, and act in indistinguishable ways. Is everyone in this city from Ohio (apologies Devo, Chrissie Hynde and Eugene Lim!)? The former eccentricity of New Yorkers—the artists, the misfits, the characters—is gone. The mom-and-pop shops, diners, and dive bars have been swallowed by banks, chain stores, and pharmacies. Inventions like Dime Square and other fabricated micro-hoods, drenched in performative douchebaggery, have hollowed out the authentic, polyglot, diverse neighborhoods that once defined New York. Even the new green spaces look curated and glossy, like architectural renderings come to life. As LCD Soundsystem sang: “New York I love you, but you’re letting me down.”

Yes, New York has always struggled with decay and dysfunction—the litter, the scaffolding, the crumbling infrastructure. That’s not new. What’s changed are the people and the prices. Where the city once drew dreamers, hustlers, and artists, it now caters to a wealthy few who can pay $10,000 a month for rent or $200 for a couple of veggie burgers and beers in the Village (yes, these are indeed the real costs). The city feels hollowed out by inequity. Even walking—once the one free, joyful thing every New Yorker did—has become dangerous, with streets overtaken by e-bikes, delivery scooters, and battery-powered chaos.

This little video is a time capsule we made over 15 years ago at Pier 40 on the Hudson, back when the piers were abandoned. We liked it that way—wild, crumbling, full of possibility. Now it’s a manicured park, $100 million later, surrounded by the glass spires of Hudson Yards. In that old video, the soundtrack was The Chameleons’ “Less Than Human.” Looking back, the title feels prophetic.

And so, once again, it’s time to say goodbye. I doubt we’ll come back. Each return has carried the false hope of finding the New York we first knew twenty-five years ago, only to be confronted with its absence. As Arundhati Roy once recalled a friend telling her, “You’ve lived too long in New York… There are other worlds. Other kinds of dreams.”

Food Bytes: July 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

So much for the summer slowdown. This past month has seen a deluge of new reports, papers, and commentary on food systems, climate change, and health. It’s hard to keep up — maybe even overwhelming. As Dennis Hopper famously said in Apocalypse Now, “Zap ’em with your sirens!” We seem to be doing just that. Maybe we have to. With policymakers tuning out, turning inward, or dropping out (apologies to Timothy Leary), the push to break through the noise is relentless—and admirable. People are working tirelessly to get the message across.

But is it working? There’s so much noise now that it’s hard to know where the signal is.

Still, in the middle of the flurry, don’t forget to pause. Listen to some good music (here’s a summertime playlist I made a few years ago). Step into the sun. Enjoy every sandwich. We lost some legends this month—David Nabarro and Gretel Pelto in the food world, and Ozzy Osbourne, Chuck Mangione, and Sly Stone in the music world. A reminder: every day is something to behold, and none of us knows how long we’ve got. TOMORROW IS NOT GUARANTEED.

Now, on to Food Bytes. It’s the dog days of summer, and we’ve got a lot to cover—some good, some bad, and some downright ugly. Let’s get into it.

——-———————————————————————

Yes, experts are still debating how to feed the world, and Mike Grunwald’s recently published book, We Are Eating the Earth, has sparked some of the discourse. Hannah Ritchie, from Our World In Data, also with an amazing Substack, lays out some of the disagreements here. According to Climate Works, some actors perpetuate false narratives that distort the public's understanding of food systems, and the global community must actively dismantle these narratives to enable a shift toward truly sustainable, healthy, and equitable food systems. One solution that keeps coming up is “regenerative ag.” Speaking of powerful actors, the WBSCD argues that one way to feed the world is through regenerative agriculture. They seem to have the answers with their new global framework.

A slew of papers have been published in the last month on feeding the world under a changing climate. Here are a few highlights. This new paper in ERL shows that in 2024—the first year globally to exceed 1.5 °C warming—extreme heat directly triggered food price spikes for specific commodities, creating broader risks such as worsening economic inequality, societal instability, and pressure on health and monetary systems as climate extremes intensify. The figure to the right shows the climatological context of recent climate-induced food price spikes. Yikes. In this Nature paper, even when accounting for real‑world farmer adaptations across six major staple crops in 12,658 subnational regions, global warming of each additional 1 °C is estimated to reduce crop production by ≈120 kcal/person/day or 4.4% of recommended intake. Adaptation strategies and income growth only mitigate ~12% of those losses by century’s end under a moderate‑emissions scenario—leaving substantial residual yield declines across all staples except rice. Oh me, Oh my. What about key regions? This paper, published in PNAS, analyzed ten sub-Saharan African countries and found that cereal self-sufficiency increased from 84% to 92% between 2010 and 2020. This increase was attributed to yield improvements (44%), cropland expansion (34%), and a crop shift toward maize (22%). To sustain self-sufficiency by 2050 without further land expansion requires boosting annual yield growth rates from ~20 to 58 kg/hectare/year—implying a threefold increase in fertilizer use and substantial investments in agronomic, socioeconomic, and policy areas.

The United States seems to be in a mood of dismantling. Is that an understatement? 😳 Congress passed a bill to undo climate progress — a self-inflicted tragedy of planetary proportions. The “big, beautiful bill” will continue to roll out subsidies for big agriculture and reduce social protection policies to help feed the hungry. This new kind of American exceptionalism will trigger all kinds of problems, and Tracy Kidder chronicles the hunger one. Meanwhile, on the frontlines, immigrants are the backbone (visualized by the Guardian) of our food system — despite policies aimed at changing that. In the fields of California, as shown in this gripping documentary, toil and hope live side by side. The Food Security Leadership Council, launched with Carey Fowler at the helm, will explore how the US can re-engage in ensuring global food security. God speed Carey… god speed….

One of the most egregious parts of the so-called ‘big beautiful bullshit bill’ is how it undermines renewables to prop up coal and fossil fuels. Removing fossil fuels from the food system will necessitate a completely new vision for how food systems are operated and managed. Following the success of its fantastic limited series podcast, IPES has released a report that argues for breaking our addiction. The report reveals that global food systems are profoundly dependent on fossil fuels—accounting for roughly 15% of all fossil fuel use and 40% of petrochemicals—mainly through synthetic fertilizers, ultra‑processed foods, and plastic packaging, creating a critical yet overlooked climate blind spot. More on these foods and plastics in a bit.

Speaking of accelerating climate change, extreme events keep comin’ and are having deadly consequences. Droughts are hitting where you’d least expect — and your grocery bill knows it. The Mekong and Mexico are two such places. Speaking of droughts, this new report maps the drought hotspots around the world—the global south and Mediterranean face massive constraints. And with all these extreme events, it is critical to follow where the money is flowin’ and goin’. The new Climate Finance Vulnerability Index shows who’s left out of climate finance — and who isn’t and where vulnerabilities lie.

FAO 2025

A slew of reports have been published in the past few weeks on food systems - yo! they’re all the rage kiddos. First up is the door-stopper Global Food Policy Report by IFPRI. You will want to take your time getting through this one — all 584 pages. Next up? FAO published a report on what it means to take a food systems approach, led by the innovative Corinna Hawkes. The visual on the right illustrates the benefits of adopting a more systematic approach. GAIN also provided us with lessons and moments of change across food systems. And IFPRI’s new book wonders, what do we know about the future of food systems? Less than we should, but this IFPRI book is chock full of ideas about what the future might look like. In a new publication by the UN Food Systems Coordination Hub, they highlight successful strategies from over 20 countries—including Cameroon, Fiji, Madagascar, Sierra Leone and Zambia—for turning national food systems transformation plans into actionable reforms, offering practical guidance for peer learning, and informed by national reports, dialogues, and contributions from major UN task forces and coalitions.

As people gather this week in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, for the UN Food Systems Summit Stocktake, governance and action will be at the forefront. In this paper, authors examined 124 UNFSS‑inspired national food system transformation plans. They found that the focus overwhelmingly remains on ramping up food production, while critical dimensions like distribution, processing, consumption, environmental sustainability, labor rights, and animal welfare receive minimal attention, indicating these pathways largely reinforce existing food system norms rather than enacting deeper systemic reform. Another paper shows that effective transformation of food systems hinges on whole‑of‑system governance informed by systems thinking—addressing competing interests, policy incoherence, and entrenched power imbalances by redefining who governs and how decisions are made. They also published a nice policy brief. Lastly, GAIN published a new toolkit to help diagnose food system policy coherence, accompanied by eight country case studies. Well done GAIN and the great Stella Nordhagen! Speaking of diagnosing, the Food Systems Dashboard got some botox injections - check out her new shiny self!

At this point, food systems are such a tangled mess that they read like dystopian satire. Ultra-processed foods appear to be on trial, with charges ranging from obesity to ecosystem collapse. Did you know you can get your morning sweet-ass coffee in a bucket? Civilization: peaking or declining? Talk about plastic use. Want to avoid microplastics in your diet? Maybe you should because plastics are highly complex…This author recommends starting with minimizing ultra-processed foods. Speaking of ultra-processed foods, the Maintenance Phase crew puts them through their ever-scrutinizing ringer. But some fast food companies don’t seem to give a shit. Here is a list of the most unhealthy fast food spots and their offerings in the U.S. Wendy’s “Triple Baconator” (W.T.F.) takes first prize. Speaking of burgers, I guess they are back. But they won’t be cheap this barbecue season. Back to junk food. This paper in PNAS shows that, despite overall higher daily energy expenditure in wealthier populations, size-adjusted basal and total energy expenditure decline modestly with economic development—and account for only ~10% of obesity increases—while elevated caloric intake, especially from ultraprocessed foods, is the dominant driver of rising obesity globally. Who peddles these delicious bombs of unhealthiness? In my opinion, Trader Joe’s is guilty as charged. However, they have quite a cult following. Are they worthy of the hype? This 3-part investigation by Fast Company doesn’t think so and argues that getting you food from the “hippie” leaning joint is detrimental for all kinds of wicked reasons.

One Health Lancet Commission (2025)

And it’s not just our waistlines or grocery carts that are at risk—our food choices are entangled with planetary health, antimicrobial resistance, and zoonotic spillovers, as the latest One Health Lancet Commission makes painfully clear. The Lancet One Health Commission identifies interconnected global threats—including emerging zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance, environmental pollution, biodiversity loss, non-communicable diseases, food insecurity, and climate change—that can no longer be managed in policy or research siloes, arguing these challenges require integrated approaches across human, animal, and environmental health sectors. Drawing on evidence synthesis and case studies across health systems, surveillance, food security, and ecosystem resilience, it proposes concrete strategies for operationalizing One Health—such as embedding intersectoral governance in national laws, establishing integrated early warning systems, and reorienting economic paradigms toward sustainability and equity, The overarching vision is a global One Health governance framework—akin to climate accords or food system transformation plans—anchored in principles of holism, epistemological pluralism, and shared stewardship, designed to foster equitable, sustainable socioecological systems and ensure health security for all.

In the monthly Food Bytes, I aim to highlight the science, evidence, and data—along with the remarkable scientists who generate it all. However, the scientific endeavor, along with the people behind it, is increasingly under threat. Funding is drying up or becoming politicized. Researchers face harassment, censorship, and disinformation campaigns. Public trust is eroding, often fueled by ideological attacks and misinformation ecosystems. And in many parts of the world, speaking evidence-based truth to power now comes with real professional or personal risk. The scientific publishing endeavor doesn’t help. Some argue it is broken, and it is time for urgent reform or a better backup plan. Maybe we need to de-Americanize global science. Speaking of critical data to inform decision-making, the future of Demographic Health Surveys (also known as DHS) is at risk — and with it, the data backbone of global health and food security. The Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates, published by UNICEF, WHO, and the World Bank Group, rely on DHS data, along with other data sources. They were able to put out this year’s data last week, but who knows what will happen in the future? What is the latest on malnutrition trends? Progress is mixed at best, but with the dismantling of USAID, as shown in this and this recent Lancet article and the tragic situation in Gaza (and Sudan), the trends don’t look good to say the least. Jose Andres pleads the case for why we cannot just stand by and watch the starvation unfolding. Devastating.

See ya’ll in Agosto.

Beef or Bear? On Ambition, Academia, and the Art of Letting Go

I’m sure many of you have been watching The Bear—the TV show that follows Carmen “Carmy” Berzatto, a brilliant young chef who returns home to Chicago to take over his late brother’s gritty sandwich shop, The Beef. Through the chaos of grief and grease, Carmy builds something new: The Bear, a sleek fine-dining restaurant born from heartbreak, hope, and the relentless pursuit of excellence. And yet, he keeps The Beef alive—its humble sandwich window still serving the neighborhood that built it. Amid gleaming, white-tiled walls and sky-high expectations, the crew fights to grow, grieve, and find meaning in their craft. They become a family, forged in heat and held together by love and purpose.

A recent New York Times piece reflecting on The Bear’s Season 4 captured the show’s central tension between the up-scale Bear restaurant and the no-frills Beef sandwich shop perfectly:

“It’s about ambition vs. accessibility, change vs. repetition, risk vs. consistency, complexity vs. simplicity.”

It got me thinking. Over the past 20+ years of my career, I’ve always wanted more Beef than Bear. I craved simplicity—not just in science, but in life. I used to joke that the measure of a person’s life could be found in their keychain. I aimed for two keys or fewer.

But somewhere along the way, the Bear crept in.

Ambition found me. Or maybe I chased it. I threw myself into research, publishing, pivoting. I moved countries several times in pursuit of new opportunities. I left the comforts of traditional academia to dive into international development and returned once more. I pursued sprawling, interdisciplinary projects with too many partners and not enough time. These complex, messy, often maddening endeavors shaped who I am.

That bearish ambition brought me accolades, big jobs, incredible collaborators, and students who have inspired me. But lately, I’ve begun to ask: can I keep going at this pace? Do I even want to? I know I’m not alone in this. An article by Arthur C. Brooks in The Atlantic hit hard:

“Call it the Principle of Psychoprofessional Gravitation: the idea that the agony of professional oblivion is directly related to the height of professional prestige previously achieved, and to one’s emotional attachment to that prestige.”

In academia, no one teaches you how to slow down. It’s always go, go, go. First, you need to raise money just to do your work—and often just to pay yourself and your team. That means writing exhaustive, often soul-sucking grant proposals for donors who want the world for pennies. The odds of success? Dismal. And feedback when you fail? Don’t hold your breath.

Then there’s publishing. To prove your worth and make your science visible, you need to land in the “top journals.” But the peer review process is increasingly dysfunctional—often driven by AI-generated reviewer selection, unpaid labor, and endless revision cycles. Want people to read it? You’ll need to pay for open access. In the end, who benefits? Journals. Not the people we claim to serve.

And that’s just the research. You also need to teach, sit on committees, engage with policymakers, serve the public, and perform the theater of relevance. Academia has become a hamster wheel powered by prestige, productivity, and fear. Don’t get me wrong—I love academia and the freedoms it affords. The opportunity to engage with students is unmatched, and the pursuit of new ideas, discoveries, and knowledge remains deeply fulfilling.

I know I sound old. Maybe I am. I’m 53, and as Jackson Browne once sang, I’ve been running on empty for a while now. The spark is still there, but the fire’s a little dimmer. I’m not interested in building anything new—no more centers, initiatives, or empires. I don’t need another publication, another invisible promotion, or a bigger team.

I want to work differently. Slower. With more intention. Less Bear, more Beef.

That means letting go—not of the science, but of the ego that comes with it. It means embracing the role of mentor, not builder. Teacher, not hustler. I’m ready to spend less time painting the canvas and more time showing others how to hold the brush.

So, as I step into this next chapter—joining the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Bologna, Italy—I’ll say goodbye to all that: the pace, the prestige, the panic. If I build or invest in anything now, it will be with intention—to ensure that those who come after me are prepared to navigate the complexities of this shifting world.

And maybe, just maybe, I’ll enjoy the art I’ve already made. Hang it up. Share it with others. Teach the next generation how to sketch something of their own.

Because sometimes, success is knowing when to stop chasing stars—and start passing the torch. So, enjoy every sandwich.

Food Bytes: June 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

I just returned from an unforgettable trip to Lao PDR, with two stopovers in Bangkok, Thailand. Laos is a country of striking contrasts—on one hand, it moves with an unhurried, almost meditative rhythm; on the other, it carries the weight of a complicated past, still navigating the long shadows cast by war, particularly the enduring legacy of unexploded ordnance.

By Jess Fanzo, Luang Prabang

As many of you are aware, I’m currently working on a book that explores how the counterculture movements of the long 1960s have shaped today’s food systems. Inevitably, that journey includes grappling with the legacy of the Vietnam War, and as an American, traveling through this region stirs deep reflection. It's impossible not to think about the imprint left behind by U.S. military action and the resilience of communities who’ve had to rebuild in its aftermath.

Yet what struck me most was how far this part of the world has come. There’s a quiet strength in Laos, a gentle pride in its culture, and a determination to move forward without forgetting the past. It’s a powerful reminder of the world’s ebbs and flows, and how, even in the face of immense hardship, there’s the possibility of healing. “This too shall pass” kept echoing in my mind—not as a dismissal of pain, but as a recognition of time’s capacity to soften and transform.

Onward to this month’s Food Bytes.

IFPRI put out a bible in this year’s Food Policy Report. Where the rubber meets the road is Section 5, on effective change and the factors that determine how policy change occurs. One of our new papers led by Stephanie Walton (who is doing amazing work at Oxford) suggests that addressing asset stranding proactively, rather than trying to prevent it, could be a powerful lever for change.

Some great data exercises are out that provide useful nuance in how our food systems are performing. First up is the Systems Change Lab, which assessed progress for 32 outcome indicators in the food system. To help spur transformational change, we also highlight 58 critical enablers and barriers. Results of their analysis? NOT GOOD. The second is by the Better Planet Laboratory, which identifies food flows through nearly every major port, road, rail, and shipping lane worldwide and traces goods to where they are ultimately consumed. It’s called the Food Twin Map.

There are also some great people producing worthy pieces to read and follow. First, the great Bill McKibben has a Substack. I encourage you to read one of his latest entries, “So many moving pieces.” Nicholas Kristof is fighting the good fight and producing many excellent pieces on how the US government’s actions are harming global health and nutrition. Check out this, this, and this. Other institutions are getting in on the action. Bloomberg News has launched a new food column, titled "The Business of Food." The UNDP appears to be making a play in the food systems sector, including the launch of a new Conscious Food Systems Alliance. Fascinating!

Some highlights from journalists writing about food:

  • An interesting take on RFK Jr’s Make America Great Again policy: Grocery Update Volume 2, #4: MAHA Or Misdirection. Grocery Nerd argues that the “MAHA” framework may serve more as political window dressing than actual change.

  • DeSmog reported that food giants Nestlé, JBS, PepsiCo, Mars, and Danone are overstating their climate commitments—leaning heavily on unproven carbon removal schemes, neglecting methane reductions, and relying on weak, loophole‑filled deforestation pledges—according to a new report from the NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch. Gee, what a shocker…

  • In this article by Grist, the blending of at least 30% vegetables or plant proteins into meat products—known as “balanced proteins”—can deliver taste and price similar to conventional meat, while significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  • This fascinating article in The New Yorker, entitled “Schmear campaign: How a Hazelnut Spread Became a Sticking Point in Franco-Algerian Relations,” is about how the European Union has banned Nutella competitor El Mordjene, a move some see as politically and racially motivated.

  • In the New York Times, they have a new series, “What is History.” They kicked off the series with two articles on food: One by Jacques Pepin on culinary pursuits and the other by Carey Fowler on the biodiversity of our food supply.

  • I fully admit to being a fan of Elizabeth Kolbert, and she delivers with her latest article: "Do We Need Another Green Revolution?" Worth your time to read along with all of her work.

  • Michael Grumwald has a new book out, and he wrote a piece, A Food Reckoning Is Coming, as part of his book tour. Another worthwhile and perhaps divisive read.

Some highlights from the science literature

  • This study validates the Healthy Diet Basket—a least-cost dietary model based on food-based dietary guidelines—as a globally consistent benchmark, finding that it delivers adequate macronutrients and micronutrients at about US $3.68/day.

  • Whereas this study argues that dietary species richness (DSR)—a measure of the number of different edible species in a diet—is the most effective global marker for capturing food biodiversity. They also show it correlates strongly with lower mortality in Europe compared to other diversity indices, and tracks micronutrient adequacy in low- and middle-income countries.

  • Speaking of diets, this study uses a linear programming model of over 2,500 U.S. foods to show that individually tailored vegan, vegetarian, and flexitarian diets (with ≤255 g of pork and poultry per week) can meet nutritional needs, align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5 °C climate target, yield up to ~700 healthy-life minutes per week, and reduce climate impacts sevenfold.

  • Fortification remains essential and is considered a cost-effective way to fill nutrient gaps. Check out this modeling paper.

  • On processing…This NEJM perspective argues that mounting evidence linking ultraprocessed food consumption to increased calorie intake, obesity, and chronic disease necessitates regulatory policies—such as front‑of‑package labeling, marketing restrictions, and excise taxes—to curb their public health impact. Not sure there’s anything new here.

  • Numerous modeling papers are being published on the impacts of climate change on food production. This paper models six usual suspect staple crops — maize, soy, rice, wheat, cassava and sorghum — and finds that for every 1 °C increase in temperature, food production will decline from current levels by 120 calories per person per day, but that income growth and adaptation strategies could alleviate 23% of global losses by 2050 and 34% by 2100. Gulp.

  • Should we consider alternatives like insects? According to this article, that may not be the case. The title alone is click-worthy: Beyond the buzz: insect-based foods are unlikely to significantly reduce meat consumption.

  • Maybe it’s time to start building climate-resilient systems - not just food, but across all systems. Check out our new policy paper, which argues in this manner.

For those interested in broader development issues, the Sustainable Development Report 2025 is now available. Another report that feels more like a book on how the world is progressing on those pesky goals that would make the world a better place and leave no one behind. Related to that, we have a new paper on how pastoralists are coping with resource constraints, conflict, and climate extremes. We initiated this work a decade ago in Isiolo County, Kenya, utilizing photo elicitation and semi-structured interviews with Borana and Turkana pastoralists to gain a deeper understanding of the constraints hindering their ability to practice pastoralism and to identify opportunities for better supporting pastoralist communities with climate-resilient strategies. And last but not least, a conversation about The Myth of the Poverty Trap.

And do check out our new Food for Humanity podcast! This limited series is all about alt-proteins.

That’s all, folks. Have a wonderful, safe, and delicious summer!

Food Bytes: April 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

It’s getting harder these days to cut through the noise we see every day in the news — and even harder to stay positive. I feel it too, my friends. I hear you.

But despite how surreal the world feels, it keeps turning — and so must science.

This past weekend, I had the honor of being inducted into the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) at their annual meeting. As I watched 120 brilliant scientists receive this honor, I was struck by something simple but powerful: there are still so many good people out there, working tirelessly to make the world a better place.

Even as we face growing threats against scientific endeavors, moments like this remind me how lucky I am to do the work I do. And more than that, they strengthen my resolve: I will fight for the ability to do science — not just for myself, but for future generations who will carry this work forward.

In this month’s Food Bytes, I’ll be sharing a roundup of some of the media I've been reading. There’s a lot to filter through these days. Next month, I’ll be shifting my focus entirely to peer-reviewed articles, because some truly outstanding science is being produced, even in these turbulent times. Stay tuned.

Speaking of the shenanigans happening in the U.S., some colleagues who work on international nutrition discuss the impact of cutting international food aid. Devastating. Love this piece by Jody Harris on how the stop to U.S. food security funding is an assault on justice. Tom Philpott also writes about how this notion of “Make America Healthy Again” is poisoning the food movement. Feeling paranoid? Maybe start thinking about your apocalyptic emergency food kit. According to Food & Wine, the new U.S. dietary guidelines have you covered. Yah, right. Oh, and restaurants that the middle class can afford? Gone. As I said, get that food kit ready.

The climate is always front and center. The state of the climate report is out. Pretty dismal read. The COP30 will be in Brazil this year. This BBC article claims that some of the Amazon forest was cut down to build the highway to where the COP meeting will take place. Yikes. Speaking of COP30, it seems food is less on the agenda. What a shame. And more and more, we are seeing calls to better integrate nutrition and climate. Couldn’t agree more, but we need more and better evidence. Check out our new paper on the links between climate and nutrition.

Effects of climate change and extreme weather events on various systems that influence nutrition outcomes (Fanzo et al 2025)

According to this article, America can’t quit soda. Yet this Vox one claims we are dairy milk guzzlers. Whichever it is, it seems Americans loooove red meat and the current politics are making that all the easier. Even though some argue that eating less meat is one of the most important things individuals can do to impact the planet, and tech is doing its best to make plant-based foods, including eggs. But tech won’t save us. We need to understand better how we value food systems.

And as Wendell Berry said, eating is an agricultural act. How we manage agriculture and who manages it will dictate our future, but there is still much disagreement on how to manage it. The great Kenn Giller discusses how fractious and contentious future agriculture conversations can be on the Table Debates podcast. The CGIAR, a large conglomerate of research centers dedicated to improving agriculture worldwide, has launched a new research portfolio.  Speaking of agriculture, some other enjoyable listens, views, and reads:

  • The rise and fall of Quinoa on Jeremy Cherfa’s Eat This Podcast.

  • The role of Phosphorus in agriculture. One word: Essential!

  • Rice is making a comeback with black farmers.

  • Goats, the heroes in every story, are empowering women around the world. Of course they are!

  • Philanthropists are not helping African farmers, according to The Guardian.

  • The mafia is goin’ down at least when it comes to food fraud. Bada bing!

Things I look forward to:

That’s it for April folks. See you in May!

Food Bytes: March 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

Sunset in Timor Leste

Spring has sprung here in Gotham City, as the Sound Furies sung in Pishon. Yet the air feels heavy and unsettled. The political landscape may be fraught, the trajectory uncertain, but we cannot succumb to despair. Ben Okri wrote in his poem, Arequipa:

To discover

You still have

A world

To make

At sunset

Sobers

The stones.

They may try to dismantle, to divide, to darken the days ahead—but they cannot take the sunrises and sunsets from us. They cannot take our will to build, to dream, to make the world better. And so, dear readers, we keep going.

Onto some interesting news and fantastic science (yay for science being essential…) produced over the last month.

In the news and media:

  • Grist pontificates how the US government's wobbly tariffs will impact food prices and your grocery bill. Bottom line? It ain’t good. IFPRI modeled how tariffs would impact trade flows. Bottom line? Again, it ain’t good. Their modeling suggests that imposing 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada will cause food exports to the U.S. to decrease by 46.4% and 60.5%, respectively, with impacts across a range of imports, including fruits and vegetables, processed foods, and meat and fish. Maybe food, like eggs, should never have been cheap…

  • With all these rampant food price increases, maybe we will have to start eating lab-grown meat, but don’t hold your breath if you live in Mississippi.

  • But if you are eating vast amounts of meat, according to Vox, you can blame universities. Hell, we are catching all the heat these days - Bring. It. On. Yet, the same news outlet also blames pharmaceutical companies.

  • Another hit to food systems brought on by the new administration is the 1 billion dollar cuts to farmers supporting school meals and food banks. Sorry for those farmers who thought he had your back.

  • Novo Nordisk (the makers of Ozempic) has started a foundation and is beginning to fund large-scale global health research. It is too bad that the head of their obesity program is a paid advisor to confectionary company Ferrero, along with relationships with McDonalds and Nestle. Talk about conflicts of interest…

  • The Economist is calling out Ethiopia's prime minister, Abiy Ahmed’s claims that the country has become the breadbasket of Africa.

  • Speaking of agriculture, no one seems to agree with what regenerative agriculture is exactly.

  • There are so many wonderful tributes to the great Joan Gussow, who passed away at 96 - yes, good nutrition does pay off. She was a pioneer, started the discipline of “sustainable diets,” and spent her life at Teachers College at Columbia University. She inspired many at the university and across the world.

  • I was so pleased to see Flow win the Oscar for Best Animated Series - a film of hope amid climate change. It seems pets can’t get enough of it either.

  • On climate change, perhaps it’s time for better labels that inform us of the greenhouse gas footprint of foods.

  • And a shoutout to Timor Leste, one of my favorite countries. There are always fits and starts with new democracies. I am keeping my fingers crossed for them.

Among scientific publications:

Around the third or fourth month of the year, peer-reviewed scientific publications kick it up a notch. The slowdown of the holiday season is in the rearview mirror, and the pace of what is put out the world seems to have a bit of a boost. This month is no exception, making it hard for me to highlight a handful. I selected a few more unique papers that I thought were enjoyable reads.

The first focuses on avocados. This paper in World Development goes deep into cartels' control of the avocado industry in Mexico. Often touted as “green gold” because of the insanely high demand for avocados north of the border, media has reported that cartels have an inkling to get in on the action. But why do so if drugs are in high demand? This paper looks into whether declining drug revenues have led cartels to go into other agricultural commodities (beyond poppies for heroin). The author found that declines in heroin demand increased homicides among agriculture workers in the avocado industry, along with robberies of trucks carrying avocados for shipment.

Two interesting reflection manuscripts. One by the great Tom Reardon on bucking conventional wisdom using some of his long-standing work done in Asia and Africa on rural nonfarm employment, processed food demands, the role of small and medium-scale enterprises in food supplies, and the supermarket revolution/growth in Asia. The other is by colleagues led out of Vrije Universiteit Brussel that we should not forget history in planning food system transformations, particularly those working on future scenarios. Using three cases in Mozambique, Holland, and Bangladesh, they articulate the importance of taking a historical lens to scenario building.

Heat maps of total agri-food mass flux (kg) across transportation modes by flow type at FAF scale. a–c, Agri-food mass flux by highways, d–f, agri-food mass flux by railways and g–i, agri-food mass flux by waterways. Domestic agri-food mass flux (a,d,g), export agri-food mass flux (b,e,h) and import agri-food mass flux (c,f,i).

I am so thrilled to see more studies that are not just examining the impacts of climate on crops or agriculture but go beyond the farm gate to better understand climate shocks and change in the middle of the supply chain - storage, transport, processing, packaging, and retail. This study in Nature Food maps the transportation of food commodities throughout the U.S. by examining highways, waterways, and railways. They look at cost, carbon emissions, and what they call “path redundancies” (the existence of alternative paths). They find that highways are highly redundant to waterways, cost much more, and emit 60x more carbon. Waterways are the opposite in terms of cost and emissions. Railways are somewhere in the middle. Most food in the US is transported on trucks on highways using diesel fuel. It’s time to start using the vast number of waterways better in the U.S.

Great paper in Global Food Security by Preet Lidder and colleagues at FAO on the importance of innovation and technology in transforming rural places. This sentence resonated with me: “Quick technological fixes are unlikely to succeed; resilient and inclusive rural transformation will come from long-term research and innovation processes that incorporate critical inputs from local and traditional knowledge and are underpinned by supportive policies and social and institutional reforms.” Amen to that, sister. The paper discusses how technology can be used responsibly for lasting, equitable change.

Speaking of rural places, there is a land grab gold rush, and this paper in the Journal of Peasant Studies tries to unpack who is rushing, why, and where. Disaggregating the “who” is not easy - it is not always just a country and is often shadow companies or corporations with international interests. The default is to look at foreign land investors, but these authors also see domestic buyers within countries. Bangladesh has the highest percentage of domestic land deals, but Argentina, by far, has the highest number of both domestic and international (foreign) deals. What is the number one cause/use of these deals? Food. Who dominates in the buying of land? Private companies.

Spatial variation in sediment retention (t/year) benefit by watershed and fisheries catch (kg/year) and seafood meals (number/year) benefits by moku provided by agroforestry restoration

Another interesting paper published in Ocean Sustainability put empirical evidence to this notion of bicultural approaches. These approaches “emphasize the reciprocal restoration of both ecology and culture, elevate indigenous and local knowledge and rights, and align with the call for more just and equitable nature-based solutions.” They use Hawaii as their geography and show that restoration of forests through agroforestry increases sediment retention by 30%, nearshore fishery production by 10%, and cultural connection (as measured through biodiversity conservation and food security benefits).

Love this paper examining the trends of food retail environments and their associations with obesity. In the study, the authors dissected retail sector trends over the last 15 years (2009 to 2023) using 97 countries. Not surprisingly, chain outlet density has increased over time, out-competing non-chain outlets. This is happening rapidly across low- and middle-income countries (speaking of history and Tom Reardon, he described this a while back with the supermarket revolution). They correlate the growth of chain retailers with the sales of unhealthy food products as well as obesity prevalence.

Global changes in the current total cropland area within the SCSs in crop groups. GMC = General Circulation Models (of which there are 8) SCS = safe climate space

Finally! A paper that models the impact of climate change on crop yields that goes BEYOND maize, rice, and wheat. This paper in Nature Food modeled 30 major food crops under different global warming scenarios ranging from 1.5 to 4C. In low latitude areas (i.e., the global south), there will be shifts in the ideal locations to grow these foods, and crop diversity would decline ~50% on croplands around the world between 2 to 3 global warming scenarios. However, in higher latitudes, farmers could grow more diverse foods. This paper argues that we may need to shift northward if we want to keep demand with the pace of growing food and a diversity of foods. The authors state: “Alarmingly, we find that the largest adverse effects on current crop production are observed for crops and crop groups that are important elements of the food supply in their current major production areas…Furthermore, we show that the four global staple crops (wheat, rice, maize, and soybean) face some of the largest reductions in cropland area within the SCS, which underlines the need for diversifying crop production.” This study is more motivation to start looking at different crops and protecting the diversity of the global food basket.

Well, that’s all for this month’s Food Bytes folks! Keep watching those sunrises and sunsets and keep on keepin’ on.

Thank you Doc Zinke for teaching me the enduring power of science

The only photo I have of Doc Zinke from my high school year book…

My relationship with science began with struggle. As a student raised outside the scientific milieu, I found myself grappling with the core concepts of biology and physics. Yet, my trajectory shifted unexpectedly during my junior year of high school, thanks to Doc Zinke, my chemistry teacher. Despite his diminutive stature, he possessed an extraordinary ability to animate the often-abstract world of chemistry. Through engaging stories and real-world applications, he revealed science as a lens through which to view and understand the world. Although my grades did not immediately reflect a profound grasp of chem, Doc Zinke instilled in me a lasting appreciation for scientific inquiry.

Since that pivotal moment, science has remained a central theme in my life. My academic pursuits led me to a bachelor's degree in agriculture and a Ph.D. in nutrition. As a professor, I am privileged to be constantly immersed in the world of science. My partner, a mathematician, physicist, and writer, shares my conviction that data, evidence, and the relentless pursuit of scientific understanding are the primary drivers of progress.

I recognize that skepticism toward science is not unfounded. History is replete with examples of scientific advancements being misused, resulting in detrimental impacts on individuals, societies, and the environment. However, to reject science wholesale due to past transgressions would be a profound error. The current climate of widespread skepticism and the dismantling of scientific institutions, particularly universities, is deeply troubling. Do we not still seek innovative treatments and potential cures for cancer? Are we not compelled to advance agricultural science to feed a growing global population? Do we not recognize the importance of preventative medicines in safeguarding children's health? Does the exploration of space not ignite our imagination and expand our understanding of the cosmos? And, perhaps most urgently, do we not have a moral imperative to understand how to protect the health of our planet and its inhabitants?

Support for scientific endeavors and scientists is paramount, enabling us to describe the world around us and to understand its underlying mechanisms. Science is critical because it empowers us to solve complex problems and to make evidence-based decisions that can improve the quality of life across diverse domains, including food systems, healthcare, environmental conservation, technology, and communication. The cultivation of knowledge and the refinement of critical thinking skills are essential, and we rely on institutions—particularly universities—to nurture these skills in the next generation of scientists.

While science may not hold all the answers or provide an entirely objective representation of reality, it remains one of humanity's greatest collective endeavors. Science contributes to the strength of democracies by generating knowledge and informing solutions in the face of unprecedented challenges. Now, more than ever, we must safeguard science, scientists, those who teach science, and the institutions that support them. Higher education institutions, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation are crucial in ensuring that scientific advancements continue to benefit humanity and the world at large.

It seems in all of this freezing and firing chaos, we have forgotten that people are at the root of scientific endeavor, and I want to thank all the teachers and professors out there like Doc Zinke — Thank you for teaching me the enduring power of science.

Food Bytes: February 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

Someone recently asked me, “How do you have so much time to read?” I don’t, but these days, I find myself reading more as a deliberate form of escapism. Amid the current state of affairs, I need to remind myself that a collective continues to believe in science, evidence, and data, and the art of generating and sharing knowledge is not lost. So thank you—scientists, educators, and data generators—for all that you do to keep our world informed. Shine on you crazy diamonds! Let’s round up what The Food Archive is reading and listening to in the here and now.

The cost of food, is at the forefront of everyone's mind, including coyotes hanging out in grocery stores in Chicago. Much speculation exists about how the U.S. administration’s tariffs will impact food. For now, let’s put that debate on pause and, again, focus on the generators of evidence. The fantastic Eat This Podcast by Jeremy Cherfas has a recent episode that discusses Bennett’s Law with economist Marc Bellemare — this notion that people eat more nutritious foods (including animal source foods) when they have more disposable income. It is a great conversation, and Marc argues that his latest paper somewhat proves the “law.”

Speaking of cheap food, did you think that McDonalds restaurants could be “pretty”? The lore of design is bringing people to McDonalds. And for those who don’t like the corporate notion of McDonalds flooding fast food to the masses, it seems you lost. Is the New York Times being paid by McDonalds for these article placements? For some deeper dives into fast food, there is always the classic Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation, but I recommend two more nuanced reads — Franchise: The Golden Arches of Black America by Marcia Chatelain, who won the Pulitzer Prize and White Burgers, Black Cash: Fast Food from Black Exclusion to Exploitation by Naa Oyo A Kwate. Both are worth the time.

Analysis by Politico on the hidden costs of food systems to diets in Italy.

Fast food has changed diets, and for some cultures, diets are disappearing (I snatched up the URL in case this trend continues). An interesting article in Politico argues that the Mediterranean diet is a lie, at least in Italy. Having lived there five years, I was always pleasantly surprised that traditional regional cuisines were preserved and revered, however in the confines of how a Mediterranean diet is defined, I didn’t see many diets from the north to south classically fall within that dietary pattern. Italians consume a lot of meat and cheese. The Politico article argues that the hidden costs of the Italian food system and diet do not fare well for health outcomes. Check it out. Speaking of Italian diets, I guess pasta is not a refined or ultra-processed food. Whew. I guess I can continue to eat my spaghetti ala vongole every Friday and not die at 55… The Japanese diet, a fish-dominant diet, is changing too. According to Grist, veganism is increasing.

Some lovely and alarming science is being generated about how our agricultural system will feed the world. According to colleagues at Tufts University (hey Will!), while food supplies are, in aggregate, fulfilling calorie needs, they are not fulfilling healthy calorie needs. Food availability of fruits, veggies, legumes, nuts, and seeds (the core makeup of a healthy diet) falls short worldwide. Regionally, there are considerable disparities in the supply of animal foods. We also have issues with water. This article in Nature Comms by scientists across the world (hi Kyle!) examined blue water, which is surface and groundwater often used for growing crops. They looked over time from 1980 to 2015 in China, India, and the US. They found that demand has risen significantly for blue water by 60%, 71%, and 27%, respectively, for a handful of crops, largely alfalfa, maize, rice, and wheat, and this rise in demand has created issues of scarcity and stress. Good times! According to Carbon Brief, we shouldn’t just be worried about water either. Extreme weather is destroying crops around the world. Check out their map and analysis (see below). According to colleagues at Purdue University (hi Tom!), all hope should not be lost. They examined the impacts of improved crop varieties since the early 1960s and argued that these crop improvements resulted in lower land use change, greenhouse gas emissions, and cropland expansion. Let the debates begin! And what is a summary of feeding the world and improving crop varieties without AI. A new outfit, Heritable Agriculture (sounds so down homey!…), wants to use AI to predict genetic changes to improve crop yield, taste, nutritional value etc, etc. No need for future Borlaugs of the world!

Map developed by Carbon Brief on extreme weather events impacting crops in 2023-2024

Food systems remain political monoliths, and many newly published papers focus on how to get over political inertia. Two new papers by Costanza Conti unpack top-down and bottom-up approaches to transforming food systems and how to better integrate or consider justice in strategizing, implementing, and monitoring food system transformations. A paper by Patrick Caron argues in a new Nature Food commentary that disagreements stymy action on food system transformation. He and several others have begun the Montpellier Process, which “promotes safe spaces for risk-taking, where citizens, decision-makers, economic players, and academics can compare their perspectives, share knowledge, address controversies, learn from one another, and explore potential solutions.”

Speaking of politics, a timely paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, including Editor-in-Chief Chris Duggan, argues that dismantling USAID and the withdrawal from the WHO by the current U.S. administration is catastrophic for global nutrition and health. In their conclusion, they wrote:

“The events of 2025 have dealt a catastrophic shock to international nutrition research, programs, and cooperation. Nevertheless, there are important questions about the status quo. The present crisis has drawn into sharp relief the global health and nutrition communities’ reliance on US funding. In addition, there have been growing calls for more equitable systems of scientific collaboration and programmatic decision-making.”

Here we are readers, …I believe we need to make some hard pivots based on these new realities and strategize in very different ways. Meanwhile, those of us in research and academia will keep the lights on, diligently documenting what we see in the world, why the world is the way it is, and what we can do about it, at least, scientifically speaking.

See ya’ll in March!

Food Bytes: January 2025 Edition

FOOD BYTES IS A (ALMOST) MONTHLY BLOG POST OF “NIBBLES” ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE, FOOD, NUTRITION SCIENCE, POLICY, AND CULTURE.

Here in NYC, we are settling into a deep freeze. I sort of like it. The air is a bit more electric and crisper. Clean. Silent. And when the sun shallowly crosses over the landscape and warms you up a tad, you feel so grateful. For those of you, dear readers, who know how this archiver spends her time, I eat a lot of clams (note the header change on the Food Archive). This time of the year has some of the best bivalve eating. This archiver also spends time with her better half making dark and sad music as part of the Sound Furies. It seems that with each passing year, we get less and less snow on the East Coast. It reminds me of this tune we recorded in 2019, but my better half wrote the lyrics when he was young, living in northern California., sleeping in his ‘67 mustang.

last night it snowed though it's almost summer
it hasn't snowed here for 6 yrs
maybe it was the silence, like a blanket in the night
we don't know why we had this dream

Enough pontifications about weather and clams. Let’s get into this month’s Food Bytes. I always like to start the monthly round-up with a few recommended books I have been reading. Here we go. An Immense World by Ed Yong is a fascinating view of how animals perceive the world through their specialized and adaptive senses. Douglas Brinkley’s whopping 600-page read, Silent Spring Revolution, provides a historical deep dive into the beginnings of the environmental movement in the United States in the 1960s. He articulates how presidents and scientists charted a course for protecting the environment (it is my background homework for a book I am working on that I allude to here). This was a time when presidents were presidential (yes, even Tricky Dick is looking good compared to what we are dealing with now…) and worked to preserve the planet instead of watching it all burn. Delano by John Dunne (Joan Didion’s husband) is about the California grape strike led by Cesar Chavez and his sacrifices to ensure that migrant laborers get a fair shake. Again, this book is incredibly timely with the present-day shifts in U.S. “policies” to deport immigrants—the very same people who are keeping us well fed and food secure. And last is Rachel Kurshner’s short story collection, The Hard Crowd. She just oozes cool.

Book reading by the food archiver

Food and cooking

There has been a deluge of articles and media attention on ultra-processed foods. Let’s start with that and then get into real food stories.

The change in attribution of sugar-sweetened beverages to diabetes (T2D) and heart disease (CVD) incidence across regions from 1990 to 2020.

  • Ah the lovely world of ultra-processed foods (UPFs). These foods are high in sugars, salts, or unhealthy fats and have additional ingredients such as additives, preservatives, and many other hard-to-pronounce ingredients that make them taste good and allow them to sit on shelves for decades. Many scientific articles are trying to attribute UPFs to various deleterious health outcomes, and the evidence, while varying in quality, is building. Enough so that policymakers are taking note. Research suggests that almost 60% of the American diet comprises these foods. Yum. The New Yorker put out an article trying to understand why that is. It is a good read that tries to unpack the evidence. One thing that comes up is that not all scientists agree on the impacts of UPFs on health.

  • A Nature Food article delves into how governments have responded to regulating UPFs. Most government action has been on consumer education, mainly labeling food products rather than eliminating or regulating the companies that make these foods.

  • It is not only foods we are talking about. There are also ultra-processed beverages. Using the Global Dietary Database, this Nature Medicine paper shows that in 2020, 2.2 million new diabetes cases and 1.2 million heart disease cases were attributable to sugar-sweetened beverages worldwide. Between 1990 and 2020, the most significant increased attribution of these drinks to diabetes and heart disease was in sub-Saharan Africa! However, sales of these beverages, particularly soda, are rising (see the figure to the right). Great…

  • Onto real foods. I highly recommend this New Yorker article on the secret history of risotto and the rules that govern how to make this delicious dish whose origins sit on the Po River (a river very constrained by climate change).

  • Speaking of iconic foods and their origins, those who have lived in NYC for decades likely remember this Indian restaurant enclave in the East Village. You know, the one with all the Christmas lights. Well, in typical warp-speed fashion and the brutal world of restaurant ownership in this city, the Indian restaurant hubs have moved to other parts of Manhattan and, more so, Queens. But still, this one restaurant in the village keeps shining on. Funny enough, my former college roommate lived above this place in the late ‘90s. It is (not)safe to say she had a roach problem.

  • Then we have tortillas. I wish we had a tortilleria in our hood, but alas, we have to buy the Mission brand tortillas, which taste like cardboard. As this article in the Atlantic suggests, they have lost their magic.

  • Last, but not squarely in food, the Lancet published a commission to find ways to measure obesity better. With all the kicked-up controversy regarding body mass index as a sufficient measurement tool to delineate overweight and obesity, it’s good timing. Here is a nice infographic that summarizes their recommended diagnostic.

Climate change

Let’s move on to a lighter topic: climate change! In all seriousness, we are in a scary time. This past year, 2024, was the warmest year on record, and the average global temperature was more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time, with 11 months of the year exceeding 1.5°C. To make matters worse, the current U.S. administration has pulled out of the climate accord and plans to “drill baby drill.” This trend and these political decisions fuel our motivation to fight the good fight and ensure the world moves towards mitigation and adaptation solutions, with or without the United States.

  • The Economist published a well-balanced article on the potential and limits of technology to mitigate climate change through the livestock sector. It is nice to see the International Livestock Research Institute’s work (based in Kenya and Ethiopia) highlighted—who partner with some of the poorest in the world who are tending to animals for their livelihoods.

  • One issue is to ensure that those countries and populations struggling with undernutrition still have options and choices to consume animal-source foods, particularly in places where access is incredibly and unfairly limited. The Netherlands Working Group on International Nutrition and Clim-Eat put out a brief on animal-source foods in low- and middle-income countries that nicely summarizes the broad evidence. My only gripe is that they should cite the original peer-reviewed publications and evidence toiled over by scientists as opposed to the reports that summarize the said evidence.

  • Grist, a fantastic climate/environment/food reporting outfit, wrote a worrisome article about how many farmers and farm workers now need to work at night due to extreme heat. conditions Farming is already hard enough, and now this.

  • Speaking of great journalism, Civil Eats has summarized a set of articles of their “best climate reporting” of 2024. Check it out.

  • I have lots of time and space for Kyle Davis’s work. In this paper in Science Advances, he and colleagues use high-resolution data on forest cover in Nigeria and find that 25 to 31% of annual forest loss is linked to climate variability. They also find that changes to forest cover have positive associations with dietary diversity, whereas cropland expansion does not. There is much to think about adaptation-wise regarding how the world manages land and forestscapes.

  • I always have to throw in a critique of the EAT-Lancet Commission. In this paper by Klapp and colleagues published in the Lancet Planetary Health, they articulate a justified framework of shortcomings (see figure below) that the Commission did not address in the first report in 2019 with the hope that these issues will be taken up by the Commission when the 2nd report comes out in the fall of 2025. What I can say at this stage, Anna-Lena, is that we cover some, but not all, of these crucial issues. It looks like a third Commission may be in order!

Current shortfalls of the planetary health diet from a plant-forward perspective by Klapp et al, LPH 2025

Food Systems and Farming

Alignment between food system transformation and degrowth

  • This paper in Nature Food by Matt Gibson and some of my favorite colleagues Constanza, Daniel, and Mario (yay, Cornell!) presents a fantastic notion that in the political momentum that we must “transform our food systems,” there is also this notion that we have also to consider downscaling of excess production and consumption among high-income countries and overconsuming individuals. The figure to the right shows the alignment (or misalignment) between the goals and objectives of degrowth and food systems transformation.

  • But some argue that big farms don’t need a lot of transformation and should stay the course of how they are being managed. This article ruffled a lot of feathers. The title, “Sorry, but this the future of farming,” is snarky and reeks of know-it-allism. Anyone who comes to the farming conversation as having THE solution is suspect. This article is the last in the NYT’s series on “What to Eat on a Burning Planet” — a mix of low and high-quality articles with some half-truths. Go to the bottom of this article to see the series.

  • Let’s get to some farming articles. This paper in Nature Communications argues for the importance of including genomics research and development of what are called underutilized crops, but also called neglected crops or opportunity crops—into breeding strategies, cutting-edge research, capacity building, and representation that some major crops like maize, rice and what get.

  • A slew of experts published this paper in Nature Food to highlight the importance of small-scale fisheries (SSF). In this mapping exercise, they estimate that SSF provides 40% of the global seafood catch worldwide. This 40% provides roughly 2 billion people with 20% of their dietary intake of six crucial micronutrients. Half of these SSF are women, and many are employed in Asia. Africa supplies the largest catch. This is a fantastic article for those interested in blue foods.

  • I love this Soil Atlas that comes out each year by the Heinrich Boil Stitlung/EU. This report is chock-full of great case studies and figures arguing for better care and management of soils worldwide to promote resilient agriculture and mitigation of climate change. Called the global silent crisis,” 1/3 of soils are degraded globally, and 40% of those soils reside in Africa.

Self-promotion (sorry!)

I always have to be a bit self-promotional. The Food Systems Countdown Initiative (FSCI) has published its third annual paper in Nature Food and Policy Report. The highlights?

The FSCI interactive tool on the Food Systems Dashboard

  • Over the past two decades, meaningful progress has been made in improving food systems. Of the 42 indicators examined, slightly fewer than half (20) changed in a desirable direction from 2000 to 2022.

  • Most of the FSCI tracked food system indicators interact with other indicators, either directly or indirectly, meaning that change in any one area of food systems is likely to affect others and that unlocking change may require coordinated action across multiple dimensions.

  • Certain indicators related to governance and resilience are key leverage points — and could be critical because of their influence and dependence on other aspects of food systems, and change in them can affect many other indicators.

One cool thing we did was put the indicators and their interactions on the Food Systems Dashboard. You can play with the FSCI data in all kinds of ways. To get yourself oriented, you can find the indicators here, all the data globally and by country, the country profiles of the FSCI data (for example, Kenya), and last, the interaction tool (which is pretty neat).

We’re screwed, but some more than others. And that is not fair…

  • The scary annual World Risk Report just came out and it just got a bit scarier this year. Gee, I wonder why…we are so screwed.

  • Reuters published a heartbreaking collection of journalism entitled “Starving World.” Just devastating but worth taking the time to read.

  • With avian flu sparking and spreading, this article in Nature Reviews Biodiversity is a warning call about pathogens and planetary change.