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.

Global Hunger Is Falling Slightly—But Food Remains Too Expensive for Billions

Every July, the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) report drops — and for anyone tracking global hunger, diet affordability, or food policy, it’s essential reading. Produced by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and its partners, SOFI offers the most authoritative annual snapshot of where we stand on food security and nutrition.

This year’s report shows cautious progress: global hunger is down slightly, but the cost of a healthy diet remains out of reach for billions. Inflation, inequality, and fragility are reshaping who eats well — and who doesn’t.

HUNGER: Some Progress, But Too Many Still Go Hungry

Hunger, as measured by the Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU), dropped from 8.7% in 2022 to 8.2% in 2024 — a reduction of 15 million people since last year and 22 million since 2022. That means an estimated 673 million people still go to bed hungry. It’s progress, and progress is worth celebrating, especially after several years of worsening trends.

There have been gains in food security in Asia and Latin America, but hunger has worsened in Africa. In 2024, over 20% of Africa’s population — 307 million people — are estimated to be hungry.

Women and rural communities continue to be disproportionately affected by food insecurity.

If this trajectory continues, 511 million people are projected to be hungry by 2030 — 60% of them in Africa. Meanwhile, the global prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity — which captures people's experiences of constrained access to adequate food — dipped slightly from 28.4% in 2023 to 28.0% in 2024, affecting 2.3 billion people.

Prevalence of undernourishment from 2015 to 2024 across world, regions and sub-regions (FAO SOFI 2025)

FOOD AFFORDABILITY: Still Out of Reach for Billions

A healthy diet remains unaffordable for 2.6 billion people — though that’s down from 2.9 billion in 2020. Fruits, vegetables, and animal source foods (ASF) consistently cost the most per calorie, while ultra-processed foods are often the cheapest (a data point not in the report, but worth noting — nearly 60% of the American diet is made up of highly processed foods).

Affordability challenges are rising in many places, particularly in low-income countries. The inability to afford a healthy diet disproportionately affects the poor and is a major driver of food insecurity and malnutrition.

The millions who cannot afford a healthy diet from 2017 to 2024: low to high income countries (FAO SOFI 2025)

FOOD INFLATION: A Major Driver of Unaffordability

Global food prices surged in 2023 and 2024, pushing the average cost of a healthy diet to $4.46 PPP per person per day — up from $4.30 in 2023 and $4.01 in 2022. Food price inflation jumped from 2.3% in 2020 to 13.6% in 2023, far outpacing headline inflation (8.5%).

Unlike commodity price indices that track items like soybeans or sugar, this metric reflects the cost of what people actually eat. And those costs are going up — fast.

WHY FOOD INFLATION? It's Not Just the War and COVID

The COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine triggered dramatic spikes in global food commodity prices in 2021 and 2022, amplified further by rising energy costs. In the U.S. and the euro area, these shocks explained 47% and 35% of peak food inflation, respectively. The rest came from other factors: higher labor costs, exchange rate shifts, increased profit margins along supply chains, and extreme weather events that hit major breadbasket regions.

Meanwhile, governments injected $17 trillion in fiscal support during the pandemic, while consumption rebounded sharply in 2022. The U.S. dollar appreciated by over 20% compared to low- and middle-income country currencies by 2022, and the U.S. Federal Reserve expanded the monetary supply by $2.2 trillion over four years. The result? Domestic food inflation has remained stubbornly high.

WHO IS MOST IMPACTED? The Poor, Women, and Rural Communities

Food inflation hits low-income households the hardest, since they spend a larger share of their income on food. In many countries, wages haven’t kept pace. Purchasing power for food continues to vary widely, especially in fragile and conflict-affected settings like Syria.

A 10% increase in food prices is associated with a 3.5% rise in food insecurity, a 5.5% rise in child wasting, and a 3.5% rise in stunting.

Food price inflation as compared to headline inflation and food the consumer price index (FAO SOFI 2025)

NUTRITION: Mixed News

There’s been slow but real progress on reducing childhood stunting — down from 26.4% in 2012 to 23.2% in 2024. Given how hard it is to shift chronic undernutrition, this is meaningful progress but still way too slow. Wasting is flatlined and anemia among women has worsened. But obesity is rising across all age groups. And globally, we’re not on track to meet any of the major nutrition targets.

What can be done?

There’s no silver bullet — but there are well-known, proven policy actions:

  • Subsidize healthy foods for low-income families

  • Expand climate insurance and risk protection for farmers

  • Reduce trade restrictions that limit food exports

  • Scale social protection programs to shield vulnerable households

  • Ensure transparent monetary policy to tame inflation

  • Invest in agri-food R&D, transport and storage infrastructure, and real-time market information systems to build long-term resilience and reduce volatility.

I spoke to CBS Evening News last night, summarizing the latest. Check out the video below.



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.

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!

Walking the world away

There’s something beautifully liberating about walking. Sure, many people equate freedom with owning a car—the open road, the power to go wherever, whenever. But for me, real freedom looks a little different. It’s in the simplicity of walking. No baggage, no plan—just the steady rhythm of your steps and the openness of the world unfolding around you.

Sometimes there’s no destination, and that’s the point: just you, your thoughts, and the path ahead.

It’s something you can do anywhere—through city streets, across forest trails (what we often call hiking), or wandering the quiet edges of forgotten places. You’re never stuck in traffic. If you hit a barrier, you pivot. You reroute. You move on.

You never have to stop.

I’ve written before about the quiet art of flâneuring—that gentle wandering without aim, where the city reveals itself step by step. It’s a ritual my better half and I have embraced over the years, our own kind of moving meditation. Together, we’ve traced the grid of Manhattan in what we called the MaPhattan Project, roamed the worn cobbles of Rome’s rioni, meandered through Bologna’s shadowed porticoes, and covered miles of our Microcosmic Psychogeography of D.C.'s grand avenues and quiet corners. All past places of residence for us.

We walk and talk. We walk and listen, and sometimes, we walk and share bites of something warm and wrapped in paper. But always, we move forward—one foot, then the next—letting the rhythm of the road bring clarity, connection, and stillness in motion.

Food Archivist flaneuring in Meatpacking District NYC before it become douchebag central. Early naughts.

It’s one of the reasons we always found our way back to New York—the pull of the pavement, the hum of the streets beneath our feet. It is the sweeping equalizer (much like the subway) of the city in that everyone (just about) can do it - it doesn’t cost a cent. Once upon a time, Gotham belonged to the walkers. We moved through it like warriors, bold and unshaken, owning every crosswalk, every corner.

But something’s shifted.

Now the streets hum a different tune—faster, sharper, less forgiving. E-bikes flash past like ghosts, scooters weave through traffic with no regard, and cars ignore the rules like they were never written. Gotham, once ours, has become hostile to the quiet act of walking.

To step off the curb now is to take a risk—to scan left, then right, then left again, heart stuttering with every motion blurring past. But in the early mornings, when the city that never sleeps has yet to awake, one can silently flaneur.

Evidence suggests that walking has multiple health benefits. Walking briskly for 150 minutes a week can reduce risk of heart disease and overall mortality. That isn’t too hard. This NYT article summarizes some of the evidence. I try to get 150 min in and plus some every week. On average, at least according to my phone, I walk about 4.8 miles a day. I also try to walk each and every day no matter how busy I am. If you live far from work, maybe get off a train station further and walk the rest of the way. If you drive to work, maybe make a meeting a walking meeting. There are lots of ways to build it in throughout the busy days.

In a world moving towards utter chaos and disorder, walking remains a quiet act of rebellion—an invitation to slow down, to notice, to reconnect or maybe, to disconnect and put the world on pause. Step by step, it gives us back a sense of place, of presence, and of ourselves.

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!

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!

It's a very very mad world

Mad world was a song written in 1982 by Tears for Fears and covered years later by Gary Jules for Donnie Darko. The lyrics go something like this:

All around me are familiar faces, worn out places, worn out faces

Bright and early for their daily races, going nowhere, going nowhere

And their tears are filling up their glasses, no expression, no expression

Hide my head, I want to drown my sorrow, no tomorrow, no tomorrow

And I find it kind of funny, I find it kinda sad

The dreams in which I’m dying are the best I’ve ever hard

I find it hard to tell you, cause I find it hard to take

When people run in circles, it’s a very very mad world

Indeed, it is a very very mad world. What a time. What. A. Time. So much darkness. So much upheaval. So much unraveling. I wrote a couple of months ago that I had no strategy on how to move forward. It seems no one does. As Captain Willard (Sheen) said to Colonel Kurtz (Brando) in Apocalypse Now, “I don’t see any method at all, sir.”

The chaotic decisions being made in rapid-fire real-time will have massive ramifications on our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change and ensure food security. Disengaging and slashing the essential connectedness of the global food system by instituting tariffs, altering trade, and halting food assistance (and many essential medicines and care in low and middle-income countries), as well as divesting from climate change commitments will upend and rewrite world order and multi-lateral cooperation, putting the world on a perilous path. The U.S. is setting the stage for other countries to step in and up. Let’s hope whoever does leads with good intentions and puts the world in its right place. Let us hope. We have to hope. 

The figure below from the Washington Post (I know, I know…old habits die hard) shows that $5 billion of U.S. foreign assistance is dedicated to emergency food assistance. One-third of the foreign aid budget goes to food assistance and global health. We also know (thanks to tracking by the Global Nutrition Report) that roughly half of the nutrition Official Development Assistance comes from the U.S. Halting this essential aid is devastating and tragic, particularly in the context of climate change. It isn’t just about emergencies; it is about the long arch of international development that has been slowly but surely working to end undernutrition, hunger, and infectious disease burden. It is about building farmer capacity, empowering women, and helping people adapt to climate change. It is about staving off emergencies with a long view of making the world safer, healthier, and more peaceful in the long term. It is incredible how so much decadal dedication and steadfast commitment can be dismantled in just one week in such an unstrategic way with no long view of the implications of such a decision.

Aren’t we being our best selves when we have our hands on each other’s backs, supporting our fellow global citizens through difficult periods? I guess the U.S. disagrees, and we will be left isolated, moving backward, without anyone to help us when we find ourselves alone and facing difficult times. These difficult times are not an “if” but “when.” I didn’t realize just how soon that “when” could actually be…

I will go out on a limb and a whim and insist that it isn’t a mad world after all. There is only one mad hatter tending to this goat rodeo. Yes, his methods, if you could call them that, are unsound. And that is truly unfortunate for everyone who shares this big and beautiful planet.

Bodies upon the gears

The years between 1965 and 1974, also known as the long sixties, were a decade in which the U.S. and the world were in great turmoil, witnessing a complete cultural shift led by the “baby boomer generation.” America had just emerged from a Great Depression and two devastating world wars that toppled and reorganized world order. As a result, it arose as the world's foremost economic, political, and military power with a resulting illusion of great prosperity and hope for the future. But things began to unravel slowly. Just a few years prior, the young, charismatic President John F. Kennedy was gunned down in broad daylight in Dallas, Texas. His assassination shocked the nation and ended the optimism and innocence many, especially the youth, felt for the country’s future.

By 1965, the U.S. entrenched itself in what was to be a senseless war in faraway Southeast Asia, where we had very little business engaging in, a commonly held view around the world. Then came more nonsensical assassinations. The first was in 1965, when Malcolm X, an American Muslim minister and human and civil rights activist, was killed while giving a speech in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York City (where Columbia University’s medical campus now sits). Just three years later, American Baptist minister, one of the most prominent civil rights leaders, Martin Luther King Jr., and a president’s brother and the former U.S. Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy, were both gunned down in hotels in Memphis and Los Angeles, respectively. Then, from 1972 to 1974, the Watergate scandal plagued the country, leaving citizens wholly untrusting of its government and the lengths it would go to cover up crimes, no matter how inconsequential or considerable. The darkness fully engulfed the country when former president Nixon resigned from office before a certain impeachment because of the scandal.

Times were, to put it lightly, unhinged, and the country was fractured. Protests were an everyday occurrence. Students were being injured or killed on campuses for demonstrating, sometimes by the National Guard, the very institution meant to instill peace and protect citizens. On the other side of the world, young men were sacrificing their lives for a war without cause. Sound familiar? Indeed…

Many young people bucked convention by attempting to create a new future on their terms—an authentic counterculture movement. They took risks—running away from home to protest in the streets, joining a commune, or getting lost in the haze of the Haight. Even before the dark days of ‘68-69, students mobilized in incredible, organized, and purposeful ways. Check out Mario Savio, a student activist and leader of the Berkeley Free Speech movement in the video below making a speech in 1964 on the Berkeley campus named "Bodies Upon the Gears" (also known as the Operation of the Machine). His speech is highly relevant today.

“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels ... upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!”

Dark days can breed creativity, and these times sparked new ways of thinking and living on this shared planet. Young people fought for a different and new world. A big part of that new world was about food and the beginning of climate and environmental justice movements. Some within the counterculture movement were deeply concerned about the direction of U.S. agriculture, its impacts on health and nature, and how the industrialization of the food system was moving more and more towards unhealthy, processed foods controlled by transnational conglomerates. These large-scale industries also spouted environmental contaminants and pollutants into ecosystems, further damaging the environment. There were also deep concerns about the unfailing violation of civil rights and the systemic social injustices domestically and abroad, much of that revealed through the U.S. food system. Democratizing food was a way to potentially address these myriad challenges and find a new, equitable future better for humans and the planet.

The counterculture movement explicitly used food to ignite a social revolution. They returned to the land and started communes to grow their food in organic, wholesome ways. They opened neighborhood co-operatives to sell and provide these foods to their communities. They (the Black Panthers) started safety net programs to feed children living in impoverished neighborhoods.

Putting the long sixties in the context with our world today, we are once more living in a highly polarized, fractured country, with significant loss of life on the domestic front due to everyday gun violence and shootings, drug and alcohol addiction, and unhealthy lifestyles. Our political position in the world is also uncertain, with increasing animosity and frustration towards America’s tactics to ensure its power and relevancy in a globalized society. At the same time, climate change is barreling down on the world because of powerhouse countries’ inability to commit seriously to mitigating global warming over the last 40 years. Diet and diet-related risk factors are now the top killers of disease and death in the country and the world. The U.S. is in the middle of a public health crisis with obesity and non-communicable diseases. For the first time, Americans’ life expectancy is one of the worst among high-income countries. Our food systems are unsustainable and fraught with fragility. So are the environment and the natural resources that agriculture depends on. The rights of citizens, particularly food system workers, marginalized groups, and women, continue to be violated across food systems and every other system.

They say one should study the past to know the future. In the world of food policy, where I spend my professional days, we keep repeating the past, reinventing the wheel of history, and not learning from what came before. Every so often, debates surface on how to feed a growing world, particularly when extreme weather events or conflicts spur food shortages, food price increases, and famines. Questions arise as to why our global food system is so fragile, why we trust international trade, and why we depend on just a handful of crops to feed the world. In addition, there are questions about tipping points related to population growth and climate change. Whether technology and innovation can keep pace or whether we are headed for a collapse. But on we go, with quick fixes that never entirely repair the problem but instead put band-aids on wounds that never entirely heal. That is why the challenges we face today as a global community are even more difficult. Food systems and a raging, changing climate show how fragile our society is and how much we could lose.

The counterculturalists wanted to transform food systems 60 years ago. Maybe their attempts at a social revolution did not work out as they envisioned. Still, they tried to create the foundation for a new society built on sustainable food systems that benefit human and planetary health, community cohesion, and global citizenry. They gave us enough to learn from, adopt, and adapt about how to better govern food systems and the environment while looking out for each other. They tried. Maybe it’s time to pick up where they left off and move forward.